Herb I am not trying to make the PB sound like a real bargain. It is an expensive rod, but still less expensive than the current X-ray price. When the X-ray blanks were on sale for 65% off they were a bargain. The point I was trying to make is if you buy solely based on price or name and believe you are getting the best product, this is, in my opinion, a false perception, and I will stick by that comment. I know that high modulus graphite is expensive, but the question becomes, if the use of high modulus graphite makes the rod cost twice as much as a rod built using lower modulus graphite does that make make the rod twice as good? I would say no, That is where the concept of diminishing returns comes into play.

I will also finish my conversion with Dale Clemons to try and make a the point. He told me he once gave a rod pricing seminar in Miami, and a rodbuilder showed him a sample of his work, and Dale asked him how much he charged. The guy said $xxx, and Dale told him to double his price. The guy said if he did that he would lose all his customers, Dale said trust me. So the guy doubled his rod price, without changing anything else. He than began selling more rods then he ever had before. Did the customers get a better rod? Or Did they perceive they got a better rod?

Another thing to help to me make my point. As David posted above, a person on Tackle tour compared the X-ray MB736 to the NMB733-MHX (Elite-X series) both were rated as MH. The Elite-X was lighter and more powerful than the X-ray at almost half the price. So is the X-Ray two times better than the Elite-X?

Norm

David, I did not do a Rod Deflection Analysis (RDA) method to compare the X-ray to the PB I used the CCS method. They are similar yet different. I prefer the CCS because it involves the entire length of the rod rather than just a portion of the rod. The RDA power numbers and action angle numbers are always lower because because you are using less of the blank in the analysis.
Norm

Norman Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Norm: If you buy solely based on price or name and believe you are getting the best product, this is, in my opinion a false perception:


You do realize that you and everybody else who jumped on the NFC blanks because of the sale bought them on the stellar Loomis reputation and you knew that they were superior blanks to everything else out there especially since they were on sale . Many comments from people on this board that said the NFC HM & X Ray blanks are the most incredible blanks they have ever built on . The reason most avoided them when they were full price is because it's not in most anglers budget , but nobody ever doubted they were and still are to many the highest quality blanks on the market so there is no false perception at all from my vantage point .

When Point Blank hit the market they new they could not charge what NFC charges for their best blanks , they were unproven and nobody ever heard of them , their reputation had to be established regardless of whether a long time Loomis guy designed the blanks , i'm sure you will see prices right around what NFC's best blanks cost in due time .


Norm: The question becomes, if the use of high modulus graphite makes the rod cost twice as much as a rod built using lower modulus graphite does that make the rod twice as good? I would say no, That is where the concept of diminishing returns comes into play.


You look at it a lot differently than i do , first of all it's not just the usage of high mod material , rod design is a lot more involved than that . If things are 2 times more expensive than something else does that make the item twice as good , i don't judge things that way but for this conversation i will say absolutely , because i am the type that appreciates all the nuances that makes a certain blank twice as expensive , i have fished rods that were $150.00 and ones that cost upwards of $500.00 and to me the $500.00 one is superior in every way imaginable and i notice and appreciate all the differences.


I also realize that many others would never notice and would never spend a dime over $150.00 on a rod and thats perfectly fine also . I judge things based on whether the items performance along with other aspects of it justifies the price and whether i think the product will meet what i expect of it , to me that is worth a premium price.



Regarding the Dale Clemens thing , there is no question that millions of anglers past & present are the types to be easily fooled by marketing jargon and thats unfortunate , many will spend way too much on a rod based on whatever clever marketing departments come up with but not all are like that. Most people who fish around where i'm at are convinced that the rod you buy from Walmart is every bit as good as any rod on the planet , they judge how good it is based on how big a fish it could land , no joke.


Now regarding the NFC vs the MHX , i'm going to try and find that info , there has got to be more to it than that or NFC is in big trouble.

I was pointing out that Tackle Tour’s # was with RDA and like you I much prefer CCS.

As to price one can buy an X Ray right now for $110 then $19 for flat rate shipping which is cheaper than Point Blank.
My guess is high mod blanks are priced much higher not only because of material cost but also the manufacturer knows there will be more warranty claims to cover. Then if it is made in the USA there is increased labor cost.

I also think manufacturers are reluctant to post CCS data because many folks are going to focus on power to weight ratio when there is other aspects to a blank such as hoop strength and durability.

I believe if you buy more than one NFC blank the shipping is still just a flat rate of $19.00 which is a great thing to take advantage of . High mod blanks these days are not as prone to breakage as they were in the past but they're still more prone to breakage than lower modulus blanks there's no question about that .

