I have fished the Revelation blanks quite a bit - and they fish very well. Have not done much fishing with the Immortal/RX8 for a while, and I think there were a few changes from years ago. Can anyone comment on how much a difference in feel you see between them? There does not seem to be a big weight difference on the Immortals vs. the Revelations, which is probably to retain durability, so really wondering how much "feel" you pick up with the higher modulus?

Thanks!

Since there is no way to directly, objectively, measure sensitivity, you'll only get opinions here. No data. My opinion is that there is a difference but it's likely minor and will be affected by the choice of guides, tiptops, and wraps (titanium vs SS, size/mass).

If you've been following many of the strings of posts here you'll know that there is now an easy way to measure the True Natural Frequency of blanks and rods. Email me if you want details. From my testing so far I have concluded that generally higher mod/higher priced blanks do have higher TNF's than lower mod/lower priced blanks. Does it matter? It definitely does for recovery speed which is measured directly by the process. The higher the TNF the faster the recovery speed.

I have both RX8 and Revelation blanks built into rods and am not sure I could pass a blindfold test. I think the blank design is very important, and there has to be some overlap between the two series for sensitivity and recovery speed.

If you measure the weight, power, and TNF objectively you'll likely find that the higher the power to weight ratio, the higher the TNF and the higher the sensitivity. But you have to have OBJECTIVE power numbers, not subjective descriptions. And your opinion on sensitivity will be just an opinion.

Agreed - I know it's pretty subjective. I found on one high mod blank I could feel every time my jig hit bottom, and it was very clear. With a little lower modulus blank I'd feel bottom half as much. Both would transmit hits good. And taper and design seem to have a lot to do with "feel" as well.

So thanks for any input.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2022 09:24AM by Marc Morrone.

You mean subjective. If one wants to improve sensitivity, ability to feel bites/bottom/lure action, and they are using mono or FC, the biggest improvement they can make is to switch to braid.

Yes - sorry - subjective is correct - thanks.

You're asking the same question everyone else does. Is G Loomis GL3 as good as GLX? St. Croix SC III or SC IV? NFC IM or HM? It's not just modulus anymore, there are fabrics that make good rods and many more that don't, epoxies and thread size of the fabric has dramatically changed over the years, more fibers of a smaller cross section hold less heavy epoxy between the fibers in the prepeg and since there is less epoxy they keep more of their original modulus. But as always, you get what you pay for, you can get the fabric/prepeg both sizes and everything in between. The good stuff doesn't need scrim any longer I understand, as increased thread density makes up for what was necessary to keep hoop strength and to not blow through the large diameter fabric with the hair thin mandrel tips when the blank is rolled under pressure.
G Loomis said his original fabric had a size of 160, he got them to be able to make GLX back in the 90's at 100, he says he is now testing the feasibility of stuff that is around 8.

Marc,
You ask a simple question.

For myself there is a simple answer.

After building my first RX8 based rod, I have never ever built another RX7 rod again.

Is there a difference?

Yes, Huge difference.

The result - many many more fish put in the boat using the RX8 based rod compared to the Rx7 rod.

At the end of the day, I don't care about modulus. I don't care whether the rod is graphite based, or glass based I am not even so terribly concerned about the weight of the rod.

I am simply concerned about the results.

In my case when I fish with RX8 based rods, there are many more fish in the boat at the end of a day's fishing compared to a similar rod based on an Rx7 blank.

Best wishes

I guess I'm not a good enough RX8 fisherman, never have noticed anything like this difference. I said you were going to get opinions, but no data. Since sensitivity cannot be directly measured, that's all we can offer. But weight, power, action, and TNF can be measured.

I prefer Immortal over Revelation. The Immortals are little bit lighter for the same power. I also think they are more sensitive. Of course that might be because they are more expensive. Don't make the mistake I did and get an Immortal before a Revelation because then the Revelation is automatically a downgrade. I think you will be more than happy with a Revelation. If by some chance it is not light or sensitive enough for you, get an Immortal and I promise you will think it is better than the Revelation. And really, this is all about feelings, either those of the builder or the buyer. Make what feels good to you or what you think will feel good for your customer.

In my opinion Immortal / RX8 / XST blank are one of the best value for money on the market. If you want a sensitve blank then Immortal is probably the best bang for the buck. Of course , there are higher end blanks than Immortal but they cost waaaay more.

Best regards,
Pavel

The Revelation blanks I have built have all been very good - no complaints for sure, and a great blend of durability and sensitivity. And you have to like the large selection of lengths and powers, and there are a few "sleepers" in the Revelation line that are super nice.

It's just always nice to get feedback from a larger cross section of anglers, so thank you.

Marc just mentioned durability with the Revelation blank. Compared to the Immortal I believe the Revelation is more durable. I believe that is by design. If you look at how your typical fishing trips are taken, rods carried in bundles, rods riding in vehicles, very rough boat rides especially in short boats, you might want to consider the Revelation. I use a lot of Immortal blanks for myself and several customers who log a lot of tournament hours. They have had Immortals now for over 10 years, and have simply wore out several Immortal set ups, (jigs and large worms). They are very hard on rods especially stepping on them.

IMO I would take the IMMORTAL unless I am doing some real power fishing then the REV starts to shine. I've seen enough of Marc post I know he knows what he likes.

Mark, are the Revelations getting stepped on as much as the Immortals? Meaning is there step-on experience only on the Immortals, or on both? I'm not sure there is a significant difference since I haven't broken a rod in probably 15 years, and it wasn't either one.

