Let me begin by stating that I think the CCS system of measuring one rod blank's power (IP) and action (AA), relative to another rod blank's IP and AA, is an excellent system that is accessible to all rod-builders. The word "Relative" is the operative word for me. CCS is a Comparative System, not a Prescriptive System.

I bought into the CCS the first time I read about it, and I have taken CCS data on almost all of the blanks/rods I frequently use for the fishing I do. I have had my eyes opened on more than one occasion when I examined the numbers the tests generated. Why is this my favorite rod for Frogs, or Jigs, or Worms, or Crankbaits, or Drifting....? The CCS helped me see the characteristics of the blanks/rods I preferred for each technique for the variety of fish I chase. This was/is immensely useful to me when wanting to replicate a blank/rod, or if experimenting to find another option to dial it all in more specifically. (I have used CCS to build rods for one kind of fish, one kind of bait/lure, and one particular fishery during one set of conditions....more than once.) Not all the blanks I've tried have worked out exactly, of course, but I always feel like I am in the right ballpark to try again. I strive for a more perfect union.

While CCS numbers are still useful to me with my personal measurement equipment and human imperfections, I wholly agree that having a baseline of measurement standards is essential if it is to have any widespread usefulness. The Common Sense System articles in the forum sponsors list is the standard I use. (I read all the articles several times until I had a good grasp of the rationale, practice and results of the CCS....and still refresh my understanding from time to time.)

Lately, there have been discussion about the variability of CCS numbers for the same blank/model the forum CCS log is marvelously curated by Kevin Fiant). Why does this happen? The answer(s) as I see them right now:

1.) Variability of the blank as a matter of manufacturing tolerances at production: Blanks fall within a range or +/- factory standard for that particular model. (Not right or wrong, just the standard the factory uses which is not the SAME as CCS. Example, NFC uses a different blank angle and various weights to deflect the blank - why they use the angle and weights they use to deflect a blank are unknown to me. Their deflection charts are still useful, however.)
2.) Variability of the way people follow the CCS measurement guidelines, and the way they measure it with their own methods - which are not all consistent person to person.
3.) There is a double effect when two variables (factory and human) are in play. This has the potential to create some wider swings than if all the blanks were tested with the same methods.

Here is my point after a long preamble:

The Common Cents System listed in the forum sponsors lists says this:

A.) Support blank at 10% of its total length. Example, an 84 inch blank (7 ft.) should be supported at 8.4 inches from the butt end = 8 and 3/8 inches. The section of blank directly in front of the 10% supported butt end is LEVEL. Tip droop is normal.
B.) Deflect the blank 1/3rd of its total length. The deflection amount in the CCS article says this:
a.) 1/3 of an 84-inch blank = 28 inches of deflection. That means deflecting the blank by 84 X 0.333 = 27.992 rounded to 28 inches.

Early on, I made the mistake of multiplying by 0.30....for some reason. My mistake! I put this out there as a suggestion for everyone to double check the numbers. I don't assume anyone is Wrong like I was. Even correcting this, I have found differences between blanks. Now, I am more aware of more of the variables.

Just needed to speak to my experience.

84 x 1/3 = 28. No rounding needed :)

Good topic though. I would also add that that there has been a forum documented history of blanks being mislabeled from the manufacturer. This may be another reason that causes wild swings in values.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2024 09:47PM by Will Bedell.

True, Will.

Mistakes happen in manufacturing. Was the mis-labeled blank, if correctly labeled, still within specs for that blank? The way I think about it is like this:

Do mislabels happen? YES.
Is mislabeling a common occurance for this manufacturer? I don't think so, IME.
If the correct label were provided for that rod, would it still demonstrate consistency in manufacturing? YES (The label shipped was the mistake and not the rod itself.)

In a case like this, the issue is sticking the right decal into the right rod bag....not necessarily a huge variation in the manufacture of the blank model itself. The challenge is defining the blank data outliers from the un-forced errors and mistakes that can commonly happen out here in the hinterlands with the average Les Cline's of the world. To me, a mislabeled blank shines out as an outlier amidst a few dozen other entries with similar numbers. In that case, I'd go with the average of the data excluding the outlier. Just me.

I agree with you that blanks get mislabeled from time to time. That's quality control on the Manufacturer's end. What I am thinking about is the quality control on the rod-builder's end. No war between the two, merely more awareness, professionalism, and attention to detail.

In some cases, I'd really like to have that outlier blank!!!

Here's what we know to be a fact - any discrepancy between numbers for the same blank will be on the part of the person taking those measurements, or the blank itself. The CCS is 100% accurate, all the time, every time.