Many suffer damage during transportation , accidents with ceiling fans and car door's than while actually fishing them . If you can avoid high sticking and hard blows to the blank and transport them in rod sleeves which slip into a hard protective tube they should last a lifetime . NFC claims to use a new resin in it's highest mod blanks that prevents a crack in a blank from spreading but of course it could be just marketing jargon again .


David makes a good point on warranty , no question that the cost of a blanks replacement is worked into the final price .

I was a research scientist and teacher before I retired. Because of my training I am a very skeptical and curious person, who likes to experiment by testing and comparing. When I hear people touting something as the ‘best’ my skepticism and curiosity instantly kicks so I get my hands on the product and start, testing and comparing to see if it’s hype or not. Over the past few years, I have bought a lot of high priced and moderately priced blanks from a lot different manufacturers to determine which ones fit my likes and dislikes, and to be informed enough to know what is a good buy and what is not. That’s the reason I buy blanks, not because I have a preconceived notion that they are the best. Why do I do this? Because I can, and I enjoy doing it, and I have no problems getting my money back. What I have found is there is a lot of very good blanks out there, and some are very good deals. I have also learned that different people have different likes and distikes, and that no one company makes the best rod for everyone.

I tried to be objective in my comparison between the PB and X-ray blanks. I just gave the objective data I measured without any hype, stating that both were excellent blanks, just different. I did this to inform not to hype. I hope more people here follow my lead.

If any of my previous comments about price vs quality offended anyone, then I’m sorry they offended you. They are my opinions and everyone is free to agree or disagree.

Concerning the X-ray price, a few days before I posted I went to the NFC website and noticed the sale heading was gone. To check prices, I went a placed several items in my cartt, when I check my cart all items were at the list price, not the sale price. So I assumed the sale was off. After David posted the X-ray price, I went back to the website and found that NFC reintroduced the sale price. So I apologized for that.

Concerning Warranty, I made an NFC HM rod for my dentist, he broke the rod the first time he used it. NFC honored the warranty, but it took over three months and several reminders to get the new blank. The MHX warranty is one of the most hassle free warranties around, and the replacement blank is shipped in a very timely manner. The MHX blanks are moderately priced blanks, but have a great warranty.
Norm

Norman, I certainly wasn't offended by your comments concerning price vs quality. I think we all realize that a high price doesn't automatically equate to high quality, nor does a low price automatically equate to low quality.

As far as the CCS data you posted. I performed a CCS test on one of the NFC X ray blanks I have. My numbers differed quite a bit from yours. I came up with an IP of 589 grams. I don't know how much difference, if any, it makes that I sanded the entire blank on the X ray blanks that I have, but I'd find it very hard to believe that sanding it just enough to make it smooth to the touch, would have that big of a difference in the intrinsic power.

For comparisons sake, I did IP tests on two other rods that I had in the house, (my others are out in the boat) The one rod is an old Shimano Simitar casting rod that I tore down to the bare blank and rebuilt. It was medium heavy power in name. It has an IP of 583 grams. The other rod is an old pre Shimano G Loomis GL MBR784 that I am redoing. It is heavy power in name, and has an IP of 668 grams. I didn't check the AA for any of the blanks.

Aside from the disparity in the numbers for the X ray blanks we have, I'd be interested to hear from Jim Ising on the question as to why the CCS numbers are so drastically different for the rods you tested. Yes I know that named powers really have nothing to do with the actual power of the rod or blank, but I'd be curious if the Point Blanks were designed with RDA testing in mind, and if their design could affect their CCS numbers. As power comes from the butt and lower sections of a rod blank, I would think the equiradius butt would have a direct affect on power.

And lastly. I have to admit that the power numbers for the X ray blanks in question had me a bit ..... not concerned, but definitely questioning. It's hard to judge power by flexing a bare blank, they always feel stiffer than once the rod is built, and being used. I was questioning whether these X rays would be lacking a little in power. After doing the comparison between the X ray and the Shimano rod I referenced, I'm going to be quite happy with the power of the X ray blanks. That Shimano rod still sees duty as my frog rod, and I've pulled some pretty nice sized bass out of some thick stuff with that baby.

I am just shaking my head in disbelief lol, how the heck did a great discussion get into a " Somebody must be offended crap " i mean this has got to be a joke .

Everything is great , there is no disrespect here , everybody has different experiences and viewpoints as Norm stated repeatedly so with that being the case how the heck did the "Offended" nonsense come into it ? Never mind , i suppose you can't even have different points of view these days without someone taking it personally .

I will no longer participate in this thread anymore gentlemen so please feel free to continue your discussions. Enjoy the rest of your weekends.

Herb, as I stated I meant no offense to anyone, so take none! I’m not angry so you also should not be. We all welcome your comments, if you still want to participate.

