Morning y'all.

I am new to the boards but have been lurking for some time. So first off, thank you all for the great information that has been provided through these boards.

I recently discovered NFC and the X-Ray line. I purchased an SJ-703, SJ-736, and the NEO to trial for a new flagship lineup. I have a solid plan for the SJ blanks but am perplexed when it comes to the NEO. The 5/8-2oz weights lead me toward a swim bait or offshore large jig application. I have seen where NFC mentions this rod being tested by far more proficient bass anglers than myself and I am sure many here are as well.

What applications has everyone been successfully building and fishing these to?

Background,
I am from the Olympic Peninsula in WA and am "newish" to bass angling. I grew up fly fishing trout and steelhead as well as jigging and trolling for salmon in the Hood Canal. I moved down South in the mid 2000s and started bass fishing in the mid 2010s. I still don't have my head wrapped around all the applications of bass angling. I never realized there was as much to it as there is. Almost makes salmon fishing seem easy when you don't have it all figured out.

The tournament fishermen I know use these heavy power rods to throw hollow body and semi hollow frog lures and other types of lures into heavy brush like reeds and lily pads. Hook it fast and bull into the boat through the cover. They call them broomsticks and typically the longer the better (7'6" to 8').

Thank you for the response Lance.

I think I am getting too caught up in the "MH" label and need to start looking into the CCS data more frequently. I found some IP ratings posted by Norm in another thread. The frog rods I have built usually are manufacturer rated for lures in the 1/4 to 1oz range to accommodate smaller frogs but I am not sure of their IP weights.

That rod would probably not be practical for cranking, even big baits in my opinion (as a bass fisherman no builder). I would think it would be too stiff and would tend to pull the bait from the fish's mouth. For cranking, I have found that a composite/fiberglass blank is preferred (by me). Graphite in the butt end and glass towards the tip. This gives the fish some time to eat it before you stick him, but still have the strength to get him in I have found that the same setup also will increase your topwater fishing hookups as waiting until you feel the fish sometimes takes more patience than many of us have.

Danny Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That rod would probably not be practical for
> cranking, even big baits in my opinion (as a bass
> fisherman no builder). I would think it would be
> too stiff and would tend to pull the bait from the
> fish's mouth.

Thanks Danny.
This is exactly what I was looking for.

After finding the IP at 865 for the MB765 (MH/MF) and the SJ736 IP at 793 (H/F) I am inclined to agree with you that cranking even large swimbaits probably is not the best use for this rod. Despite NFC's tag of power being higher on the SJ736 than the NEO, the NEO is actually more powerful when looking at the CCS data. The tag and the lure recommendations had me crossed.

Typically when I think MH/F I don't think frog rod. I think low to mid vegetation mid size jig/Texas rig.

My lighter open water cranks are usually built on blend rods unless my client specifies otherwise. If It is a deeper diver/Speed crank I will actually use something more stout like the Lamiglass SI864 MH. This is good for speed cranking and it keeps them pinned pretty well.

Aaron, over on the left hand side you will see links to sponsors. Near the bottom is RodHouse France. They have a neat little app that compares the blanks. It helps on the NFC blanks because their web site isn't always accurate on listings.

Just curious, want are your plans for the SJ-703 and SJ-736?

What were you hoping the NEO would be perfect for?

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

The Neo has an intrinsic power of 865 gm and an AA of 77 degrees. It is definitely not a broom stick and has a relatively soft but fast tip. It is a composite of graphite and zentron fibers, making it, supposedly, almost unbreakage. NFC states it is a very versatile blank that can be used for many different tecniques and lures.Here is the original thread post by NFC introducing the NEO blank.
[www.rodbuilding.org]
Norm

Russell Brunt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just curious, want are your plans for the SJ-703
> and SJ-736?
>
> What were you hoping the NEO would be perfect for?

The SJ03 will be a spinning rod built on the fuji vss handle. Full length. The plan is a finesse rod for techniques such as shaky head on rock points, ned rig, finesse jigs, and drop shot. Finesse jigs work wonders on ledges for the Alabama Spotted bass on the Coosa compounds in the winter and early Spring.

The SJ736 is perfect for arky jigs and T-rigs. I will leave it full length. It will be a casting rod.

