David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes Matt .... it would

so i gave that blank a hard look as its in their classics as the remastered SJ842. A blank i was always interested in. i had the GLX SJ782 (which i found too light and soft) and the SJ842 was reccomended to me as a better option but never picked one up.

so anyway. when i looked up the SJ704 on NFC site and then cross referenced with their catalog link, the specs are much different. for the record the SB684 i got spec'd the same catalog vs website

site vs catalog

4.5 vs 5.5 tip

.560 vs .601 BUTT

2.24 vs 1.9 oz. weight

MedHvy vs Med. power (arbitrary i know)

Maybe it will shed some light on that blank. i had it in my cart at one point but really wasnt sure what id be getting so I cut it from the short list.

Ronald Atchley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does NFC have a return policy for blanks that do
> not measure to be what was published on their site
> and , if so , what are their tolerances ? I know
> they have a breakage return policy listed on their
> site but could find nothing about measurement
> tolerances ??

Ronald,
When i emailed them they got back to me same day with:

"Matt,

We don’t have CCS data for our newer blanks. Sorry. Further, with the SB 684-1, I wouldn’t be able to answer why an anomaly exists contradicting the published data. If you can’t envision the blank for the intended or alternate purpose, it may have to come back. If so, please go to the NFC-"

so prompt and willing to help. As far as tolerances IDK. thats what i was wondering when i originally posted about this. im gonna guess my blank falls into their tolerances and now i know they may run big. My plan was, to order a second blank to build a matching pair. I wanted to be sure and handle the blank before ordering another. once i play around alittle more with it ill make that decision.

again nice blanks, delivered in specified timeframe, packed nicely and LIGHT! Will make a great rod im sure, whether its for the techniques i had in mind or something else....buts thats on me.

Matt

Spencer Phipps Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NFC is not the first company to have published
> discrepancies in their catalog and they won't be
> the last. Is this a real insurmountable problem?
> If so, we can vote with our pocketbook. Has anyone
> checked the accuracy of all the rest of our
> suppliers and if so, where is the posts mentioning
> it? Do we want our blank companies to thrive, or
> order everything from Alibaba?

insurmountable? No not at all. again just wondering what to expect from them....kinda like if someone posted..hey i just got a st croix medium (insert model here) such and such and it seems to be about a power +/- heavier than expected. id answer from my FME certain st croix tend to run alittle heavier powered than rated compared to brand X, its common.

sorry ya feel i singled out NFC..the reason i only mentioned them is simple. they are the blanks i just recieved. if it was another manufacturer i was not familar with i would have asked about those.

thx for the edit btw...a typo can sometimes be takin the wrong way...

Matt,

The answer to your question is the following:

Pre-preg is provided by the manufacturer (Toray/Hexcel/AGY/Mitsubishi etc) with TWO variables.

1) Resin concentration +/- 5% and
2) Fiber concentration +/- 3%

This means that from batch to batch / shipment to shipment you may have variance in the number of fibers in a yard wide roll of material and the same thing for the resin content - this is why blank weights and tip top measurements vary.

In the most extreme case - you will have an 8% difference between batches of raw material which will cause variations in tip diameter.

We have a “retain” and the main criteria is the same flex of the blank coming through production to the flex of the retain. (We test 10% of every production batch, if it’s within tolerance, it gets passed through QC, if it does not match, the entire group gets flexed against the retain)

You will have some variation from blank to blank in terms of weight, and tip diameter, but they will flex within about 1/2 inch of the retain.

Best,
Alex

Aleks
Great info! Thanks! very informative...appreciate it. Good to know for future purchases. cant wait to get these couple xrays built up and fish em.

thx
Matt

Matt, I never thought to check web site specs against those in the catalog. The catalog specs are almost dead on for the SJ 704 IM blank I received. I did some digging and found the butt diameter for the blank I received. The butt of my blank is .597" Very close and completely acceptable to what is printed in the NFC catalog for the blank. The weight of my blank was 2.1 oz. Lighter than the web site, heavier than the catalog. But again, more than an acceptable difference.

Based on the dimensions supplied in the catalog, the IP of 533 grams that I got for the rod makes sense. With the tip top being a 5.5 versus a 4.5, the lower AA makes sense as well. It seems the problem is with the web site dimensions. I can honestly say, that had I saw the dimensions of the blank in the catalog, I wouldn't have chosen that blank as I would have expected it to be more powerful than I was looking for. That is not to say that it isn't a great blank, because it is. And resulted in a really nice rod. It is just more powerful than I was hoping for.

And Spencer, Matt nor I are picking on NFC. Is it an insurmountable problem? That depends on what your expectations of published data is. Clearly with the SJ 704 IM blank I have been speaking of, there is a very large difference between the web site's published dimensions and the catalog's published dimensions. As I said above, had I saw the dimensions for the blank in the catalog, I wouldn't have chosen it for the reasons I explained above.

