Common Cents System

Equipment Rod Building: Cane and Graphite
1

I dug into this system because I wanted to determine the “weight” of the bamboo rod I am working on. It’s pretty intriguing.

The ‘boo rod came out at 8’ 6", and a 3w with a slow action. I understand most bamboo rods are considered slow. To be more correct on the line weight, it should be a 100 grain line to fully load the rod with 30 ft of line out. If you routinely cast more line, the rod is effectively a lighter weight rod.

I checked some other blanks as well, then double checked my findings. The first rod I built came out spot on. The blank was supposed to be a fast 4W and it checked out as a 4W with a fast action. However, the Cabela’s blank was supposed to be a moderate fast 4W and checked out as a moderate 3W that would benefit from one of the Scientific Angler lines that tend to be a half size heavy anyway. It isn’t really a 4W at all.

I have 2 Batson Forcast blanks that are supposed to be 4 W, but the 2 pc checks out as a 5W and the 3 pc is a 3W.

To make a long story short, I am going to check out the TFO 5W I normally fish and like, and the Bass Pro Shops 6W I started with that feels clunky to cast, and see where they land. I may have the wrong line in that 6W.

Also, since I kept detailed notes on each blank, I am going to check them again after each rod is built to see if the double foot guides really do have a measurable effect.

2

I would like to call your attention to the fact the Common Cents System (CCS) does not recognize the term “weight”. “Weight” is simply a subjective number put on it by the rod’s designer. It is “supposed” to tell the angler what line to use, but it is essentially useless. Any (or every) rod can cast any (or every) line for some distance and nowhere on the rod does it tell you the distance that rod was designed to cast. Stick with ERN.

Please don’t try to start a discussion of the CCS on this forum. It is a subject of little interest here.

3

Excuse me Dr. Bill, we have had some very good discussions on the Common Cents System on this board. Somehow you have confused something.
Regards,
Deanna Travis
LadyFisher

4

Whoa - where did this come from ?? Speak for yourself, but not for me, please.

5

Well, I am here and I am interested.

You will notice that the term “weight” was first used in quotes in my post above. However, your own Rosetta Stone (which I found most helpful and even printed an laminated for future use) connects the ERN to the AFTMA “Weight”. I assume that this is because we buy this stuff by the “weight” and not by the ERN. I have yet to see one of your terms on a rod or box in a fly shop. I fully understand the disconnect there as well as the connect. While the term may not be correct, it is the one in most common use. I do not hear anyone saying he has a #7 rod. He or she always says they have a 7 weight rod.

I also understand that this has nothing to do with the forward cast. It is all with loading the rod on the back cast. I need 30 feet of line behind me to load the rod properly. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I routinely have more or less line on my back cast, your Rosetta Stone is useless as it is based on the 30 foot figure.

I design wide area wireless networks for a living. I live by measurements. My systems’ performance is defined by measurements. Measurements are good. Give me a way to measure something and I am a happy camper. A couple of people on this board referred me to your system and provided a link when I asked how to go about determining which line an old bamboo rod I came by would take.

I am impressed with your system. I can appreciate the work you went through to develop this system. However, I would appreciate it if, in the future, you would refrain from telling me what to discuss and where to discuss it.

6

H3ll just about everything pertaing to casting a fly rod is subjective.

And um…30 posts in 6 years? Obvisulsy NOT an (active) particapant on ‘this board’!!!:rolleyes:

By the way there are thread topics of little interest to me here as well. I just dont read them.
I myself am interested in learning more about the CCS.

Kevin, I admit to knowing next to nothing on the subject of weight determination, but when you say you need 30’ (of given about of weighted line) on the back cast to load the rod, does this mean you “at least” 30’?

7

Please, let’s use our ‘Common Cents’ and keep this civil. I have studied the system and it certainly has merit and makes very good sense. I just don’t enjoy getting that technical about my passion for fishing, tying and building. That doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with it, it’s just my preference.
Bruce

8

The general response here has been similar to Lastchance’s, some heated. There has been articles and many posts here over the years. For more acceptance and technical discussions, do a search over at the rodbuilding org site.

9

I also didn’t like the ‘tone’ of Bill’s response…don’t understand the reason for it.

But, he is the guy that developed the common cents system. It’s a shame that he’s not more open to discussing it here. Maybe he’s just tired of ‘defending’ it. No way to tell.

I use it and like it.

Buddy

10

Bass Bug,

The way Dr. Bill has this figured out is that once you determine your ERN (Effective Rod Number), you can use his “Rosetta Stone” chart to determine the weight, in grains, of the proper line to load the rod with 30’ of line out. The 30’ corresponds with the fact that line number or “weight” is determined by the weight, in grains, of the first 30’ of any numbered fly line. Less line does not load the rod fully and more line overloads the line. As with everything else we do, there is an acceptable range, but the 30’ figure given here is the “optimum.”

