I understand that I am way over thinking my first rod build but I've little else to tinker with until the last pieces arrive . I measured the weight of my new rod blank - Rainshadow Revelation ML 7ft 2in Carbon Wrapped - to be 2.3 oz . The decal that came on the butt of the blank had been removed and saved before weighing.. The decal indicated the blank was exactly as ordered . The Information on the website list the weight of this blank as 1.9 oz . I used a Taylor scale which , as best I can calibrate , is no more than 0.07 oz off . Again , a novice like me won't be able to tell a functional difference and I'll go ahead with the build but I just wondered if there is normally that much fluctuation between the listed weight and measured weight ? Apologies if the question is too nit picking .
Thanks.

Ron

Ron -

Your quesion too nit picky? On THIS forum? I don't think so. Ha! Everyone has their own level of tolerance for tolerances.

I'm not sure what the industry standards are for variences, but there ARE some. Others will know. A difference of 0.4 oz. seems a little much to me; however, like you, would probably never notice it.

If this is your FIRST rod build, focus and learn all the 'best practices' you can. You have a very nice blank. Good luck, and keep asking questions!

The specs on the decal are target specs. It is unlikely that any two blanks of the same model will be exactly the same in any regard, although they should be at least close.

All it takes for a blank to weigh a bit more is a little extra paint or finish, or a trim that is a little closer to the butt on one than another.

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

Thanks Leslie Cline . After all is said and done , I may have measured wrong . I plan to enjoy building the rod and I'm sure it will fish better than I do .

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> All it takes for a blank to weigh a bit more is a
> little extra paint or finish, or a trim that is a
> little closer to the butt on one than another.
>
> ............

Thanks Mr. Kirkman . Or all it takes is me being un able to measure that accurately . Like I said , I plan to enjoy the rod but was just curious . Thanks again .

I have only had one blank in all the blanks I've dealt with over the years that had a significant difference between advertised weight and actual weight. I think the building of blanks is a lot more precise than most builders do. Consider that the materials that go in are highly controlled, accurately measured for dimensions, and "rolled/processed" through a consistent process. The finished blank's weight should be very easy to determine after a few blanks through the process. As stated, .4 is not a normal error. I think it is a typo or mistake in communicating the specs.

Not a nit-picking question at all.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
As stated, .4 is not a normal error. I
> think it is a typo or mistake in communicating the
> specs.

Thanks Mr. Danek . I thought that the weight difference was surprising but , again , it is very possible that the error was with me . I will attempt to recalibrate my scale and weigh the blank again . If the difference in listed and measured values shows up again , I make a mental note for the future . As I said , I will go ahead with the build and enjoy . Mr. Batson and Rainshadow have an infinitely better reputation for blanks than I do as a measurer . Thanks again .

Ron

I looked up some weights for the REVS72ML and found anywhere from 1.7 to 2.05 oz. Could the carbon wrapped version weight another quarter of an ounce? Probably. Agree with Mick above that it is likely a typo or some other error the specs, rather than anything with the blank. I guess I've never bothered to weigh any blanks, even though I have a scale that would work. If I like the weight in my hands and the way the finished rod fishes, why do I need to go and do something that can only make me like the blank less by thinking it is "off"?

I find weights usually run pretty much as listed. I think tip sizes vary a bit. ( as we are told to expect) 1.9 - 2.3oz. does seem like a jump though. I don't go thru a lot of blanks, but I do weigh them.

Peter Yawn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I looked up some weights for the REVS72ML and
> found anywhere from 1.7 to 2.05 oz. Could the
> carbon wrapped version weight another quarter of
> an ounce? Probably. Agree with Mick above that it
> is likely a typo or some other error the specs,
> rather than anything with the blank. I guess I've
> never bothered to weigh any blanks, even though I
> have a scale that would work. If I like the weight
> in my hands and the way the finished rod fishes,
> why do I need to go and do something that can only
> make me like the blank less by thinking it is
> "off"?,

Thanks Mr. Yawn . Like I mentioned , I was foolishly obsessing while I wait for a few parts to come in . The weight did surprise me but believe me if I can get this build done , I most surely won't think there's a thing in the world off about it :) Thanks again .

