| Author |
 Topic  |
|
heppy
Starting Member
9 Posts |
 Posted - 23/08/2005 : 05:25:54
|
I have built the setup for testing flyrods as described by Magnus Angus in the August issue of FF&FT, but need clarification on the one third deflection. I have tested 5 rods and each one finishes up with an angle of between 90 and 85 degrees using up to 500 grams (a lot of cents) to get the rod tip to a point directly below the 1/3-2/3 junction of the horozontal rod. What am I doing wrong?TextTextText
John Hepburn
|
|
|
Magnus
Administrator
529 Posts |
Posted - 24/08/2005 : 05:13:35
|
Hi John
I think you've got it slightly wrong. I'd be extremely surprised if you have a rod with an AA of 85-90 and a weight of 500g suggests you'll need a #14 line - which I doubt unless you're measuring marlin rods.
As an example - to measure a 9ft rod the tip must deflect down from horizontal by 3ft.
Set the butt horizontal with the handle supported to the front of the grip. Measure the distance from the rod (centre of the blank) to the floor.
Note the rod will naturally droop a bit under its own weight when fixed horizontaly - that gets included (the idea being if I fit extremely heavy rings it'll droop more.)
DON'T MEASURE FROM THE TIP DOWN. Assuming the floor is level measure from the floor up or mark a perfectly straight line from the butt position and measure down.
So lets say you fix the butt of your 9ft rod, 5ft from the floor. The tip should end up 2ft from the floor.
Hope this helps
Magnus
|
Edited by - Magnus on 24/08/2005 05:14:59 |
 |
|
|
heppy
Starting Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 24/08/2005 : 05:27:23
|
I have built the setup for testing flyrods as described by Magnus Angus in the August issue of FF&FT, but need clarification on the one third deflection. I have tested 5 rods and each one finishes up with an angle of between 90 and 85 degrees using up to 500 grams (a lot of cents) to get the rod tip to a point directly below the 1/3-2/3 junction of the horozontal rod. What am I doing wrong?TextTextText
John Hepburn |
|
|
|
Magnus
Administrator
529 Posts |
Posted - 24/08/2005 : 07:02:54
|
Hi John
Wanna run that by me again? 
Magnus
|
|
|
|
heppy
Starting Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 24/08/2005 : 16:41:17
|
I'll try to get the right message posted this time.
Thanks Magnus for the info, but I did eventually realise what I was doing wrong. I had misinterpreted the instructions and tried to get the rodtip to deflect to a line dropped vertically from the 1/3-2/3 junction of the horozontal rod axis, resulting in the inaccurate readings. When I realised that I only have to deflect the rod tip to a horozontal line, 1/3 of rod length below the horozontal rod axis, I got the correct results. I have now measured my complete rod inventory. I will post the results later. My fishing partner has a Sharpes Gordon, 3p, 10', #7. I think you reviewed one recently, do you have the measurements for it please?
John Hepburn |
|
|
|
Magnus
Administrator
529 Posts |
Posted - 24/08/2005 : 22:07:17
|
Hi John
Excellent - glad it makes sense.
I'm afraid the Gordon was returned to the supplier before I caught this particular bug. But you have the technology to check it out for him.
I'd be interested to know how you feel the measurments relate your line choices for your rods.
There is a good deal more to the full CCS system. If you'd like a copy of the original articles please email or PM your address to me.
This method was first designed to make it easier to compare rods meaningfully. I stop with the weight needed for deflection, Bill's method goes on to map that weight onto a range of stiffness for different line weights. That led to extensive, and at times very heated, debate about the relationship/association between rod stiffness and line choice.
Magnus |
|
|
|
heppy
Starting Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 25/08/2005 : 04:51:03
|
Thanks Magnus, yes, I would like to receive the more detailed information but I am having trouble with logging in ( a problem I have experienced since registering). My log in is initially accepted, but is lost when I am reverted to the Forum . Consequently, I cannot access your profile to send you a personal message. Perhaps you can send me an Email and I will reply with my address, ie, if I can post this. I have tested 15 rods to date, including Bamboo, ranging from a 15’ Graphite, St Croix, Speycaster, to a 7’ #3 Graphite, Creek rod. I will be attending a Trout Expo with my club this weekend, here in Tasmania and will give demonstrations of the method at our club stand. I expect it to generate considerable interest. But most importantly I will find out what questions I cant answer.
