PLEASE NOTE: This is the Archived Sexyloops Board from years 2004-2013.
Our active community is here: http://www.sexyloops.co.uk/theboard/

Common Cents for Sexyloopers - More than you want to know.

Bill Hanneman
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 710
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:54 am
Contact:

Common Cents for Sexyloopers - More than you want to know.

Post by Bill Hanneman » Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:28 pm

Mike,
Here it is. This was written 5 years ago. I think it should be repeated for new for new members.

Since then, I have added frequency, written for the ‘common angler’. It will be published in RodMaker magazine starting in December issue.

Common Cents for Sexyloopers

Let me begin with a lecture, sermon, or whatever you want to call it.
Be forewarned, the entire message is extremely long. I would advise you to print it out and read it at your leisure.
--------------
As a Sexylooper, or one who would teach fly casting, one is expected to have mastered the basic fundamentals of fly casting. One is also expected have a good understanding of the intrinsic properties of fly fishing equipment.
Insofar as the individual mastery of casting and teaching fundamentals of each of you is concerned, I am in no position to judge. On the other hand, I am amazed at the display of the lack of knowledge and/or interest in the basic fundamental properties of your equipment shown by so many on this site.
Sure, you can pick up any fly rod, put any fly line on it, and cast for some distance. You can then state your subjective opinion as to whether any specific combination of rod and line is more or less pleasurable to cast for any specific activity. But first, you must qualify the specific activity and also recognize what is “good” for you may not be “good” for anyone else, since the only constants in fly casting are related to the equipment, not the casters.
I recognize the readers of this forum have various opinions of Lefty Kreh and his opinions on casting. Nevertheless, he has a firm grasp on the situation of “average anglers.” Therefore I would like to begin by quoting him.
-----------------------------------------------------------
by Lefty Kreh
“Let me begin by saying that rod manufacturers design rods for the average person to use under average conditions.* So unfortunately, most fly fishermen use only one weight of line on their favorite rod.
“Written on the rod blank or handle is a code number which indicates the line that the rod manufacturer suggests is best for most customers; i.e., 6 line. To most fly anglers, this means that they should use nothing but a 6 weight line with this rod. But to get the full potential from different fishing situations, you may want to consider using several line sizes on your rod, perhaps varying as much as two line sizes from the one suggested on the rod.
“Manufacturers know your rod may be used in a host of fishing situations, but they can’t judge your casting style and fishing skills. So when they place a recommended line number on your rod, it is implied that it’s for average fishing conditions. First, understand that you're not going to damage a fly rod using fly line a little lighter or heavier than is recommended. Certainly, at times, the rod will fish better if different line sizes are used.”
* Sage’s TCR is an exception.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lord Kelvin is famous for his saying, “If you cannot measure it, if you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.” The CCS was developed to provide such numbers.
In the U.S., the most frequent advice given a beginner or prospective student is to avail himself of a moderate action, 5-wt fly rod, and take lessons. This immediately raises three questions—What is a 5-wt fly rod? What is moderate action? and How much are you going to charge me for lessons. I shall address the first two.
In my first article (www.common-cents.info/.), in order to introduce and explain the concept of ERN, I did use the term “wt,” e.g. “If the ERN of a rod is less than 6.00 or greater than 6.99, it cannot be called a 6-weight rod” I also explained that since no one has ever objectively defined exactly what a 6-weight rod is, there is no such animal. For these reasons, from that point on, the CCS ignores the concept of “rod weight” and speaks only in terms of ERN.
Now, if any of you Sexyloopers who want to continue to talk about things like 5-weight rods, there is little I can do about it—except point out no one will really know what you mean relative to its power, as the term conveys no useful information.
-----------------
If you are not familiar with my series of articles, referenced above, the following will make little sense to you. You must start at the beginning.
The CCS has been a subject for discussion on this site for several years and a frequent complaint has been that it is too complicated and suited only to “geeks.” Others claim it does not adequately cover each and every possibility and, since it is not perfect, it is useless.
Some want a single rod rating that includes both power and action. Well, it is hard to describe two variables with a single number. That is why we have ERN and AA. However, some of you want to use these two numbers to define the properties of the line you should use on that rod which will be satisfactory under any and all conditions. It can’t be done, but that is not the fault of the CCS.
If you dispassionately look at the WL concept, you will recognize it was developed for aerializing 30 ft. of line without the benefit of any haul, you will also recognize it was developed for average fly fishermen—”shit casters,” to use the term some elite casters prefer).
The problems of Sexyloopers in this regard are the direct result of the inability or unwillingness of fly line manufacturers to adequately describe their products beyond 30 ft. I trust you all recognize the usefulness of data relating weight as a function of length. The CCS can help you describe the power of your rods. You need information about your lines.
Even so, While AA can describe rod action, ERN, in itself, is insufficient for describing the casting capabilities of modern fast action fly rods (AA>69). For that, I have introduced the additional concepts of TP (Tip Power) and PR (Power Reservoir). While this makes the CCS more “geeky,” to the disinterested, it is a necessary evil if one is to fully understand one’s equipment.
The following article, “Fly Rod Evolution, Fast Action Rods, and Common Cents” represents the final article on my series on the CCS. It was intended for publication in RodMaker Magazine. However, it took me almost 5,000 words to say what I wanted and was deemed too long for the magazine.
It is the editor’s intention to add this to the CCS web site in the near future. However, since the worldwide users of the CCS who have a greater interest in casting than rod building are readers of this site, I have received his permission to present the article here and now.
Following this article is a discussion of “where we go from here” and an introduction to the URRS (Universal Rod Rating System)
Copyright 2007 W. Hanneman
Fly Rod Evolution, Fast Action Rods, and Common Cents
Introduction
From this author’s point of view and confining this discussion to just the past 100 years, one can divide fly rod evolution into three major periods—bamboo, fiberglass, and graphite.
