Common Cents system of rating/grading?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
corlay	Common Cents system of rating/grading?	Lead	[-]
Master Guide Posts: 778 (04/23/09 11:01:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	What's the general consensus here? Is this a worthwhile exercise? I've been reading the documents here: http://www.common-cents.info/caq.htm# and it seems like a nice objectively measurable way to describe the properties of a fly rod, but also to compare/contrast with other rods. Not sure if the basis of statically testing a rod by weighting the tip until it reaches a deflection = 1/3 the overall rod length, and then measuring the deflected angle of the tip is the best way to test a rod; but at least it's a consistent test, able to be applied to rods equally, and controlled. apples-to-apples. I think it would be interesting to plot the results of a fiberglass rod collection, and see if the chart does indeed correctly describe our perception of a rod when fishing. "From my observations I think that most of us spend too much time worrying about our tackle and too little time learning the intimate characteristics of the fish and streams we fish most." - Ray Bergman Trout, New York: Knopf 1938
pemmel		#1	[-]
Sport Posts: 16 (04/23/09 11:25:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I guess if I was a rod designer I would be concerned with super accurate data to describe a rod's characteristics. Since I am not a designer I would just like to know approximately what weight line is suggested. I never understood the old rating system. I don't understand the current system and I won't understand the future system (s). Just get me in the ball park. Every Bamboo rod I build will have the suggested line weight (s) even if a new system is adopted. Put two rods out there with no markings on them and you will get varying opinions as to what line weight they are. I rattled on for a while just to say: Personal preference will always decide the best line weight for your favorite rod. No matter what the ratings say. JMHO, Pete
Zenkoanhead.clarksclassicfl...		#2	[-]
Guide Posts: 66 (04/23/09 11:27:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Any rod owner can submit their data to the database. I wish more bamboo was included there. I am a bit lazy, but will get around to taking the numbers on mine one day. Don
OLD YANKEE		#3	[-]
Master Guide Posts: 305 (04/23/09 11:42:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hello We have discussed this in the past. The common cents method is for the birds. First take 20 pennies and weigh each one then you will see just one inconsistency in the flawed process. The only way to properly rate a rods line weight and action is to cast it. It helps if you have cast a few rods . Some people can tell what line weight the rod is as soon as they feel the rod in their hand . That takes years of experience handling rods. Deflection tests are great as a quality control tool to assure that the blanks you are having produced are within tolerance Or in the case of someone claiming a blank is a certain blank and you want to check it against a known blank. But for determining line weight and action I will stick to casting them. Tight Lines and Common Cents Loops Andy M 'FISH AND VISITORS STINK AFTER 3 DAYS' " DON'T FORGET THE BACKBONE" " REMEMBER TO SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL FISHERY"
Zenkoanhead.clarksclassicfl...		#4	[-]
Guide Posts: 67 (04/23/09 13:50:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I'm with Andy. Now, if I can just get all of the rodmakers in America to send me a rod [return shipping included] so I can cast every rod before I purchase.... Don
corlay		#5	[-]
Master Guide Posts: 779 (04/23/09 13:59:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	OLD YANKEE wrote: The common cents method is for the birds. I agree, that using a static load test to predict the casting action and optimal line weight for a fly rod is probably a pipe-dream. But, it seems to me, that if an test like this is applied to a rod, the results can be compared/contracted to other rods; and most importantly that exercise is completely objective. You may not agree, personally, that a rod that rates as "medium" action, and 5wt. line as a result of this test; is actually a medium 5wt in your hands; but do I think that it's probable that if you take a rod that you like to fish with a DT5F line, and enjoy the casting "action" of, and perform this test and record the results; you will probably also enjoy other rods that test similarly. I'd be curious to find if this were to be true. "From my observations I think that most of us spend too much time worrying about our tackle and too little time learning the intimate characteristics of the fish and streams we fish most." - Ray Bergman Trout, New York: Knopf 1938 Last Edited By: corlay 04/23/09 14:04:33. Edited 1 times.