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

Les Cline Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let me begin by stating that I think the CCS
> system of measuring one rod blank's power (IP) and
> action (AA), relative to another rod blank's IP
> and AA, is an excellent system that is accessible
> to all rod-builders. The word "Relative" is the
> operative word for me. CCS is a Comparative
> System, not a Prescriptive System.
>
> I bought into the CCS the first time I read about
> it, and I have taken CCS data on almost all of the
> blanks/rods I frequently use for the fishing I do.
> I have had my eyes opened on more than one
> occasion when I examined the numbers the tests
> generated. Why is this my favorite rod for Frogs,
> or Jigs, or Worms, or Crankbaits, or Drifting....?
> The CCS helped me see the characteristics of the
> blanks/rods I preferred for each technique for the
> variety of fish I chase. This was/is immensely
> useful to me when wanting to replicate a
> blank/rod, or if experimenting to find another
> option to dial it all in more specifically. (I
> have used CCS to build rods for one kind of fish,
> one kind of bait/lure, and one particular fishery
> during one set of conditions....more than once.)
> Not all the blanks I've tried have worked out
> exactly, of course, but I always feel like I am in
> the right ballpark to try again. I strive for a
> more perfect union.
>
> While CCS numbers are still useful to me with my
> personal measurement equipment and human
> imperfections, I wholly agree that having a
> baseline of measurement standards is essential if
> it is to have any widespread usefulness. The
> Common Sense System articles in the forum sponsors
> list is the standard I use. (I read all the
> articles several times until I had a good grasp of
> the rationale, practice and results of the
> CCS....and still refresh my understanding from
> time to time.)
>
> Lately, there have been discussion about the
> variability of CCS numbers for the same
> blank/model the forum CCS log is marvelously
> curated by Kevin Fiant). Why does this happen? The
> answer(s) as I see them right now:
>
> 1.) Variability of the blank as a matter of
> manufacturing tolerances at production: Blanks
> fall within a range or +/- factory standard for
> that particular model. (Not right or wrong, just
> the standard the factory uses which is not the
> SAME as CCS. Example, NFC uses a different blank
> angle and various weights to deflect the blank -
> why they use the angle and weights they use to
> deflect a blank are unknown to me. Their
> deflection charts are still useful, however.)
> 2.) Variability of the way people follow the CCS
> measurement guidelines, and the way they measure
> it with their own methods - which are not all
> consistent person to person.
> 3.) There is a double effect when two variables
> (factory and human) are in play. This has the
> potential to create some wider swings than if all
> the blanks were tested with the same methods.
>
> Here is my point after a long preamble:
>
> The Common Cents System listed in the forum
> sponsors lists says this:
>
> A.) Support blank at 10% of its total length.
> Example, an 84 inch blank (7 ft.) should be
> supported at 8.4 inches from the butt end = 8 and
> 3/8 inches. The section of blank directly in
> front of the 10% supported butt end is LEVEL. Tip
> droop is normal.
> B.) Deflect the blank 1/3rd of its total length.
> The deflection amount in the CCS article says
> this:
> a.) 1/3 of an 84-inch blank = 28 inches of
> deflection. That means deflecting the blank by 84
> X 0.333 = 27.992 rounded to 28 inches.
>
> Early on, I made the mistake of multiplying by
> 0.30....for some reason. My mistake! I put this
> out there as a suggestion for everyone to double
> check the numbers. I don't assume anyone is Wrong
> like I was. Even correcting this, I have found
> differences between blanks. Now, I am more aware
> of more of the variables.
>
> Just needed to speak to my experience.

I’d love to know what IP/AA you prefer on these you listed: “Why is this my favorite rod for Frogs, or Jigs, or Worms, or Crankbaits, or Drifting....

I can't blame the tape measure if I cut a board short, that's for sure. Either I measured inaccurately, and/or I need to brush up on how to accurately interpret all those little lines.

I can improve my skills and accuracy in measuring by understanding the tool I am using.... and using it the way it was intended. I can also develop a set of useful practices and habits, a failsafe of sorts, to catch errors when I make them.
For example, I will figure my numbers for a CCS test, run the test, record the numbers - then, repeat the process one more time from the beginning. It takes a bit more time, but not that much more. I have a lot more confidence in my results as being accurate...and confidence is one of my best fishing techniques.

Preaching to the choir for the most part here. However, with an influx of new enthusiasts, I wanted to speak to some issues on my mind. If you are new to rod building, spend some time learning CCS - what it is and what it is not.

Jeremy,

We can discuss specifics and favorites via e-mail. In this topic, I wanted to point out that the CCS is a great tool for understanding my own fishing experiences, and replacing the guesswork and mystery with reliable data and facts I can discover rather easily. The fact that there are differences and variances don't mean the CCS is unreliable....on the contrary.

Tom is right, CCS just tells me what I am looking at without opinion or preference. Facts. Data.

I’m a big fan of CCS. I started out learning it right when I started building. I don’t always test my blanks, but I’m a firm believer in CCS and refer to that database a lot. Once I have a good set up to CCS test, I’ll be more confident in my testing results. I’ll eventually get it set up so my testing is consistent every time.

