I read somewhere that the SM version and HM version of the same spec rod that the SM will be softer. I was looking to get something like a moderate fast so I compared a bunch of rods and saw the MB705 HM looked relatively fast and the SM version of the same rod looked slower, so I grabbed the SM. But considering another purchase and comparing what I just bought to other blanks to balance my setups I just noticed that they put 16 oz on the HM and 28 oz on the SM - so now I have absolutely no idea how the exact same rod with different materials will behave under some load.

Can anybody offer any insight or CCS data/TNF comparing the same rod with different materials used.

Anybody have a recommendation for NFC blank that is MH MF for swim jigs, worms/jigs, maybe some other stuff. Also I have been considering getting a significantly shorter rod than typical for close quarters/kayak/dock skipping. Was thinking something MH between 5'6 and 6'4 - I haven't really seen many blanks that short though.

Thanks

I don't have the data from NFC blanks, but here's the explanation.

If the SM (standard modulus) and HM (high modulus) blanks are built to identical specs meaning that they are designed to have the same lifting power and the same flex profile (i.e. the same IP and AA measurements in CCS) across different loads, then they will behave slightly different. SM blanks are constructed from a material that has a lower stiffness to weight ratio meaning that it takes more material to achieve the same stiffness. Because there is more material in the blank, the natural frequency will be lower, how much will depend on the nature of the blanks themselves. The additional mass of the SM material will help load the blank slightly as well as make it harder to start/stop motion. Because of the additional loading, it takes slightly less force to load the SM blank the same amount. Because of the additional energy going into moving the mass of the rod, the SM blank is slightly less efficient at transferring energy to the lure. That said, both cast lures just fine, and my experience is that the high modulus stuff 'feels smoother' when casting.

Both materials make fine rods. I choose materials similar to the SM when I know the rod will likely see some abuse such as rods for walking/wading creeks, pack rods, etc., or when I know that I will have little trouble discerning what is happening on the other end, such as applications that use heavy weights and short lines in shallow water. I will splurge on the higher modulus blanks in applications where I find it hard to feel what is going on at the other end of the line, such as light lures and finesse techniques. A nice IM (intermediate modulus) blank makes for a nice compromise between the two, and is where I land when I know the application is not going to be abusive on the rod and I don't need the additional feel of an HM rod.

So I was duped to some degree by the pics on the NFC site, I would've probably picked a different rod had I noticed they just put different weights on them and made the bend profile look different. Too late Now I suppose, maybe I'll hit them up and see if I can change it since it hasn't been processed yet.

Thanks for the write up and explaining your approach to blank choice - definitely makes sense.

They are both very similar in power and action. The SM will be about 1/3 oz heavier (1.97 oz vs 2.29 oz). The MB705 HM has IP=608, and AA=75, the MB705 SM has IP=616 and AA=72. So not a lot of difference between them. The SM is very slightly more powerful and a little bit slower.
Norm

El,

My post is off topic to your specific questions. Just a quick, general response based on my own experiences with choosing and building blanks.

1.) Specifications, pictures, graphs, and other 'data' are only a beginning point in determining a rod's effectiveness for my intended use. Unless I can actually hold it, 'shake it', and test it, I can never be 100% about a blank. I make my best guesses based on the best information I can get if buying sight unseen. Even if I HAD the 100% exact and scientific data beforehand, the blank may still not matchy my expectations.
2.) Many times, my rods will go through several iterations of use; rods I built for one purpose, and worked for that purpose, turn out to be better for another purpose.
3.) There are some things out of my control, but others that are within my ability to change through the rod-building craft. If I get a blank that I feel is a bit 'mushy' in the front third, for example, I may extend it six-inches to up the power (IP) and action (AA) a bit. That's the beauty of customization!

If you look closely on the NFC graphs, they list the weights they are using for each bend profile. I, like you, noticed they use different weights for different rods. Hard to determine just what that means, I agree. The data is there to see and consider. Maybe not perfect, but it is another data point to consider. "Duped" implies deliberate deception.....not something NFC is committed to, IMO and IME.

Keep up the good work!

@NORMAN thanks for the data, confirms that I was fooled by the chart and ended up with a blank I don't really want. Would you happen to have any TNF data between the two?

I'd like to find a decently MH moderate fast rod - and Would consider another NFC blank, but I'm a little gun shy now.

An MB fast vs a SJ fast vs a CB fast are all so different its a shame nobody is using CCS data instead of these useless words, even on their site there really isn't a whole lot I can trust between description and picture on there to pick one.

Maybe I will just grab one of the 765 NEOs for swimjigs and lipless cranks and chatterbaits and spinners - but it might just be a little more powerful than I'd like.

IDK, the sale is tempting and I'm sure I could buy another 3 blanks to get the deal on the HM-SM blanks. Maybe I'll look again... or refrain... I got a problem haha

Edit to add - @LESLIE to clarify (as I posted above) I was duped by the photo, and I attribute no duplicity on the part of NFC. I'd assume NFC has more to gain with honesty and repeat customers than some other companies who sell finished products to end users -consumer confusion breeds more purchases whether its buying an app on a pgone or hunting for the "Right/perfect" rod for "x" application. Selling blanks would lead to more repeat purchases by builders (consumers) who can trust and expect what they are buying and know what will meet the needs of the build. I think having more accurate/consistent data/images would benefit NFC.

I had noticed the different weights before I think, but assumed that the same model rod would have the same weight applied - I even noticed that a couple of rods just had the exact same photo, not that they looked the same, but it was the exact same photo for 2 different rods.

I'd really like to ask Rodhouse what they were thinking doing the pics that way, seems as if there is no scientific reason at all. All consistent weights across powers/lenghts would show more accurate action profiles, the angle of the bend in the pics distorts how the rod would respond to the weight naturally when parallel to the ground. Its mildly helpful while simultaneously being mildly confusing given the number of comments on this forum saying the same.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2022 01:25PM by El Bolinger.

Having purchased a couple of SM and HM blanks of the same model from NFC, I can say that Norm's description is spot on. I recently ordered SJ 804-1 in both HM and SM, though, and they have virtually the same bend profile with 24 ounces and 12 ounces, respectively, in their NFC website photos. I assume its a typo on the photos, but we'll see. As mentioned, you unfortunately can't rely on their website descriptions to inform you - you need to hold the blank. And I fully expect that some blanks will have a bigger difference between HM and SM versions than others.

El,

I am on your side! More understandable data is welcome and needed. There is enough guesswork in life as it is. I have no idea about the NFC graphing photos and whether they are duplicated for different blanks or not; my guess is they don't do that for the reasons you stated.

Joe and John hit the nail on the head in answer to the question SM vs HM.

I know you said you aren't holding NFC responsible for your not noticing the size of the weights were different, but I would suggest you stop using the word "duped" as that means you were tricked or deceived.

Personally, if those pictures were standardized as far as the amount of weight they used for various powered rods, those pictures would be very useful. As they are now, they aren't useful at all. I don't even know what they are trying to show?

Considering that they have the blanks positioned at what appears to be a 45 degree angle, the only thing I can figure they are trying to show is that the rods are durable, because they hang a crazy amount of weight off the tip of a rod blank isn't really designed for that kind of load.

If they are trying to show the bend profile of a blank under full load (using CCS standards) then the rod blank needs to be horizontal. And if not horizontal. then the load needs to be coming at a 90 degree angle to the blank, because that 45 degree stuff isn't cutting it.