C6 is the chemical formula for Carbon, and O2 is the chemical formula for Oxygen, a component of air. One of our initial testers of the blank provided in his feedback that holding this blank is like holding air – so the name “Carbon Air” stuck.

C6O2 is not just a name. Its a new fiber and a new technology that holds the fiber together.

Air Carbon is a combination of a pure carbon mesh that is so light, a puff of air sends it flying, (click on the product video to see!) combined with a fiber that is deemed “strategic” by our government and thus non-exportable and is provided by allocation to a select number of factories across ALL industries in the US. There is a benefit to being Gary Loomis and being in the composites industry for 50+ years – when a new material comes out, your name is on a “short list” of those to call to run some tests.

The result? Blanks that are 30% lighter than our X-Ray and 50% stronger.

For those looking for more stats:

Blank Length: 7'2"

Blank Weight: 45 grams /1.58 oz

Butt Diameter: 0.53

Tip: 4.5

ERN: 21

Line: 8-14lb

Lure: 3/16-3/4

Finish: Matte, Slightly Ridged

[manage.kmail-lists.com]

For those that are curious to what the carbon mesh/veil looks like that binds this fiber together - there is a link on the product page here: [northforkcomposites.com]

Last but not least, we also introduced a line of travel blanks - 48 models in all to cover nearly all fishing applications.

Thanks for looking,
Aleks

Maybe I'm the Lone Ranger, but I really dislike wrapping blanks with ridges or grooves. I much prefer them to be smooth.

Are ya'll doing a 7' version. I want to cut it down to 6'9" but 7'2" is a little too much for me. It almost reads like a Fuji PB with that butt diameter. I will definitely give it a try.

Please make some blanks that are at least 7'10" , I desperately need the added length for saltwater flats fishing .

I remember in a thread a few months back Tom mentioning the ultimate blank would be totally weightless and I agree . That would be amazing. This sounds like we're moving in that direction.

Its definitely a preference for some people. Size B thread, and you can wrap them just as quickly as those that are smooth.

Best,
Aleks


Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe I'm the Lone Ranger, but I really dislike
> wrapping blanks with ridges or grooves. I much
> prefer them to be smooth.

Lance,

Yes we are - about 30 models in total...the material is on allocation for now, so its being "allocated" to the models that sell more per our internal mix.

From what I recall - the stated weight of the PB 73MH is about 2.12oz and for the Medium right at 2oz, which is right in line with our Xray lineup.

This is 30% lighter.

Best,
Aleks

Lance Schreckenbach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are ya'll doing a 7' version. I want to cut it
> down to 6'9" but 7'2" is a little too much for me.
> It almost reads like a Fuji PB with that butt
> diameter. I will definitely give it a try.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/2022 07:00PM by Aleks Maslov.

Aleks, any plans for a blank in the 12-20 or 12-25lb range out of this material? I will give one of these a shot regardless.

30% lighter, 50% stronger.. T he modulus must be off the chart..What is the modulus?

David,

The Modulus relates to the stiffness of a fiber, and has some correlation to its tensile strength. However, for a tube, the compression strength and elongation percentage play a much more important role that just the Modulus (compression is usually measured in MPa) the holy grail is when a fiber has all three (among other properties - some fiber is round, some is oval, which has its own benefits when it’s inside of a laminate.

I decided to intentionally withhold the Modulus, fiber manufacturer, from the press release. If we say it’s 80million Modulus, you will see it on marketing mumbo jumbo from an overseas factory in less than 30 days. The blanks will be shipping shortly, and the proof is in the pudding.

There is not a single iota of nano tech / graphene in this material. As Gary mentioned in his 80th birthday post, and recently echoed by CTS - those companies that use those “features” in their marketing language need to have a heart to heart with their manufacturer (as most companies are importers, not factories) and those factories that sell this “technology” to importers - should be ashamed of themselves.

Best,
Aleks

Just when I think I don't have much of a reason to build any more rods, something like this comes along. LOL

I have two questions? First, what is the listed action of the blank. An AA number would really be nice.

Question number two concerns the ridged finish of the blanks. Prior to the mirror black finish that X ray blanks are now available in, I built two rods on X ray blanks that had ridges. I didn't care for the feel of the ridged finish, so I sanded the blanks myself. Is the finish on the Carbon Air the same as the older X ray blanks? And if so, what are your thoughts of someone sanding the blanks for themselves?

