I removed the link rather that create a controversy among the CCS vs RDA crowd. We have posted information on both methods at the POINT Blank™ website in an effort to provide comparative information to anyone wanting to know more about the series. While I fully understand Tom's point, we will stand by our published numbers. The article is part of an ongoing series we are mailing to subscribers on a wide variety of subjects. If you'd like to receive them we invite you to subscribe.

That's fine but the problem is that since your numbers are not CCS numbers, you can't compare your blanks to other blanks from different manufacturers who do use the CCS numbers. Your system is only an in-house rating system which is sort of what rod builders have been complaining about for twenty or more years. Proprietary systems are fine but they don't address the problem of being able to compare blanks from one company to another. Having said that I wish more would use the CCS but I suspect most companies really do not want you to be able to compare their blanks to those from other companies.

Norman Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike, I have seen the point blank info before, but nothing there concerning how the measurements were taken. Still confused!

I hope this helps. [rodbuilding.org]

I may be confused myself but it was my understanding Fuji uses "RDA" measurements and Jim Ising went out of his way to give us the more accepted "CCS" measurements per this and many other forums. But I have been wrong before. :~}

I read Jim's response which said they posted BOTH CCS and RDA numbers. Sounds to me that if you want the CCS numbers of the Point Blank blanks, look at their CCS numbers. i have tested two Point Blanks and find I'm in close correlation with their CCS numbers. I don't understand the confusion. If someone says they are providing CCS numbers, then they are providing numbers consistent with the CCS testing protocol/.

Mike, thanks I'm a little less confused now, I agree with you that Jim went out of his way to do the CCS measurements and for that he should be commended, rather then blasted, he is one of the few that has done so. I assume the CCS measurements for the point blanks were done correctly. If this is true then I do not understand what the issues are, people can ignore the RDA numbers if they wish, the CCS numbers are listed in the point blank specs. Ok, I am still a little confused, because do not think its a big deal. The numbers are there, take em or leave em.

To change the subject, I think Jim has done a great job in explaining the theory and practice behind the Fuji new guide concept and the KR concept for guide placement and other articles and videos concerning Fuji products. He did a great job putting the Angler's Resource catalog together. I enjoy getting his very informative and interesting email articles, I find them quite useful. I think that Jim was looking for some input on the types of article people would like to see and to give people the chance to subscribe to the articles. My guess is this is the direction he wanted the discussion to go.
Norm

No one blasted Jim or Angler's Resource here. The discussion morphed into one on the importance, or lack thereof, of adhering to the constants specified to take CCS measurements in terms of accuracy deviations. Please don't make this into something it was not.

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

With all due respect, I was not making this into something else, it was my opinion and I stick by it with the information given. The CCS numbers are listed with the point blanks specs, and I assume that they were measured correctly, thus my confusion over the tone of the discussion, the numbers are there. I thought it was all about the RDA numbers. If the CCS numbers were not measured correctly then that's a different issue, and if they were measured incorrectly I would like to know where this information was obtained because I found nothing at the angler's resource site or the point blank site or this thread to indicate this, and I looked everywhere, but I may have missed it. If other manufacturers/distributors/retailers give CCS numbers I assume they are correct. I have seen nothing that tell me otherwise.
Norm

X 2 , Norman

If the CCS numbers were taken with the forward support point at 8 inches on each blank, they were not measured according to the specified forward support constant (10% of total blank length) and therefore may not be entirely accurate.

The bulk of the conversation was between Mike and myself concerning how much error is incurred when the forward support point used is not that which is specified by the CCS.The answer remains - the greater the deviation the greater the error.

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

Here is an example of what we were discussing. I have one Point Blank rod blank here. It is a PB701LXF.

With the forward support point placed per the CCS requirements (8.4 inches), the numbers I get for it are: AA78 and ERN 16.4. The listed specs, with what I believe is AR’s forward support point at 8 inches, are AA77 and ERN 16.2.