John |
|
|
|
penneyarchade
Starting Member
2 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 14:09:58
|
Hi Magnus I have built the ‘common cents system’ that you published in the August issue of FF & FT . The results are very interesting especially with some of the Rods that I thought were faster than others.
I have included the results of the Rods that I have tested incase they may be of interest to other readers.
Would it be possible for you to send me a copy of the original article by Dr Bill Hanneman I will gladly pay any costs involved.
Brian Wickins.
RODS TESTED.
A.A. I.P gms.
ORVIS SUPERFINE 6' 6" # 2 2 PC 55 DEG 84
HARDY GRAPHITE DELUX 7' 6" # 4/5 2 PC 55 DEG 77
SHAKESPEAR DELUX TRAV FLY 7' 2" # 4/5 6 PC 60 DEG 50
LOOP GREENLINE 7' 8" # 2/3 3 PC 67 DEG 59
SAGE RPL + 7' 10" # 3 2 PC 65 DEG 94
DAIWA LOCKMOOR 'Z' 8' # 4 4 PC 62 DEG 84
HARDY ULTRALITE 8' 6" # 6 4 PC 65 DEG 105
SAGE S.L.T. 8' # 4 4 PC 62 DEG 80
HARDY ANGEL SMUGGLER 8' 6" # 4 6 PC 65 DEG 98
SAGE R.P.L. GRAPHITE 3 8' 6" # 4 4 PC 67 DEG 98
SAGE T C R 9' # 5 4 PC 72 DEG 133
HARDY ULTRALITE 9' # 6 4 PC 67 DEG 105
SAGE S P 9' # 5 2 PC 65 DEG 108
|
|
|
|
Magnus
Administrator
529 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2005 : 22:19:02
|
Hi Brian
I can certainly sends copies - please email your address to me.
I have a couple of worries about the measurements you've made. Maybe more to do with how you lay it out than anything else - I hope.
The form should be IP/AA - IP given in grams and AA in degrees. To take one of your examples "HARDY ULTRALITE 9' #6 4PC 67 DEG 105" - I take it your readings are:
Hardy Ultralite 9ft #6 4pce - 105/67
By the original CCS readings that is a rather soft rod more suited to a #5 than a #6 line.
BTW your TCR reading agrees with others readings for the same model - which does suggest you're doing it right you'll be glad to know. By Bill's system that rod has the stiffness typical of a powerful #6 rod with a rather soft tip. Your SP reads as more typical 5-weight.
Bill's articles show how he converts IP to Estimated Rod Number(ERN) I do use that as a reference but please don't be misled into thinking, for example, the the TCR is a mislabellled rod - the numbers help explain why a rod as stiff as that can cast well with a #5 line.
From my perspective the surprise comes when we realise some rods we had described as fast are in fact just stiff. For example according to the figures your RPL+ may suit a #4 line more than a #3 - if you find it challenging at short range it would be well worth up-lining by one or even two line-weights to gain more control and or feel. Compared with your other short rods it's very stiff indeed.
Your IP measurement for the Shakespeare Travel Fly says its a very soft rod indeed. Suited to #1 or #2 lines. Although given the length I guess you would be casing very short so a heavier line would make sense.
Interesting that the Angel Smuggler and RPL figures are similar - are they similar rods to use? is there a significant weight difference?
Brian - going by your collection of rods you are a fellow anorak. (Wear it with pride!) I'd be very interested to hear whether you feel the figures and their analysis match your experience casting and fishing those rods.
Thanks for the feedback
Magnus
|
|
|
|
penneyarchade
Starting Member
2 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2005 : 14:26:06
|
Hi Magnus
Thank you for your answers, when I typed my results in word then dropped it into the reply page somehow it got messed-up and does not look how it was layed out in word !!
I have tried to contact you, but without luck I keep getting told that I must be logged in when I have already done so.
perhaps you would be kind enough to try and see if you can email me it may work for you.I would certainly love to have a chat with you.