I would wholly expect sanding the blanks to void any warranty on the blank. But is it a more delicate process with the Carbon Air than with the older X ray blanks?

I found sanding the ridges off the old X ray blanks to be quite easy. I've fished the rods for almost two years, and I've not seen or felt anything that would leave me to believe I damaged the blanks in any way

David, I would not dare sand because the walls must be very thin..A rod over seven feet and only about 11/2' ounces does not have much thjickness,..It,s probably a blend to tone down it,s stiffness so that should help it,s durability some..I don,t know, we are not told much for some odd reason..most rod makers like to brag about modulus and talk about blends..you know they are not 100% C6O2..I would not be surprised if it were 70% fiberglass with some new high mod fiber to stiffen it up.,I would get one then..I like glass rods..lol.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2022 03:41PM by ben belote.

Hey Aleks any plans on a 703-1 with this material? The X-Ray version of this is an incredible walleye rod

ERN of the PB 73MLF is 20.6, so basically the same as the NFC 725. Weight of PB is 1.76 oz. Heavier, yes. Earth shattering, no. This is why I really appreciate objective power numbers and want to thank NFC (as well as PB) for providing them. Will I have to buy one of the new air blanks? Of course.

Aleks,
With all due respect, you are totally wrong with your “chemical nomenclature”. Pure carbon is simply “C” and oxygen is simply “O” within the “Periodic Chart of Elements”. The prefixes, sufficases or exponential numerical values within a chemical component is simply related to how many of that atomic element are included related to the other atoms within the same chemical compound. “C6” IS NOT the “recipe” for the carbon atom and likewise “O2” IS NOT representative of pure oxygen. “C6O2 is not just a name. Its a new fiber and a new technology that holds the fiber together”. Is that a fact? Until properly explained and proven, I will remain skeptical and consider it to be just the newest @#$%& sales tactic (Ewaniki must be having wet dreams over this one).

Mark Talmo
FISHING IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM LIFE BUT RATHER A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO IT!!! BUILDING YOUR OWN SIMPLY ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE.

Mark...just to set the record straight.

O is one oxygen atom.
O2 is two oxygen atoms chemically bound to form an oxygen molecule.

There is not example like this for carbon...but similarly: H2 is hydrogen, N2 is nitrogen...etc...etc.

C6 refers to the atomic number for carbon. Why get annoyed by a product designation? If would’ve not be wise for NFC to use CO as their designation, since this a poisonous gas known as carbon monoxide. CO2 would be carbon dioxide, a molecule necessary for life on earth. So C6O2 is just fine with me. It’s not supposed to be a chemical formula, it’s just a designation. They can call their new blank any thing they want.
Norm

Mark,

The chemical formula for Oxygen is O2, and it should read that the Atomic number for Carbon is C6.

"C6 is the Atomic Number for Carbon, and O2 is the chemical formula for Oxygen, a component of air." Better?

We never stated that O2 is representative of pure oxygen, just that its a component of air.

I'll leave the other comments unaddressed, because I don't want the mental imagery associated with them :D

Best,
Aleks

Mark Talmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aleks,
> With all due respect, you are totally wrong with
> your “chemical nomenclature”. Pure carbon is
> simply “C” and oxygen is simply “O” within
> the “Periodic Chart of Elements”. The
> prefixes, sufficases or exponential numerical
> values within a chemical component is simply
> related to how many of that atomic element are
> included related to the other atoms within the
> same chemical compound. “C6” IS NOT the
> “recipe” for the carbon atom and likewise
> “O2” IS NOT representative of pure oxygen.
> “C6O2 is not just a name. Its a new fiber and a
> new technology that holds the fiber together”.
> Is that a fact? Until properly explained and
> proven, I will remain skeptical and consider it to
> be just the newest @#$%& sales tactic (Ewaniki
> must be having wet dreams over this one).

I don't really care what you call it ........ I just want to know the AA of the MB 725 C6O2 blank LOL

Mark, would you not like to know how much C6O2 is in the rod..Is it 100%, or 50%, or 10%..?

David, the AA is 76.

Best,
Aleks

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't really care what you call it ........ I
> just want to know the AA of the MB 725 C6O2 blank
> LOL