My only experience is wrapping a Point Blank around my trolling motor shaft and it surprisingly survived. I'm not sure the assumption that modern hi mod blanks are more fragile than lower mods (of graphite) is really valid. The last rod I broke fishing was a glass crankbait rod that failed on the cast. And everyone assumes glass is less fragile. The last rod I saw getting broken on a rough boat ride was an old low mod graphite, probably no better than RX6.

Since the original question is about sensitivity and I think it's clear that higher mod generally (but not always) means higher sensitivity, I also would choose RX8. I have more RX7/Revelations than I have RX8, and the RX 7/Revs are very good.

Pawel Tymendorf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my opinion Immortal / RX8 / XST blank are one
> of the best value for money on the market. If you
> want a sensitve blank then Immortal is probably
> the best bang for the buck. Of course , there are
> higher end blanks than Immortal but they cost
> waaaay more.


Couldn't agree more.

There is no question that the RX7 are not good blanks. They are very good, even the older RX7 are good blanks. And for that the matter the RX6 blanks are fine blanks. Hopefully the RX10 will show itself to be excellent as well. I had one break on about 30 cast. I replaced it to its original Owner, and he is still putting its through its paces. I hope it falls in line with the RX8. Time will tell.

I do feel that the RX8 is more sensitive than the RX7. But if 7's were all I had; I would not have any problems. I went to Rainshadow in lieu of AllStar rods in 2009 and never looked back.

I have most of my experience with the two series in salmon/steelhead rods, frankly I think there is a substantial difference in feel while drift fishing. In the bass series I have only found a need the try the dropshot rods from both, the RX8 still is a bit better, but the upper end blanks were a much bigger jump.

i see a few mentions of the immortals being lighter which looks to be the case across the board with the exception of the 68MXF and the 610MXF...

anyone directly compare the revelations to immortals on these....ive never fished either but have handled the immortals and have 2 blanks to build ..IMMS68ML and IMMS68M ...WAS thinking a 68MXF or 610MXF might compliment the 2 but the weights had me thinking

and wheres the IMMWS68MXF fit in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2022 09:30AM by Matt Ruggie.

I would have to agree with those saying that the Immortals are the best bang for the buck if you are wanting a blank with outstanding sensitivity. I've only built on 2 different models of Immortals and they are very sensitive. My personal feelings are that that they are more sensitive than comparable (based on CCS numbers) to NFC IM blanks. How much more sensitive is debatable. But it can definitely be felt.

I'm going to offer a word on the Immortal 610MXF that was mentioned. First let me say I have no personal experience with that blank, but I do have experience with the RX 9 Eternity2 version of that blank. Also, Batson supplies CCS numbers for their RX 10 blanks. IF the Immortal version of their IMMS610MXF blank is anything close to what the RX 9 and RX 10 versions of that blank are, it is a very light powered blank. Batson shows the RX 10 version of that blank to have an IP of 272 grams. And I can't find my paper with the CCS numbers I have measured on rods I've built, but I do know the CCS numbers I came up with for the RX 9 version of that blank were pretty close to the RX 10 version. If memory serves, the RX 9 version had an IP of 284 grams, or perhaps 312 grams. Regardless, it's still what I consider to be a very light powered blank. Definitely not a blank that would cast 1/2 oz. And I would never use it for fishing a drop shot with a 1/2 oz weight.

Actually, I use the rod I built on the RX 9 ETES610MXF blank as a pan fish rod. It will cast a 1/16 oz jig with a Bobby Garland baby shad on 4 lb mono an easy 50'. Awesome pan fish rod. About as sensitive as they get.

My personal feelings are that that they are more sensitive than comparable (based on CCS numbers) to NFC IM blanks.

I respectfully submit that CCS numbers have nothing to do with sensitivity. They accurately describe power and action , but not sensitivity. I am open to arguments that might prove me wrong, so go for it.

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm going to offer a word on the Immortal 610MXF
> that was mentioned. First let me say I have no
> personal experience with that blank, but I do have
> experience with the RX 9 Eternity2 version of that
> blank. Also, Batson supplies CCS numbers for their
> RX 10 blanks. IF the Immortal version of their
> IMMS610MXF blank is anything close to what the RX
> 9 and RX 10 versions of that blank are, it is a
> very light powered blank. Batson shows the RX 10
> version of that blank to have an IP of 272 grams.
> And I can't find my paper with the CCS numbers I
> have measured on rods I've built, but I do know
> the CCS numbers I came up with for the RX 9
> version of that blank were pretty close to the RX
> 10 version. If memory serves, the RX 9 version had
> an IP of 284 grams, or perhaps 312 grams.
> Regardless, it's still what I consider to be a
> very light powered blank. Definitely not a blank
> that would cast 1/2 oz. And I would never use it
> for fishing a drop shot with a 1/2 oz weight.
>
> Actually, I use the rod I built on the RX 9
> ETES610MXF blank as a pan fish rod. It will cast a
> 1/16 oz jig with a Bobby Garland baby shad on 4 lb
> mono an easy 50'. Awesome pan fish rod. About as
> sensitive as they get.

David thx for that info. sounds like its meant as a light DS blank. honestly all the 610MXF variations have me a bit confused. might have to give them a call on that. the imms68mxf looks more in line with its ratings from what im seeing... looks fairly close to st croix 4c68mxf on the rodhouse deflection chart