Due to its intrinsic fibrous nature, rod makers were able to construct reasonably light-weight bamboo rods which were a pleasure to cast. However,
the skill and expertise required for their construction made these rods relatively expensive. After WW II, anglers had more money, less expensive foreign made rods became available, and fly fishing became a fast growing activity.
Also, after WW II, synthetic plastic materials became available and soon fiberglass fishing rods made their appearance. They have been with us ever since. Coinciding with the introduction of fiberglass was the introduction of spin fishing. Utilizing strong limber rods and monofilament lines, anglers could cast very light lures for considerable distances—a technique eagerly embraced by the angling public.
Also, because of the advantages which fiberglass offered, it was not long before fiberglass fly rods became readily available. At this point, fly rod and spinning rod designs branched—not to rejoin for almost 40 years.
Fly fishing, from its beginnings, has been steeped in tradition. Part of this tradition includes what we call the “feel” of bamboo. Because of its nature, bamboo has a relatively slow rate of recovery after bending. This rate of recovery can be measured in terms of frequency (cycles per unit of time). It is also a function of the weight of the rod tip and taper. Bamboo, however, did recover faster than the previously used greenheart or lance wood, and that is the main reason it became the material of choice for fly rods. Anglers wanted a faster recovering, lighter rod and bamboo provided it.
The frequency (recovery rate) of any fishing rod is primarily a function of its stiffness to weight ratio. Since fiberglass is not limited by the intrinsic physical properties of bamboo, frequency became an important variable in rod design. Designers of new fishing rods could now exploit the full potential of fiberglass, and they did.
However, fly rod design was internally limited by the tradition of having “slow” actions, i.e., the rod first appreciably bends in its lower portion closer to the butt. To produce such rods required the retention of the relatively stiff tips which had become the hallmark of bamboo rods. All of this resulted in rods which inherently exhibit low response rates (frequencies) and demand a slow relaxed casting stroke. In order to sell their products to fly anglers, rod makers had to continue making rods with that traditional slow action.
Simultaneous with the development of fiberglass was the influx of the post war anglers who had no sentimental attachment to bamboo and accepted this new material and the advantages it offered. The introduction of fiberglass to all fishing rod manufacturing represented a milestone. At last, the major hurdle of increasing the rod strength to weight ratio was overcome. Later, the introduction of graphite and/or other composites merely represented an incremental technological improvement.
As anglers wished to cast their lines farther and land larger and larger fish, the concept of increasing the ratio of the strength of the butt to the strength of the tip became more acceptable. The net result was rods became more powerful.
While weight reduction was very important, traditional “feel” dictated fiberglass rods still be constructed with slow actions. At the same time, fiberglass allowed for making rods having fast actions, weak tips, and stronger butts. This spawned a whole new product—spinning rods. The typical spinning rod can be considered to be a fast action (i.e., flexes close to the tip) fly rod having an “ungodly” strong butt.
With fiberglass, it was a simple matter to design rods having any type of action or any degree of stiffness desired. For over 50 years, this author has happily fly fished small streams using an ultra light weight spinning rod fitted with an appropriate fly line. Granted the action of the rod was much faster than that of a bamboo rod, but what one does not know about or feel deeply about, one does not miss. One simply learns to match the frequency of one’s casting stroke to the frequency of one’s rod and line. Such a rod may not feel like bamboo, but it is still an excellent tool for catching trout.
One important feature (either an advantage or disadvantage depending on one’s point of view) of a fast action rod is that it initially flexes at its weak tip, and as more pressure is applied, the rod flexes more and more towards its stronger butt. A slow action rod, on the other hand has a strong tip which forces the flex to initially occur nearer the butt and consequently the rod does not have as much of a reservoir of power.
A slow action rod (sometimes referred to as soft action) is built to utilize the full flex of the rod and exhibits a softer “consistent” feel throughout its “optimum range of operation.” On the other hand, the flex of a fast action rod varies with the load applied, and, while its “entire range of operation” is much larger, its “optimum range for any given load” is smaller. This is why fast action rods are “less forgiving.”
With fiberglass fly rods mired in the lore and tradition of bamboo (i.e., effectively defined and limited by low frequency and slow action), it required the introduction of graphite, an entirely new material which was not so encumbered, to create the breakthrough to the modern fly rod period.
The Age of Graphite
Since the advent of spinning rods had already demonstrated the advantages of synthetic materials and how to design rods using them, from the standpoint of fly rod design, this breakthrough amounted to little more than morphing fly rods back into spinning rods. Now, after 40 or so years, the designs, in many cases, are virtually interchangeable.
However, the commercial success of this design change was predicated on convincing fly anglers that rods having higher frequencies and faster actions should be considered “better fly rods.” This then became a project of marketing departments, and they have done their job well, as witnessed by the rise of Sage rods.
Let me quote from their literature. “Years of fly fishing experience had taught Don (Green, a founder of Sage) that fly rods should never run out of “power.” While there might be fishing scenarios where the full power and flex of a fly rod were not utilized by the angler, the best designs were those that always held power in reserve. Hence, the name Reserve Power was given to the new style of fly rod Don developed for extra long casts or for windy conditions. The name was abbreviated to RP. This was the first major series of fly rods that Sage released in 1982 and they quickly became the most talked about fly rods in the world.”
The success of fiberglass had been predominately due to its weight savings relative to bamboo, and now graphite offered even more. One manufacturer even advertised its rods “felt two weights lighter.” The net effect was one could construct graphite rods which were even lighter and stiffer than their predecessors, and the public liked that—but what to call them?
Without a system for rating relative rod power, but since the introduction of the AFTMA standards for fly lines, a fly rod had begun to be rated on the basis of its power relative to the weight of line it was designed to cast. This, however, was the subjective opinion of its designer rather than an objective measurement. While a 5-Weight rod was originally considered as one which was designed to cast 30 feet of an AFTMA No. 5 line, today, its only requirement is that the rod be labeled “5-Weight.”