David, NFC does state that sanding the blank will soften it. When I first started doing CCS IP measurements, I tended to always be on the low side when compared to published IPs.. I discovered that this was due to me not securing the very butt end of the blank well enough. When I loaded the blank, the blank would pivot slightly forward giving me artefactually lower numbers, ie experimental error. Once I prevented the butt section from pivoting forward, and making sure the blank was level, I started getting numbers that agreed very well with those published. I became more confident that I could get good numbers on blanks where that data was not published.. For the PB I got exactly what was published, the first time I have done that, most of the time a little low or a little high, but close. I am sure that different individual blanks of the same model will certainly vary somewhat. Just for comparison, supposedly the NFC MB666 HM is a remake of old Loomis IMX MB784, the published IP for the MB666 is 716 g. I also measured the MB705HM and got 668g (published =608 g) again for comparison.
Norm

Norman, thank you. You were dead on in thinking that I may not be securing the butt well enough. After reading your latest post I went and set up the rod again, just as I did before. I pushed down on the blank a few inches ahead of my forward support and looked at the butt. It had risen about a 1/4" in the V block. 1/4" doesn't seem like much, but when you extrapolate that distance over the remaining portion of the blank, it makes quite a difference. So I tightened up the velcro strap that I use to secure the butt, checked the rod for level once again and did the test over. It's amazing how much difference doing things right, and doing things not quite right can make. lol Once again, thank you for dialing me in on that.

My new IP number for the X ray blank is 658. Much more in line with your findings. I too had thought about what the NFC web site said about how sanding a blank, softens it, I just couldn't believe it could make that much of a difference. A 16 gram difference between your IP number and my IP number for a sanded blank is much more believable. And it's certainly small enough that I personally couldn't tell any difference in the feel of the blanks prior to, and after sanding them.

I would say your number is the same as mine. A 2% difference is what I would call blank to blank variation.
Norm

I too highly doubt sanding off the excess resin would make a rod softer unless somebody got a little too happy with the sanding. Sanding for the manufacturer is certainly more time and labor, probably more blem blanks and maybe slightly less durability so that might be why they chose not to do so.

David, I'm with you on this one. When I read the NFC web site where it states that sanding makes a blank softer, I wondered how it would make it softer. The only conclusion I could come up with, is that the resin adds thickness and diameter to the tube, both of which are ways of stiffening a tube. In the case of the X rays, I'd think any stiffening of the blank would be very minimal at best. I think the difference in IP numbers that Norman and I had are more as a result of blank variation, as Norman mentioned, than they are of my sanding the blank.

David, Did you weight your blank before and after sanding it? Just curious.

David, no, not on that particular blank. I actually have 3 of the MB (SJ?)736 X ray blanks. I have two that are intact, and one that was broken in half during shipping. I sanded both of the intact blanks before weighing them. I weighed the 2 halves of the broken blank which I didn't sand, and got the same weight of 2 oz for it, as I got for the sanded blank I weighed. I plan on making a Frankenstein rod out of the broken blank, so I will be sanding it as well. Once I sand the 2 pieces (I may do that today) I'll weigh them just to satisfy my curiosity. When I do, I'll post my results.

I didn't weigh the blank I tested for IP, as it is partially built.

I must say, I'm a bit like a kid in a candy store when it comes to me finally getting a scale. I find myself wanting to weigh everything. lol

So I took my SJ 732 blank and measured it.
Butt diameter 17/32 inch with a blue sticker with 882 on it
5.0 tip
Weight 1.98 oz

Length is 1/2 inch short of 7’3”, are yours shorter as well David and Norm?

I would CCS measure it but I first need to deal with the blem issue with North Fork tomorrow.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2019 10:44PM by David Miller.

My X-ray also had a blemish, a wavy spot about 10” up from the butt. Maybe a wrinkle in the prepreg when rolling on the mandrel, but it should have been caught during inspection. Makes me wonder about quality control, or if seconds are included in the sale blanks. Makes one wonder. I did not mention this before, but on the inside of the butt there is some sort of fiber mesh that was not adhered to the blank wall. Have no idea what it is. Did any of your blanks have this, if so what is it?
Norm

You all are not alone with the waves in X-ray ‘s. I have noticed them as well. They definitely need to take the head of their quality assurance department and place a boot in his butt as well as train their entire qa team..... I expect much more with a pedigree of Gary Loomis. I have only experienced this issue on the X-ray..... all other series have been good. This is their top tier blank and it should reflect that in build quality.

Just my $.02

Tom

Here is a picture of the fiber mesh in the butt of my NFC MB(SJ?)736 X-ray. [www.rodbuilding.org] What is it?
Norm