Lately I have really been whacking the largemouth bass on chatterbaits at a lake very close to where I live. Until recently, I haven't thrown chatterbaits a whole lot. I usually opt for a spinnerbait, a jerkbait, or a shallow running crankbait that I can keep just over the top of the weeds. But the number of fish, and the number of good to big fish that I've caught in the last few weeks, has opened my eyes, so I figured it's time to build a chatterbait rod.

Knowing the CCS numbers for the two rods I've been fishing chatterbaits on, I was able to use the data base to zero in on blanks with the types of IP and AA I was looking for. In the past I had been fishing chatterbaits on my squarebil rod. It's built on a trimmed down Rainshadow RX7 CB66MH blank. I love the action and power for fishing squarebills, but with an IP of 343 grams, and an AA of 63, it is woefully under powered for the big heavy wire hooks that chatterbaits sport. I lost two big fish, that if it had been a tournament day, well ....... I may have actually shed a tear. At the very least I would have had an out loud verbal melt down. lol

After losing those two big fish, I switch to a rod I use for walking hollow bodied frogs around moderate cover. That rod is an old 6'6" Shimano Speedmaster Fighting rod that I still have. It worked really well the last two times I've been out, but I noticed that the fish weren't getting the bait as deep as they had been when I was using my squarebill rod. I attributed that more to the power of the rod, than the rod's action. I had never done CCS tests on that rod, so I decided to see what I was working with, so when I went to look for a blank for the new build, I'd have an idea of which blanks to look for. That old Shimno rod has an IP of 968 grams, with an AA of 68.

I thought about some of the rods I've built thus far that I've done CCS testing on. To make an already long story, a little shorter, I used this data base as well as another CCS data base to search for blanks with IPs of 650 - 750 grams, and AAs of around 65. Two of the blanks I mentioned ordering in my NFC is on the ball thread, are the blanks I found using CCS data banks. An NFC MB 666-1 SM blank, and an NFC MB 668-1 SM blank. My guess is I'm going to be favoring the MB 668 blank for chatterbaits, which means the MB 666 blank is going to be a buzzbait / spinnerbait rod.

I know ..... I'm not adding to the CCS data bank with this post. I'm just posting as a thank you to Kevin for maintaining this data base. Without it I wouldn't have any idea if the blanks I ordered are going to be what I am looking for, or not. With it, and the familiarity I have with how rods with certain CCS numbers fish, I am more than confident that the blanks I ordered are going to build into awesome rods for their intended purpose.

So anyhow ......... Kevin, you da man !!!

David,

You da man, too, for sharing this. Your story is exactly why CCS is so useful. I like details about the thought process that goes into the selection process - I guess I like good stories.

Besides, it is a nice bump of the topic back to the top. Spring is here! Lots of rods being built! Hey all, please keep those CCS numbers coming in on your builds!

Les, thanks for the compliment man. I appreciate it. And you hit my reasons for adding that post, right on the head. I wanted to share how useful CCS numbers can be, if you develop a way to apply them. And, I wanted to give the thread a bump to get it back up in view.

I see some discrepancies in some of the numbers on the data base that Kevin is keeping up that may be typos. I don't mention them for any reason other than to mention them. Kevin has taken on a monumental task in making and keeping this data base growing. And mistakes, if that is indeed what the discrepancies are, are bound to happen.

I tell my new guys at work not to be afraid to make mistakes, because the only people that don't make mistakes, are people that don't do anything. We're humans, we make mistakes. I really need to get off my you know what, and double check the CCS numbers I've got for the rods I've built. I don't want to be just a user of the data base, I want to be a contributor as well.

As I said in my previous post, I have no doubts that using the various data bases has helped me what in my estimation, will be the proper blanks for the rods I will be building.

Right on David and Les. One thing to keep in mind on CCS power is that it was developed with lower power fly blanks/rods, and with them little errors in the measurement of the deflection was less important than it is with using the system with bass rods/blanks measuring on the order of 700 grams. When measuring blanks/rods in this area of power being very accurate in the dimension of deflection is much more important. A little error in measuring will result in a larger error of IP than with fly rods/blanks of about 4 - 6 ERN. This may explain some of the apparent discrepancies in the data base.

A problem I found that I had with collecting CCS numbers for my builds was in what I was using to hold the rod. I use my old hand wrapper to hold my rod when doing static load guide placement. I don't follow the static load procedure as it's outlined in the article in the library. I go right to the CCS definition of a fully loaded rod to place my guides. So I just weigh the bag of pennies and whatever else I used for weight, and record it as the IP number. What I discovered was that with my higher powered rods, I wasn't noticing that the back end of the hand wrapper was lifting off my kitchen counter. That of course skewed my results because it affected the distance from the rod tip, to the floor.