Jeremy,

I'm glad you are a fan of CCS! I wish I could have learned about CCS when I first started building rods! There is so much useful knowledge and experience in this forum that has improved my fishing experience over the years.

My simple CCS rig involves:

1. A small/medium bench vice (inexpensive one from local hardware store), and three or four lag bolts to lock it down to a solid bench/surface.
2. A 12-inch piece of 1.5 inch, Schedule 40 PVC pipe (you can also buy at hardware store in smaller "stem" pieces of 2-3 ft. for a few bucks.) Clamp pipe in vice at angle needed to level the rod.
3. A 6-9 inch level to set on top of that first section of blank after the 10% mark of total rod length inside the pipe.
4. An old-school, plastic protractor for measuring angles. The level is set along the bottom of the protractor and levels it very well. One could easily use the chart from the CCS article, too.
5. A piece of titanium wire (from my leader-making and articulated fly hobby) or a piece of box spaghetti noodle as an AA angle pointer.
6. A tape measure to measure the distance from the rod tip to the floor. A stiff, vertical, old-school wooden yard stick might be more accurate, now that I think about it. No bend. Easy to manipulate by hand.

Of course, there are phone apps, measuring grids mounted to plywood panels, and other tools to measure deflections and angles, and I think those are great. This is just the low-brow way I do my CCS testing...and it gets me within the ranges I see posted and are accessible and useful for me.

People sometimes think CCS is beyond what they can achieve (with limited space, money, math skills, or hassle factor). It doesn't have to be like that, is my point.

Start CCS testing. Refine methods and equipment as available. Be as accurate as possible with what is available.

Results will be eye-opening....even if not perfect by NASA standards.

Les Cline Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jeremy,
>
> I'm glad you are a fan of CCS! I wish I could have
> learned about CCS when I first started building
> rods! There is so much useful knowledge and
> experience in this forum that has improved my
> fishing experience over the years.
>
> My simple CCS rig involves:
>
> 1. A small/medium bench vice (inexpensive one from
> local hardware store), and three or four lag bolts
> to lock it down to a solid bench/surface.
> 2. A 12-inch piece of 1.5 inch, Schedule 40 PVC
> pipe (you can also buy at hardware store in
> smaller "stem" pieces of 2-3 ft. for a few bucks.)
> Clamp pipe in vice at angle needed to level the
> rod.
> 3. A 6-9 inch level to set on top of that first
> section of blank after the 10% mark of total rod
> length inside the pipe.
> 4. An old-school, plastic protractor for measuring
> angles. The level is set along the bottom of the
> protractor and levels it very well. One could
> easily use the chart from the CCS article, too.
> 5. A piece of titanium wire (from my leader-making
> and articulated fly hobby) or a piece of box
> spaghetti noodle as an AA angle pointer.
> 6. A tape measure to measure the distance from the
> rod tip to the floor. A stiff, vertical,
> old-school wooden yard stick might be more
> accurate, now that I think about it. No bend. Easy
> to manipulate by hand.
>
> Of course, there are phone apps, measuring grids
> mounted to plywood panels, and other tools to
> measure deflections and angles, and I think those
> are great. This is just the low-brow way I do my
> CCS testing...and it gets me within the ranges I
> see posted and are accessible and useful for me.
>
> People sometimes think CCS is beyond what they can
> achieve (with limited space, money, math skills,
> or hassle factor). It doesn't have to be like
> that, is my point.
>
> Start CCS testing. Refine methods and equipment as
> available. Be as accurate as possible with what is
> available.
>
> Results will be eye-opening....even if not perfect
> by NASA standards.


Thanks Les. I do need to get myself a vice grip. I currently only have few Irwin Clamps I’ve been using. Have to play around with them a bit to get the blank in a level position. I haven’t tested (IP only) my last few builds. I’ll get back to it soon and start doing AA too.

There is one thing I am seeing mentioned that will cause a difference in the CCS numbers that one tester may get, versus those another tester may get, if they were both testing the exact same blank. The exact same blank meaning, I'll measure the blank I have, and you measure the blank I have. And that is the leveling of the rod blank.

My procedure is to level the center line of the blank. This way I eliminate the physical taper of the blank itself. If you're leveling the surface of the blank, then you're affecting the height of the tip of the blank, by half of the blanks diameter. If you level off the bottom of the blank, then you'll be lowering the tip. If you level off the top of the blank, then you'll be raising the tip.

Is it going to cause a big difference in numbers? Highly unlikely. I'd imagine the higher powered blanks would show a greater numerical difference versus a lower powered blank. But the percentage of difference would probably be very similar. I'm not saying that my way is better than any other. I just mention it because it's just another thing that may explain the discrepancies in CCS numbers, that aren't related to the blank itself.

One thing I can be certain about is ..... the difference in CCS numbers between a blank with its center line leveled, and one that's leveled off the surface of the blank, are not going to be enough to make a difference while using the rod. No way, no how.