The current marketing designation for fly rods is based upon the 50+ year-old system of the long defunct AFTMA rating of fly lines by the weight of the first 30' feet of fly line, which is a concrete, objective, and static quality. The amount of blank deflection in either degrees or inches caused by any type of weight is also a static quality. Casting is not a static activity. We need an objective system to better measure a blank's performance under different degrees of acceleration as well as weight.

You have it - the Common Cents System. It allows you to relatively and objectively measure power and action at any given amount of deflection. Deflection under weight or inches isn't a "static quality," it's a measurement.

And there is no "current system" for measuring fly rods, never has been. The 50 year old system was for the lines, not the rods.

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

I pulled this from the CCS information website under the Q&A from Dr. Hanneman:


5. How can static measurements be used to determine the correct line weight for what amounts to a very dynamic action?

Answer - The static measurement of the value of the ERN represents a single point on the curve relating rod stiffness to deflection. Several previous investigators’ work have demonstrated that the stiffness of a rod is the determining factor in choosing a line to match that rod.


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

Read further in the articles and you will eventually get to Dynamic Characterization of Fly Rods, which addresses response rate and resonate frequency. It addresses the "dynamic action". The problem is, it is very difficult for the average builder to measure and there is no data base available on blanks.

Bob: Thank you for saying what I was trying to say. The only available objective ratings for a blank refer to a measurement of deflection caused by a known weight, whether that weight be provided by pennies, lead, or the first 30' of a fly line. The difference between an $85 fly rod and a $850 fly rod is not the amount of deflection created by a fixed weight but in the "dynamic action" the rod exhibits. I believe major rod builders could supply consumers with objective data about a blank's (and a rod's) dynamic action, and I wish they would.

There is no magic fu-fu dust in an $850 fly rod. It remains a tubular shaft with the inherent properties of length, weight, action, power and speed (reaction and recovery time). The CCS accurately, objectively and relatively measures the latter 3, the former 2 are easily ascertained if not already provided. The data from those 5 properties can be combined to provide a very accurate picture of the blank or rod in question.

What else is it that you want to measure? When you say "objective data about a blank's dynamic action" what exactly are you talking about? Feel? I don't understand the statement. What other data are you after?

..........

Phil, I really have a strong gut feeling that what you are after is already in the Common Cents System under the Common Cents Frequency section. This is what I think Tom is referring to as "speed." IMO this is the most underused portion of the CCS and definitely spells out the difference between the $85 and $850 rods, when there is a difference. If you have not tried taking these frequency measurements I recommend that you try it. It's real easy to do and it is a dynamic measurement as the rod is moving for the measurement. I think it sums up all the subjective terms like feel, quickness, damping, etc., etc., etc., in a set of objective and relative numbers. If there is a better way to measure these things than the CCS frequency measurement I cannot imagine what it would be. Unless you want to invest in a some highly expensive equipment, but the CCF does the same thing relatively so why bother with the expense when this gives you the same thing.

Here is the article. It is even titled "Dynamic Characterization of Fly Rods." It has all the background stuff which can be a lot to read but doing the measurement itself is quick and easy to take and compare. If this isn't what you're after I don't know what else would or could do it.-

[www.common-cents.info]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2014 04:08PM by Ken Finch.

Yes, when I say "speed" I'm referring to the relative speed at which a rod responds and recovers, and which is determined by everything about a rod including it's length, weight, action, material, taper, etc., etc.

I would agree that it is the most underused component of the CCS system and yet probably the most valuable in terms of measuring and comparing what most of us refer to as "feel" or "crispness." And yes it is very easy to do.

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

Once I have a fly rod in my hands I can quickly and accurately determine how well it casts, for me at least, and after that point I have little use for any more objective data. My problem is obtaining objective dynamic data about a rod or a blank before I buy it. There is a steady stream of rod builders posting on this site who wish to build a rod which performs "like an XYZ-3" The answer is invariably something like "a Flipper-2 feels a lot like an XYZ-3" - not a citation of objective data. The problem is the same blank doesn't "feel" or perform the same for the guy who's double-hauling 80' of fly line and the guy who doesn't cast more than 40'. I maintain that consumers need and deserve access to objective dynamic data (for comparison's sake) about rods or blanks before they're bought .

Before you can measure it, you have to define it. So again, what is it you want to measure? What is this objective dynamic data you want? Are you actually talking about frequency? That's what it sounds like to me if you're onto the subjective comments about "feel."

I really believe the CCS will do what you want, particularly the frequency component. That's what it's there for - to be able to objectively compare rods from the standpoint of what creates how they "feel."

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

Tom: Some suggestions for data which rod builders and users might appreciate: How about resonant frequency, tracking, dampening, peak tip-top velocity when subjected to a specific force over a fixed distance, even consistency of performance between the "same" model blanks? The cost of objective testing equipment would be a fraction of the cost of a new ad campaign.

