Standardization?

[overmywaders]

The Common Cents System is just that, common. Back in 1962, just as the AFTMA was coming out with the new method of line ratings (by weight, not diameter), the shops selling fly rods (not many were fly shops) had deflection charts in the back room so you could discern the standard deflection and the bend.

Some quotes:

"...buying a fly rod in the average city store, that is, joining it up and safely waggling it a bit, is much like seeing a woman's arm protruding from a car window: all one can readily be sure of is that the window is open."
from Anatomy of a Fisherman by Robert Traver (1964- McGraw-Hill)

"Again, let me remind you that rod action is an elusive and variable thing, refusing to be encompassed by exact definition. The mathematics involved are complex in the extreme, even in the theoretical stage, and its permutations make admissible only the loosest of generalities."
from "Field Book of Fresh-Water Angling" by John Alden Knight (1944- Putnam)

I must agree with the gentlemen above. My casting style (it's not so much a style as a hope) will differ from yours and my interpretation of what part of the rod is working will as well.

The CCS does not take into account the mass of the rod, especially the tip. With a bamboo rod of medium or slow action (or extreme parabolic) the mass of the tip makes a great contribution during short casts. In fact with some of the older wetfly rods, no arm movement was necessary to lay 20-30 feet of line down delicately, just a simple hand motion. If you don't appreciate the contribution of mass, read Schullery on the subject in New American Trout Fishing.

CSS also doesn't take into account the diameter of the line. You can cast a 4wt rod with a Phoenix DT silk, the try the same rod with a Cortland 555 (the white sausages). The rod handles completely differently.

More later. Thanks.

[LadyFisher]

Here's another Reed:
http://www.flyanglersonline.com/feature ... part2.html

Jack's in Roscommon Michigan, 1970's

[J Castwell]

The beginner, attempting to understand something of fly rod casting, is doomed to wander through the field of misinformation, enthusiastically blurted by those whose wisdom on the mechanics of the event, the properties of the lever and the desires of the manufacturers to mislead their customers, intensifies literally with each trip astream.
No other recreation enables so many the opportunity to disseminate so much knowledge to so many with so little value.

[Marco]

WOW, JC,
Such eloquence should be carved in stone and perhaps displayed in some prominent place. Maybe even used as Quote Of The Week herein
While I disagree with the "gist" inasmuch I do believe that regardless of the "value" of this information, It would be a negligent not to disseminate same and just let it sit out there on it's merit for those who MIGHT just understand it.

Mark

[okflyfisher]

Another issue that comes up is that rod ratings may vary within a single series of a company's rods.
For example if a series of a company's rod are rated fast. A 4 wt in that series may be a pleasure to cast and have a medium fast feel, While a 10 wt may feel like a broomstick and be very fast. Or fullflex rod in a 9'may feel buttery smooth and slow, but a 7' 6" rod in tha same series may be med.fast

[overmywaders]

Ever eager to confusticate where possible, I offer you the thoughts of one rodbuilder on the subject of taper design -- [url=http://overmywaders.com/articles/Montagnespeaksout.html:6f411]Mike Montagne[/url:6f411]

Now, after you have waded through that, you can begin to understand his second article on that site. (You can, I can't)

With all the conflicting theories of rod action, and all the varying actions themselves, I posit that it is impossible to standardize rod actions. For, even if you had an agreement on objective criteria for the terms "Fast", "Slow", "Parabolic", etc., you would be no farther ahead because the individual's casting style makes his subjective definition more significant. I don't care if CCS tells me it's a 4wt Fast, when for my purposes, with my choice of line, it's a 5wt Medium. N'est pas?

I'd like to see any system that could objectively characterize the CastleConnell Kick taper. [I've had a rod similar -- the mid is purposely weak to delay the action, the tip is heavy, with the result that, uncomfortable as it is to hold and cast, it flings line out fast and far.]

[taoski]

Overmywaders, I think you're missing a few points of the CCS.

1. It's intended to describe the static properties of a rod. As such, one's casting style has nothing to do with it. As mass is a dynamic property, it also has nothing to do with CCS

2. It's intended to give an arbitraty and objective definition of a rod's maximum bend "action", and how much line it takes to load to rod "intrinsic power" (although "stiffness" would be more correct termonology).