Essentially, Sage recognized that if everyone else subscribed to the idea that a 5-Weight rod was “loaded” by an AFTMA #5 line and “over loaded” by a #6 line, they could construct a rod which would not be over loaded by a #6 line and call it a 5-Weight rod having Reserve Power. Truly a brilliant marketing plan, and it worked. Unfortunately, it set off a Power Race, and today, no one can define exactly what a 5-Weight rod is and how one can tell when a 5-Weight rod becomes a 6-Weight rod. Clearly there was a need to be able to objectively characterize all fly rods.
Characterizing Fly Rods
Since fly rods are made to be sold, one might expect them to be described in such a manner a prospective customer can know exactly what he is purchasing. To that end, most catalogs list a rod’s Length, Number of sections, Weight (oz.), Price, Line Wt., and Action. The first four categories are simple and straight forward. The latter two, “Line Weight” and “Action” appear to be specific, but as experienced fly rod builders recognize, without precise definitions, those terms are essentially meaningless. Nevertheless, the average angler is unaware of this fact and it appears many rod sellers would prefer to keep it this way. Without these definitions, any seller is free to create a rod of any strength and action and, if he feels such a designation will produce the most sales, designate it a “5-Weight Fast Action Rod.”
This has resulted in sellers stressing the point that one should always cast a rod before purchasing it. This effectively takes all responsibility relative to describing the actual action and power of the rod away from the seller and appears to make it immaterial. This then places the buyer in the position of having to choose the least offensive (or best feeling) rod from the very limited choices available to him at any given fly shop.
While this approach is successful in the case of the general public, it cannot accommodate the mail-order angler who has no ready access to a local fly shop. It is also of little help to an experienced angler who knows exactly what he wants when he purchases a new rod. More importantly, it offers no assistance whatsoever to the sophisticated custom rod builder who wishes to purchase a blank having precisely defined characteristics.
In order to solve these problems, the Common Cents System was devised and it has received wide acceptance among those who wish to objectively describe and/or compare the intrinsic properties of any and all fly rods, irrespective of manufacturer. Full details of the system were published in RodMaker Magazine (Volume 6, issues 2, 3, 4 and Volume 8, issue 1) and are available on the internet at www.common-cents.info/.
Common Cents System (CCS)
The CCS employs the term Intrinsic Power (IP) to quantitate the strength, power, or stiffness of a fly rod in terms of the relative amount of weight required to deflect or bend the rod a distance equivalent to one third of its length. IP can also be expressed in terms of Common Cents (i.e., the number required to so bend the rod), or Effective Rod Number (ERN). IP can also be mathematically related to the Weight of Line (WL) which will so flex the rod. The weight of one cent equals 2.5 grams.
Another term called Action Angle (AA) is incorporated to describe the angle the flexed rod tip forms with the horizon and is used as a description of the action of the rod in numerical terms. Finally, a third term called Common Cents Frequency (CCF) is invoked to describe the frequency of “one’s fly rod outfit,” i.e., the combination of both the fly rod and the fly line. These three terms have been condensed into a single term called the Defined Bending Index (DBI) which is written in the form of DBI=ERN/AA/CCF.
However, experience has shown additional terms are required to better describe the latest fast action fly rods. The following paragraphs describe my approach to this situation.
These new addenda are directed towards refining the CCS determination of IP or ERN of a fly rod. They recognize that as graphite fly rods were made lighter and stiffer, this increase was usually effected by increasing the strength of the rod butt relative to its tip. However, this also has the effect of increasing both the ERN of the rod and its Action Angle (AA), as well as its Common Cents Frequency (CCF)—thereby creating entirely different stronger products.
As this approach was carried towards its logical conclusion (e.g., Sage with their TCR-5 rod) the fly rod morphed back into a spinning rod having a very strong butt for lifting and/or casting more weight and a much weaker tip. This gave rise to the saying, “Cast with the tip and fight with the butt”—a marked contrast to the traditional bamboo and fiberglass rods with their stiff tips and weaker butts.
For the purpose of this treatise, one can effectively consider the modern fast action fly rod to be a composite of three separate components—a short low IP or ERN fly rod attached by an intermediate strength middle section to the top of a very stiff butt section. Consequently, since the IP or ERN as originally measured by the CCS conceptually represents an “average” value of this intermediate section, this single value could not convey a completely accurate description of the entire rod. However, by means of the BIG (Bending Index Graph) Picture described in RodMaker Volume 6, issue 2 such a description could be constructed. (See Article 2, page 2)
Tip Power (TP)
The BIG Picture is a graphical plot of the ERN or IP of a fly rod being measured at different distances from the tip and plotted against the corresponding value of AA. For most fly rods, it assumes the shape of a U lying on its side. It ranges from the strong tip to an intermediate mid section which is followed by a stiffening butt to the final IP or ERN, as shown in Article 2, page 2.
In slow action rods, a much stronger tip is followed by a weaker mid section which does not get appreciably stronger as it goes towards the butt. The BIG Picture appears more like a J or an L, as Curve D in Article 2, page 3. In very fast action rods, however, the tip is very weak while the butt gets progressively much stronger. This is shown in curve E.
One will note that in all of these Figures, there is a point (at a distance of approximately one third or less of the length of the rod from its tip) where the plot of ERN vs AA reaches a minimum value. This minimum value has been assigned the name Tip Power (TP) and represents the relative strength of the rod tip. While the value is measured on the abscissa scale, the numerical result is reported as TP, not ERN. However, it is recognized that in “non technical” speaking, one might say the TP of a given rod is “equivalent” to a short rod of that length having the same ERN. (Technically, the method of measurement of TP is slightly different from that of ERN.)
In order to incorporate this information in a useful fashion, the DBI can now be rewritten in a new form, as shown below:
DBI = ERN (TP)/AA/CCF
To illustrate this, the reader is asked to again consider the curves (Figures) from my article on the BIG Picture. The usefulness of this approach should then become clearer.
In Figure 2, the following DBIs describe the rods. (CCF was not determined.)

