In light of the recent discussions which reveal a strong desire on the part of many rodbuilders to better know the product they will receive when ordering blanks/rods, I suggest that the blank/rod manufacturers develop a universally agreed-to correlation between the commonly accepted, familiar, subjective rod descriptions and the objective CCS values. This would apply only to blanks/rod intended for "normal" spin and cast, not fly rods, not surf rods, nor the really heavy duty salt water blanks/rods. It would attempt to improve the precision of the descriptions of the population of blanks/rods normally described by the terms: Ultra Light through Heavy (power) and Slow through Extra-fast (action).

A starting suggestion:

Ultra-Light: less than 200 grams CCS
Light: 201-300 grams
Medium-Light: 301-425 grams
Medium: 426-625 grams
Medium Heavy: 626-925
Heavy: greater than 926

Slow action: less than 50 degrees
Moderate-slow 51-55 degrees
Moderate: 56-60
Moderate-fast: 61-67
Fast: 68-76
Extra fast above 77

I expect one of the first comments will be related to how much work it would be for manufacturers to know the CCS numbers of their product. I submit based on my experience asking for it in the interest of assuring my correlation with their data that for the most part, they already have it. Probably not for some blanks, but it would not be a monumental task to fill in the blanks (no pun intended).

I expect suggestions for different numbers on the subjective descriptors, and that's fine. There very well may be good reasons for that, and it doesn't matter as much what the numbers are as it does that builders and fishermen would be getting more consistent product regardless of what the numbers were. There likely would be no more blanks with AA's of 50 being described as extra-fast. (Yes that is a real data point)

It would be great if the rodbuilding manufacturers would chime in on this one. I'm sure most builders know that Point Blank and Rainshadow RX10's already have CCS data published. There is quite a bit of NFC CCS data that I've seen. There may be more.

if theres gonna be an IP range then it might be a good idea to add in the "mag" powers and an XH to close the gap on the number for each category.

I understand there was a push for this a number of years ago and CCS caught a buzz, then people tried to complicate things and succeeded - thus the buzz wore off and nothing really stuck.

If this site has the weight behind it which it seems too I think the group here could make an impact on the industry.

I would posit that this would also be a great time to expand the vocabulary that goes along with the numbers and add some more nuanced descriptions such as light medium heavy or medium+ or 3.5 power etc.

So many things in fishing start with people not taking to it or scoffing at it, but they we get the chatterbait and rods longer than 6 ft.

But, jaded as I may be, I still believe many companies are happy with confused consumers searching for the right rod for "x" application who have to buy multiple rods in their search. I'm sure we're all fully aware that the market is moved by profits, and profits are pushed by uninformed consumers. The main companies I can see benefiting financially from this shift would be blank manufacturers who's informed consumers would be able to make multiple purchases based on clear expectations being met - when a builder can know what they're buying to build they will continue to do so - better than gambling on a blank for a customer and then dealing with unsatisfied customers yourself.

First, I've got to say I think Mr. Danek's idea is excellent . I know , like Mr. Kirkman suggested , that I can draw from the wealth of experience from members here but I'm not sure if the more experienced members can remember how bewildering the lack of the most basic industry standards can be to those of us just starting out . My question would be why an idea with seemingly so much merit has not been implemented before now . There have to be good reasons . I just don't know enough about the industry to be able to figure them out . For now , I'm thankful for the kindness of the members here like Norm Miller who are willing to take the time to share their knowledge so that the apprenticeship is easier .

If this were to be adopted the right way to do it would be to publish both the CCS numbers and the traditional subjective descriptors. With CCS numbers available to consumers it could be that the traditional descriptors would disappear in time.

"Mag" blanks are accurately described by CCS numbers. But that descriptor could be added as well.

I think there might be some validity in El's comment about companies being satisfied with "confused customers." But there also could be a competitive advantage for companies that executed the strategy well. At least in the short term.

Good comments, thanks.