I was wondering why I was coming up with lighter numbers on my higher powered blanks than what I was seeing others post for the same blank. I suspect something like that may be what we're seeing in the difference in rods members have measured, versus what the various factories have measured. And it could be errors by the various factories as well.

I'm currently setting up a wall in my basement with a level line drawn on the wall that I will use for the rod, and then level lines placed below it for the various length of rods that I build. That's going to take care of any of the type measuring errors as far as the correct amount of deflection. And it will make getting AAs easier as well. The only thing I need to get dialed in better is the support system for the rod. I need to make it adjustable both horizontally and vertically, so I can make sure I have the center line of the blank level, and the proper 10% of the rod length for the forward rod support..

I'm going to make it double barrel so to speak so I can compare the flex profiles of two rods, side by side. My version of the rod comparator that Rod House has on their web site.

Anyhow ..... with the weather we've been having, I should have it done by the weekend. I'm getting old, and I don't really fish in the cold and rain unless I absolutely have to. Meaning just tournament days. lol

David - thanks for the writeup on your experience using the info to narrow down search for a blank to meet your needs. You mentioned referring to another CCS database. If you don't mind where is that info located? If the keeper of the info is cool with it could potentially merge info together to allow people to just have to search one location.

I got into spreadsheet tonight and added the CCS data from the couple of classic G. Loomis Rods that were in the latest edition of Rodmaker magazine (Tom gave me the OK to do this at the EXPO).

For those wondering about the spreadsheet it can be viewed at following link: [docs.google.com]
There is a README Tab on spreadsheet doc that explains the basics along with a Youtube video explaining how to do a search/filter right on your web browser.

The CCS info for those couple of G. Loomis rods is below:
Model. Length Action Power (ERN)
MB783 GL3. 78. 72. 20.3
MB844 GL3. 84. 72. 30.8

Kevin, the other CCS data base I mention is one that I believe you used to get some of your numbers from. It was linked on this site in either this thread, or another earlier thread on this site. It appears to be, at least to me, that the data comes from manufacturers. But I can't be sure.

As far as the discrepancies I mentioned seeing in the data base you're keeping up. Thosee discrepancies were discussed and reasoned for earlier in this thread. And I completely understand why they're there. To be honest, I only visibly searched through the data base as it's listed. I didn't use any of the search functions you've built into it. While I am sure you've made it very easy to use, I'm not a very tech savvy guy. Heck I had to look up how to do a screen shot the other day. lol But I will get around to giving it a try.

And I'm definitely a believer in using CCS numbers for choosing a blank. So keep up the great work !!!

Here's a link to that other data base

[onedrive.live.com]


Almost forgot ..... hopefully Tom views this thread, as I have a question about taking AA measurements that I've been curious about for some time. My question is .... what is the point of the small pointer we are to attach to the tip of the rod? We use that pointer to determine AA, but when you put the rod (or blank) under a load, in some instances, depending on the action of the rod, that pointer pulls away from the blank.

If we are to use that pointer for taking AA readings, wouldn't the end of that pointer moving away from the blank, give a higher AA number than if we used the angle of the blank itself?

I'm just wondering if there was something that required the use of the pointer, versus just going with the actual angle of the rod tip itself?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2023 08:09AM by David Baylor.

David,
I am glad you asked the question about the pointer (small wire, spaghetti, etc.). When I was checking some of my builds, I thought that it might not be a very accurate or repeatable measure, depending on how wide the tape (1/4”, 1/2”, 3/4”, etc.) used. I thought I might have been doing something wrong.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2023 06:58AM by Gary Weber.

The pointer is to be attached at the very tip of the blank/rod such that it will be pointed in the exact same direction as the very tip. Because there is bend in the blank even in the area of the tip, it will separate from the blank as you go farther back from the tip. The object is that it will measure the angle of the tip, and without it, it is very difficult and probably inconsistent to just use eyesight to determine the exact angle of the tip itself.

You have to be sure what you are using for a ;pointer is perfectly straight.

[www.common-cents.info] See figure 8

I find a calibrated digital level to be the most consistent way of measuring the AA, much easier and more consistent than the original chart which has to be leveled then compared to the pointer.

Gary, I'm glad I'm not the only one wondering about the pointer.

Michael, I use a piece of stainless steel wire that I cut off of a bare spinnerbait frame as the pointer. It's perfectly straight, and I attach it at the tip just like in the picture in the first CCS article. As you say, because there is still flex even in the area of the tip, the pointer will separate from the tip. Of course it's far more apparent on my faster action rods.