Honestly with the NEO I added it to the cart based on pure hype. I saw the MH/MF designation and the suggested lure weight and thought it was a typo. Once I found Norm's CCS data in another thread that included all these rods my mind is now wandering toward a frog/light punching setup. The vegetation on my home lakes does not get heavily matted like it does in FL or Lake Guntersville so even though it has a softer tip I believe it will do well. I will validate that once it hits the water when the vegetation comes back.

This first NEO build will definitely be for testing. I will try it in most of my power fishing areas. I will likely fish football jigs deep this winter. Moving into spring I will likely try 3/8 to 1/2oz jigs, heavier chatterbaits, 5/8oz frogs, and 1/2oz jig heads with hyperlastic dartspins.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2020 08:14AM by Aaron Petersen.

I find the Neo is a blank for moving baits. I like it with around 5" keitech style swimbaits. I would do well with spinnerbaits. It is not a heavy cover, horse them out style blank. It has give in the tip. It would work well for crank baits too (I don't through those much, not a fan of treble hooks unless I need to use them).

"Stout, but with give" is how I would describe the blank. It loads progressively into the blank.

Aaron,

The NEO is a great blank for deep diving crank baits, its a composite (carbon/zentron) so the tip is soft and slow to recover, the body is progressively stiff.

You can see the deflection here:

[northforkcomposites.com]

Aleks

Aleks Maslov Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aaron,
>
> The NEO is a great blank for deep diving crank
> baits

Thank you Aleks.
I plan to have it built in time for winter speed cranking with a R2S tactical DD. I will try that first.

As I have absolutely zero experience with the NEO blank the following is based solely on the photographs of the blank deflected with various weights. Personally I'd rather see the blank in a horizontal position and then deflected as I feel the guesstimated 60 degree angle can me a little misleading. With that said, that sure looks like a blank for single hook baits to me.

I trust Norman's CCS measurements without doubt, and an AA of 77 sure isn't modified fast. That's extra fast all day. From looking at the pictures the blank has some tip, but it has a serious backbone. Again based on the pictures and Norman's CCS numbers, that's a 1/2 - 5/8 oz football jig, heavier Texas rigs, bet it works beautifully on the 5" Keitechs mentioned. Bigger soft body swimbaits, bigger spinnerbaits. I prefer a slower moderate fast action for chatterbaits, but I bet it would make a great swim jig rod.

Sure doesn't look a crankbait blank to me.

Thanks David.

I am very new to the CCS and what IP windows and AA numbers correlate to in the traditional MH/F.

Is there a good resource to learn how to translate the CCS data. Most consumers don't know or want to hear about CCS data or what it is. They just want letters on the blank.

Bare with me for a second on the AA/IP relationship on the MB765 NEO.
I studied Zentron and in relativity how it compares to common prepreg carbon when used in tubular structures. The Zentron is able to compress and expand at a higher rate than modern standard HM prepreg when measured at equal weights. Because of this the Zentron will flex a certain percentage farther before hoop stress or expansion failures occur. Hence the durability stated and demonstrated on these blanks. Knowing this, if the Zentron blend is only in the tip section of the taper then it would skew the CCS measurements. Here is how.

We know the Zentron is not as firm and therefore would not only flex to a higher degree per unit but it also absorbs more energy per unit of length. Therefore with a strong backbone that tapers into a Zentron blend tip you would end up with a high angle of deflection on your CCS test but it would not necessarily make it "fast" due to the Zentron section not having as high of a potential energy load as a non-blend rod would per angle of deflection. So essentially by angle it would appear fast but the strength of the structure is not linear through the taper. The extreme visualization of this would be a broomstick with the last 1/6 of the rod being e-glass. The backbone has a lot of power and the AA will be extreme (likely broken before you get your 1/3) So perhaps NFC testing, which would be far more extensive than CCS would have shown that the Zentron tip in FEA and stress testing, would not actually produce a fast action because of it's properties under load.

I think the manufacturer is likely to be correct in labeling this as moderate fast.

Maybe Aleks can weigh in on this. Is this a fair generalization?

Edit: Aleks already mentioned the tip section being "soft and slow to recover."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2020 09:38AM by Aaron Petersen.

