Norm and Michael - I edited my original post to reflect your input. Thank you!

Mick - My writing may not have communicated it as well as you did: A small amount of additional weight affects a light-power blank (fly blank) more than a heavier-powered blank. As the rod loads deeper into a heavier-power blank, it requires more weight to deflect the blank an equivalent amount. This makes sense.

My question: Are there inherently More variances to be expected in IP ranges with heavier-powered blanks because there is more weight in play to begin with? I think yes. On the other hand, the percentage differences between the numbers may go down as the IP goes up? I think yes, again.. That is, a 50 gram difference between data points for light rods may be alarming (say, 20%), while the same weight difference between heavy rods is nominal (say 2%). David alluded to a range of acceptable variance percentages for his own quality control.

First off .... I made a mistake in blank identification for the CCS IP numbers I posted earlier. I had the X ray blanks listed as MB, and they're SJ. I fixed it in the post, but will re posting the numbers once I get the AAs.


And Les, I find a little more than a 4% variance to be more than acceptable when you consider the number of things that go into building a rod blank. I just think it's realistic for a hand built item to have slight variances from one piece to another.

"More variance to be expected in IP ranges with heavier power blanks:?" More variance in terms of grams , yes. More variance in terms of percentage, I think not. Although as mentioned before, errors in deflection measurement result in more grams of weight because of the higher spring constant. But I really don't have any data to support my opinion.

If I could wave a magic wand and be assured of no errors larger than 4 % I would wave it. I think that's pretty darned good when you consider product variables and test errors.

Okey dokey ..... I got my CCS measuring base done. I took a couple of pictures, but .... I left my phone cord at work which means I can't get pictures off my phone right now, but I'll post a picture of two once I get another cord. Anyhow ......

It works quite well. A lot better than the set up I was using when I posted the CCS numbers in one of my recent posts to this thread. And miles better than when I first started doing CCS IP tests.We've been talking about variances due to testing procedures in this thread, Well, I had a few variances with the new numbers I just took. To be honest, the way I had it set up prior to the way I have it now, I was using work arounds. I was shimming parts of the rod grip to get the center line of the blank level. And well ..... evidently my shims didn't work as well as I thought they had.

My new base is solid, And instead of shimming at the butt of my rear grips, I now have a set up that allows me to keep the butt of the grip at the same height, and lets me move my forward support up and down as needed. The forward support is also adjustable horizontally to allow me to adjust the support to 10% of the rod's length. I think I've been able to eliminate, aside from my eyesight, all the variables I possibly could.

New numbers are as follows.

NFC SJ 736 X ray. IP 734 grams AA 78

NFC SJ 736 X ray IP 720 grams AA 77

NFC MB 709 IM IP 993 grams AA 69

NFC MB 709 IM IP 1007 grams AA 69

Rainshadow Immortal IMMC73ML IP 542 AA 70

Rainshadow Immortal IMMC72MH IP 1033 AA 75

Rainshadow Revelation REVS 68 ML IP 467 AA 71 I trimmed 7" off the butt of the blank for this rod, so the numbers do not reflect a 6'8" blank

Different numbers than what I posted in the other thread where I posted numbers for the same rod blanks.

I found I had a 1/4" difference in where my level line should have been for all the blank lengths, except for the 7'2" blank level line. The 7'2" line was newly added to what I already had existing The new level line for the other blank lengths is now 1/4" higher. With a 57 gram difference in IP for one of the MB 709 IM rods, it's clear that the way I was shimming the butt of that particular rod, didn't work. And having the same IP for the other MB 709 IM rod shows that I must have made a slight error in my previous measurement of that rod.

I used a level / angle finding app on my phone to get the AAs. In earlier posts I have been questioning whether the pointer we are to use to measure AAs, is necessary. The AAs I posted were measured using the pointer as per CCS instructions. They're rounded up or down per the way one would normally round off to a whole number. I also measured the AA of the rod tips themselves. The smallest variance between measuring using the pointer and measuring using the tip, was .6 degrees. The largest variance between pointer and tip, was 1.4 degrees. Measuring off the tip always gave a lower AA number.

As I mentioned at the end of an earlier post, when I question whether the pointer is necessary or not, I am not bashing CCS. Michael, you suggested that rather than getting rid of the pointer, that I should just find a better method of reading it. Your TNF measurements are a modified version of CCF. Advancements in technology have made it possible to circumvent the need to add weight to a rod tip, so as to slow the speed of a recovering rod tip to the point it can be counted with the naked eye. You're looking for, to use your nomenclature, the true natural frequency of a rod.

I contend that the pointer is relative to adding weight to a rod in the above scenario. Consider the AA diagram in Part 1 of the CCS. The pointer may have been added to make it more easy to read that. A thin pointer obstructs less of the print out than a much thicker rod tip. Has technology circumvented the need for the pointer? As Spencer mentioned in an earlier post. There is little if any flex in the last few inches of even very light powered rod blanks. If the last bit of tip is flexing appreciably, it's because the load is not being applied at 90 degrees to the rod blank.

As I pointed out above. The differences between AAs that I measured from pointer and rod tip were barely over 1 degree difference. The rods with AAs of 70 and lower, the difference was less than 1 degree. So which AA is the true AA? The pointer, or the rod tip itself.

I think the latter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2023 03:57PM by David Baylor.

"My god David, who doesn't have an extra charging cable for their phone lying around the house?" That's a quote from my lady friend, questioning my lack of wisdom I guess. LOL Taking her advice to heart,. I went to the local big box store and picked up a cable for my phone. Below is a link to a picture of my CCS jig. The only thing I have left to do is mount an adhesive backed tape along the front edge so that rather than using a tape measure, I can just slide the forward support to the correct measurement,

From using it to take the above measurements, I thought of some improvements I may make to it, but it's not something that I am going to use all that often, so it will most likely remain as shown.