Michael,

There are three ways I think and speak about my rods right now:

1.) The Nomenclature of the Past for Power and Action: "Medium", "Heavy", "Fast", "Slow", etc.
When my brain was still wet concrete as a kid, these were the imprints put into it. That concrete dried a good bid since then. It took awhile before I began to notice the meaning of these words was meaningful to me with regards to specific brands and specific models only. There was no relevant carryover to all rods/brands. I was buying rods off the rack - I could experience how it 'felt' to me. If I liked it, I bought it. (However, it is also true that even with actually handling these rods, I sometimes found my choice not quite what I wanted, or what I thought I wanted. My risk can not be 100% eliminated, I guess - dang it!.) So, I learned what a Medium Light, Extra Fast Avid rod from St. Croix meant and what it fished like. That had meaning to me based on my own, subjective, experience.

2.) CCS and Its Vocabulary: IP, ERN, DBI, AA
A huge improvement over words and their subjective meanings alone. CCS gives me measurable data that can be applied to any rod, and I can use this data to match or mimic a rod I already like to another rod I might like. A superior system that ALSO requires a paradigm shift of thinking in numbers more than words. It is exactly like learning a new language.

3.) Where My Two Brains Meet (or the mostly empty space between my ears):
I am beginning to think more than ever in CCS terms. However, I regularly catch myself translating the numbers back into the historic vocabulary...and I probably always will. Perhaps if a whole generation of kids learned to think in CCS terms, they could rattle it off with complete confidence - Just like how a child raised in another country speaks that language (and metric system) naturally. I'm trying to be bi-lingual right now. Making progress, I hope.

Thanks, Mick, for taking the risk to put your ideas out there! Do you have any last words...want a blindfold...perhaps a cigarette? My thoughts are close to yours about moving from one side of the river to the other:

"If this were to be adopted the right way to do it would be to publish both the CCS numbers and the traditional subjective descriptors. With CCS numbers available to consumers it could be that the traditional descriptors would disappear in time."

I am copying your initial list.

Les

I think that an ideal situtaion would be to include in the rod description:

IP, AA and c.w. and line rating suggested by the manufacturer, e.g.

IP = 350, AA = 78, c.w. 1/4- 1/2 oz, 6-10 lb

We would have kind of both worlds, some objective data (CCS based) and some suggestions by the manufacturer that are not necessarily easy to conclude from IP & AA

Best regards,
Pavel

Re: Do you have any last words...want a blindfold...perhaps a cigarette?

Both, thanks.

I have never found any use for line pound test specs on rods. If they have value, include them. Lure weights certainly have value, and may in fact help to define power.

The resolution of this proposal is going to be extremely interesting! Because, we are dealing with a multi-stage supply chain, ie. 1) blank manufacturer, 2/ distributor and 3) retailer/wholesaler. You can eliminate stage 3 as one to compile and publish same as their product offering are to narrow. the distributor has some of the same issue though there are some who represent multiple lines. That leaves you with the blank manufacturer to do the job! The problem with this is that we are dealing with onshore and offshore entities, but the bigger issue with many of them is, that the "blank for custom builder" business is only a very small portion of their total sales.. Thus there is not a lot of leverage!

We need to understand that the custom rod business is not nearly as large as we who are emerged in it like to believe. The consumer who buys manufactured rods are not asking for this information, and they are elephant in the room..

Also, does anyone here a hue and cry from non-building fishermen for a change?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2022 08:43PM by Phil Erickson.