I just don't see the point of it? It's a lot harder for my old eyes to see. As far as it being more difficult to determine the exact angle of the tip itself, versus the pointer. I sure don't see it that way. Agreed, using your eyesight to determine AA is inconsistent, and I've been searching for an app for my phone that I can use to determine AA more accurately. My problem is my phone is an older Samsung Galaxy 7. It doesn't have the gyro built in. I'm going to probably give the Bubble Level, Spirit Level app a shot. Anyhow ....

I went ahead and took some CCS IP numbers for some various builds I've done, on the set up I mentioned in my prior post. I don't have it set up for viewing flex profiles of two rods side by side just yet, but I'm pretty confident that my CCS numbers for IP will be pretty darned accurate. I didn't do AA numbers just yet, as I was waiting to hear an explanation of why the pointer and not just the actual rod tip itself.

Kevin, I'm posting the CCS IP numbers I just finished taking, and will add the AAs once I get the phone app thing figured out. I'm not expecting you to add them without the AA numbers. I just wanted to post them. LOL

The double posting for the MB 709 IM and the MB SJ 736 X ray blanks are because I tested both of the rods I have built on those blanks. I have more rods to do, and some serious investigating to do on one of the rods I measured today. I question whether or not I got the blank I ordered when I received it, And the IP number I got makes me question it even more. I won't be posting those numbers unless I can figure it out. It's a real head scratcher.

NFC SJ 736 X ray ..... IP 755 grams

NFC SJ 736 X ray ..... IP 742 grams

NFC MB 709 IM ..... IP 993 grams

NFC MB 709 IM ..... IP 950 grams (a little more than a 4% difference. More than acceptable in my book)

Rainshadow Immortal IMMC 72 MH ..... IP 1,033 grams

Rainshadow Immortal IMMC 73 ML ..... IP 552 grams

Rainshadow Revelation REVS 68 ML ..... IP 459 grams. I trimmed 7" off the butt of this blank, so the number isn't representative of a full length blank.

Hopefully it's understood by some folks, that I am a huge fan of CCS, and that my questioning of the why and what for is not a slight towards the system. It's a need to know kind of thing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2023 05:42PM by David Baylor.

David, I don't see how you can accurately determine that angle of the last half inch of tip without the pointer. Rather than getting rid of it I think it better to use it and find a better method of reading it. I caution anyone who plans to use a cell phone level app-I tried two and found that they differed by about a degree from each other. Digital levels appear to be more reliable, can be calibrated, and are not very expensive.

I'm sure we all understand the reasons for the questions, and have no problem with them. A lot of what is available to us today was not available in the days that Dr. Hanneman was inventing the system. He surely would not have proposed a chart that had to leveled, held still, then visually compared to a pointer in space. Even so, we are probably talking about a degree or two. Which doesn't really change the decisions to be made when one blank measures 80 and another measures 70. And the actual difference in performance between a 78 and an 80 is probably not apparent in actually fishing them. But it is nice if we can get it as accurate as possible.

It is my opinion that not using the pointer can lead to differences much larger than a degree or two.

I have a bunch of blanks and rods here, all show and have always shown virtually zero bend in the first couple inches of tip, doesn't make any difference how heavy, how light, how I apply the tension, might be able to just isolate the tip and bend it, but when would that happen? Try it yourself.

Michael, consider that if you're taping the pointer on the rod tip exactly as it's pictured in the picture in the CCS article, and I do, you're taping it on top of a wrap and finish, or at the very least, finish. Wouldn't the accuracy of the pointer depend on how flat that finish is? In speaking about the accuracy of a cell phone level app, you mentioned that you found a variance between apps of about 1 degree. You personally want something more accurate. I contend that taping the pointer over top of a wrap and finish, or just finish, can result in a difference of more than 1 degree.

As far as the phone app themselves, I downloaded the app I spoke of in a prior post. Out of curiosity, I checked it with my quite expensive and very well taken care of 4' construction level, and it is spot on with that level. So I trust what the app is showing. And the app can be calibrated if need be. Regardless, we're talking about 1 or 2 degrees. If it's more difficult to see the pointer than it is to see the rod blank's tip, couldn't that result in a difference in a degree or two? But I still come back to the pointer being taped on top of wrap and finish. If you personally are worried about a 1 degree difference in different phone apps, I'd think you'd be just as concerned with what the pointer is actually laying against.

I still plan on using the pointer when I take the AAs for the rods I've already tested, and the ones I've yet to test. I will use it because that is what the system dictates.