pearow		#6	[-]
Master Guide Posts: 1575 (04/23/09 18:36:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	my take is like Corlay's; even though the test might not prove valid for a particular rod; its a great comparison test. For example if i have two 8 foot rods, rated line 7; I test them, using the same specific procedures and pennies; one bends the rod equal to 1/3 its length with 54 pennies the other takes60 pennies; I can conclude that the one taking 54 pennies is a lighter rod than the other. I have found that many 7 weight glass rods test much lighter than the 7 weight graphites of the same length and classification. What have i learned? nothing but a comparison of two glass rods of the same weight and length, or the comparison of a glass rod to a graphite; it gets you in the ballpark. I use it to test mainly light 1,2, 3, and 4 weight graphite rods because they all are different and most test heavier than they are rated by the company, thus they throw a line or two heavier than their rating-p-
moon12.ultralightflyfi...		#7	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 1 (04/23/09 18:46:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	the common cents system is very useful. It uses one "common" system to objectivley measure a rod's power. Two rods with the same ERN will effectivley cast the same fly line at the same distance. However, if a rod has an ERN of 5, that doesn't mean that everyone will find it casts well with an 5 weight line. One caster may prefer a 4 wt line and another a 6, also keep in mind that all 5 weight fly lines aren't the same weight (there is no industry standard), this also comes into play. Comparing ERNs of rods is a much better way to compare a rod's power than following manufacturers labled line weights as these are totally arbitrary (once again no industry standard). Also, two rods with similar AAs will have similar actions. This is a much more objective way of determining rod action than vague terms such as moderate or extra-fast which can and often mean anything. The common cents method is the best way for objectivley quantifying any rod's (fly, spin, cast, surf, etc.) power and action. If anyone here knows of a better way to objectivley quantify a rods power and action, I would love to hear it.
waynebh		#8	[-]
Master Guide Posts: 210 (04/23/09 19:02:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I think the common cents system is quite usefull when comparing graphite rods. But, if you look at common cents data from fiberglass rods, it's basically useless. It must have something to do with how the formula was developed and the inherant differences between graphite rods and glass rods. I used to use the ccs when I fished and built graphite rods and it gave me some very usefull information. When I started using glass of course I tried using on my glass rods, the results were always disappointing. It always under evaluated the rod line weight by several line sizes, perhaps it has something to do with the full flexing nature of glass rods versus graphite rods? Just my 2 cents worth opinon of the common CENTS system, pun intended! Waynebh
corlay		#9	[-]
Master Guide Posts: 780 (04/23/09 19:40:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	waynebh wrote: When I started using glass of course I tried using on my glass rods, the results were always disappointing. It always under evaluated the rod line weight by several line sizes, perhaps it has something to do with the full flexing nature of glass rods versus graphite rods? interesting, Wayne. aside from gauging a rod's likely lineweight, did you use this method to chart what the Author calls "The Big Picture"? This charted graph of CCS data at successive 1-foot increments from tip to butt, is what really interests me. If the graph data accurately corresponds to the casting properties of the rod, then I'd say it's very useful information. Especially if a robust database of rods/blanks is developed. Would prove useful in determining what rod/blank would likely suit the needs you desire. Would also be neat to see a graphical representation of why one might enjoy casting a rod like a Phillipson moreso than an Eagle Claw for example. Would the buttery smooth casting "feel" of my Diamondglass rod, produce a corresponding smooth curve in the test data? etc. "From my observations I think that most of us spend too much time worrying about our tackle and too little time learning the intimate characteristics of the fish and streams we fish most." - Ray Bergman Trout, New York: Knopf 1938 Last Edited By: corlay 04/23/09 19:51:48. Edited 1 times.
