Generic Blanks

[ECobb91]

Awesome, thanks for the info. Like I said I’m still very new to CCS testing so I’m trying to absorb as much information and advice as I can.

one question I’d have is why do CCS tests require the guides to be facing upwards? You’d think it should be oriented in the direction that it would be used in, like if you’re going to be static testing.

I tested a few rods tonight, all spinning, and did the tests with the guides down and guides aligned upwards. When the guides are up, the blanks always required more weight to get the proper deflection

[Bassbme]

I have no idea why they say the guides should be facing up. Interesting that you got different numbers with different guide orientation. I could see if you were loading the rod with the line running through the guides, but not with the weight hanging from the tip top. I check my spinning rods with the guides facing down just like they would be when fishing the rod. Casting rod, guides up, just like when fishing the rod.

Curious? How different were the numbers with guides up, versus guides down?

Over the years I've been doing CCS tests I've learned that the biggest things are having the rod horizontal so the load is at 90 degrees to the blank. To have butt of the rod secure so it doesn't lift, and the forward support solid so the rod stays where it is once you start applying the load. And then making sure that you get the proper deflection distance. While I use pennies as weight, I don't count them. I just weigh the bag I use to hold them. Sometimes I throw in various types of fishing weights. Usually ones I use for Carolina rigs.

[Spoonplugger1]

Guide orientation is simply our attempt to protect the blank from destruction under load, somehow people forgot that and started to think of new reasons for the guides to be there. Guides on bottom never touch the blank so people naturally space them further apart. There has been a myth floating around that with guides on top the line can't touch the blank under load, it's ok for the guides to be spaced further apart under the same load on the bottom, but the same load on top, mysteriously you can't do that. What's going to happen on top that wouldn't happen on the bottom? Not long ago casting rods used tall SV style guides on top and much larger ringed guides, the rule may have applied then when guides were 50% or taller than they are now off the blank. Berkeley came out with the Series One rods in all forms and used a lower, smaller ringed guide closest to the reel and much smaller running guides, guide weight went dramatically down, rod torque arm effect went down, rods were more balanced and responsive with the lower modulus blank of the time, IM6 had been around for a few years, IM7 was the new wonder carbon, the Berkeley IM6 rods worked every bit as well or better than the new blanks with the new guide system. Soon everyone was on the bandwagon, sort of, few used a guide closest to the reel that was smaller than a 12 mm even though Berkeley successfully did, nor ran 5 mm running guides either, many rods of the time were running 8 mm SV running guides. Back to the guides on top rods, as long as the line doesn't pass under the blank you are fine, the tip of rods doesn't bend for quite a bit of distance so can't we treat that part like the rest of the rod and set the next guide from the tip accordingly? If not, why? Guide spacing from the reel to the first guide seems to be required to be a certain distance from the reel why? Can't that distance also be more closely set to the way the other guides are set? If not, why? The answer is both those things have been done before with no negative results which also means few guides, cost goes down, weight goes down, balance up, response up, return to straight happens faster, where is the downside? It certainly wasn't blank failure after all the spinning configuration proved that.

[ECobb91]

I’ll use the MHX SJ842 as an example. (Spinning rod). I typically do a few CCS tests on each blank and take the average.
I did two tests with the guides oriented down:
1st test: IP 550, AA 79.3 (using a pointer, thanks for the correction!)
2nd test: IP 551

then I did one test with the guides oriented up:
3rd test: IP 583, approximately 33g, 5.4% difference.

I also tested a RodGeeks C266MLF (spinning) twice and had much more favorable results
1st test with guides oriented down: IP 358
2nd test with guides oriented up: IP 361, only a 3g, 0.1% difference

[Bassbme]

ECobb, wow on the difference you had with the SJ842. Curious is you spine your rods or just build on the straightest axis? If you build on the spine, maybe that's the reason for the different numbers?

I don't bother with finding the spine. IMO that's from long ago and far away, when the blank building process wasn't as refined as it is now. That' and the spine is in different places along the length of the blank. I just build on the straightest axis. If there's a curve in the blank I always have the tip pointing up.

As far as the pointer, that's just what CCS calls for. Like I said earlier here and in the CCS log thread on Rodbuilding.org, I think the pointer gives a false reading. I questioned it on Rodbuilding.org hoping Tom Kirkman would see it and explain the reasoning. Tom was in on developing CCS. He get's a little testy if you challenge aspects of CCS, but if you want to know something about the process, he's gonna know it.

[ECobb91]

Ya that rod I built on the spine, so probable softest axis vs stiffest axis. Always built on the spine but will try to build on straightest axis next time. So that very well could be the reason.

A lot of threads on rodbuilding I feel like I need a PhD just to understand what some are saying haha. I’ll try to build on the straightest axis next time, that seemed like the general census now. Thanks for all the advice!

[willwork4fish]

Bassbme, why do you build with the curve pointing up when going with the straightest axis? Just wondering. I build 90% of mine on the spine but when they're too curved I go with the straightest axis and the tip down.

I've followed what you guys are talking about and I'm familiar with CCS but I've pretty much always just gotten a blank in my hands and then figured out what it'll be good for...it does get expensive though.

[Bassbme]

willwork4fish, I orient it like that so the weight of the guides will make it appear straight when you sight down it. Conventionally wrapped casting rods, guides on the top (concave side of the curve) spinning rod, guides on the bottom. (convex side of the curve. Works well even on higher power blanks.

And I totally get the getting the blank in your hands and then figuring out what it's good for. But when you find a blank you like for certain things, taking CCS numbers for it allows you to not have to guess what a blank will be good for. You'll know if it will suit what you want to do with it, by its' numbers.

A for instance. I wanted to build a spinning rod for fishing tube jigs up to 3/8 oz. I built a rod for a friend for doing the same thing on a NFC MB 704. IP of 566 grams. AA 74. I wanted to use one of the new at the time RX10 Eternity blanks/ Batson supplied CCS numbers for those blanks so I chose, based on the numbers, an RX 10 ETEC72M blank. Perfect for what I was wanting. Without the CCS numbers, I would have more than likely chosen the spinning version of that blank, which is about 130 grams lighter in IP than the ETEC blank I used. Knowing how rods I've built fish, that have that kind of IP difference. I know I wouldn't have been as happy with the ETES72M

As was talked about earlier though, even with CCS IP and AA numbers, there is still some guessing as to how a blank will actually fish. But CCS numbers take a lot of that guessing away. At least it has for me.