I may be over simplifying, and there are tons of charts and such to support his findings, but you can, of course load the rod with other weight lines but you will need a different length of line. The total weight of the line out required to load the rod is a constant. You can theoretically load the rod with any line. If the rod loads properly with 30’ of 5W line, it will also load with 4W line at say 35’ and 6W line at say 25’ (Those figures are not meant to be accurate, just to demonstrate the theory) This corresponds with the practice of going up a line size or weight for small streams or down a notch for more open water by some folks.

I don’t think this harms the “art” of fly fishing any at all. I think it explains how the art works. I know it caused a bunch of light bulbs to come on for me.

There are many more calculations that get into “feel” and other factors that I have not dug into as yet. The big eye opener for me was how a 5W rod might perform much better with a 4W line and why.

This also looks like a great way to be able to see and measure just how much double foot snake guides stiffen a rod, if at all. :slight_smile:

I want to understand it better.

11

So is that 30’ of line without any leader, tippet, and fly or other rig? How about mending or fishability?
I have used the system to get a starting point for a rod. But when it is all said and done does it not come down to the arm attached to the rod and how the person is fishing?

12

If I understand it correctly, the figure is a starting point. I am assuming it is the 30’ of line as leader and tippet are not going to add anything appreciable to the weight. Weighted nymphs would make a difference, but a dry fly should not add anything as far as weight to the equation. As I mentioned, there are other factors that can be figured in. The main point for me is finding that weight that a rod loads properly at. There is another measurement to determine the “speed” of the rod. I don’t fully understand the difference between fast or slow rods. I know it has to do with the power of the rod, but I do not thoroughly understand why or how, yet. I am bypassing that for right now and concentrating on the line weight.

Let’s take a blank I purchased to make a rod for myself with. I ordered a Traditions II blank from Cabella’s. It was sold as a 4W, 4pc, 7’ 6" blank with moderate fast action. Using the CCS, the ERN for the blank comes out to 3.71. The Action Angle measured 60*, corresponding to a moderate action. Using the Rosetta Stone chart, this blank will be optimally loaded with 30’ of 110 grain line out behind me. A 110 grain line translates to a 3.5W line, or a heavy 3W. 100 grains is a standard 3W and 120 grains is a standard 4W. Something in between will be better.

If I am being inane about it all, I would use a regular 3W line for nymphing with weighted bugs or fishing streamers and a 4W line for dries on small streams where I am not getting a full 30’ of back cast to stay as close to the optimal loading weight as possible. The blank should perform very well within those parameters.

I can simplify things and pick a line that weighs 110 grains by reading the box on various lines and probably do just fine over the whole range we are talking about. I also know to look for a very light 4W line or a heavy 3W line. The rod would not perform as well with a heavy 4W line, even though it is supposed to be a 4W blank as it will with the lighter lines.

All of that is from measurements on a bare blank. I would not expect single foot guides to change that at all. But will double foot snake guides? I don’t know. At least I don’t know, yet. :slight_smile:

As I mentioned, there are other calculations that get into more depth, and yes, I think it does boil down to the person fishing to some degree. There are certain principles of physics that can not be ignored, and this system gives you a method to quantify them. I think this system will get you to a rod that is going to perform at it’s best much faster and allow you to choose a blank to get you there based on real measurements, not a subjective statement by the guy trying to sell you a blank.

Many of the highly experienced and knowledgeable guys and gals on this board can pick a good blank for a given job easily. I do not have that knowledge and experience. I see this as a tool for guys like me who want to build a nice well performing rod or ten and need all the help they can get. :lol:

13

Excellent discussion gentlemen,

14

ladyfisher.

Sorry, it looks as if I have kicked a sleeping dog. Your picture of Chico Creek reminded me of the fun we had fishing there. I stopped by your house last month when in Poulsbo, but no one was home. Still thinking of you.

For the record, let me say something to your newer members.
I believe it is important for me here to recognize the fact that if it were not for the aid and encouragement of Ladyfisher and Castwell, the ?dreaded? CCS would never have seen the light of day. Just when I was a the point of chucking the whole thing out, I asked them for their opinion as to whether or not it had any merits. They thought it had some and pointed me in the direction of Tom Kirkman and RodMaker Magazine. The rest is history.

Each online chat group has a character of it?s own, which is usually set by the personal interests of a few of the most vociferous participants. At the time the CCS was first introduced to FAOL, it appeared as if it were a challenge to someone?s manhood. I suppose anyone interested could check the old records. In any event, I moved my efforts to other venues which were deemed to be more receptive or more civil.
Today, the CCS has been established and I am not in the least bit inclined to feel any need to ?defend? it to anyone. It is there. Take it. If you find it useful, use it. If you don?t, then don?t use it.

John Scott–I am speaking for myself.

kbbroctor-- In the light of your later comments, this may be irrelevant, but since I wrote it, here goes–

You say ?While the term may not be correct, it is the one in most common use. I do not hear anyone saying he has a #7 rod. He or she always says they have a 7 weight rod.? I will not argue with what you say. However, until the day all rod makers agree on what a 7 weight rod is, the term has no meaning. On the other hand the Rosetta Stone defines precisely what an ERN=7 rod is.