waynebh		#10	[-]
Master Guide Posts: 212 (04/23/09 19:57:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hi Corlay; Not really, my primary reason for using the CCS system was to determine a ball park line weight and rod action compared to the manufacturer's stated rating. From what I remember about trying to use the system for glass rods is that the rod would flex way too much to produce any usefull data as the system was designed. I think a similar system could be applied to glass rods but the amount of rod deflection would have to be increased to be usefull for glass. I imagine a lot of reasearch would be necessary produce a usefull system. I think Andy's idea of test casting a rod with various line weights is probably faster and just as effective. Waynebh
jgestar		#11	[-]
Posts: 3592 (04/24/09 00:20:21) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	moon12, Welcome to the Fiberglass Flyrodders! I would say "join right in", but you already have! Rod and line standards have come up before here. 1) There is an industry adopted standard for fly lines (and spey lines and reel foot dimensions) that is maintained by AFFTA. Unfortunately, AFFTA will not and does not enforce the standard. 2) There is not an industry adopted standard for fly rods. Nada. The number on the side of the rod is simply the maker's opinion. The CCS system is a good idea, but personally I think a single point measurement is too simple. It is a redesign of the Pedley Rod Analysis Method (see page 51 of Johnson's Fiberglass Fly Rods) and a lot of other static deflection methods. Personally, I think Pedley's method of calculating rod action is more robust than the "action angle" measurement of CCS. As far as a better system goes, I would start with this post by OSD on rodbuilding.com. Again, we have a single measurement. This modification of OSD's technique by Yawning Owl over on Clark's board averages three separate measurements. For most of us, test casting a series of different lines is the fastest way to zero in on a rod/line matchup. Tom
OLD YANKEE	FISHING	#12	[-]
Master Guide Posts: 306 (04/24/09 06:05:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hello Wayne good pun ! Tom has really put this topic in perspective. Most graphite rods have straight tapers and lay ups. Fiberglass has a tendency as we know to load quicker and flex deeper. Thats what most of us like about fiberglass. Many people over line fiberglass in my opinion. The method I use to determine what line weight I will fish on any given rod is rather simple. Lets use a 7' 2PC rod for example. Lets say for sake of argument the blank has a recommended line designation of 4. I start with a 4 weight and do some sample casting it the rod loads with a 4 with little more than the leaders length of line I know I am in the ball park if I can cast the rod with a sweet presentation to 40' I'm liking that . Most of the fishing I do for trout is at 40' max so I will fish the rod with a 4 weight. Now if the rod will not load with little more than the leaders length of line and at 40' my presentation is too fast when the leader turns over it's slapping the fly on the water. I will go up one size to a 5 if the rod loads quickly and the presentation is what I want all good. I fish the rod with a 5 weight. It also depends on what size fly. leader length and tippet size. There are so many different fishing situations that need to be considered here as well. For example if you are fishing a small stream and need to do lots of roll casting, I like to go up one line weight so the rod flexes deeper into the butt to get longer rolls casts. On the other side if I am fishing the rod on a lake and need longer casts I will go down one line weight so the rod loads with more line out than if I were fishing short. If I am fishing weighted flies or big bushy bass bugs in close I might go up 2 line weights. There are just so many different situations here to consider. Thats why we have so many different rod lengths line sizes etc. I truly wish the common cents system worked but it just can not work because there are so many things to consider. We all need to remember that line weights for rods are recommendations. If a rod is recommended for a 4 start with a 4 and go up and down with line weight until you find what line weight works best for you in what ever fishing situation you encounter. People ask me all the time what is your favorite rod configuration. I have a number of favorites and they all depend on the Species.Water,Fly size,and effective distance I need to cast. I like rods that handle a number of line weights effectively thats why I fish and make fiberglass rods, because no other material will effectively handle changing conditions. Now if it's late July and I am on the Farmington with gin clear water,fishing for educated trout with 18' leaders with size 24s and 7 or 8 X tippets very specific conditions. I am most times fishing bamboo. Why you may ask that's simple presentation . I personally get better presentations with bamboo under those conditions. I have said this many times in the past when Graphite rods were introduced the concept of line recommendation changed it went from recommendation to designation. Designation my friends sells more rods. If you have a rod that will handle 3 line weights that's 2 less rods the customer is likely to purchase. Since I