ERN and AA - info

Merlin · Post by **Merlin** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:14 pm

Vince, I do agree with your last comment about a range of mass.
Merlin

Lasse Karlsson · Post by **Lasse Karlsson** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:20 pm

Merlin wrote:Lasse
I thought it was the 907, not the 906, my memory is weak, but your comment was "a beauty".
Imagine what the 905 can be.
Merlin

Really? Where where you?

And I really don't need a rod for a 4 weight

Cheers
Lasse

Merlin · Post by **Merlin** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:22 pm

La Mouche
Ritz designs are even more on the butt size. I have a 8'6 glass #8 which is quite slow but can lift a long line from water. Powerfull and easy.
Merlin

Bill Hanneman · Post by **Bill Hanneman** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:59 pm

Mike,
I don't believe that ERN is supposed to tie in with AFFTA #ratings. For example I might like to match a #5 line with a rod with an ERN of 8, someone else might match the same line with a rod of ERN 4. We're both right in selecting our own personal preference for stiffness (I like a stiff one).

I think I read somewhere that Bill wishes he'd divorced the two figures more completely with the CCS - perhaps he can correct me?

James,
I believe you have it right-especially part on PPS.
I believe, also, I have made it clear that there it is no such thing as a Five Weight rod, other than the maker wrote the number 5 on it. Consequently, the term "Weight" is not a part of the vocabulary of CCS.
----------------------

Magnus,
If you are still writing rod reviews, I believe you should consider this fact. Paul believes there has been nothing new in rod design, and that is mistaken.

As you know, Sage introduced the "ultimate in fast action" with their TRS 590. If you will remember, I covered this in my article on "The BIG Picture" and showed how this differed from the traditional designs.

Now, the question to be answered is, Does Paul's new rod incororate the new concepts of Sage, or is it just one more "heaver" rod of the old type with a new "Name Variety." Shades of Lefty.

You could be a great help, if, when you get your hands on one, you could run a BIG Picture

Bill

LaMouche · Post by **LaMouche** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:14 pm

Bill Hanneman wrote:As you know, Sage introduced the "ultimate in fast action" with their TRS 590. If you will remember, I covered this in my article on "The BIG Picture" and showed how this differed from the traditional designs.

hi Bill
could you elaborate a little on this?
EDIT : ah, nevermind, I just checked the paper. you probably meant TCR 590 ?

Michal Duzynski · Post by **Michal Duzynski** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:33 pm

I don't believe that ERN is supposed to tie in with AFFTA #ratings. For example I might like to match a #5 line with a rod with an ERN of 8, someone else might match the same line with a rod of ERN 4. We're both right in selecting our own personal preference for stiffness (I like a stiff one).

I thought it does, after ive red this article

Table 3: CCS-measurements for the test rods, showing stiffness and action angle. The Action Angle was not measured for all the rods since this measurement was not used for any further analyses.

There were large differences between the test rods in terms of stiffness. The softest rod was the G. Loomis Streamdance with ERN = 5.2 while the stiffest rod was the Streamstix T5 with ERN = 9.0. In CCS terms a rod rated for AFTM 5 lines "should" have an ERN value around 5.5 (between 5 and 6). It's thus only the G. Loomis, Orvis T3 and the LTS X-1 that would be rated as "5-line rods" in CCS terms. The CCS rates the Loop Yellow Line, Vogg First and the Sage TCR as 6-liners, the Scott S3 as a 7, and the Streamstix T5 as a 8/9 WT rod.

cheers
mike

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:32 pm

Mike

For example I might like to match a #5 line with a rod with an ERN of 8, someone else might match the same line with a rod of ERN 4. We're both right in selecting our own personal preference for stiffness (I like a stiff one).

This is right imho. Something similar is there in CCS articles. Bill argues that if I like a Sage rod with ERN X with a given line I will probably aim for that same stiffness with other rods when I cast that line. Take that thinking to the rods from that test and you can understand his idea. And from that you should understand his contention that there is no such thing as a 5-weight rod - that phrase has little or no real content in the sense that all of those very different rods are marked as 5-weights, i.e. recommended to be used with #5 lines.
However, individual rod makers seem to aim for a degree of consistency in a range of rods.