Ok, just came up from checking an AA on one of the rods I have built on a MB 736 X ray blank. It was the rod with the IP of 742 grams. Using the pointer to measure the AA, I came up with an AA of 76, right on the button. I then checked the AA of the rod tip itself. I came up with an AA of 74.9. A 1.1 degree difference in AAs. Not something to worry about in my world, but that's just me.

It's actually very easy using the Bubble level app I downloaded. It has reference marks at 90 degrees. Put the center crosshair on the tip and move it until the top reference point lines up with the pointer. Subtract that number from 90 degrees. And bingo. It was actually more difficult getting the pointer positioned properly, than it was taking the reading. And I didn't have the pointer taped on the blank like it shows in the picture in the CCS. I had it taped directly to the blank just off the finish I have covering the edge of the tip top tube. So the attached end of the pointer was about 3/4" from where the very tip of the rod blank would be if I could see inside the tip top tube. If that affected the accuracy of my measurement, so be it.

Depending on the tip top, at least the ones I've used, anywhere from 3/8 - 1/2" of the blank is inside the tip top's tube. I'm not concerned with that last 1/2 - 3/4" of blank tip affecting the accuracy of my measurements as much as I am (harp harp) with taping the pointer on top of finish n such

I'll be doing the rest of the AAs later tonight or some time in the next couple of days. And I am going to check pointer versus actual rod tip just to see. I have a feeling that on my slower action blanks, there will be even less of a difference in what I read off the pointer, and what I read off the actual rod tip. If that's the case ....... well ....... it will be time to make an executive decision. lol



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2023 03:33PM by David Baylor.

A couple things David and Mick said got me thinking about deriving and interpreting CCS numbers with confidence and accuracy. There are variances in the data. Why? One reason that came to mind is that there may be inconsistencies in the way CCS data is collected.

I am reminding myself:

1.) Follow a Consistent Testing Protocol (as Dr. Hanneman outlines in his articles). Like all of life, it is Garbage In/Garbage Out - or "GIGO," an ancient acronym translated from from clay tablets in the 1980"s.
* 10% of the rod's total length, butt section, secured dead level. The first 12-inches from the front edge of the secured butt section is where the measurement/level is taken.
* 33% of the rod's total length (or 1/3rd) is deflected to determine IP (Intrensec Power). Accurate Distances measured from the level blank tip (pre-deflection) to the floor, or
deflection stop, are important. Metrics are your friend here, IMO.
* Correlate the findings and double check against other published data on this forum's CCS site. Something look fishy? Post a question and go from there.
* Don't forget to add Mick's TNF to your haul of data! TNF is one more data point that is easy to obtain to correlate and consider.
* Finally, have confidence, built on a foundation of personal experience and real testing, that YOU know something that 99% of all the other fishermen and fisherwomen are still guessing at right now.

2.) Pinching Pennies! If using actual pennies, their birthdate and weight can matter. As Mick alluded to, the more pennies you use on a higher IP rod, the more those little differences between pennies add up to
significant numbers if the pennies don't all weigh the same. (That's how I read you, Mick, correct me if I am wrong.) Mick, Norm, David and Tom made some good suggestions about weighing your bags of pennies (or
bullets) in grams ahead of time. A gram is a gram. Accuracy is the key. Use a scale that measures grams and save all the penny-fuss.

3.) Don't Let Perfect Get In the Way of Good: Ranges and Variances, in my way of thinking, help me dial in what I want. It may not allow me to get the perfect blank on the very first attempt, but it puts me in the best
neighborhood to find it. If I am looking for a 500 to 600 IP rod, looking in the range of 450 to 650 is very helpful to me. I can also think out loud on the forum for more input.

Yeah, CCS requires extra steps in a fast-food, on-demand world. The alternative is that I get what comes in the paper bag through the window of the drive-thru...or a paper tube on my porch. I can improve my odds with CCS. Heck, Vegas isn't that generous!

Keep the CCS data flowing in!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2023 09:52AM by Les Cline.

If you tape the pointer onto something that is crooked, yes, you get an error. If it is not tight to the blank/tiptop you get an error. If you use the old card and don't level it correctly you get an error. Or if it slips out of position before reading it you get an error. I only tape the pointer to the blank itself or in the case of rods, to the tube of the tiptop and not to the wrap. If the epoxy is as sparse as mine the wrap could provide a slight extension of the tiptop surface, parallel to the blank surface. If one makes footballs, I wouldn't recommend taping to them. It all depends on the details.

Good that you verified your phone app. It's probably better than a digital level because it has a longer side to place next to the pointer. My note was only a caution to those who might blindly trust a phone level app.