am on a roll here I will go one step further lets hope we don't see it rewritten in some rag. There are 2 types of rods fly casting rods that will cast well and fly fishing rods that will fish well. I hear all the time this or that rod casts this line or that line casting ain't fishing ! A fishing rod must cast well but it also needs to Mend line,Strip line,Roll cast,Have excellent hook setting capabilities,Be able to turn a fish with out breaking the fish off,Make a natural presentation to a weary fish,Perform in every condition mother nature has to offer,Cast and present in close as well as have enough punch to reach out for greater distance when called upon,It needs the sensitivity to feel the bite.It needs to handle what ever situation you get into,and it needs to look like a idle the gods will worship and more. A fly casting rod need only reach the far bank.. So when you come up with a method that can tell me how a rod measures to all the criteria I have mentioned above let me know. I would love to read all the compiled data. In the meantime I will just keep fishing them and making them. Tight Lines and Fishing Rod Loops Andy M 'FISH AND VISITORS STINK AFTER 3 DAYS' " DON'T FORGET THE BACKBONE" " REMEMBER TO SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL FISHERY"
jkurtz7		#13	[-]
Master Guide Posts: 462 (04/24/09 06:59:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	CCS works for it's intended purpose. Too many people who either don't understand it or aren't technically minded tend to slam it. It is a viable comparison tool. As already mentioned, no one always agrees what line is best for any given rod. Once one knows how to use the system though, you can use it to determine what YOU are looking for in a rod. J. The Ultralight Fly Fishing Forum Ultralight Fly Fisherman, and small stream specialist.
corlay		#14	[-]
Master Guide Posts: 781 (04/24/09 07:23:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	jkurtz7 wrote: Once one knows how to use the system though, you can use it to determine what YOU are looking for in a rod. that's what I'm talking about, J. most of the negative discussion has focused upon the CSS system accurately predicting what line # to use on a rod. Although that is a portion of what this data claims to provide, it's really not what is important to me. What I'm interested in, is seeing that "Big Picture" curve plotted for a variety of rods. To see the data graphically, and to draw conclusions from what I see. Andy's points (posted above) are completely valid: The only way to truly assess a rod is to fish it in a variety of different conditions. But I think it also might be fun to go through the CCS exercise, just for kicks. Maybe it will be revealing to do so... "From my observations I think that most of us spend too much time worrying about our tackle and too little time learning the intimate characteristics of the fish and streams we fish most." - Ray Bergman Trout, New York: Knopf 1938
gaddis		#15	[-]
Posts: 445 (04/24/09 09:01:42) Mr. Shakespeare Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I've used the CCS on a number of rods. I think it has value in the sense that it gives you a starting point for the line weight of a rod that you are otherwise clueless about. I think having an objective measurement is important. Once you've selected a line weight from the CCS measurement, then I think the actual line that you will like on the rod will be within one line weight from that starting point. I think it is unreasonable to expect any more from it than that. My biggest criticism of the system is that there are many amateurs out there using CCS that are unskilled in making accurate measurements. For this reason, I totally ignore the Action Angle part of the system as it is too sensitive a measurement for most people to do with any kind of accuracy.
moon12.ultralightflyfi...		#16	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 2 (04/24/09 17:49:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	In looking at the post you reference, it is pretty much a different method to do the same thing. The blank is deflected to 1/10th of its length not 1/3rd. Both systems use standard measurements of weight (all pennies made after 1982 weigh the same). With the common cents method you don't need a scale. Also since all fly lines arent created equal (two different brand 5 wt lines don't weigh the same) there is no way to definitively say what wt line you should use. With the common cents system, I can find a rod with an ERN of 6.1, from past experience I can know that I would use a 5 wt line with this rod for longer casts and a 6 wt line for shorter casts. Also If a rod had an AA of 82 vs an AA of 65 that tells me a lot more than describing a rod as moderate or fast action. Once you use the Common Cents system long enough and get a feel for ERN and AA you can predict much better how the rod will fish than you would a rod with vague descriptions such as a fast 7 weight or a moderate 3 weight. A medium fast 8 foot 5 weight means 5 different things to 5 different people. An 8 foot rod with an ERN of 5.7 and an AA of 73 means the same to everyone who understands the Common Cents System. What line you put on the rod is up to personal preference, but the same person using two rods with identical ERNs and AAs in the same application would use the same line.