The deviation is slight therefore the error is slight and in this instance so slight that it’s nothing to be concerned over - owing to the hand labor involved, it is unlikely any two blanks of the same model will ever read identically anyway. However, the slightly more rearward support point is indicative of the slightly higher AA and ERN measurements.

In this case a forward support point deviation of just under 5% resulted in AA and ERN figures of just over 1% difference. If that falls within your allowable margin for error that’s fine. On a much shorter or much longer blank, the support point deviation would be greater and therefore the error would be greater.

So the answer to the question that Mike posed about how much percentage error could be expected for blanks in the range of length mentioned, used with either the specified CCS forward support point or the one used by AR is, just a very tiny bit. Whether or not that tiny bit falls within a person’s acceptable margin of error is up to them.

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

Thank you, Tom, thank you very much. I appreciate your effort in testing and reporting.

I would like to point out a couple things about CCS and how we are using it. It started as a method of measuring fly blanks. I submit that if I vary the anchor points 5% on a 2 wt. traditional action fly blank the variation of the AA and ERN will be much higher than if I vary the anchor points 5% on a mag bass type of rod, which we are now often using CCS to evaluate. The stiffness of the butt section of a mag bass type rod is much different than that of a 2 wt traditional action fly rod. Because it is so stiff, the flex into that area on testing will be so small as to make the error minimal, most likely even less than for the PB701 Light extra fast. As the rod/blank characteristics vary between the extremes of a light power traditional action fly blank and a heavy power/fast action mag bass kind of rod/blank, the error of variation of the anchor points will change. The lighter/slower the power/action, the more error. The heavier/faster power/action, the less error.

I hope I have not with this post kicked over the bee-hive again, but I think after all this discussion, and with Tom's data, we can all understand what we are dealing with better.

Not quite - the CCS didn't and doesn't measure fly rod blanks - it measures Action, Power and Speed. Same with a tape measure used on a rod blank - it's measuring length, not a type of rod blank.

Granted, and as you pointed out, the particular action of a blank may reduce error somewhat if the constants aren't adhered to, but again, the CCS has proportional constants so that the measurements will be relative across the board. Lack of consistency in adhering to the constants makes these measurements less relative. The CCS can deliver dead-on accuracy, but only if the person taking the measurements is careful to adhere to the parameters of the system. At the end of the day, it's up to the user to decide how much accuracy they expect or require.


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

OK, Tom, have it your way.

The CCS measures Action, Power and Speed - not specific types of rod blanks. It doesn't care. You can measure a PVC pipe with it. I guess those who came to the party late don't realize that I was in on the conversation with Dr. Hanneman as this was all being developed. I had input. One of those measurement constants came from me. I know what the system was designed to do. This isn't something I latched onto after the fact.

...........

You're saying it didn't start with fly rods?

No. It did not. It started with a means to measure Action, Power and Speed. I simply chose to run the fly rod article first. Systems of objective and relative measurement have no way of understanding or knowing what it is that they're measuring. The person who developed our system of length measurements probably needed to measure a certain thing - but it was length/distance that was the requirement to be measured. Not a specific object.

Ideally you want the support point to be at the rear end (butt) of the blank and nowhere else. But then you have the issue of a rod blank’s structure and how much stress it can take when supported that way. Thus we looked for a proportional support area in the same way that the deflection distance is proportional rather than just a specified number of inches. Both have to be proportional if the results are going to be relative across the board. The support distance of 10% has nothing to do with handle length and everything to do with making the system relative and safe to use without danger of breaking the very blanks you’re measuring. As long as it’s adhered to, the results are relative across the board, regardless of rod length. If they are not, then the results are not relative. And again, the greater the deviation the greater the error.

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

Ironically, had I run the subsequent articles on casting and spinning rods first, people would be saying that the system can't be used to measure fly rods with....

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

Actually you can only use English system tape measure for graphite rods. The metric system is required for measuring glass rods.... :)

You say that in jest, but I actually get emails and phone calls from people, on nearly a weekly basis in fact, asking me if the 27X factor is in inches or MM.

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