Southern California saltwater fisherman here. trying to get an idea on different types of 1 piece carbon/graphite rods and rod blanks. i see on the market so many different things and was wondering if anybody had in depth knowledge about the pros and cons for each type of blank material, along with pictures that i could reference. Maybe all of these technologies are about the same thing in terms of performance and could be just an aesthetics factor? I have no idea how to get pictures up on this website right now.

normal graphite blanks- the swirly ribbed pattern
carbon woven rod blanks (phenix black diamond hybrid)- 1K, 2K, 3K, etc. these are the ones that look like the typical carbon fiber weave pattern
reverse carbon blanks (looks like Shimano Teramar rods)
nano blank technology (jaws nano blanks)- i believe "nano" technology is a new type of epoxy technology
cross carbon blanks (possibly okuma PCH rods)- carbon weaving is in an X pattern
reverse carbon + cross carbon- i have seen a blank that has wider x-cross weave where you can see a reverse carbon underneath
carbon tape blank- i'm not entirely sure which rods have this type of technology
24 ton carbon matrix blanks- ???
IM8, IM10, IM12, etc- is this the outdated rating system of graphite rod blanks back in the day?
any other new types of blank technologies out there or a place where i can reference blank types with pictures?

As I'm sure you know, the material used is only one piece of a much larger puzzle. And sometimes the highest modulus material is not the best choice depending upon the particular application. Manufacturers have to balance the material with the design in an attempt to best serve the purpose of what they are marketing a series of blanks for. What works best for an ice rod is not necessarily going to work best for surf fishing.

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

It's just all the different manufacturers marketing jargon to attract customers , there are no blanks that are vastly superior to all others in tech and performance if somebody says there is it's nonsense. When you hear the word "Nano" that relates to the latest resins that are being used and ALL top blank manufacturers have been using nano silica and other nano formulations with modern blanks for quite a few years now.

Despite all the various names manufacturers use to differentiate their blank technology, when it comes right down to it all will perform similarly as long as their ratings and specs are similar . I have tried and fished with many of the top blanks offered and in every case i have yet to have a " Wow" type of moment .

It didn't matter what the blanks looked like either .

I've been a fan of United Composites, the new owners of the old Graphite USA, from SD and Chark Bait in San Diego has a good handle on the product applications, They make the only all graphite rail rods I'm aware of, and every application in between, including freshwater models.Everything they do in the factory is also available as a blank.. The great CalStar rods/blanks are also from So. CA.

It seems odd that rod builders and anglers fixate on the materials used in rod blanks and how these materials are named rather than the physical performance of these rods, measured in time and space. It's a fairly simple task to determine the stiffness of a blank, its period of oscillation and its tensile strength. These numbers will allow a rod builder to make an informed, meaningful comparison between blanks. Pay no attention to the popular depiction of anglers as amusing eccentrics. Anglers are as able to deal with and make use of physical reality as any other group.

Just adding to this, I wish all manufacturer's could "standardize" when it comes to calling out their blanks. I don't mind doing the research but at times, it would just be nice to look, see and know. It would also make it a ton easier when someone calls me and tells me "I want the exact same feel as the rod I own now". They could tell me the numbers on the blank and I could easily purchase the exact same blank they now like.

If someone tells you they have a 1000 series reel, no matter who the manufacturer, you know its different from a 4000 series reel and you pretty know everything there is to know about those reels just from past experience.

But when it comes to blanks, I would draw (excuse the pun) a blank if someone asked me what I thought about a IS701MH as compared to a 4C610MLXF.

Which is what the CCS was designed for, and which it will do. But most manufacturers do not want you to be able to compare blanks head to head.