I really don?t care if the whole world wants to use the meaningless term 7-weight when speaking to each other. However, if they wish to convey some meaningful information to me or to anyone else, they cannot use that term, because the only reason a rod is a 7-weight is because it has the number 7 written on it. Without any standards, any rod can be a 7-weight rod.

The only standards in fly fishing are for tippet diameter (e.g. 5X), AFTMA Line Numbers (weight/30ft), and those defined by the Rosetta Stone. I recognize it offends a number of people to think I would have the audacity to set such standards, but, hell, someone had to do it or we?ll never get anywhere.

You also stated, ? I also understand that this has nothing to do with the forward cast. It is all with loading the rod on the back cast. I need 30 feet of line behind me to load the rod properly. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I routinely have more or less line on my back cast, your Rosetta Stone is useless as it is based on the 30 foot figure.?
For this we have to go back to basics.

The ERN value is determined by the weight (force)required to flex (bend) a rod a distance equal to one third of its length. By definition a rod flexed that distance is called a ?fully loaded? rod relative to an ?underloaded? or ?overloaded? rod. This value is simply a defined standard, but it also correlates with the deflection generated in ?average? casts by ?normal? anglers.

If you look at Figure 6 in my first article you will see the relationship between the ERN and AFTMA Line Number which will produce such a deflection. AFTMA Line Numbers are then converted into ELN values. Again By definition a CCS ?Balanced outfit? is one where ERN=ELN.

Remember, in fly casting one is casting a weight of line. Figure 2 in part 3 shows the relationships among ELN, Weight of line, and Length of line. This again is for a ?balanced outfit.? These are simply reference standards.

Above all, fly fishing is supposed to be a pleasurable activity. Therefore there is no reason one must fish with a CCS Balanced outfit. Fish with an outfit which [b]feels good[/]. You are not going to always cast 30 ft. of line. The CCS simply gives you the tools to be able to predict or define what it is that you like.

Finally, you wrote, ?However, I would appreciate it if, in the future, you would refrain from telling me what to discuss and where to discuss it.?
This is one of the problems I have with this forum. Instead of simply discussing matters in objective terms, there is a tendency to take comments too personally. If you will reread my initial post, I believe you will find I asked you to do something and used the word ?please?. How you can construe that to be telling you what to discuss and where to discuss it eludes me. I am too much a curmudgeon to apologize for something I didn?t do.

Bass_Bug

?And um....30 posts in 6 years? Obvisulsy NOT an (active) particapant on 'this board'!!!!!

And your point is?

No-tye-much

Very good advice. I did not feel free to mention other venues.

Buddy Sanders ? It’s a shame that he’s not more open to discussing it here.?

O.K. you win. Bring on your discussion. Please just remember, it takes a whole lot more time for me to answer a question than for you to ask one.

15

From reading only…it sounds like you and Tom Kirkman went to school together??

16

Bill,

Apparently I missed the ‘history’…like many others, I have a personally myopic view of issue like this…

I first became aware of the CCS through Rodmaker and the Rodbuilders board. I saw a lot of the discussions there about the merits of the system, and also saw a lot of misconceptions, misunderstandings, and plain old ‘missed the point’ stuff there in regard to the CCS. This was all long before I knew much about FAOL.

Like many fly anglers, I feel I’ve found a sort of internet ‘home’ here.

Naturally, I feel like this the ‘best place’ for fly fishermen (again, probably myopic, but not unreasonably so).

I like and use the CCS. I saw the post about it, and wanted all my ‘friends’ here to understand and have the use of what I consider a valuable tool.

Not having known about your past history with this site, I did not understand why you would not only prefer not to discuss it here, but also why you would post a response to the thread and then in that post try to discourage discussion of the CCS.

Now I do.

Buddy

17

I had not even heard of CCS until a few weeks ago let alone having known of your connection to it. I was just curious because of another thread on the subject of determining what line to use for a rod with unknown specs (like a bamboo restoration for instance).

However my point was in response to your comment:

My point was that for a forum member who has posted only a few dozen times over several years, is not in a position to say whats of interest to everyone else.

18

Let’s just leave all of the personal stuff out of this now and move on to some constructive dialog…stuff that us anoraks can sink our teeth into:cool:…I just learned I’m an anorak:rolleyes::rolleyes:.

Pretty sure I’m going to set up to do the measurements…

19

I will capitulate to being an anorak. :lol:

After I measured the first rod, knew how high the cabinet was that I was using the top of and had my penny baggie all ready to go and went through the pennies from the Crown Royal bag to get post 1996 pennies, measuring the rest of the blanks went quickly. It tool only 2 or 3 minutes per blank after that.

I have started a sort of “log” on each blank I have. I have recorded what the blank was sold as and what my measurements with CCS were. When it gets built, I will record the type of guides and other info related to the build and then take the measurements again to see if guides or anything else may have changed the intrinsic characteristics of the blank.

I suppose this means I am going to have to get organized.

20

Kevin,
I’m about half way there…

Just have to get my furled leader Anorak stuff out of the way:roll:

Once you get organized be sure and let us know conclusions.