ERN / degrees Cents / degrees Grains / degrees
Rod A: DBI = 7.8 (5.5) / 60 64 (44) / 60 2363 (1685) / 60
Rod B: DBI = 7.8 (4.9) / 65 64 (40) / 65 2363 (1414) / 65
Rod C: DBI = 7.4 (3.8) / 70 58 (33) / 70 2239 (1278) / 70

In Figure 3, the DBIs are:
Rod D: DBI = 3.1 (2.6) / 68 28 (25) / 68 1076 (946) / 68
Rod E: DBI = 6.5 (2.6) / 78 51 (25) / 78 1973 (946) / 78

Some of the relationships one might expect resulting from differences in ERN or IP, TP, AA, and CCF are summarized below.
The greater the AA, the lower the TP.
The faster the rod (higher AA), the greater the difference between ERN or IP and TP.
The smaller the difference between ERN or IP and TP, the “softer” the rod.
The smaller the difference between ERN or IP and TP, the slower the tip speed and the lower the CFF (not illustrated in this example).
The greater the difference between ERN or IP and TP, the greater the range of lines the rod can handle, However, the “working range” for each line will be smaller and one’s casting skills must be greater, as the rod will be less forgiving.

Note: The reader should be aware that while the BIG Pictures are usually drawn with units of ERN and Weight in cents as the calibration of the abscissa, the fundamental unit of weight of the CCS is grains. The ranges for the various ERN or IP values are defined by the Rosetta Stone. Most importantly, one must recognize that these ranges trace their origin back to the original AFTMA standards and the arbitrary ranges defined at that time were not strictly linear. Consequently, extrapolations outside of any particular range of ERN or IP are not valid. While the credit or blame for that situation belongs entirely to the AFTMA, the Rosetta Stone provides the correct translation.
Power Reservoir (PR)
All fly anglers recognize the distance one can cast a fly depends primarily on the energy one puts into the casting stroke. For the most part, that energy is used to load or flex the rod. If one wishes to cast farther, one increases the speed of his stroke and ultimately provides more speed to the line. That, however, is a subjective action on the part of the caster. However, if one wishes to objectively compare fly rods of differing intrinsic properties, it is imperative to standardize the testing parameters. That is precisely what the CCS has done.
As originally conceived, the CCS was developed to characterize typical fly rods for trout which were sold under the designations of #2 to #6-Weight rods which would be expected to perform satisfactorily when used with the corresponding AFTMA No. 2 to No. 6 fly lines. These lines had been standardized on the basis of the weight of the first 30 feet of line.
Consequently, the CCS was developed around these standardized lines and casts of 30 feet without any haul by the “average” angler. An arbitrary decision was made to compare rods which had been flexed (loaded) to the extent that the rod tip had been deflected a distance equal to one third of the rod’s length.
The success of this approach was immediately recognized and there was a demand the CCS be extended to incorporate all fly rods. This was done and the results summarized in the “Rosetta Stone of Fly Lines and Rods.” All of this was well and good and for the first time the powers of fly rods of all kinds could be objectively compared.
Since the comparison of fly rod power was based on the weight of the corresponding lines, it was reasonable to relate the power of the rod to the weight of the line, but one must remember we are speaking here of a traditional cast of 30 feet of aerialized line and no haul. However well this worked for those conditions, the fact remained that for the heavier modern rods, anglers wished to cast the full lengths of their lines. This required the introduction of hauls, double hauls, special lines of varying tapers, and most of all casting strokes which flexed their rods far more than one third of their lengths.
Since hauls, double hauls, special lines, tapers, and casting speed are all variables controlled by the caster, they fall outside the domain of the CCS which is concerned only with the intrinsic properties of the rod, itself. While the original CCS data is still valid for all fly rods and the just introduced TP (Tip Power) provides additional information, there is still a need to characterize the the power of a rod which can be released by flexing it a distance greater than one third of its length.