Aaron, action is based on where the blanks initial flex occurs. Extra fast actions flex more towards the tip. Fast action further down the blank, Moderate fast even further down the blank, and so on. AA is a CCS term and refers to action angle. The angle of the tip when the blank is deflected a distance equal to 1/3 of the blank's length. So really, what you postulated isn't going to change what the action of the blank is. At least not by CCS standards.

When performing CCS tests for AA and IP, the blank is in a level position, so action angle is based on the angle of the tip relative to a plumb line. That's why I mentioned the angle of the blank in the NFC pictures. A hanging weight will of course be plumb, but with the blank at an angle a hanging weight is going to flex a blank differently than if that blank were horizontal. You can kind of visualize if the tip is 90 degrees relative to the blank, but some times visuals are misleading.

IP measurements also aren't going to change based on the material used to construct the blank. Again, it's a CCS measurement of the blank's power based on a blank deflected a distance equal to 1/3 of the blank's length.

Now whether the CCS classifies named actions relative to actions of bass rods versus fly rods is another question. AA is AA, but a fast action bass rod with an AA of 66 degrees certainly wouldn't be considered fast in my book. I find it interesting that NFC uses the term "modified fast" as their description of the action of the NEO blank. Perhaps the Zentron fiber has something to do with that. Based on the photographs. it's certainly not a moderate fast action.

I have a rod I built on a NFC MB709 IM blank. It is listed as having a moderate fast action. I did CCS tests on that blank and I came up with an AA of 69 - 70. It has no where near the type of tip the NEO blank has. It flexes deeper into the mid section of the blank when under load. It has an IP of 1045. It's rated for 3/8 - 2 oz weights. And it is a battle between that rod, and a rod I have built on an Rainshadow Immortal IMMC72MH as to which rod is my favorite for up close and personal flipping and pitching. I know I am a lot more comfortable with a big fish at the boat if I have that fish on the rod built on the MB 709 blank. But it's not the fish mover on the hook set that the rod built on the IMMC72MH is. That rod will flat move fish on a hook set. I did CCS tests on the Immortal blank as well. It has an AA of 75, and an IP of 1079.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2020 05:01PM by David Baylor.

The IP would not change but if a lower tensile blend was only added in the end section it would flex to a high angle. I know the term fast (usually a measure of speed) is not necessarily the case in CCS but the traditional assumption is that a higher angle deflection in the CCS setup will return to original state faster. Assuming a single blend and linear taper. (I.e. higher potential enrgy when under equal load) But with Zentron it will not be the case. Especially if it is not a consistent blend throughout the blank. The other factor is the multi angle taper. CCS was made and works for single angle taper blanks but may not tell the whole story with this NEO technology.

I agree CCS is great and as I have studied it over the past week I am appreciating it far more than industry standards. But as an engineer who works with modern tubular structures daily I can see where it could improve. CCS is very practical and accessible. A high speed camera timing and measuring the rod speed and frequency when released from a load is neither of those things.

I thought about modeling HM tapered structures to compare them in 3d modeling Finite Element Analysis software but I realize the engineering side of things is not always interesting to all. My wife tells meall the time.

Aaron, I think you are confusing ideas of action (which goes by names like fast and slow) with recovery rate (which doesn't really have a name). You might want to search on posts about resonant frequency.

When we call a blank fast action it isn't about speed. You could have a high end graphite blank with fast recovery and a low end fiberglass blank with very slow recovery that were both fast action.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

I understand that Russ. I am just questioning the ways of past/current industry standards. Because recovery rate is really what matters for application specific needs like jerkbaits and shaky head. The actual speed has more effect on the presentation than AA. Though they typically would go hand in hand. This conversation really should have been a different thread once it turned to theory.

Thank you for all the responses everyone. This exercise of mind has really opened up my thought processes. Hearing the different views has me challenging my own. Things like this is what has continued to fuel my love for rod building. It started as a hobby and has morphed into a passion. Im glad I found this community. I have so much to learn.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2020 02:44AM by Aaron Petersen.

Let’s see... The tip is a glass fiber while the remainder is graphite. NFC makes this claim about it, “Virtually impossible to break during a high-stick, boat flip, hookset situations”. Somehow, this combination of attributes brings forward a strong recollection, but I can’t quite put that into focus.

Please tell me you aren't comparing the NFC NEO offering to an Ugly stik.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.