It should be obvious that a UNIVERSAL listing / labeling of any particular blank or rod would be beneficial to the entire fishing industry; manufacturer - to - builder - to - Joe Angler! Yet, after many attempts, all have failed. Why? = because none have offered an across-the-board, ANY blank or rod, STANDARDIZED format!!! Without the ability to be applied to EACH AND EVERY POSSIBLE BLANK OR ROD, any derived designation is destined to failure!!!
This has been an ongoing “battle” for all parties concerned. Early on, manufacturers developed their own methods of identifying their products; the problem was it was only for their products and not relevant to other products for comparison. Enter the brilliant Dr. William Hannerman. His simple approach to CONSISTENTLY measuring the power of a blank / rod (intrinsic power = IP) and the action (action angle = AA) provided unique numerical values to any given subject in question. A UNIVERSAL game-changer for sure!!! Being a fly angler, Dr. Bill took it a step further and produced a formula to convert IP to ERN (Effective Rod Number) to correlate the power of the blank to the established AFTMA’s line number. While that may be all fine and dandy for the fly fishermen, it totally ignored all the other methods of fishing, spinning and casting in particular. I have no idea how a 3WT fly rod equates to an “X” oz lure weight for spinning, although another formula has been derived to calculate it. But why??? = 2 different formulas to calculate only dilute the accuracy of the original PURE IP!!! LEAVE PRECISION ALONE!!!
There are those who claim that a simple fly rod ERN weight number, such as 3WT, is all that the populus can comprehend, that actual IP numbers would only confuse them. In fact, a 3WT rod does not dictate that a 3WT line be used anyway! However, a spinning rod rated at 1/16 - 1/4oz pretty much explains the range of weight the rod is capable of handling.
To actually SIMPLIFY all this nomenclature nonsense, I propose that the IP simply be stated in grams (more universal than oz) and the AA simply the number of degrees from horizontal. That seems as simple as it can get and would apply to ANY rod or blank. People would very soon correlate higher IP values to higher strength and higher AA values to faster action; they are not as ignorant as some might proclaim! And by all means, leave the present “heavy”, “fast”, ERN and lure weight subjective descriptions included as well; it will help the acceptance process of the more precise, numeric labeling method. Those only interested in what the WT of a fly rod is, or the lure weight range of a spin / cast rod have it inscribed on the blank as it has been for years. Rod builders and anglers requiring a more precise, objective description rather than a simply subjective description would have IP and AA values inscribed on the blank. In the end, everyone gets what they want or require.
This discussion / proposal would not be complete without considering the inclusion of Michael Danek’s True Natural Frequency (TNF). While I am uncertain if TNF has actually been proven to be related to “blank sensitivity”, there certainly are quite a few respected veterans who believe so. While that is good enough for me and I am certainly a proponent of TNF, blank manufacturers MAY require a bit more solid evidence. Nonetheless, TNF is precise and pure, just as IP and AA. While TNF certainly fits right in with IP and AA, it may be considered “TMI”. Personally, I believe that all 3 should be inscribed on every blank and rod.

The hurdles to overcome; this is by far the most difficult aspect of finally arriving on common ground and producing and implementing a STANDARDIZED BLANK / ROD DESCRIPTION (SDRB). While we all can continue to write back and forth, debate, point fingers (hopefully not the middle one), refuse to compromise, remain stuck in our ways and block the light at the end of the tunnel, such will only create wasted energy and effort to produce NOTHING. What a travesty; the momentum is already moving in the correct direction with a number of manufacturers now including IP or ERN and AA on their products. I commend those who have taken the initial step forward!!! It would not surprise me to learn that it was instigated within this site. The ball is rolling in the desired direction; let’s not kick it off-course but rather keep directing into the goal!
The blank manufacturers need to be catered to; afterall, they are the ones which WILL or WILL NOT adapt SDRB. It needs to be simple, accurate and universal!!! Furthermore, it needs the ability to be applied ACROSS THE BOARD to ALL of their blanks and rods; NOT just for Fly, or spin, or cast, or freshwater, or saltwater! One simple process to produce one simple set of values. AA is already there, so is TNF, but ERN is not. Possibly fly blanks aside, get rid of the ERN formula which dilutes the accuracy of IP and leave IP in its original, pure form.
The blank manufacturers deserve to have their voice heard and understood which would consequently provide insight into their needs and requirements, rather than just the rod building world, and expecting them to automatically accept it. A liaison would be a huge benefit! Although RB.O may be the heat source for the fire, any of the manufacturers can easily extinguish the flames before the meal is done. I’m hungry!!!
The time is well overdue! Again, I propose that ALL blanks and rods be inscribed with IP, AA, and TNF to better serve and benefit the entire industry.