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

Tom: I am confident that you have correctly stated the wishes of blank manufacturers and their advertising agencies. Thank you. CCS is an excellent source of OBJECTIVE information about rod blanks, and CCS allows the rod builder to personally measure the physical properties of rod blanks and compare these concrete FACTS to those exhibited by other blanks. Those who enjoy comparing the soulfulness or some other subjective qualities of rod blanks would still be free to do so if rod blanks physical characteristics were available to rod builders - without having to buy every blank and test it.

One of my favorite blanks is an RX7, not the highest modulus. When I made one for my son his first statement was "Wow-this rod is really sensitive." Another really well-performing rod is a three piece RX6 travel spin rod. Also very sensitive, and interestingly, it was marketed as a ML power. CCS says it is much more powerful, but since it has an extra fast action (very soft tip), I think the manufacturer rated it based on the tip and not the whole rod. CCS is a very powerful tool.

You can't really convert from CCS measurements to subjective term measurements. There is nothing in the CCS that would be considered "Medium Lite Power," any more than 75F would be considered "hot." Each person would have their own subjective idea on such things. To one person an ERN of 4 might be considered Medium Lite, to the next person, it might take an ERN of 8 to be Medium Lite. That's why it's better to just stick to the numbers - those are objective.

I'm surprised manufacturers have been corralled into using actual feet and inches for their length measurements, although I'm sure it's demanded by customers. Otherwise we might see lengths listed as "Short," "Medium" and "Long" to match their subjective power and action descriptions.


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

You nailed it, Tom. There is no crossover between Subjective rod descriptions such as "soft" or "fast" or "sweet" or "powerful" or "medium" [!!] and Objective rod measurements involving weight, distance, direction and time. I don't condemn subjective descriptions. If you enjoy them use them! I only ask for useful information also about how the blank performs in reality.

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
"I only ask for useful information also about how the blank performs in reality"




The only accurate measurement that CANNOT be debated is how one blank compares to the next employing the CCS measurements , how that translates to a blanks performance in reality beyond those measurements will be determined by how it's built , guides chosen , sizes , amount used , reel choice, specs, and line choices so i would say rod performance will always be subjective .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/2019 07:16PM by herb canter.

You can run CCS measurements on a complete rod assembly as well. Of course, this won't help in comparing the rods built by other builders or manufacturers, unless you have some means to measure many completed rods.

...........

I like that idea better actually , didn't think of measuring them after being built . Before and after would be interesting .

Built reasonably well, changes will be minimal. The AA won't (can't) change but the ERN and CCF will both decrease slightly. How much depends on how the rod was built, weight of components, etc.



........

thanks for you input everyone. I suspected alot of jargon in terms of some of their wording, but also see why there are carbon fibers going in different patterns for strength or rigidity or sensitivity and the such. now, i will admit that i was a bit curious to some blanks made in china (as we all know that some of the top rod companies have their blanks outsourced in China due to low labor costs), and i ordered a blank. I have a bit of an idea about pre-pregs and rod blank manufacturing, and that if you look close enough, you can find where the sheet of material ends and has a "break" in a pattern.

On to the strange thing. this blank from China is a vertical jigging blank. it has a "X-wrap" carbon weave, but you cant see the X pattern and you can only see the dominant pattern of the top carbon. I tried my hardest to find the "break" in the pattern and all i see was a uniform spiral from butt to tip. its as if this company got a 0.5" wide strand of carbon and spiral spun it all the way from butt to tip. has anybody seen anything like this? I'll be taking it to my buddies who work at United Composites so they can dissect and chop it up to see what the heck is going on (i had to purchase a minimum quantity of these blanks so i have extras to cut and flex test to breaking point). i'll try to post pictures on here when i learn how.

Instead of focusing on the widely different patterns and appearances between blanks i would focus on how does the performance compare , i think you will find as most do that it doesn't matter how crazy things look, in the end the fact remains that the best offerings by today's manufacturers will be very similar in performance.

If there was some blank out there that was head and shoulders above the rest everybody would know about it trust me on that . There manufacturers are exceptionally competitive and are always on top of anything that will give them an advantage.