Best of luck Brian |
|
|
|
Magnus
Administrator
529 Posts |
Posted - 14/09/2005 : 05:42:44
|
John and Brian
Bill's articles will soon be available as PDF files. I'll post the address as soon as I get it.
Brian - emailed you but no reply - if you are having problems and it seems I may be too - call the office and get my number. |
|
|
|
heppy
Starting Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2005 : 21:52:50
|
Magnus,
I have tested 27 rods, covering a range of actions. In the absence of more detailed information, patterns are becoming obvious. One of the stated benefits of universal adoption of the system by rod builders/manufacturers, is that it would take a lot of the guesswork out of puchasing rods by mail order. Recently, I purchased a 9', 4pce, #6, Trout rod, by mail order, built by a rod maker whose products have recieved excellent reviews in FF&FT as well as in other Flyfishing Magazines. The rod in question will not cast a Partridge Dry and Delecate 6wt line at all. It will cast a WF7F, but without any sensitivity. It really only starts to behave properly with an 8Wt line. The general opinion of my friends is that the rod is too stiff. This perception is confirmed by it's CCS measurement, IP=172gr, AA=68, which is comparable to the CCS measurement, IP=170gr, AA=65, of my Sage RPL3, 2pc #9. All of the 6Wt rods I have measured fall in the range IP=150-120, AA=61-54.
At this stage, I dont know whether the builder has labled the rod incorrectly or whether his 6Wt rods just dont suit me or my friends.
John |
|
|
|
Magnus
Administrator
529 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 08:11:47
|
John
Hmmmm - and the definition of obsessed is?
Good work. What is the rod? How many guys have tried it?
reads to me like you are finding exactly the same as me. One word of caution. Not all lines are the same. Ensure the line you use for testing is made to standard or even simple hands on casting tests will be tainted.
Hopefully Bill will have a dedicated CCS website up and running very soon. Meantime I should to be able to post his coorelation of IP values with line-weights later today.
My computer has eaten the spreadsheet where I had the data I'd gathered so, once I've soundly thrashed the damned machine, it may take some time to rebuild.
Magnus |
|
|
|
Magnus
Administrator
529 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 09:59:04
|
The following are converted from Bill Hanneman's articles, originally in grains these IP figures are in grams.
Please note these ranges are not written in stone. Depending on the casters preference and or the configuration of a rod they may well fall well outside these ranges.
AFTMA IP in grams
0 - 8.42 to 35.64
1 - 35.64 to 51.19
2 - 51.19 to 68.04
3 - 68.04 to 84.89
4 - 84.89 to 101.74
5 - 101.74 to 118.58
6 - 118.58 to 137.05
7 - 137.05 to 161.03
8 - 161.03 to 178.85
9 - 178.85 to 205.42
10 - 205.42 to 238.46
11 - 238.46 to 274.75
12 - 274.75 to 317.52
13 - 317.52 to 360.29
14 - 360.29 to 396.58
15 - 396.58 to 432.86
John - comparing your findings with Bill's there is a rather close match. I would point out that none of the rods you've tested have fast actions. Its my contention that a rod with a high AA figure (say 70+) either requires we accept a significantly higher IP or enables us to use a significantly stiffer rod.
|
Edited by - Magnus on 10/10/2005 10:05:04 |
|
|
|
Magnus
Administrator
529 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 12:22:07
|
Bill Hanneman's CCS website is up and apparently running.
http://www.common-cents.info/index.htm
The site offers complete PDF downloads of all the CCS articles.
Please note: I use IP (intrincic Power) and AA (Action Angle) measurements and determine both in exactly the way established by the CCS system. |
|
|
|
heppy
Starting Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2005 : 15:28:25
|
Magnus,
I wont mention the rod brand on this forum as I have represented my perceptions to the builder by Email. However, after 7 days I am still waiting for a response. I have not mentioned CCS measurements to him as I am uncertain of his awareness of the system. I will inform you off forum of the details.
Access to the CCS Information Website, will enable us proponents of the system to promote much wider discussion and consequently awareness and interest in the system.
John.
John |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Common Cents System, Rod testing.
