[Magnus]

Sorry to butt-in guys - but

"The CCS will tell you what how much weight it takes to bend a rod a distance equal to 1/3 or its length when the rod is held horizontally. It will also tell you the angle of defletction of the tip when under the load needed to bend it a distance equal to 1/3 or its length. All well and good so far.

However, it never takes into consideration how much it take to bend the middle and butt sections of the rod."

Well - assuming the tip is attached to the middle and butt the bend on any rod continues throughout the rod. Actually CCS techniques include considerably more than the basic deflection measurement and more recently developed methods include greater degrees of deflection and deflection of selected sections.

"the originator of the CCS system uses it to "show" that there is no such thing as a 7 wt, or 9 wt, or 11 wt, or whatever wt rod you desire."

Yes and no. Bill uses CCS measurements to demonstrate that what companies mean by 7-wt varies considerably. One need only look at comparative line-recomendations for a given rod-weight for it to become apparent there are differences between makes and models of rod - or look at the variety of opinion on this board.

"fast action rods bend less under the same load, which is an inherent characteristic of the faster, stiffer rod. "

In a manrner of speaking no. the assumption there is that rods with fast action are necessarily stiffer. The usual understanding of action has to do with bend profile. Stiffness is resistence to bending. So for example its very possible to have two rods with the same stiffness (ie they deflect by the same amount under the same load) and different actions. Compare two rods with different stiffness and similar actions and we might say the stiffer rod offers faster recovery.

Magnus

 

[Magnus]

Hi Flytyer

What CCS figures suggest is that a stiffer rod recovers faster - simply because it is deflected less during loading. It also suggests that lighter rods recover faster. No surprises there.

Actually Bill has tools which he believes do indicate recovery speed - CCS measurement extends well beyond ERN (stiffness) and AA (Action angle)

Your example is almost exactly what I put to Bill in a long debate. First thing - the ERN scale is simply a measure of stiffness. Second - if you want a rule of thumb guide to ratings according to the ERN its 7.5 not 7 that indicates the appropriate rod stiffness for a 7-weight line.
Bill's argument is that the variation in stiffness is misleading. As a matter of fact I've tested a fair few rods and it’s not a bad guide. Hoever thats not how I currently use CCS measuement of stiffness:
A rod with ERN 7.05 - Guideline LeCie 9ft 6in #7 - has great feel with a #7 line, deals well with a #6 for long range and feels overloaded with an #8.
A TCR 5-weight has ERN 7.09 - you can guess where this is going - but it has a very light, easily bent, tip - its lightly loaded with a #5 line, can easily handle a #6 line.
A St Croix Legend, 9ft 6in #7 – ERN 8.8 – handles a #7 with ease, of course its require a reasonably narrow casting arc and suits a compact stroke - can equally easily cast an #8 line but feels very lightly loaded with a #6 line.
CCS figures are simply a useful tool for understanding rods - an experienced caster can do much the same by trial and error if he has a range of lines at his disposal. (I do) I review rods for a magazine and now do both casting tests and take measurements.

Double handed rods - again the ERN is not meant to be a way of rating a rod – in its basic form its one simple number which indicates the stiffness of that rod using a standard method of measurement. It depends what stiffness the angler wants for his #10 or #9 or whatever line.
As you already know there’s a problem with both the dead weight and the casting weight and/or head length - so how one applies a line to a DH rod is problematic whether or not you know the stiffness. Have a look at the Rio line recommendations if you want to see how much help the average angler need.

But hey, take this back to single handed rods and the AFTMA ratings are not that helpful either. So I know the weight of my XXD or TT or Rio Grande at 30 ft - great - but I have no idea what the head actually weighs. Hmmm....well even the idea that I know the weight at 30ft assumes the makers stick with the AFTMA – having tested a number of lines – they don’t. For example GPX and 555 lines are slightly heavier than their designated weights. I have had examples which are 2 line classes heavier. And that’s all at 30ft. Line tapers are no longer simple we now have tapered and stepped bellies and extremely long rear tapers – much, even most of that change in mass happens out-with the portion of line used to designate line-class. Again that leads to difficulties.

So, let’s suppose I know the weight of a line at 30ft. Was the rod rated for that length and weight of line? In the vast majority of cases I rather hope not. I can and do carry far more than 30ft of line on many if not all of the single handed rods I cast.
In the UK a reasonably typical rod for reservoir of Loch trout fishing is a 10ft #7 - I don't know of any that are rated for 30ft of line – I expect to carry far more than 30ft with that style of rod and expect to cast a full line all day. Or take a little 7ft #3 - should that be rated for 30ft of line? I’d guess that would typically be used at distances up to 30ft – perhaps carry 20ft and shoot 10? So I’m looking for a rod which is rated for rather less line than the AFTMA standard measures.

Or, I like spey casting with a single handed #7 rod and prefer a reasonably limber rod with a sufficiently stiff tip – but all the 10ft #7 rods are too stiff. So – maybe - ignore the maker’s line rating - look up the stiffness measurements and find one which suits – who cares if the maker calls it a #6 or even a #5. Pretty easy really!

Yes CCS may well have application in quality control. But if you are interested it means you can do those same checks - its for the enthusiast.

Magnus

 

[Magnus]

Flytyer

Recovery rate is mostly a function of stiffness with a little weight factor thrown in for good measure.

Blank makers use a variety of prepreg for different reasons. Mostly, low modulus carbon offers higher strength – to achieve a given stiffness requires more material than a rod with more high modulus in the layup. High modulus carbon is stiffer and a lot more brittle. If you can find two blanks with the same stiffness, one made from high the other low modulus carbon there will be a very distinct difference in weight.

So, assuming the rods built with those blanks include similar fittings, we know the stiffness of both rods and the weight of both rods – it ain’t rocket science to work out which will recover more quickly.

Your example of two rods - same stiffness and AA – one made from 44 million modulus the other from 57 modulus prepreg. Ok – which is heavier? Which will recover more quickly? I can tell you which blank will be heavier. But which built rod?

In all likelihood (assuming similar components and build) the high modulus rod will be lighter, and have a lower swing-weight. It’ll take a similar amount of effort to deflect either, the greater mass of the heavier rod means it’ll take slightly longer to recover and will deflect for slightly longer post RSP – none of this has to do with CCS.

Of course the frequency of those will be different – and CCS does include a method for measuring that.

I don't see it as a problem - CCS measure some aspects of rods.

Magnus