Weird Norm,

Mine has is but it looks adhered but my blank sure wasn’t trimmed off nice and straight. Looks like your blank wasn’t a clean cut too.

Another thing is I tried to slip on a 4.5 tube tip top and it wouldn’t go at all even when rodhouse.fr has the specs for the 732 as 4.2 with a verified 4.5 tip top. Looks like mine is 5.0.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2019 10:53PM by David Miller.

I have had several NFC HM blanks where tip size was at least 1 size lager than the listed specs. Another quality control problem?
Norm

With my blank 1/2 inch short makes me wonder if it was trimmed too much on both ends because the measurements are both off. With a low modulus carbon or fiberglass blank it wouldn’t be much issue but being high modulus I think it would change the power, action and casting weight considerably.

Most blanks I have built the tip sizing has been spot on and butt measurements very close.

To be honest, I've never measured any of the blanks I've built on to check them for how accurately they match their published dimensions. The only published dimension I've really been concerned with, is that of the tip of the blank. With the exception of the X ray blanks, I've ordered a tip top based on the published size, and it has either fit perfectly, or I've needed to sand the tip just a bit. The blanks that I've had to sand just a bit were painted blanks, and I attributed the need for slight sanding, to the paint on the blank.

When I ordered components for my first X ray build, I ordered 2 tip tops. I did this for a couple of reasons. Reason one, the published tip dimension for the MB736 X ray blank is 1.7 (I assumed mm) converting that to 64ths gives a dimension of 4.3. They don't sell 4.3 tube tip tops. And secondly, I wasn't sure if I would like the unsanded finish of the blank, so I also ordered a 4.0 tube tip top with the thought that I would need it if I decided to sand the blank. I ended up sanding the blank, but I still needed to use the 4.5 tube tip top. So that is definitely one discrepancy I found with the numbers published on the North Fork web site.

The second discrepancy with the dimensions published on NFC's website are that of the diameter of the butt of the blank. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I attributed that (and I think rightly so) discrepancy to a misprint on the web site. And that is certainly not the only misprint I have found on a manufacturers or a suppliers web site. A QC issue? In the strictest sense of the term, yes, published data should be checked for accuracy, but I don't see it as a quality issue with the blank itself.

A third discrepancy with the actual blank dimensions, and those published on the NFC web site, are the length of the blank. After reading David's post concerning the length of the blank, I measured the blanks I have. They are all 86 1/2" long. 1/2" short of their published length. I don't have the same concerns that David expressed above, but .... 1/2" in length is a little different than a few 1/1000 ths in other places. I don't know if that's considered nit picking, but if I went to a lumber yard and bought an 8' 2x4, I'd expect it to be at least 8' long.

As far as the waviness in blank surface that others have mentioned goes, without knowing the severity of the waviness, I can only say that I personally attribute it to the unsanded nature of the blank. I've never visited a blank manufacturers facility. I've never seen the process a blank goes through once the tape or cellophane, or whatever is taken off the blank. I have two completed builds on NFC blanks from their IM series. Those blanks are absolutely gorgeous, I'd go so far as to say they are flawless. I'm not saying there isn't some kind of QC issue going on at North Fork, with the X ray blanks ... I'm just wondering if there would be the same issues if the X ray blanks went through the same process as any of the NFC blanks that get sanded? The reason I question that is, as I have mentioned before, I lightly sanded the entire blank (sans about 1/2" of the butt) of the 2 intact X ray blanks that I have. They both have a little waviness at various places on the blank. And when I say "a little", I mean that I am almost certain that if I sanded them a little bit more, the waviness would disappear. Other than that slight waviness, the blanks are beautiful.

I want to make it clear that I am not doubting nor am I trying to diminish what others are saying. From the pictures posted here, there are clearly issues that are slipping through NFC's quality control. I'm merely saying that some of these issues may not be present if the blanks went through the same processes a normally finished blank, goes through.

I will definitely concede and agree with the thought that the X ray blanks, being the top tier blank from the company associated with one of, if not the most legendary name in the industry, should not be having some of the issues they are having. The issues people have had with shipping times, customer service, and the QC issues being addressed here are more than disheartening, and I have no doubts that it is costing them business. My guess is that it's too many irons in the fire.

Whatever it is, I hope they can get a handle on it, because I absolutely love all of the NFC blanks I've built on, and am in the process of building on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2019 08:46AM by David Baylor.

hi Norm..when you see a tip size off by that much, what does it tell you about their machinery..maybe it,s old tech..

Ben, I have no idea what it means about their machinery. Other blanks of the same model are on spec, could be the way they trim the blank, but it’s certainly is quality control issue. Just like the waviness, and mesh in the butt, they are all quality control issues. These flaws are mostly cosmetic, and probably won’t affect performance, but they should be labeled as seconds, and not sold as first quality. That’s the reason I wondered if seconds are thrown into the mix for the sale blanks. So it becomes a craps shoot on the blank you get.
Norm

I am communicating with Alex of NFC about my X Ray blank issue.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2019 05:18PM by David Miller.

I received a partial refund through PayPal , thought it was better going that route than paying for return shipping to get another blank or full refund.I am going to put a light coat of Permagloss to protect the carbon fibers at the area that has the scrapes. Luckily this for a personal build and I am not like many others that builds for customers that requires a 1st quality blank.

I hope North Fork Composites quality control issues gets handled.There are not many USA made rod blank manufacturers which I prefer to buy from when possible.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2019 08:35PM by David Miller.

Did a CCS measurement of my SJ 732 blank.