3. It won't tell you if a rod is fast or slow, as those are subjective terms. Its up to you to decide what action angle constitutes fast, etc.. . But every rod with the same action angle will, by definition, have the same action.

4. It does not address "feel". Nor does it desribe a rod's weight, tip size, butt diameter or nationality. But that doesn't mean it should be dimissed becuase it doesn't do it all.


As JC has said on many occasion, there is no substitute for test-casting a rod. At least with the CCS you don't have to test every rod on the rack if you know what you're looking for.

One last point to make. Don't expect to see rod makers to list the CCS data of thier rods anytime soon. Too much liability for the mfr's and costly to implement.

[overmywaders]

taoski,

First, Happy Thanksgiving!

Now, let me address the issues you pointed out.

Overmywaders, I think you're missing a few points of the CCS.

I probably am.

1. It's intended to describe the static properties of a rod. As such, one's casting style has nothing to do with it. As mass is a dynamic property, it also has nothing to do with CCS

How does knowing the static properties of a rod benefit me? I suppose if I were dapping, but if I'm casting such knowledge is of no value.

2. It's intended to give an arbitraty and objective definition of a rod's maximum bend "action", and how much line it takes to load to rod "intrinsic power" (although "stiffness" would be more correct termonology).

Without dealing with the mass and the taper, you have no way of knowing how much line it takes to load the rod, because some rods load with their own mass, and some tapers deflect differently than they load, e.g., parabolics. The CSS is assuming that all tapers are "progressive tapers", not so, some of the most interesting casting rods don't use a progressive taper.

3. It won't tell you if a rod is fast or slow, as those are subjective terms. Its up to you to decide what action angle constitutes fast, etc.. . But every rod with the same action angle will, by definition, have the same action.

By definition, but not by Common Sense. That is only the deflection, it does not include the "hinge" the rodmaker might have put in the butt to optimize rollcasting, as just one example. The Hexrod stress graphing gives you more information, because it gives the taper (but only for cane rods), so that you can determine from experience with graphed rods, and the stress curve, how the different parts of the rod will act.

4. It does not address "feel". Nor does it desribe a rod's weight, tip size, butt diameter or nationality. But that doesn't mean it should be dimissed becuase it doesn't do it all.

It apparently doesn't do anything. Does it tell me whether the rod I buy, made as the same model by the same manufacturer, has the spine of the rod facing to the rear, influencing my backcast, or to the side, twisting my cast? Each rod is different, even from the same company, because when it is built, more or less care went into aligning the spine.

As JC has said on many occasion, there is no substitute for test-casting a rod. At least with the CCS you don't have to test every rod on the rack if you know what you're looking for.

Yes, you do. See spine issue above.

One last point to make. Don't expect to see rod makers to list the CCS data of thier rods anytime soon. Too much liability for the mfr's and costly to implement.

And really, not useful for determining anything about the casting characteristics of the rod.

But, still very interesting and thank you.

[taoski]

And happy Thanksgiving to you too.

You do raise some valid concerns about the CCS, but I don't think it will be useful for me to comment on them until you've read the articles linked at the beginning of the thread. The biggest points of the articles are how they explain that Intrinsic Power does indeed predict the amount of line it takes to load a rod, and that Action Angle provides a consistent means to disseminate the bending profile of a rod.

You are probably right that it doesn't address anomalies such as hinges or parabolic tapers. But for the vast majority of rods the system works fine. I won't try to say that the system will work for you, but it work well for a lot of other folks.

[overmywaders]

taoski,

I did read the CCS docs before first writing. If you wish to answer my hypotheses I would enjoy that. Thanks.

So, if CCS doesn't deal with mass, it ignores taper, it laughs at spines, blithely dismisses casting strokes, and posits that all the action can be defined by the deflection of the tip, how does it consistently provide an objective definition of action and feel? For if it ignores the previous variables, and the rod in question has, for example, lots of mass in the tip, how can we rely upon the CCS? So, perhaps you might call it the "Very Specific Cents System" but not Common, as it does not embrace all rods but only a specific subset.

Have some more turkey and gravy. I am.