Can someone explain how to interpret a deflection chart? I understand they used a 12oz weight and that’s it.

There are lots of different deflection charts. Most use a standard weight which does not then account for rod action/taper. Which one are you referring to?

...........

I would ask the publisher of the chart for help in interpreting it. We can give our considered opinions, but the most reliable explanation would come from the publisher.

I don't use them, only use CCS and TNF to evaluate my blanks and rods. I can see that they do have some value in a rough estimate of the action due to the shape the blank takes under load.

It would be much easier to decipher what NFC's deflection chart is showing, if the rod were in a horizontal position. With the rod being at a 45 degree angle, weight added to the tip is going to exaggerate the angle of the tip. It also makes it difficult to determine how far the tip is being deflected by the weight, which if you could tell how far the tip was deflected at 90 degrees from the blank, you could determine to what degree the blank is loaded for a CCS IP measurement. There are ways you can can somewhat do it. But it's not accurate.

This is something that I tried recently. I pulled up the picture of the deflection chart for an SB 724 X ray blank. I took a piece of typing paper and placed it on my monitor and drew a line along the blank. I then took that outline of the blank and placed it in a horizontal position along the top line of the deflection chart. It appears that the squares on the chart are 4" x 4". I then counted the number of vertical blocks from the base line to where the tip of the blank would be. In the case of the SB 724 X ray blank, the tip is deflected 24" It would take 28" of deflection to be fully loaded per CCS standards, so the chart is not showing a CCS fully loaded blank. Also, loading a blank positioned at 45 degrees is going to over flex the tip, so the 24" of blank deflection isn't really 24". It's less than that.

Hopefully people can make sense of what I am trying to convey. I know I am having a hard time explaining it. Anyhow .....

What would really be helpful, at least to me, would be a set it up like this. I would have two pictures of the blank being deflected by weight. The pictures would show a rod in the position required by CCS, to determine the blanks' IP. One picture would show the blank with half the amount of weight of its' measured IP. Another picture would show the blank with the total amount of weight of its' IP. If that makes sense. lol While you couldn't get an exact AA number by viewing the pictures, you could get at least an idea of what the AA of the blank is. The reason for a picture of half the weight of an IP hanging from the tip, is because I believe it might give an idea of what the blank would look like on a hook set.

I don't know ....... hope I made some sense LOL

I understand what your saying David.

The pictured chart is from NFC and I was wondering what do the numbers and letters represent. From the comments I assume they mean nothing just their to look “technical” and to show the bend of the blank.

Michael, the way I see it, the numbers and letters are there to identify reference points for comparing different blanks. Kind of in the same way CCS numbers are used for comparative purposes.

For instance. There is a current thread I have participated in where the thread author was asking if anyone has built a spinning rod on an SJ 732 X ray blank. In it, a member asked if the OP had looked at the SB 724 blank. I ordered an SB 724 blank that should be arriving very soon, so I posted my opinion based on the CCS numbers in the Rodbuilding. org blank data base for the SB 724 blank versus the CCS numbers for the SJ 732 data base numbers. The OP mentioned having an SB 722 blank that he liked but that it was lacking in hook set power. and that he had a rod built on an SB 724 but he hadn't fished it yet. Anyhow ....

So I pulled up the NFC deflection chart for each of the blanks mentioned, in separate windows so I could quickly switch between windows to compare their deflections. All three blanks are shown using 12 oz to deflect the blanks. Looking at the charts and seeing where different portions of the blanks intersected or traveled through the squares at different points gave me an idea of the different blanks characteristics. The SJ 732 and SB 722 are pretty similar in some respects, but different in others. The SJ 732 has a faster action and a longer section of what I would call backbone, than the SB 722, The 722 flexes further towards the butt. There were no CCS numbers for the SB 722 blank in the data base, but looking at the deflection compared to the SJ 732 blank, they look like they are pretty close in power, with the nod in power going to the SJ 732. How much is hard to say because the blanks are at a 45 degree angle. Were they horizontal I think you'd get a better idea of power difference.

The SB 724 doesn't flex as deeply and flexes more slowly (distance wise) indicating at least to me, that it has more power than either of the other two blanks. The tip also doesn't deflect as far vertically as the other two blanks. Indicating more power.

On their own singularly, the deflection chart isn't as valuable as it is when comparing the blanks, side by side so to speak, but you can see power differences and how the blank reacts to a specific load

I think we had this answered before some time ago, I believe it is the rod's pattern number.

Yep, what Spencer said. I believe it is the blanks pattern number and the weight.

I’m getting it now… the graph is just a visual reference for comparison purposes, the letters and numbers being arbitrary, and the 854.86 is the blank model. Thank you.