I would appreciate it if anyone with CCS data on AT Bushido blanks MB68/10-17 and MB68/12-20 would share it with me. I have my data on the 12-20 and would like to see if I correlate, and would appreciate the data on the 10-17 to see if that blank fits a build I'm contemplating.

Since CCS was made to rate fly rod blanks there is no CCS info readily available on the Mag Bass blanks. I hope that someone with one can get you the information you need. All blank manufacturers have different definitions of what makes a Mag Bass a Mag Bass or any other blank for that matter. Because of this it is very hard to compare anything but fly blanks by CCS.

_______________________________
God Bless, Don Morse

800-516-1750 ext. 1207 / don@americantackle.us

Rod Building..... It's What We Do.

Don,

Just as a tape measure isn't designed to measure any specific object - it simply measures length, the CCS simply measures action, power and speed. It has nothing to do with fly rods, nor any specific rod type for that matter. It measures inherent properties, not rod types.

Blank manufacturers should supply CCS data for all blanks, which would make the type comparison that Michael is asking for almost automatic.

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

my mistake.... about fly blanks. Unfortunately every company does have different standards about what category their blanks fall into.

_______________________________
God Bless, Don Morse

800-516-1750 ext. 1207 / don@americantackle.us

Rod Building..... It's What We Do.

And that's part of the problem - categories are one thing, but measurement of inherent properties are another. This sort of argument has been going on for years, but you’ll notice that the same manufacturers who argue against using objective, relative numbers for action, power and speed will argue for using relative numbers for listing blank length. Not a single one that I know of would substitute “short” “medium” or “long” for blank lengths. The same goes for physical blank weights which when given are also listed by relative weight numbers. Why the flip-flop when it comes to the other inherent properties of a rod blank?

Obviously they're not going to immediately change their minds about providing better data, but little by little if enough builders request it, more and more will have to do it.

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

Cannot agree more with Tom K. It is so nice to be able to have the data on all Pac Bay blanks. At least it's available on all that I've been using lately.

Just noticed a Pac Bay Quickline that appears to fit the specs I'm looking for.

We are supplying as much of this information as we can with every POINT Blank model. You will find length, action angle, weight in grams and ounces, butt diameter, tip diameter and power listed for each of the models. Power is measured by mounting the blank horizontally and noting the amount of weight in grams needed to deflect the blank one third of its "working length" (working length is overall length minus and average handle length).
Action angle is measured as the angle of the tip when the rod is under the "one third of it's working length" load. Both of these methods are pretty close to prescribed CSS but we are measuring power in grams rather than pennies.

I have uploaded a photo showing how we do it. It shows two blanks being examined to determine the variance in action between the two. It's not rocket science but In the "loaded" position it is very easy to see (and measure) the difference.

[www.rodbuilding.org]

Jim,

Only thing is that you are not measuring the relative power or action according to the method prescribed in the CCS. That's fine, but it means that your power and action ratings won't be comparable to other blanks being measured by the CCS whether by ERN (pennies) or Intrinsic Power (grams). They will simply be relative to all Point Blank, blanks.

It's not up to me obviously, but since you are doing this anyway, why not use the CCS standard for set up and measurements?

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

Jim, I agree with Tom. Why take off in a new direction that will hamper correlation with other brands/data? I know what you're getting at with average handle length because what really matters is what happens between your hand and the tip. BUT, we know how to handle that. Please consider going with the standard CCS process.

Consistency only makes sense. If you're measuring the entire length, weighing the entire length, then why not factor action, power and speed on the whole length (support points are given in the CCS). The rod builder is buying the entire blank, not a portion of it. What he does with it after he gets it is up to him, and there is always the CCS Big Picture for figuring specs on specific blank lengths if the builder wants to do that.

...........

The bigger problem upcoming that I see, is that since the CCS coined the terms ERN and Intrinsic Power and uses them for power ratings, a builder may see that rating one of your blanks and think your measurement is a regular CCS measurement. Then he buys it, gets it, finds it's not quite what he thought, checks it with his own CCS measurement and finds a different Intrinsic Power rating than what you listed. Just my 2 cents worth.