Phil,
Welcome to the quest for the "Holy Grail".
An elusive beast from a very simplified lever.
My feeling are it's embodied in the design of the taper and it's effect on the change in polar moment of inertia when loads are applied.
Even the notable blank manufacturers stumble around the problems from time to time.
How quickly the rod taper changes and where it's located from the fulcrum are infinetly variable.
Material, dia, thickness at dfistance are all capable of a multitude of approaches. The goal is to have these at optimum locations to work with each other producing the desired results. We don't buy the blank for "feel" as much as the rod designer's "feel" of the blank. When we stroke the rod we "feel" what the rod designer's intended "feel" was for the blank. That can be good or poor.
Copy of these blanks may be executed well or poorly depending on the final casters interpretation of what he's looking for in the blank, which may not be identical to the original rod designer's goal. We pay much for how the blanks tapers are executed by an elite group of qualified casters and designers. We pay little for poorly executed knock-offs and copies.
Most attempts to quantify these results are over simplified and scientifically flawed from the onset.
Frequency is a direct output of these taper degins but to use gravity and constant acceleration as a measurement tool is a weak approach.
Simple but inherently flawed. Gravity always loads in one direction and at a constant rate neither of which is applied by the caster when the rod is stroked. The rod is not used horizontally but vertically. Acceleration and deceleration are controlled by the caster and are not constant.
This means the load and deflection are variable all the way through the stroke. As mass and or acceleration are increased deflection is increased. Increased deflection results in reduced polar moment of inertia allowing input acceleration to be adjusted. As the rod is decellerated rod deflection reduces increasing inertia and providing tip acceleraion from the stored energy in the deflection. This is also at the control of the caster and is not constant or rigid. Drift, pull-back and hauing are manipulations performed by the caster to affect change in deflection.
Quantifying "feel" and performace require taking all these variables into account. Not eliminating the difficult ones and basing results on the easy variables.
Gene Moore

The biggest variable of all....is the person holding the fly rod! That is why there is and never will be a "one size fits all" solution.

I only build fly rods and I find very few customers interested in "data" they do very frequently talk about feel.

Phil,

Most of what you just mentioned is covered in the Common Cents Frequency component, and in objective and relative fashion. It puts a single comparative number on frequency, speed, damping, etc., etc. It's all part of it and best of all, it's easy to do and requires no specialized equipment. You might run a few of your rods through the measurement and get a feel for it. You may find it far more worthwhile than you're thinking at the moment.

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

Phil, you started off asking for some simple comparative information but then went to stuff that would be pretty involved and so not likely to be used by the companies or even understood by the consumers. IMO the genius behind Dr. Hanneman's CCS system is that all the dirty work has been done behind the scenes and reduced for the user into a few simple numbers that make comparing rods on just about any level pretty easy. But that's just my take. I use it because its simple and it works, if it was more difficult or involved I wouldn't bother. Just my .02.

Oh yeah, the CCF is all about "feel" and how to quantify it with comparative frequency. I really think you would find it useful if you try it awhile.

CCS data for rods/blanks is difficult/impossible to find for rods and blanks less than five or six years old. I have no problem with the CCS system or the people who use it. My problem is that I must FIRST buy a blank or a rod and generate the CCS data myself to obtain it. My gripe is with marketing more than measurement. I think manufacturers owe consumers more information than length, weight, and "line #." History indicates that a consumer generated CCS databank is not a reasonable expectation.

I agree with you completely, and at least a couple or three manufacturers do supply the CCS data. The trouble is, most manufacturers don't want you to be able to easily compare rods - it removes the hype and "magic" that they try so hard to create with their advertising and marketing efforts. I'm finding more and more than many no longer even supply physical weight measurements for their rods or blanks. As far as how to reverse this trend, I have no idea.

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

It is little consolation, but mass marketers have succeeded in eliminating objectivity far beyond rod building. Our forebears would be dismayed.

One thing did come to my mind, and I think I advocated this some time back - if every rod builder would request the full CCS information (ERN, AA and CCF) each time they ordered a blank, at some point the manufacturers would be compelled to provide it. There is no doubt that the handful that do offer it reaped some amount of additional sales because of it. Of course, the real pressure would be brought to bear by the fishing consumer, but getting them to request it in masse, particularly when most don't know what it is, if even understand any of the things we've spoken of here, would be darn near impossible.

Dr. Hanneman originally invented his system and wrote about it for fishing rod consumers, not rod builders. But while several editors highly approved of his system, they knew their commercial rod advertisers would not. So it landed among the custom builders, which was the small end to start with.

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

I think the CCS is a good place to start but like Phil said its really all about the caster. Their casting stroke is going to dictate if a rod is going to work for them or not. The CCS might help you put the right rod in their hands but most likely not. Since most custom rod sales is just a conversation over the phone most rod builders don't get a chance to see the end user cast in person. If we are lucky they tell us about a few rods that they love to cast that we have CCS information on to lead us in the right direction. At the end of the day the only way to know what is going to work best for a customer is to bring some rods out on the lawn and see what they can do with them. That means only main line rod companies really get to shine (since most rod builders don't own a shop). If your name isn't good enough to be in a shop then most folks aren't going to test cast your rod. Which means trying to pitch a batson rod which I know is good, a hard sale. This also means it really doesn't matter if your casting what should really be a 5wt with a 4wt line to hit 80 feet, as long as you asked to hit 80 feet and you did. Thats what sells rods, put a rod in a mans hands that does what he wants it to.