So anyhow, here's what I came up with.

[www.rodbuilding.org]

I performed my first first CCS measurement a few weeks ago. I was careful with the process and am used to scientific methodologies. I gave up on sorting pennies, though. I added water to a cup and weighed the cup, subtracting the weight of the cup and the hanger. It’s below if anyone wants to enter.

United Composites UC78L: IP = 472 grams, AA = 61 degrees

On the higher power rods it helps to have bags of weights that each weighs about 300 grams. 30 caliber bullets work fine, nice compact but heavy bags. Also a couple 100 gram bags of pennies + some bags with fewer pennies. Have the bags all set up and marked in advance. Very little counting. Much easier than water, IMHO.

If it was hanging from the tip of the rod when you took your deflection measurement, then you have to weigh it. Otherwise, your IP number is going to be off.

Of course.

For years I never learned above lessons, I filled a 16 Oz. Snapple bottle with pennies and used as needed, a much slower process.

I added into spreadsheet the entries from @David Baylor above as well as @Kendall Cikanek

Also, got first email sent to the email address in the google spreadsheet with numbers for several blanks for the Fly blank crowd that have been added into spreadsheet. Those blanks are also below:

American Tackle AMF 662-2, 78 inches, 2 pc. 2 wt. ERN 1.92, AA 55 deg.

Fenwick Glass FF535, 63 inches, 2 pc. 5 wt. ERN 2.67, AA 65 deg.

Fenwick Glass FF705, 84 inches, 2 pc. 5 wt. ERN 3.72, AA 63 deg.

Greys Streamflex Euro Nymph, 120 inches, 4 pc. 2 wt. ERN 2.67, AA 60 deg.

Lamiglas Glass FL 843-3, 84 inches, 3 pc. 3 wt. ERN 2.08, AA 50 deg.

Pac Bay Traditions II, 78 inches, 2 pc. 2 wt. ERN 1.12, AA 55 deg.

TFO Professional TFF 80-3. 96 inches, 3 pc. 2 wt. ERN 3.72, AA 70 deg.

TFO Finesse TFF 691-4, 81 inches, 4 pc. 1 wt. ERN 2.38, AA 63 deg.

Winston Boron II+ B28034, 96 inches, 4 pc. 3 wt. ERN 1.44, AA 58 deg.

Winston Boron II+ B28644, 102 inches, 4 pc. 4 wt. ERN 3.27, AA 64 deg.


Every time I update the spreadsheet I re-sort based on Manufacturer and then IP. If you want to review based upon date entered you'd have to setup a sort by date. Keep em coming.

I’d just performed a few CCS.

NFC IM DS6107: IP 392; AA 76. (I talked with gentleman on another site who tested this blank and determined IP 387; AA 78, which is a 1% difference. The data in the CCS database is very far off).

St Croix Avid X 69MLXF: IP 372; AA 77 ( within 4% of St Croix Avid 69MLXF on the database)

Lews TP-1 7’M-Mod Fast: IP 665; could not get an accurate angle, will try later this weekend.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2023 06:57PM by Evan Cobb.

I have a few more rods to add to the data base, one of them being a rod I have that's built on an NFC DS 6107 IM blank. I just went down and checked it, and I came up with an IP 364 grams, with an AA 75. 2 for mine. A 15% higher IP than I found on the data base I linked in one of my posts above. AA was almost spot on to that of the data base referenced.

I still have more rods in that bunch to measure, just wanted to post what I got for my DS 6107 IM

Interesting, I checked the DS 6107 a couple times. First I measured 352 but saw that the butt of the rod was lifting. I ended up buying some trigger clamps and redoing it a couple times which got 392. This wasn’t a finished rod, just a raw blank so maybe be the weight of the guides and epoxy decreases the IP a bit?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2023 09:59PM by Evan Cobb.

Added the DS-6107 info provided by David and Evan above and got rid of the previous info since seemed to be off a bit. Also added the St Croix info from Evan that matches up nicely to another entry of same rod. To Evan's point about testing just the blank it would slightly impact the IP but not enough to matchup with David's info. Anyhow, thos two entries for the same blank seemed more reliable than the 2017 data so just deleted it.

Keep em coming.

[docs.google.com]

Added a couple new NFC blanks to spreadsheet (and below) that I saw via email releases and/or social media releases. The Xray Neo Mag Pro 902-2 and Xray C602 SWB 807-1. For the Neo didn't see the AA info so if anyone from NFC can provide that much appreciate it. Thanks NFC for providing this info. Hope more manufacturers jump onboard.

Manufacturer Series Model ID Length (Inches) IP (Grams) AA ERN Pieces
NFC Xray Neo Mag Pro 902-2 108 267.5 ? 11.8 2
NFC Xray C602 SWB 807-1 96 887.5 56 27.4 1

just a raw blank so maybe be the weight of the guides and epoxy decreases the IP a bit?


It is doubtful that with the rods of this ERN that guides will make a measurable difference. With some fly rods, even the blank weight can affect the result, so I believe the process calls for accommodating this through measuring the tip droop and considering it to be part of the deflection. l cannot at this time find that in the CCS documentation though.

NFC SJ605 (IM):
AA = 71
IP = 550
ERN 19.25

Added the rod listed above from Les into Spreadsheet. Keep em coming.

I took some numbers for a couple of builds I have going right now. Here they are.

NFC MB 666-1 IM IP 657 grams. AA 66.5

NFC MB 668-1 SM IP 896 grams AA 68