I'd have to agree with those questioning why the position of the handle has anything to do with the working length of a rod? The entire length of a lever, is that lever's working length. The fulcrum is merely a pivot point, and in no way changes the lever's working length.

And I'd also love to see CCS numbers given by every blank and rod manufacturer. At least then I'd know what to expect when considering the blanks or rods of different manufacturers.

I think the issue is the starting of new data that will not correlate with CCS. We have learned to understand and handle the CCS data and a new method will not contribute as much to the needs of builders as sticking with CCS.

It appears that Fuji is thinking that the position of the reel (a factor of the handle length) is important to the rating of the rod, and I think they are right. The position of the "fulcrum," which is your casting hand, has a lot to do with how the rod performs. But CCS, as Tom points out, has a method for measuring just sections of a blank, so this issue can be handled within CCS.

I think Fuji's argument is somewhat damaged by the fact that an "average handle length" is proposed. I just think that a new method this close to CCS but not correlatable to CCS just provides confusion and value only within its own blank family.

In other words, it is another company specific power rating that doesn't allow across the board comparisons.

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

I have to agree with Tom here. Average handle length is adding another variable to the algorithm, and it's an average value at that. Why poison the simplicity of the system? The good news is that enough folks are performing CCS measurements these days that someone will surely publisize there own data as new blanks become avialable.

-The Batson TEAM
BatsonEnterprises.com

I did a little testing just to see what the difference in the IP of a rod would be using the entire length of the blank as the base number, as in the CCS. Versus using the "working" rod length as defined in Jim's post in this thread.

As expected, the numbers were quite different,

When using the entire length of the blank as prescribed in the CCS, the rod I tested had an IP number in grams, of 612.5, Not knowing the definition of "average handle length" or how that length is calculated, I subtracted the rear grip length of 7.25" to obtain the working rod length as described in Jim's post. Using the working rod length, the IP number in grams, dropped to 525.

If "average handle length" is defined as more than the length of the rear grip, then the disparity in those numbers will increase. If average handle length is being based on the furthest forward hand on the rod, the difference in the IP could be huge, versus an IP arrived at by strictly adhering to the CCS.

Maybe my thinking is off, but the only way I can see being able to arrive at IP numbers similar to CCS, for a rod using the "working rod length" would be to change the definition of what a fully loaded blank, is. Perhaps they're using 1/2 of the working rod length, and not the 1/3 of the total blank length? Either way, as most seem to be questioning .... why complicate the issue?

And while I can understand the thinking that what happens between the tip of the rod and the hand, is what matters. One must consider if the rear grip is used for leverage in fighting a fish, or for added power in casting. There is no doubt that a bass fisherman pulling fish from heavy cover, or casting big deep diving crankbaits, considers the butt of the rod, as a working portion of the rod.

The numbers will most likely never match since the systems doing the measurement are different. CCS is the standard here on this forum, so I will not debate it's merits.

All rods have handles, very few fishermen use a rod blank without one. If the manufacturers were going to have a paradigm shift and institute a system to standardize measurements, that system should include the concept of working length. I applaud Jim for doing something, even if it is not quite up to the standards of this forum.

The manufacturer has no way to know what length handle you will use making an accurate measurement impossible for your intended use. Would you advise publishing physical weights for blanks that include the weight of what the manufacturer thinks you will add to the blank in terms of component weights? Or length measurements based on what the maker thinks you might trim or add to the blank?

The rod builder is buying the entire blank and measurements should be based on the entire blank, whether it be length, weight, action, power, etc. The important thing is the relative nature of the numbers. An inch is an arbitrary figure, but we know that 5 inches represents a longer length than 3 inches.

CCS is the only across the board system in place today, on this forum or any other. Everything else is proprietary to each respective manufacturer. Of course, there remains a reason why manufacturers do not want an across the board system - many do not want the builders to be able to compare blanks across the board.

What Jim is doing is fine if you want to compare Point Blank models to each other. But it will not suffice to allow comparisons to other manufacturer's blanks, however. I believe that was the point made and asked by the original poster.

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

Tom,

Then maybe it's time for another across the board system where a working length standard is established based on total blank length. It would not be perfect in every application but then again, neither is CCS.