hello.
i have build a rod with a loomis s782 blank and a micro setup. it's my best ever rod and i love fishing with it.
the last loomis blanks i bought, including this one, where bent. since i'm in portugal it's not an option to return the blanks.
i want to build another rod and would like to do it with a straighter good quality blank.
could you point me a comparable blank, maybe a st. croix, in terms of power, action and sensitivity? i can see from the specs that the matching st. croix would be a 5s66lf, but, from what i've read, st. croix blanks are softer than gloomis ones. since it will cost to me more than twice the price you would pay for them, i dont wont to make mistakes.
thank you in advance.
sorry for the errors.
great forum.

I haven't run the CCS numbers on the 2 blanks (Loomis SB782 and Croix 4S66MLF) and won't get a chance to do so this week, but I can tell you that they're very similar in power and action. The St. Croix may have a tad bit faster action while being just a hair under the Loomis model in power, but they're very, very close. Now if you have a standard S782, I think you're going to find the St. Croix to be both faster and more powerful. I'm going on the assumption that what you have is an SB or an SJ Loomis.

...............

i have the standard s782. i dont need more power. the same or a little bit less would be just good. i dont have the blanks you mention but i have the sj721 imx and that is too much power for me.
thank you.

You will probably have to back down a bit on the St. Croix then. It's going to be at least as powerful as the SJ721.

............

If you have the numbers (tip size, butt diameter, length, action and power) You might want to contact Kerry Batson at kerry@batson.com I bet he has a RainShadow that well work

Good Wraps Bob

Tom, What are you meaning when you say the CCS number? I'm Very curious.

Common Cents System

Good Wraps Bob

Thank Bob, I was looking at that and still trying to figure it all out. I'm still new to all this rod building, And loving every minute of it. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.

The 5S66LF has almost twice the power as the S781 IMX. And about 5° slower.

I would suspect the S782 would still fall short of the 5S66LF in power.



......................................................

Better to have and not need than to need and not have.

ok. the mlf is not the way to go. so, could someone compare the loomis s782 to the croix 5s66lf ?
in the batson catalogue i can't find a blank with similar specs.
thank you.

Matt - i did not read your post sooner. if your suspection come to be true i think i will buy the 5s66lf. just waiting for someone to confirm.
i know that maybe there are other methods that can describe better a blank than the ccs. i think that this system is far better than the manufacturer system to classify the blank. it would be from great help to have more information in the ccs data site, at least for people like me that cannot even find a blank to build in my country.
thank you.

I'm not aware of anything that can describe a blank better than the CCS - if you know of something, please pass it along. As far as I know, it's the only completely relative and objective system for measuring blank power, action and speed that exists.

The 66LF is going to be more what you're after, but it won't be an exact match.

..............

i really dont know of a better method. i think i didnt express myself correctly. just that in this post [www.stripersonline.com] (and now i can't figure out how to create a link) the author claims that this system as lots of problems. maybe the system evolved and/or maybe the poster isn't right. i don't want to create an issue over this subject. for me the system is perfect. just whishing there was more available data on the site.
yes, i think 66lf is the way to go. but since i'm not in a hurry to buy it, if someone has tried the blanks and want to feed some more information i'm all ears (eyes).
thanks.

The person who posted that doesn't really understand it . He also assumes that there is an AFTMA system for rating rods - there is no such thing (The AFTMA system if for lines, only). He also doesn't understand rod action when he says that you cannot make a fast action rod from fiberglass. Heck, you can make a fast action rod from hickory, just as easy as you can make a very slow action rod from the highest modulus carbon fiber. Most likely, he is confusing Action with Speed, which are not the same thing.

Remember, if the CCS doesn't work, then neither do our systems for temperature, weight, length, etc., - they're all the same type of system and based on the same principle.

I can prove to you, or anyone, that it works perfectly. Try this:

Take 2 rod blanks that have obviously different powers and actions - 2 blanks that are different enough that you can tell the difference by hand. Now run the CCS numbers on both of them. I will guarantee you that the one with the higher ERN is the more powerful of the 2, and that the one with the higher AA is the faster actioned of the 2. Try this with any rod blanks you have on hand and you'll see that it works exactly as advertised. It is a system of relative measurement exactly like we use for length, weight, temperature, etc.

.............

I should add that the Common Cents Frequency component adds the measurement for speed, which many people confuse with action. Action is where the rod initially flexes, while speed is the relative rate at which a rod reacts and recovers.

.........

The critic on the striper forum reminds me of a joke about professors. How many professors does it take to change a light bulb? 5, 1 to change the bulb and 4 to write papers on how the professor changing the bulb's methodology and results were flawed. Anyone that spends time around professors will understand this completely. You'll also see the type on the forums with their long winded critiques of things that usually aren't that complicated. Unfortunately, these people do nothing but tear down and add little value or useful information. So next time you read something by one of these types, remember if he or she doesn't offer a better solution, then their post is for their own edification, much like when my young soon jumps off the step and exclaims "look what I can do".

I like the CCS. I prefer RDA, which is very similar, but use them both. The one thing I like about RDA is it incorporates a measure of power efficiency based on blank weight and rod power. Because both RDA and CCS define power relative to the rods length, I've added a "standard" power measurement to my data where I deflect all rods the exact same amount. This allows me to easily compare the power and action of rods of different lengths.

What I've found is just like Tom, if the numbers are very close, the rods are very similar.

I would expect the 5S66lf would have been close because it is a very light powered rod. I have not measured the S782, but the 5s66lf is lighter than the sj782 I measured.