Mark Talmo
FISHING IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM LIFE BUT RATHER A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO IT!!! BUILDING YOUR OWN SIMPLY ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE.

Mark,

ERN is a relative power figure. It is the means by which the CCS expresses intrinsic power. The CCS does not require nor prescribe that anything be weighed. Unnecessary and not part of the CCS procedure. No need to convert anything - just match the number of cents to the ERN figure on the chart, which goes to ERN 65.

From the inventor himself: "ERN - Effective Rod Number. Part of the Common Cents System which provides a relative measure of intrinsic power."

Either use the CCS as is, or don't. But changing the designated terms as outlined by the inventor doesn't do anything but lead to greater confusion.

Of course, this entire conversation is silly. 99% of the world's rod and blank makers will never see it.

.............

But at least one blank manufacturer will, a rather prominent and trail blazing one.

And again, I think at large consumer finished rods will never see these numbers- it will edify consumers and purchases will decrease - or we all get the rod we are looking for at a higher rate. Blank manufacturers stand to benefit most from this added clarity.

Lastly, and I'm sorry Tom but I agree with you (from other threads you've posted in) it's hard not to believe that using the word "power" in "intrinsic power" will not be confusing to the average consumer who at this point understands power to mean medium heavy or 4 power. Throw an IP 725 on a rod to read "IP725 MB734 Fast" (include medium heavy or not),and if anywhere the word grams shows up that's even worse, that rod is being looked at, possibly Googled real quick, and then put back on the rack like that's a typo or what the fudge did they put on that rod. If it says grams they'll Google the conversion to OZ and be like "wow that's crazy, I don't need a rod that can throw 25 oz, how can they call that a 4 power they're outta their minds." Or something similar enough ending with not purchasing that rod.

But blank manufacturers will have buyers set in their ways knowing what to expect from a blank, they'll lose some of the exploration from the new guys who go by descriptions and pictures, but eventually that new person will become a regular client as they can expect consistent data and performance.

Yes, Dr. Hanneman knew what he was doing when he coined the terminology he did. He didn't believe anyone needed to know where the numbers came from or what the measurement constants were. Just two relative scales for action and power, using the terms AA and ERN. Folks can use whatever terms they like but the Common Cents System prescribes AA and ERN for action and power. Anything else is just another variation of the CCS, adding to further confusion.

It is also important to remember that here is no difference between fly, casting or spinning rods. They are all tubular shafts and the CCS makes no distinction between them just as it makes no distinction between cane, glass or carbon. Early on many said that the CCS measured fly rods. I'd tell them no, the CCS measures relative action and power which are inherent in all rod types.

Insofar as this thread goes, at least there's no cost to spin wheels.

..........

Regarding: "It is also important to remember that here is no difference between fly, casting or spinning rods." But there is a difference in rod terminology and method of specifying them. Fly rods use the familiar numbering system which is linked to fly line weights. Fly rods don't use the common subjective descriptors. That is what the difference is. So there would be no need to try to include them in any further improvements in specifying and describing them. Obviously, it would help a little if ERN's were published.

Regarding ERN, works fine for fly and can be used for higher power rods. But one has to recognize that Hanneman's data on which he based the conversion from IP to ERN ran out at the fly line weight/spec of 15. After that it's extrapolation based on Hanneman's judgment. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I have no problem with anything Hanneman did, but he was focused on fly rods. We are extending his work into areas he hardly touched. My suggestion is most likely futile, but I believe a smart marketer will recognize that there could be a market advantage for the company that would take it on and for its products have a hard correlation between IP and the subjective descriptors.

El, you might be right about the use of grams. So don't use it. Just have a number (which just happens to be measured in grams). Or if one is hung up on ERN, you could use that. Once you have linked the subjective descriptors to any objective number, you've got it. No more surprises. No more blanks with an ERN of 12.6 that are labeled "medium" power. Like one I bought last year.

This may be dismissed as spinning wheels, but I'll bet a goodly number of builders are getting better informed from reading the string.

I ran the fly rod article first. Perhaps I shouldn't have.

