I wanted to show off a rod I built for my brother-in-law. I decided to build on a RODgeeks C3710MMF.

I named it “Drum Runner”

KR-concept guide train

NFC soft touch 3K grips, Fuji IPS reel seat, Fuji SK2 hidden thread hood, Matagi KSKSS16 cork.

Finished CCS rating turned out to be…
AA = 75
486g

Blank without components was…
AA = 76
466g

Buddy, that is sweet work.

Beautiful!

Looks perrrrfect! It weel keel....

Dig the Drum Runner decal.

Something is wrong with the CCS figures. The AA would not have changed. Action is built into the taper of the blank. And the power, whatever the ERN is from the g. figures look like the power increased after the blank was fitted out with components? That is impossible. The power will be lower once you add components to the rod. Are you certain your measurements are not in reverse?

Does that really make a difference, Mike?

Difference in what way? What good are measurements if they are not correct? Or do you mean does the slight difference make any difference? I guess that's up to builders who are sticklers for the really small details. Either way I do not believe you can increase a rod's power by adding components to it. At least I have never seen it happen.

I was asking if the difference would change the "feel" of the rod.

Looks great! I had overlooked the carbon 3 series...Do you like this blank for getting solid hooksets with weedless soft plastics?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2023 02:01PM by Benjamin Fishbein.

Some friendly, hopefully helpful advice - when doing deco trim wraps, make sure to push the threads together, trim the tag ends EXTREMELY close to the wrap, and orient the tag ends so they are not visible when looking at the decal. You can hit the tag area with a dot of CP to hold things together if need be. Little things like that really dress up a rod - if it's going to be simple (which I love), it had better be perfect.

I like that Matagi cork for the SKS - can I ask where you sourced it? I do dig the name Drum Runner....

regarding the CCS numbers, the only way I would expect a power difference is if the blank flexed back into the grip area. Then adding a grip might increase the power numbers, but in this case, with an AA of about 75, I doubt that this is happening. I think the difference in numbers is test variability. One aspect of CCS that has never been mentioned, but is significant IMHO, is that fairly small errors in deflection measurement can mean pretty significant changes in the power number. It was developed for fly rods of ERN's that were for the most part less than 10, and for those ERN's minor deflection errors didn't change the power number that much. For this rod, with an ERN of over 17, it's more significant.

I think the power number differences are simply test variability. An action angle difference of only 1 degree could easily be test variability.

There definitely will be a TNF difference between the bare blank and the finished rod, even if titanium micros are used. Can it be felt? Most anglers think so, but it's not due to power and action changes; it's due to recovery speed changes.

I should have mentioned what a nice build this is. I especially like the writing on the rod-VERY classy.

If I were to build a redfish rod I think I would go for a higher ERN, about 25, but this will certainly work well in most cases.

Now how does one integrate the images into the posting so as to not have to deal with the photo page separately?

Dr. Hanneman did not develop the CCS for measuring fly rods. It was developed for measuring the relative power, action and speed of anything tubular shaft that had those attributes. I chose to run the fly rod article first, which I suspect is why people believe the CCS is for, and sometimes only for, fly rods.

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

OK, I stand corrected. It's just that everything I've seen from the early days deals with the problem of having fly rods all called the same power but not acting the same. If it were not for his interest in fly rods, would he have done it? I doubt it. He would still be improving his gemology contributions.

But the fact remains that for the higher ERN's measuring the deflection is much more important to the accuracy of the power number than it is for the lower ERN's .

The fly rod article was not written first - but it was the first one I published.

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

Thank you for the encouraging feedback and helpful tips!

This was the first time I tried a standalone three turn trim band, and I had them really nice and snug before I applied the epoxy. They loosened up after application and I don’t have the experience/confidence to start fooling around during the epoxy process. I did apply a dab of glue on the tag ends to hold that section in place but obviously not enough to keep the rest from slipping, lesson learned. Hopefully my brother-in-law won’t notice the wraps that closely but if he does I’m sure he’ll forgive me.

To answer some of the questions, I haven’t personally used this blank or any of the C3 series blanks, but after asking around people seem to like them. The idea behind this rod is to cast quarter ounce 3” paddle-tails, long distances to schooling redfish. I purchased the majority of the components (including the Matagi stuff) from Voodoo rods. The decals were made by decal connection, the new Rodgeeks decal is too cheesy for my liking. I’m able to post pictures here because I use my phone, I’m using the app. As for the CCS measurements, that’s what I got. Why? I don’t know, but I do know it didn’t really change anything. The blank does have some bend into the handle when loaded, if that makes any difference.

The completed rod weighs in at 106g or 3.74oz…