jkurtz7		#17	[-]
Master Guide Posts: 463 (04/24/09 19:53:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	moon12 wrote: In looking at the post you reference, it is pretty much a different method to do the same thing. The blank is deflected to 1/10th of its length not 1/3rd. Both systems use standard measurements of weight (all pennies made after 1982 weigh the same). With the common cents method you don't need a scale. Also since all fly lines arent created equal (two different brand 5 wt lines don't weigh the same) there is no way to definitively say what wt line you should use. With the common cents system, I can find a rod with an ERN of 6.1, from past experience I can know that I would use a 5 wt line with this rod for longer casts and a 6 wt line for shorter casts. Also If a rod had an AA of 82 vs an AA of 65 that tells me a lot more than describing a rod as moderate or fast action. Once you use the Common Cents system long enough and get a feel for ERN and AA you can predict much better how the rod will fish than you would a rod with vague descriptions such as a fast 7 weight or a moderate 3 weight. A medium fast 8 foot 5 weight means 5 different things to 5 different people. An 8 foot rod with an ERN of 5.7 and an AA of 73 means the same to everyone who understands the Common Cents System. What line you put on the rod is up to personal preference, but the same person using two rods with identical ERNs and AAs in the same application would use the same line. Exactly! J. The Ultralight Fly Fishing Forum Ultralight Fly Fisherman, and small stream specialist.
jgestar		#18	[-]
Posts: 3597 (04/25/09 02:49:11) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Actually, it's not the same thing. The methods I referenced determine the weight needed to deflect the rod a given distance. The weight is divided by the distance to obtain weight per inch of deflection. Common Cents determines the "weight" needed to flex a rod tip down a third of the length of the rod. Essentially, Common Cents determines how much force it takes to get a rod into a "loaded" state. The other methods, particularly Yawning Owl's version, determine the incremental force the rod delivers per additional inch of deflection once it is loaded. They are two very different values with different units. To me, the latter is much more significant to a fly caster. It would be interesting to plot the grams/inch stiffness measurement through a range of deflections. That would indicate where (and if) in the rod's flex it began to stiffen, or "kick" as Andy calls it. I think Gaddis and Pearow have the best take on this. Common Cents gives you a value for a matching line for the rod. Use the value as a starting point and go from there. Tom Corlay, find, beg, steal, or Interlibrary loan a copy of Don Phillips' The Technology of Fly Rods. I think what you are looking for is his "stiffness profiling" measurements.
Zenkoanhead.clarksclassicfl...		#19	[-]
Guide Posts: 72 (04/25/09 14:14:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tom. Have you taken a look at the Hex rod program? That allows comparison of bamboo tapers, with some indications of stiffness. Don
jgestar		#20	[-]
Posts: 3599 (04/25/09 22:05:41) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Don, I've looked at it a little, but not seriously. While I've thought about building a cane rod, I just don't have the time to do it right. Every time I do look at Hexrod, I start poking around the taper libraries looking at the particulars of the classic rods. I've wasted more than a couple of hours more than once. I just saw on the Rodmakers mailing list that Hexrod moved to a new server. I'll have to look at Garrison's book (the source of the math for Hexrod) and see if there is an easy way to adjust for a hollow tube. It's been a few years since I looked closely at that section. Tom

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Common Cents system of rating/grading?

Common Cents system of rating/grading?

Quick Reply