ERN is a measure of relative power. It works for all rods and rod types, not just fly rods. The CCS has no way of knowing if the rod being measured is going to be made into a fly rod or a casting rod. Rods are just tubular shafts. Fly rod blanks are no different than casting rod blanks.

ERN is the term the CCS uses for power ratings. "A simple rod number that increases as rod power increases." Dr. Hanneman

...........

I can actually see how having more info on rod power and action could sell more rods. Instead of trying a bunch of rods to find what you want, or asking on various forums whether the medium power rod in question is a "true medium," ERN could be used to convince people that they need a 23 ERN for a 3/8 oz chatterbait and a 25 ERN for a 1/2 oz chatterbait. It's the species (and lure) specific rod taken to another level. Yes, this will only work for high(er) end rods. The "sophistication" of fishermen is so much higher than it used to be, especially with bass fishing. Kids are initiated into competitive fishing when they are young and see the fast glitter boats, $10,000 dollar electronics packages, and needing 40 rods rods to fish every possible known technique. Buying lots of stuff and doing significant online research is just part of the game now. More competition brings more spending. I see a market for more precise power and action definitions in the continually growing "competitive" bass fishing arena.

Right on, Peter. Suppose a sharp rod company wanted to try it out on a new line of blanks (or rods, like Kistler, or Dobbins) and they touted this line as having "Precision Power Ratings," "PPR," or something like that. "Get exactly what you want." "No more surprises." etc. A company with a limited total number of blanks/rods (like Point Blank) could easily try it out. A company with a gazillion blanks, like NFC, could do it only for a new line, like the new Air 606 or whatever it's called. It wouldn't affect their other offerings. I think sharp marketers (any sharp marketers listening in on this forum? I think at least one is) who understand fishing and CCS could make some real hay here. And sooner or later many others would follow. I think I should register "Precision Power Ratings" and "PPR."

Tom, my point was not in disagreement that all rods are "tubular" and was not disagreeing that all rods, fly and everything else, can be described by CCS. You are preaching to the choir. It was only to point out that since fly rods already have an objective power rating system they would not be affected by or included in any new process of description.

Phil: Re:"Also, does anyone here a hue and cry from non-building fishermen for a change?" I subscribe to another forum which is weaker than this for builders but much stronger for fishermen who just buy their rods already built, and there is a lot of confusion there about power and action ratings and how to buy what they want. Most don't understand CCS, but I'll bet with the right marketing they would come to understand how to buy what they want instead of buying and hoping.

I think you are mostly a fly builder, are you not? So to repeat, there is nothing in what I am proposing that would affect what's used right now in fly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2022 05:24PM by Michael Danek.

Michael. yes I only build and fish fly rods. And you are correct, there is not much confusion with the process of selecting and purchasing fly rods.

The point I tried to make in my original post, was that us, the custom rod builder does not have a lot of leverage with many of the rod manufacturers due to the small amount that our business is of their total. An extreme example would be Shimano who sell lots of rods and no blanks!
Others, would be off-shore manufacturers, who make for both rod sellers and blank distributors, it is not unlikely that 90% of their market is to rod manufacturers.

I am retired from a career in marketing, and the questions I would ask, are what's the size of the market? And, is there a clear monetary contribution from the investment?

Please don't misunderstand my posts, I am not opposed or being negative about the proposal, I'm just saying, it's going to be an uphill battle due to lack of leverage!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2022 09:47PM by Phil Erickson.

And, is there a clear monetary contribution from the investment?

Since the companies mostly already know the CCS values, and it's just a matter of correlation, it would be a piece of cake to do it for a new, limited, line of blanks/rods. Little to no investment. I realize the chances of success with this are slim, but not impossible.

About time for some new thinking. As a marketer, and knowing fishing and CCS, you don't think with a new line of rods/blanks you couldn't make some hay here? "Precision Power Ratings!" The monetary contribution has to be, as with all marketing ideas/campaigns, additional sales. If the market size is insignificant, why are you in it? If it's not insignificant, then . . . It could be tried with little if any risk, and if it pays off, expand it. Easier than world peace, for sure.