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:51 pm

Merlin wrote:The "ERN" of this proto is 7.8 (for Magnus) and if you want to compare, I can give you the characteristics of my S4S907 which I bought recently:

unloaded freq 3.3 Hz
loaded freq (30 feet of #) = 1.5 Hz
equivalent mass 3.7 grams
ERN 9.4
AA 66

Fast or not fast? Tippy or not tippy? Would you fish it with a #9?
You tested this rod Lasse, if I remember well.

Merlin

Good to see Vince is back.

Merlin

ERN 7.8 makes that a very stiff rod for a #5 line.

The first three terms in that description mean nothing to me I'm afraid. I can't measure them, I've nothing to compare with, so have no access to them.
ERN 9.4 is a stiff rod for a #7 line. I tend to prefer less stiff than that, as a matter of fact that's about the stiffness I use with #8 lines. For #9 line I'd probably opt for a stiffer rod, fact is we certainly could cast #9 lines with that rod, just as we could cast any line with it.

Magnus

I agree it's good to see Vince posting again

VGB · Post by **VGB** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:41 pm

Magnus wrote:Mike

For example I might like to match a #5 line with a rod with an ERN of 8, someone else might match the same line with a rod of ERN 4. We're both right in selecting our own personal preference for stiffness (I like a stiff one).
This is right imho. Something similar is there in CCS articles. Bill argues that if I like a Sage rod with ERN X with a given line I will probably aim for that same stiffness with other rods when I cast that line. Take that thinking to the rods from that test and you can understand his idea. And from that you should understand his contention that there is no such thing as a 5-weight rod - that phrase has little or no real content in the sense that all of those very different rods are marked as 5-weights, i.e. recommended to be used with #5 lines.
However, individual rod makers seem to aim for a degree of consistency in a range of rods.

Thanks for the welcome Magus and Merlin. The time was not wasted, I built a little steffen, fished in Tuscany and watched scantily clad women play volleyball in London

Is there any CCS testing that indicates that you can transfer ERN or is there a limitation on how you apply it such as the ERN is only transferable for rods of the same length?

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:18 pm

Hi Vince

Not altogether clear what you're asking.

IMHO rod is just one part of the picture. I test a few rods and lines and it take a little time to get familiar with either/both. If the stiffness is similar to a rod you know well it's a bit easier. Similarly if the head shape and length is similar to something you know, then casting a new line well comes that bit faster. I don't think there's anything surprising about that is there?

VGB · Post by **VGB** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:02 pm

Hi Magnus

It's the transferable bit about the line that is throwing me:

"Bill argues that if I like a Sage rod with ERN X with a given line I will probably aim for that same stiffness with other rods when I cast that line. "

I can see how that works with a rod of the same length but a longer rod would need to be less stiff to bend to a 1/3rd of its length for that given mass. Or am I missing something?

regards

Vince

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:07 pm

...but a longer rod would need to be less stiff to bend to a 1/3rd of its length for that given mass.

Really? Why?

VGB · Post by **VGB** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:31 pm

I've got it arse about face, you need a stiffer rod for the ERN, when it gets longer. My memory is becoming unreliable as I'm way past that certain age. I will explain why I think tat when I am home tomorrow in front of a PC but if you are impatient take a look at the Euler Bernoulli equation for a cantilever beam.

Regards

Vince

Merlin · Post by **Merlin** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:42 pm

Vince is right, Magnus.

ERN is a scale of force to get a relative deflection (1/3 of rod length). When you divide that force by the absolute value of the deflection, this value is larger for the longer rod, then the stiffness (force divided by deflection) is smaller.

It would have been more practical for non US rod builders to have a scale in Newton, the international standard for force unit.

I might come back on ERN and AA in the Technical Forum

Merlin

VGB · Post by **VGB** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:02 pm

Thanks Merlin, it's far from being my specialist subject but I do have a fairly recent paper that may interest you. I'll put up a link tomorrow.

The Archived Board

The Archived Board

ERN and AA - info

Who is online