In my previous article on Common Cents Frequency (CCF) in RodMaker Volume 8, Issue 1, (Part 4), I showed how the tip speed of a fly rod could be related to the CCF of the rod and the degree to which it was flexed. Now, with the introduction of a new intrinsic property which I will call Power Reservoir (PR), one can assign a numerical value to the resulting power of the “super flexed” rod. The astute reader will immediately recognize the similarity between the terms PR and Sage’s RP. However, while RP is primarily a proprietary marketing gimmick, PR is a carefully defined measuring system useful for comparing fly rods of all makes.
Power Reservoir (PR) is arbitrarily defined as the force required to deflect the rod tip a distance equal to one half of its length. To determine this value, the rod is set up for deflection in exactly the same manner as for determining the IP or ERN. However, instead of deflecting the rod tip a distance equal to only one third of the rod’s length, the tip is deflected a distance equal to one half of the rod’s length. The weight in grains required to effect this deflection represents the PR of the rod.
As discussed previously for TP, this value, i.e., PR, can also be spoken of in terms of ERN by use of the Rosetta Stone for the conversion. For instance, consider a rod which requires 1973 grains to deflect it one third of its length and 2580 grains to deflect it one half of its length. Such a rod would be considered to have an ERN of 6.5 and a PR (ERN equivalent) of 8.5. Remember these are relative terms relating to stiffness, power, or strength.
Although TP, IP, and PR can be determined in the basic unit of “grains” for any type of fishing rod which can be appropriately flexed, there are certain factors which must be considered relative to fly rods. These are discussed below.
For over half a century fly anglers have become accustomed to “rating” their rods in terms like “5-Weight.” We all recognize this term has no objective definition. Nevertheless it is generally understood to be a measure of the stiffness, relative strength, or power of that fly rod. When the CCS was conceived, The term ERN (Effective Rod Number) was adopted to differentiate its precisely defined and measured values from that traditionally used term (Weight). With time, one might expect, as the ambiguity of the term “5-Weight” becomes fully recognized, it will be replaced in the fly angler’s vocabulary by a precisely defined term like CC-5 or ERN-5, or even IP=1685. Any of these designations on the handle of a fly rod will go a long way in informing a prospective buyer what to expect from that rod.
While the IP scale in grains is open ended, fly lines were defined by the AFTMA scale to run from Numbers 1 to 15 (AFTMA Standard Weights from 60 to 550 grains). This corresponds to IP values only as large as 6400 grains (ERN=15.5).
Now, since the term PR has been created to describe the power of rods which have been deflected a greater degree than the original CCS calls for, the PR of an ERN=15.5 rod must be greater than 6400 grains. This means the IP and corresponding ERN scales must be expanded. To that end, using the same rational as AFTMA, I have created and defined extended ranges for these values and have listed them in Table 1.
Using this approach, one can now, for instance, describe a rod which formerly could only have been described as a 15-Weight rod as a rod having a PR of an ERN=18.5 rod. Its DBI would now be expressed as the following:
DBI = 15.5 (13.5, 18.5) / AA / CCF
or
DBI = 6400 (5280, 8080) / AA / CCF

The practical value in determining the PR of a rod lies in the fact the greater the difference between TP and PR, the greater the range of lines the rod can handle. However, as previously stated in regards to the difference between ERN or IP and TP, the “working range” for each line will be smaller and casting skills must be greater as the rod will be less forgiving.
For instance, let us consider the case of a rod which has a DBI = 7.8 (4.7) / 68 / 83, one might conclude that by merely adjusting one’s casting stroke one could comfortably cast 30 feet of any line having an ELN (Effective Line Number) between 4.7 and 7.8 (i.e., AFTMA Line Numbers 4 to 7). Such casts would not require the caster to “load” or flex his rod to an extent greater than one third of its length.
Now with the introduction of the concept of PR, casts requiring a greater degree of rod loading can be accommodated. Let us assume that the PR of the subject rod was determined to be 10.4. The DBI would then be written as 7.8 (4.7, 10.4) / 68 / 83, and the range of AFTMA lines this rod could handle would now be described as ranging from 4 to 10, and indeed a skilled caster could make them all perform. In essence, the ERN provides the “normal or line optimal loading” while the TP and PR define the reasonable limits which can be accommodated by adjusting one’s casting stroke.