Oh man, you guys are quick LOL I added something to my above post you may want to take a look at. Ok ..... back to seeing what you guys have to say.

Oh, and Spencer, you are absolutely right. That last bit of a blanks tip doesn't flex, at least not enough to concern me. If that's bending you're breaking a rod tip. Which is why I question the need for, or use of the pointer.

I get the need for consistency in testing, but if something is going to introduce possible inconsistency, wouldn't you want to eliminate it? I'm taping the pointer where I need to in order for it to lay right. if that means the end is 3/4 or 1" away from where the tip of the blank is, so be it.

Les, agreed. Variances in testing can result in wide variances. As I mentioned earlier, I found problems with my earlier way of doing CCS testing that resulted in some wide discrepancies from the numbers I'm coming up with now. Variances in the blanks themselves has to be factored in as well. You see I have a 43 gram difference in the IPs of the two rods I have built on MB 709 IM blanks.

Which brings me to what you said about not letting perfect get in the way. I am speaking of a reason that manufacturers may be reluctant to post CCS data for blanks because there are variances between the same model blanks, that some people may find ..... troubling.

I have to admit that I was finding myself to be guilty of that as well, and I shouldn't be. I'm in manufacturing. I know how things can vary from build to build. I do things a certain way, while other team leaders and instructors do things slightly different. If a human is building it, then we have to realize and accept that there will be variances in product. How large the variance is, is what I focus on. If I order a blank and it's dimensions are said to be one thing, and the blank I receive has dimensions no where near what is posted for that blank, then I'm wondering what the heck.

Or a variance in a blanks IP like we see on this data base. An MB 709 IM blank with an IP of 658 grams, when I just tested two and they had IPs of 950 grams and higher. Something is up. Either a mistake in testing, which is a been there done that kind of thing for me. Or somebody got the wrong blank. Which is another been there done that kind of thing for me. Anyhow .... I'm not really a close enough kind of guy. But I understand and accept that nothing is perfect.

And Michael, yeah .... some of my finish on tip tops are a bit footballish, so .......

Good stuff.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2023 07:19PM by David Baylor.

I don’t use a pointer on the tip. I use a digital angle finder to measure the AA of the tip when the blank is deflected 1/3 (33%) its total length. It’s the easiest and most consistent way for me to measure AA. Both IP and AA are measured at the 33% deflection point, not at a 30% deflection point as mentioned above.
Norm

Some good discussion here. I definitely agree that there will be some variations in how people's measurement system is setup and also agree that there is going to be some variability between the exact same model blank from same manufacturer. So, refine measuring process as much as possible but also expect some variation with the data.

Anyhow, regarding the discussions about what a penny weighs there was a thread awhile ago that got into that. When I did all my measurements of my existing stuff I did not have a good scale but I acquired one and when that thread popped up I decided to check my bagged up pennies weight. I used all post 1980 pennies and some were "standard" and some were the new "shield" pennies. Moral to the story was that all my post 1980 pennies checked out very close to the 2.5 gram/penny number whether shield or regular. That thread here: [www.rodbuilding.org]

David - when you are comfortable with your numbers just add a post in here and I'll add your measurements.

The Google Docs Spreadsheet includes the OneDrive data David mentioned above plus the CCS Database linked on this site at [www.rodcents.org] along with all of the values that people have added to this thread and the numbers on the classic blanks that RodMaker magazine has been publishing the last few editions. Over 1000 rows of data. I'm sure there are some faulty numbers and if anyone sees any glaring mistakes let me know.

Really excited to see some manufacturers making some data available here recently and hope that is a continuing trend. There is a contact email in the spreadsheet that comes to my inbox so can use that email if easier to add measurements.

Regarding: "As Mick alluded to, the more pennies you use on a higher IP rod, the more those little differences between pennies add up to significant numbers if the pennies don't all weigh the same." What I was saying is that with higher power blanks errors in measuring the deflection are more important than with the lower power fly blanks the CCS process was developed with. You might think of it as having a spring with a higher spring rate. And if you measure a little short on deflection , with more powerful blanks you have to add more weight to get to your desired deflection than you do with lighter power blanks.

With my higher power blanks I use bags of 30 caliber bullets that weight 300 grams each, then finish off with small bags of the proper pennies.

I don't think I have ever measured a blank in which the pointer did not deviate from the blank at least a little. While the deflection near the tip is not much, it is not zero. I believe that theoretically, the faster the action, the more the deviation due to the less rigid tips of faster actions.

The person who put together the one drive data base was Gib Portwood. He was a a rod board member for a while. The data was from the manufacturers.
Norm