IP 465 grams AA around 72

Hello guys,

I'm new here, but I've always followed your comments and suggestions on different topics.

I am particularly interested in this topic because I have already built and fished few NFC X-Ray rods (SJ 732 and MB 733) and desire to build one more rod in a heavier version. My interest is in a casting X-Ray SJ 736 / MB 736 VS PB731MXF...
Already mounted two SJ 736 (spinning) for some guys, I really liked the feel of SJ 736 but when it comes to PB I never held one in my hands.
Besides the technical differences, I'm curious to find out from your point of view about the PB's feel in direct comparison with the X-Ray, even a subjective view is welcome.

Taking it to the other part of this topic...
I've received around 15 X-Ray blanks from NFC, some had small "curls" at different parts of the blank, nothing serious. Small differences in the tip/butt diameter from blank to blank were present, but again, nothing major. Also, very small deviations on the tip (blanks were not perfectly straight). From my point of view nothing to complain, except the waiting time.

@Norman Miller - did you had time to mount/fish the X-Ray, what's your opinion in comparison with the PB?

Here are some pics with my X-Ray rods:
[postimg.cc] - handles
[postimg.cc] - spinning guide
[postimg.cc] - casting guide
[postimg.cc] - logo

Some input on my X-Rays:
1. SJ 732 is Ex-Fast with a power of 3-12g jig head plus a medium size shad (9cm slim)
2. MB 733 is Fast with a power or 5-17g jig plus a medium size shad (9cm slim)
Both have great progressive actions, are very sensitive in bottom contact and in sensing the bait evolution.

For more accurate data regarding X-Ray check [www.rodhouse.fr]

I really wish I read this thread before placing an order for an X-ray Blank. They took my money and I'm 4 weeks in and my order is still "processing".

A local tackle shop near me has PB on sale for 20% off. I built my cousin a casting rod with PB701MHF, I've been really impressed. My only complaint with the blank is the PB website advertises the blank weighing 1.94oz but I weighed the blank myself and it came out to be 2.36oz. What's even stranger to me is the PB731MHXF weighs less than the PB701MHF. The blank has a very deep bend under load, and the tip, I consider would be on the softer side of fast action. for $140 it's an exceptional blank.

Norman Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I’m not about to do a breaking strength test,
> I’ll let you do that one! IP calculations
> objectively determine the amount of weight it
> takes to bend the rod 1/3 its total length;
> nothing more, nothing less. The Action Angle (AA)
> measures the angle the tip takes at this 1/3 bend
> point, nothing more nothing less. Both blanks had
> similar AA based on side by side comparisons.
> Total weight measurements do not take into account
> how this weight is distributed along the blank. So
> based on these measurements the only conclusion
> that can be reached is that the PB731MXF is more
> powerful for unit weight than the X-ray SJ(or
> MB?)736. My made up flexibility test indicated
> that when held by the tip and supported 8” away,
> the butt of the PB was deflected more than the
> butt of the X-ray. What this told me was that
> either the tip section of the PB was more
> flexible, or its butt section was heavier. I chose
> more flexible, but it could have the the other way
> around. No matter which was true, the IP numbers
> still say the PB is more powerful.
> Norm

The deflection distance is not 1/3rd of the blank's length, but rather a length equal to 1/3rd of the blank's length. Big difference between the two.

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

I got a 4 piece fly rod blank from NFC and had a similar issue with sanding marks on the blank. Contact them. I am sure they will make it right.

David Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rodhouse has SJ 736 at 2.2 oz .57 butt and MB 736
> 2.3 oz .58 so not a huge difference between the
> two.

I have one of each that has the exact same build (just need to finish guides) and one is .5 oz heavier than the other. Everything I had read said the SJ was heavier and more powerful than the MB, now I am worried I swapped them around by mistake.

This numbering system is so confusing.

Norman Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is a picture of the fiber mesh in the butt of
> my NFC MB(SJ?)736 X-ray.
> [www.rodbuilding.org]
> p?photo=21015&cat=506 What is it?
> Norm

Norm,

Did you ever figure out if this is normal? Just received an nfc order and one of the blanks had the same issue. Part of the tape was kind of hanging out the end of the blank and I ran my finger over it a few times and it broke off splintering some graphite with it. Probably no concern as it was on the inside wall of the butt but it was a first for me.

>>"The deflection distance is not 1/3rd of the blank's length, but rather a length equal to 1/3rd of the blank's length. Big difference between the two."

I'm having trouble understanding the difference. Please elaborate. thanks

I can make a blank flex back 1/3rd of its length by deflecting it just a few inches. But deflecting it downwards a distance equal to 1/3rd of its length will take a LOT more weight. Yes there is a BIG difference. I think this is what that quote is talking about.

>>"I can make a blank flex back 1/3rd of its length by deflecting it just a few inches." Norman has been through this so many times before and is expert enough that this is, I am sure, not what he was meaning by his statement.

Norm said- it
> takes to bend the rod 1/3 its total length;

He may not have said it correctly and new comers might think you are just bending the rod to 1/3rd of its length so I think Tom was trying to clarify that is a deflection distance equal to 1/3rd of the blank's length. Yes, that is a big difference. Obviously
You can bend a rod 1/3rd its length with just a fraction of an ounce. Gravity alone with no weight attached will almost do that on many blanks..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/15/2023 01:14PM by Mike Ballard.

If the newcomers rely on a comment in a forum thread rather than reading the CCS info then they will find all their blanks are ultra light. This is IMHO a distinction without a difference.