X = the AFTMA line weight designation

F(X) = the standardized (averaged) Force through a standardized lever to accelerate a Mass = line wt (X) head in grains following AFTMA definition. This is a measurable, achievable quantity which I suspect increases with mass, so I am allowing for that. There will be a F(7), F(8), F(9), etc., number corresponding to 7, 8, and 9 wt (and on) lines.

Rod parameter L(X) in INCHES = length of lever (in the acceleration phase) due to the flexion shortening caused by F(X) = MASS (X) x Acceleration.

A chart of the three 9’ 8wt rods pictured earlier (actually measured statically) would look like this:

......................................L(8)..............L(9)...............L(10) (inches)

Rod A (Sage GII) .........?..................66...................?

Rod B (Scott S4s).........?.................70...................?

Rod C (TF TiCR)..........? .................72...................?

The L(9) for the Sage says that this rod, with an AFTMA standard 9 wt head (or equal load in grains) will flex-shorten to a 66” lever during an averaged (and standardized) cast effort (F(9)).

This is ASSUMING that one can correlate (if not equate directly) dynamic flexion under actual cast loading with STATIC weight hanging on a horizontal rod. However fine tuned physics and thermodynamic variations one might question about that assumption, let us be perfectly clear that the CCS system made the same assumptions at NON-casting flexions. And what exact conclusions does an “8 wt” designation predict about the rod?

I would propose that there is a linear or near linear approximation between the dynamic flexion and static weight hanging. That can be proven or disproven. Virtually every other model assumes there is without even questioning it.

F(X) = the standardized (averaged) Force through a standardized lever to accelerate a Mass = line wt (X) head in grains following AFTMA definition. This is a measurable, achievable quantity which I suspect increases with mass, so I am allowing for that. There will be a F(7), F(8), F(9), etc., number corresponding to 7, 8, and 9 wt (and on) lines.

Rod parameter L(X) in INCHES = length of lever (in the acceleration phase) due to the flexion shortening caused by F(X) = MASS (X) x Acceleration.

A chart of the three 9’ 8wt rods pictured earlier (actually measured statically) would look like this:

......................................L(8)..............L(9)...............L(10) (inches)

Rod A (Sage GII) .........?..................66...................?

Rod B (Scott S4s).........?.................70...................?

Rod C (TF TiCR)..........? .................72...................?

The L(9) for the Sage says that this rod, with an AFTMA standard 9 wt head (or equal load in grains) will flex-shorten to a 66” lever during an averaged (and standardized) cast effort (F(9)).

This is ASSUMING that one can correlate (if not equate directly) dynamic flexion under actual cast loading with STATIC weight hanging on a horizontal rod. However fine tuned physics and thermodynamic variations one might question about that assumption, let us be perfectly clear that the CCS system made the same assumptions at NON-casting flexions. And what exact conclusions does an “8 wt” designation predict about the rod?

I would propose that there is a linear or near linear approximation between the dynamic flexion and static weight hanging. That can be proven or disproven. Virtually every other model assumes there is without even questioning it.

22