Matching Rod and Line
In the case of traditional slow action graphite fly rods, having a very narrow range between TP and PR and low CFF values, it is relatively simple to define the weight of the fly line which will match any given rod on the basis of ERN=ELN and WL. This equation implies that there is a definite relationship between the strength of a rod and the line it will optimally cast. This value can be called the normal loading for that rod.
However, such a combination may not provide the optimum comfort, pleasure, or “feel” to the angler because of the mismatch between the CCF of the rod and the angler’s casting stroke speed. This can be compensated for to some degree by adjusting the line weight so as to increase or decrease the CCF of the rod. Consequently, anglers frequently “overload” or “underload” their rods for that purpose. It is generally understood that any rod can handle any line which is +/- one line number from its normal loading. If this fails, it is time to consider a different rod.
In the case of modern fast action graphite fly rods having a broad range between TP and PR and high CCF values, the choice of fly line is more complex. While the normal or optimal loading of each rod is still defined by its ERN or IP and these criteria are satisfactory for normal casting, casting lengths of line in excess of 50 feet pose problems which can only be solved by rods having greater PR values.
Normally, in order to increase the PR value of a rod, one must increase the IP or ERN of that rod. While this also usually results in an increased value for TP, this can be compensated for by simultaneously weakening the tip with the result that the AA increases and the rod action becomes faster. All of this combines to make a rod which can handle a greater range of line weights but depends to a greater extent on the ability of the caster to control the result by adjusting his casting stroke.
In the final analysis, the purpose of the CCS is to help one to describe a fly rod in a precise manner and recognize its intrinsic properties. It is the angler, himself, who must make the final decision as to which of the many available fly lines to use for any particular purpose. Ultimately it is the skill of the caster that really matters. A skilled caster can cast any rod having sufficient power, while an unskilled angler cannot cast any rod.


Interpretation of values

The reader must recognize that CCS and URRS values are completely objective numbers and carry no connotations of good, bad, or better. They simply reflect the strength and action of the rod tested. That is all. Nevertheless, once the relative numbers are available, they will be used for comparative purposes. Each individual is entitled to make his own subjective interpretations of what the data suggests to him. A good example of this is illustrated by the column marked X in Table 2.
Here, in my opinion, “X” or the “X Factor” is a measure of level of “Xpertise” or “Xperience” required of the caster in order for him to be able to make use of the capabilities built into that rod by its designer.

I shall leave the rest of these data for each of you to consider and interpret. However, since all of these rods are advertised and sold to anglers as “5-wt” rods, I trust you will recognize (1) my insistence that when you describe your rod as a 5-wt, you have not imparted any useful information. (2) When you describe your rod as Brand X, model Y, z ft, you have provided a bit of information to those few individuals who have experience with that particular rod. (3) When you provide CCS or URRS data about your rod, everyone in the world can understand what you are talking about and discuss it intelligently—if they are so inclined.

ERN Cents
TP
PR

2 20.5
3 27
4 34
5 41
6 47.5
7 55
8 63
9 71.5
10 82
11 95
12 110
13 127
14 144
15 158.5
16 173

Table 2 Typical Results*

URR DBI X TP PR
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REDINGTON RODS

TRS-3 5 : 4 : 9 5.1 / 62 5 4.0 9.4
RED FLY 5 : 4 : 12 5.5 / 62 7 4.6 12.0
Wayfarer 5 : 3 : 11 5.7 / 68 8 3.7 11.8
Super Sport 6 : 3 : 13 6.8 / 70 10 3.1 13.3


SAGE RODS

SLT 4 : 3 : 11 4.9 / 66 8 3.1 11.7
Z-Axis 5 : 3 : 12 5.7 / 70 9 3.1 12.6
FLI 6 : 3 : 13 6.5 / 70 9 3.7 13.4
VT-2 6 : 3 : 14 6.8 / 73 10 3.6 14.0
TCR 590 7 : 3 : 15 7.5 / 73 11 3.6 15.1



URR = ERN : TP : PR Each value reduced to integer.

DBI = ERN : AA

X = PR - TP Difference reduced to integer.

* Assuming ERN values can range from 4-7, TP values can range from 2-6, and PR values can range from 6-15, then there are 200 “flavors” of “5-Wt.” rods which can be differentiated by using the three values of the URR. If that isn’t enough, one can resort to using the CCS values to the first decimal place. That way, you can have 200,000 categories, if you can measure accurately enough.

gordonjudd
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 2214
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:14 am
Location: California
Contact:

Post by gordonjudd » Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:31 pm

Bill,
Could you use ImageShack (or some other image hosting site) to include your figures in this article? Without them I cannot grasp how you get your "tip power" numbers. Same goes for your "power reserve" value.

Since power is equal to force*velocity and has a dimension of Watts what are the dimensions of your power related values? Are there any?

Gordy
"Flyfishing: 200 years of tradition unencumbered by progress." Ralph Cutter

User avatar
Merlin
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Merlin » Sun Sep 23, 2012 6:13 pm

Thanks for sharing your views Bill,

We do not have access to RodMaker on this side of the pond so we are grateful to you to publish your thoughts on SL forum.