I am also aware that NFC is not the only company with discrepancies in published data. Rainshadow has incorrect dimensions for some of their blanks on their web site as well. Had someone asked if anyone ever found discrepancies in their published blank dimensions, I would have shared what I had found. I realize that proof reading hundreds of pages of blank specs would be a very tedious task. And we're humans, so things are going to slip by. The only person that doesn't make a mistake is the person that doesn't do anything.

And Alex .... I certainly hope you don't think I am picking on or throwing NFC under the bus, because that is not my intention. I'm just a bit surprised that the web site and catalog dimensions are so very different. Oh, and you may want to take a look at the butt diameter posted in the catalog for the MB 704 IM. The catalog has it listed as .392" I built on that blank earlier this year and the butt is what the web site has it listed at. Which is .560"

David,

At least a couple people on here told me don’t go by the site go by the catalog. I know once I saw those larger specs on that SJ704, it was enough for me to pass on it. Also it sounds like it’s more in line with most of NFC’s other 4 power blanks from the numbers ya got.

Matt, you're right as far as it being in line with their other 4 power blanks. At the time I got the SJ 704 I also got an MB 704 to build a rod for a buddy of mine.. The SJ and MB blanks are very close to each other in their feel and their CCS numbers.. So much so that if you fished the rods side by side, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two going strictly by feel.

David,

Thanks for your note - I certainly do not think that you are picking on NFC, and I think it is a valid question as to why the stated dimensions vary.

"Is it an insurmountable problem?" - No, but here is what goes into that process:

Think of pre-preg as a sheet of paper, lets say its an 8.5" x 11". Now imagine that piece of paper comes from the manufacturer with a variance of +/- a few percent in terms of the paper thickness. That paper will get wrapped around a metal mandrel, and due to the variance of the paper thickness, it may have a different diameter at the butt and tip from batch to batch.

A lot of manufacturers get around this by grinding the tip to a specific diameter, we don't do that as we don't want to over-sand into the fiber, and since we hand sand, that's not really an option anyways. Our blanks will meet flex criteria, but they will vary +/- in the extreme case by about 8%.

The good news, is that tolerances are getting much more precise on pre-preg, so the variance should be getting less and less.

Best,
Aleks


David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Matt, I never thought to check web site specs
> against those in the catalog. The catalog specs
> are almost dead on for the SJ 704 IM blank I
> received. I did some digging and found the butt
> diameter for the blank I received. The butt of my
> blank is .597" Very close and completely
> acceptable to what is printed in the NFC catalog
> for the blank. The weight of my blank was 2.1 oz.
> Lighter than the web site, heavier than the
> catalog. But again, more than an acceptable
> difference.
>
> Based on the dimensions supplied in the catalog,
> the IP of 533 grams that I got for the rod makes
> sense. With the tip top being a 5.5 versus a 4.5,
> the lower AA makes sense as well. It seems the
> problem is with the web site dimensions. I can
> honestly say, that had I saw the dimensions of the
> blank in the catalog, I wouldn't have chosen that
> blank as I would have expected it to be more
> powerful than I was looking for. That is not to
> say that it isn't a great blank, because it is.
> And resulted in a really nice rod. It is just more
> powerful than I was hoping for.
>
> And Spencer, Matt nor I are picking on NFC. Is it
> an insurmountable problem? That depends on what
> your expectations of published data is. Clearly
> with the SJ 704 IM blank I have been speaking of,
> there is a very large difference between the web
> site's published dimensions and the catalog's
> published dimensions. As I said above, had I saw
> the dimensions for the blank in the catalog, I
> wouldn't have chosen it for the reasons I
> explained above.
>
> I am also aware that NFC is not the only company
> with discrepancies in published data. Rainshadow
> has incorrect dimensions for some of their blanks
> on their web site as well. Had someone asked if
> anyone ever found discrepancies in their published
> blank dimensions, I would have shared what I had
> found. I realize that proof reading hundreds of
> pages of blank specs would be a very tedious task.
> And we're humans, so things are going to slip by.
> The only person that doesn't make a mistake is the
> person that doesn't do anything.
>
> And Alex .... I certainly hope you don't think I
> am picking on or throwing NFC under the bus,
> because that is not my intention. I'm just a bit
> surprised that the web site and catalog dimensions
> are so very different. Oh, and you may want to
> take a look at the butt diameter posted in the
> catalog for the MB 704 IM. The catalog has it
> listed as .392" I built on that blank earlier this
> year and the butt is what the web site has it
> listed at. Which is .560"

thx again. it answered my original question perfectly

like i said before, these are the first 2 NFC blanks ive handled and just wanted to know what to expect.

so +/- 8% from tip to butt. if it was just the tip i probably wouldnt have given it a second thought... it was the overall larger dimensions that made me question

thx