Ron

It's Ron's first build I can understand his excitement and curiosity wanting to thoroughly analyze it . After a while you can tell if somethings off just by handling it after you take it out of the tube, no scale necessary.

Enjoy it and don't go too fast , you will be surprised how easy it is to mess things up.

chris c nash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Enjoy it and don't go too fast , you will be
> surprised how easy it is to mess things up.

Definitely going to enjoy this and take a lot of time but a few more statements like this last part and I'll end up a drooling heap in a dark corner of the basement :)

Ron

Ronald Atchley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Danek Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> As stated, .4 is not a normal error. I
> > think it is a typo or mistake in communicating
> the
> > specs.
>
> Thanks Mr. Danek . I thought that the weight
> difference was surprising but , again , it is very
> possible that the error was with me . I will
> attempt to recalibrate my scale and weigh the
> blank again . If the difference in listed and
> measured values shows up again , I make a mental
> note for the future . As I said , I will go ahead
> with the build and enjoy . Mr. Batson and
> Rainshadow have an infinitely better reputation
> for blanks than I do as a measurer . Thanks again
> .
>
> Ron


Measure your blank butt diameter against the target spec. The way blanks are made requires them to be trimmed after being pulled from the mandrel. They're not always exact. One blank that is trimmed lower down on the mandrel will weigh more than one that is trimmed further up the mandrel. It really comes down to quality control in this aspect.

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

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Measure your blank butt diameter against the
> target spec. The way blanks are made requires them
> to be trimmed after being pulled from the mandrel.
> They're not always exact. One blank that is
> trimmed lower down on the mandrel will weigh more
> than one that is trimmed further up the mandrel.
> It really comes down to quality control in this
> aspect.

Thank you again Mr. Kirkman. This is getting interesting. The listed butt diameter for this blank is 0.436. I measured 0.4525 earlier this evening but rechecked after reading your reply. Again I found that I measured 0.4525 but , also , I found that if I rotated the blank I would get readings as high as 0.4540. Checked this several times . In my ignorance of how they make blanks , I have to assume this is related to orientation of the wraps and would be present to some degree in any blank . I have not measured the length of the blank but will check that tomorrow . I do know the tip size seems to be as listed because the tip top I ordered seemed to fit nicely ( dry fit ). Thanks again .

Mr. Kirkman,
I measured the length of my blank and it is indeed 86 inches as stated in the specs . But , after checking further , I found that the listed specs for the REVS72ML-SB and the REVS72ML-SCW are identical in every aspect including weight and butt diameter . When I spoke with Mr. Batson , he told me the SCW blank that I have is their newer design with carbon fiber wrapping on the lower section . I would assume this carbon wrap is the cause of the different measurements and that it is a simple typo on the specs on their new web page . ( Mr. Batson said their web page had just been redesigned. ) Again , I appreciate you and the others here taking time to help me . Thanks .

Ron

if the "extra" weight is in the butt of the blank, no big deal. If it's in the tip . . .

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if the "extra" weight is in the butt of the blank,
> no big deal. If it's in the tip . . .

I completely agree . I can't compare the two versions of the blanks but , on my blank there is a defined junction where the carbon wrap ends ( faint circular ridge ) 36 inches up from the butt leaving almost the forward 60% of the blank unchanged . I believe Mr. Batson said it was intended to add strength to the lower rod section . I truly believe that my concern was unjustified and stemmed from believing published specs on what I knew to be a new web page design . I would not have been able to come to that conclusion if it were not for the folks on this forum who helped me . Greatly appreciated !
Thanks .

Ron

The goal of most rod builders is performance - sensitivity, distance, durability, comfort - not statistics, or even beauty! On the other hand, rod building can be a fine art, not a practical enterprise.

If the weight is in the butt it gives the rod more power, making it better able to generate energy (so the fisherman doesn't have to) and better able to push the line for longer and more accurate casts in all ambient temperatures, as long as the double haul is used. :-)

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The goal not
> statistics, or even beauty!

Good thing beauty isn't a criteria . This first build of mine my end up looking like a toad to most folks but I have a feeling it'll turn into a prince to me :)

Ron