It will take some time to digest, but when I look at TP, RP and X, I can tell you that k3 is likely correlated to X (RP-TP). I'll be back after reading this post (copied, pasted and saved on my PC in my BH file) several times.

Merlin
Fly rods are like women, they wont´play if they're maltreated.
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life

VGB
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:50 pm
Contact:

Post by VGB » Sun Sep 23, 2012 6:34 pm

Like the others, I need some time to read this properly but it does look more like the sort of information that I would be interested in, thank you.

User avatar
Graeme_Hird
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:30 am
Contact:

Post by Graeme_Hird » Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:48 pm

I like the concept, but I'm not going to go and find a bunch of US cents from a certain range of dates. US cents aren't all that common outside the US.

How about using grams? They are the same in every part of the world, and they don't change their mass at the whim of the US Govt.

Cheers,
Graeme

User avatar
Marc LaMouche
BBBB No 2,5 Le NP
Posts: 6758
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Pyrénées, France
Contact:

Post by Marc LaMouche » Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Graeme_Hird wrote:How about using grams? They are the same in every part of the world, and they don't change their mass at the whim of the US Govt.
A+

User avatar
Magnus
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 12097
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 2:00 am
Location: Banff, Scotland
Contact:

Post by Magnus » Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:10 pm

Grams (or any other form of weight) has been available for years. Assuming you can multiply and divide by 2.5 it's been right there since the first articles.
Casting Definitions

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
"Radio has no future."
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin

gordonjudd
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 2214
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:14 am
Location: California
Contact:

Post by gordonjudd » Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:47 pm

How about using grams? They are the same in every part of the world, and they don't change their mass at the whim of the US Govt.

Graeme,
Amazingly enough for a country that is reluctant to go through the expense of converting to the metric system the mass of a U.S. penny is 2.5 grams.

Just multiply Bill's cents numbers by 2.5 and you have what your are looking for.

As Merlin points out it makes more sense to quantify stiffness as it relates to a standard spring constant or force/deflection value. If you added pennies to get a 36 inch deflection (.37 of the clamped length for a 9 foot rod) then the conversion to get a spring constant value from the penny value would be:

Force=2.5*(No of pennies)*.001*9.81 (Newtons)
Deflection=36inches*.0254 m/in=.91 (m)

Thus to get a spring constant value from the cents value you used to get a 36in deflection would be:

k=(.0269*#pennies) N/m.

A .01 Euro coin has a mass of 2.3 gr so you could use them instead of pennies to get your ,01 euro value and scale that number by .92 to get the corresponding cents value.

Theo used grains of rice to get small changes in the mass value he uses to get a 3.75 degree deflection in his 15 degree system, and then measured the bag of rice on a pocked scale to get the mass value to an accuracy of around .01 g. That would work with any denomination of coin as well assuming you have a pocket scale to do the mass measurement.

Gordy
"Flyfishing: 200 years of tradition unencumbered by progress." Ralph Cutter

User avatar
Magnus
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 12097
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 2:00 am
Location: Banff, Scotland
Contact:

Post by Magnus » Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:21 pm

Theo used grains of rice...


I use assorted nuts and washers - weighed on a drug dealers scales :glare: Those are necessary in my opinion, only spanking new cents actually weigh 2.5g

We have had this "Why US coins" since the start of CCS. I find it a bit bizarre it comes up time and again - oh and Bill offered the link to Gary Loomis site (where a metric conversion was published a couple of years back) in post 6 of this thread.
Casting Definitions

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
"Radio has no future."
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin

Bill Hanneman
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 710
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:54 am
Contact:

Post by Bill Hanneman » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:21 pm

Bill,
Could you use ... include your figures in this article? Without them I cannot grasp how you get your "tip power" numbers. Same goes for your "power reserve" value.

Gordy,
:D :D The quick answer is "I just made them all up." :D :D The long answer is a matter of philosophy.

Originally, I developed all of this just to amuse myself. I wanted to try to find out what was so special about the then much touted Sage SP+ rod. The P stands for POWER.

Incidentally, there is a topic “XP forever” in the current Tackle Forum containing the typical useless subjective drivel. If they would just look this thread, they would find most of what they needed to answer their questions (if they had any, or cared).
Since power is equal to force*velocity and has a dimension of Watts what are the dimensions of your power related values? Are there any?

I would suggest you first try to get a reply from Sage, because you speak the same language. I say this because in CCS I created a “new language” using “new concepts” which I, myself, formally defined (ERN, AA, etc.).

Now, you, are essentially asking me to translate my CCS into your language. But I have many time stated, your language does not have the words which connotate the same meanings as CCS terms. Consequently, I cannot translate CCS to you. Only you can do this, if it can be done at all. But first you must become fluent in CCS, and then you can provide a translation to those who speak your language.

As you know, the CCS was designed to teach the “common” angler how to describe his fly rod by using the simplest of tools (a common cent). You, I believe, on the other hand, are simply using the CCS for your own entertainment by trying to translate it to your language. However, I believe CCS is so simple that is easier to learn CCS than to learn any translation of it in a language which doesn’t have the words, symbols, or abbreviations in its own vocabulary.

I guess all that really didn't solve your problem. Sorry,
Bill

gordonjudd
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 2214
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:14 am
Location: California
Contact:

Post by gordonjudd » Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:08 pm

I say this because in CCS I created a “new language” using “new concepts” which I, myself, formally defined (ERN, AA, etc.).

Bill,
The next time you make up a new concept such as "tip power" that claims to be a built on Lord Kelvin's assessment:
If you cannot measure it, if you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.” The CCS was developed to provide such numbers.

maybe you could use another term rather than "power" that has an accepted technical meaning all over the world.
The long answer is a matter of philosophy.

It appears your power terms have more to do with philosophy such as "the power of the President" rather than being something you can measure or quantify. If that is the case then it would seem that "tip power" and "power reserve" would fall in Kelvin's "knowledge of a meager kind" category.

I don't really care if tip power is measured in Watts, I would just like to know how you come up with the values in your article. Can you say that they are related to Merlin's k3/k1 ratio and thus are dealing in some way with the non-linear spring characteristics of a fly rod?

Gordy
"Flyfishing: 200 years of tradition unencumbered by progress." Ralph Cutter

User avatar
Graeme_Hird
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:30 am
Contact:

Post by Graeme_Hird » Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:40 pm

Magnus wrote:Grams (or any other form of weight) has been available for years. Assuming you can multiply and divide by 2.5 it's been right there since the first articles.
From this web site: Some weigh 2.67g, some weigh3.11g and the most recent ones weigh 2.5g.

The conversion factor may well have been in the first article, but if this is being viewed by a world-wide audience, it needs to be stated EVERY time the article is published, not just once, 30 years ago. Only 4% of the world's population has ready access to US pennies.

As long as I can be assured that the true conversion to the internationaly recognised standard measuring system is 2.5, I'm happy.

Cheers,
Graeme

User avatar
Merlin
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Merlin » Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:19 pm

Hi Bill,

I think I better understand your approach of the classification although I tend (with age maybe) thinking like Bruce Richards:
The line rating system is 95% OK.
There is no industry rod rating system and likely never will be.
The better your casting skills the less you will care about the previous two points.

ERN and AA are non linear values to qualify a rod. In the same area, PR is another ERN measured in tougher conditions. Knowing k1 and k3 of a rod can give you an estimate ERN and PR (force = k1 * x + k3 * x3), just change the x value; this would avoid testing a rod in difficult conditions. TP is interesting; maybe you could simplify it by using the ERN for the tip only (and not the minimum ERN along the shaft). Incidentally, many rod manufacturers do test statically the tip independently from the whole rod, and the idea behind is the same than yours. I have to give a look at TP (simplified) for some model rods and I will have a better view I think.

CCF is another story. As you can see from comments on this point in the other thread, there are different opinions and to me the issue is linked to the caster. Some can cast many different rods without difficulty (long stiff, short soft and vice versa), some just cannot and are stacked to the rod they took some of time to control. I know one of them; I wonder what he will do when his GLX will be out of use (jump from the bridge?). I think these guys are aimed at by CCF. I can understand, we might all have a preferred type of fishing, of casting, of distance and a preferred outfit even if we have a bunch of rods. This was the case for me as I fished for some 20 years with my G 905 rod (I think that rod series had one of the largest lifetimes: 29 years I believe). I also like my 8 feet glass rod #5 for fishing under cover along the banks, a rod made by a shop in Paris with Conolon fibreglass blanks (shop has been closed since).

Coming back to CCS, I gave another look at ERN and AA and I think the scale is “fast modern rods oriented”, which appears to have been your subject of interest as written in your first post. Not sure you can apply it to a rather linear cane rod (same for my own system...). Taking the example of ERN 5.5, the possible range of CCF is large depending on the non linearity (from k3/k1 = 0.3 to 0.8) and of the equivalent mass of the rod (mo). There is unfortunately no simple rule for mo since it depends on the hardware, but I took a realistic range of values to get some figures. The not so fast CCF values are for the non linear side (0.5 and above). For low non linearity, rods are too fast in terms of CCF. That may have lead to testing a weight on the tip to cool down the tempo of such rods.

Well, all that stuff means the situation is not so easy and that we have to deal with many parameters, caster included. I however would underline that although MOI has not been mentioned in this particular discussion, it s to me important as a global characteristic (and we are not going to reopen the issue, we already discussed this point).

Merlin
Fly rods are like women, they wont´play if they're maltreated.
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life

User avatar
Lasse Karlsson
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 2949
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 7:05 pm
Contact:

Post by Lasse Karlsson » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:20 pm

Graeme_Hird wrote:As long as I can be assured that the true conversion to the internationaly recognised standard measuring system is 2.5, I'm happy.

Cheers,
Graeme
Hi Graeme

Bill says it in the first post of this thread :) So at least that's one thing we can trust ;)

Cheers
Lasse
Your friendly neighbourhood flyslinger

Gone.....

User avatar
Magnus
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 12097
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 2:00 am
Location: Banff, Scotland
Contact:

Post by Magnus » Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:23 pm

Hi Graeme

From the first CCS article "Add shining one cent pieces minted after 1996..."

Magnus
Casting Definitions

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
"Radio has no future."
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest