You could go cross category with one measuring/describing protocol, then there would be no surprises.

The numbers are ERN's followed by AA, Action Angles.

I've never said anyone's numbers were wrong. But many subjective descriptions are inconsistent and misleading. Hence the original proposal.

You have been making a lot of arguments about the proposal and it appears you need to go here: [www.common-cents.info]

I've never seen a 1.400 ERN. Maybe I am reading these wrong.

The only argument I have made about any proposal is that none except maybe a couple of the world's rod and blank manufacturers will ever see the proposal and even if they all saw it they would never adopt it. They are not going to adopt somebody else's system in favor of their own which most have used for years. It is a nice thing for a few rod builders to talk about but it will never happen.

Mike Ballard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Matt Ruggie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > MikeB
> > there sure are at least a few examples of
> > blanks from same manufacturer, in the same
> > category(SJ,MB,Spinning) where you see blanks
> > labeled L being more powerful than blanks
> labeled
> > ML and blanks labled M being less powerful than
> > the blanks labled ML. Its not the norm but it
> does
> > happen.
>
> You have three different categories there, SJ, MB
> and Spinning. That is my point. You can't go cross
> category.
>
> I am not familiar with numbers like that from the
> CCS. Are those blank weights? Butt and tip
> diameters? in any event the system Batson uses may
> figure power at a different point than the CCS
> does. That does not make his numbers wrong.

are ya messin with us lol

i was never going cross category but i must not have been clear enough. ill edit to be more clear.....what i meant was there are tinconsistencies within each of those 3 categories from the same manufacturer
SO:
example of why you are incorrect to say that no company has lighter powered blanks labled higher in power than a heavier powered blank in the same category are as follows:

NFC has blanks in its xray line that have the label ML (SJ703) that is less powerful than the SJ732 labeled L. I believe their are similar examples in the MB lineup too.

David posted the RX10 blanks which was pretty cut and dry with Medium powered blanks having less power than the ML powered blanks. or so i thought.

Mike B
Yes you are reading it wrong. the 1.4 is blank weight the last 3 digit number is the IP.

I was looking for ERN and don't recognize those figures. Sorry..

Only way to put any of this in front of rod and blank mfgs is to contact them directly. Fishing Tackle Retailer publishes a list of all the companies in the tackle industry in their magazine every year and there are dozens of rod and blank manufacturers. Write a letter or e-mail and send direct. They will never see it on a rod building message board.

Wow, my post of the RX 10 CCS numbers doesn't look anything like it did when I hit the post message button. They were spaced much further apart in their respective lines. I'll just do what I should done in the first place, and post a link to the CCS numbers for the entire RX 10 blanks.

As I said earlier. These numbers are provided by Batson.

[www.dropbox.com]

These number greatly vex me. I bought a couple of the ETES68MXF, but expected a MXF blank to have more power than a MLF blank. Give line and lure ratings, one would assume that is the case. Given the CCS data and after receiving the blanks, the MXF is clearly not as powerful as expected.

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4 examples from Rainshadow. All from the RX 10
> line up of blanks.The numbers were provided by
> Batson Enterprise. Rainshadow designates the RX10
> line up as being "bass/ freshwater" blanks. The
> ETES designates these blanks as spinning rod
> blanks. Were they casting blanks it would read
> ETEC.
>
> ETES68ML-SS
> 6'8" 1 6-12lb 1/8-3/8oz. 0.480 4.5 Fast ML 1.400 3
> 12
>
> ETES68MXF-SS
> 6'8" 1 6-14lb. 3/6-1/2oz. 0.466 4.5 Xtra-Fast M 1.
> 450 245
>
> ETES610MXF-S
> 6'10" 1 6-14lb. 3/6-1/2oz. 0.466 4.5 Xtra-Fast M
> 1.280 272
>
> ETES72ML-SS
> 7'2" 1 6-12lb 1/8-3/8oz. 0.487 4.5 Fast ML
> 1.770 343

Dean, feel your pain. Several years ago I bought an RX9 ETES610MXF Eternity2 blank to build into a drop shot rod. Batson didn't supply CCS numbers for any of the Rainshadow blanks at the time, so I based the purchase on the casting weight range, line weight rating, and named power of the rod. I was majorly disappointed. After doing my own CCS testing on that rod, I got almost identical numbers to the RX10 version of the blank. Which IMO is severely under powered for what I would have expected from a blank with those specs.

I've tried using it for its' intended purpose, and it is a huge failure. Its' only use to me, is as a pan fish rod. It's one heck of a pan fish rod though. LOL

Dean, the CCS specs on the rods show that the M is less powerful and has a slower action, opposite in both power and action from what the subjective descriptors say. Additionally, neither is powerful enough in my opinion to be called medium power, and the one called Xfast is more like a fast, but a fast on the slow side.

68ML IP = 312, AA = 76/77 ERN = about 12.8 For comparison the Point Blank 701MLF is ERN 19.9 with about the same AA. I have a "medium" power drop shot blank that I built into a rod that measures 12.6 also, nothing close to what most would call medium power.

68MXF IP = 245, AA = 71/2 ERN = about 11.2

This is exactly the reason for the proposal that has been so generally dismissed.

Don't I remember being told this cannot happen within a single brand, a single category of blanks?

To me, the 68mxf rx10 would be a good drop shot rod, light tip and give in the upper half. But, I do not need more dropshot rods. I even went with the 6-8 instead of the 6-10 version because it weighed more figuring it would not have that kind of action then. I wonder if rods with that kind of deflection profile are harder to pick out from CCS data. Take the St. Croix 76mlxf. That has a light tip, but it does not also have the flexible upper half. A crankbait rod can have that bend into the middle of the blank, but does not have the extremely light tip to go with it. Can CCS deflection angle differentiate those kinds of actions?

CCS can accurately measure any power and any action. If the tip is very light in power compared with the rest of the rod it will result in a higher angle, faster action. If anyone doubts the capability of CCS to accurately measure the different powers and actions, they can take a cheap rod and do a series of tests in which they cut 2 inches off the tip, remeasure it, keep doing that, and they will see how the numbers react to the changes in the blank and how the blank bend shape under load changes.

I don't have numbers on that St Croix, but if it in fact is Xfast in action, then there is a lower section of the blank that is stiff compared to the tip allowing support for the lighter powered tip, and the tip will bend down steeper in order tor the rod to be deflected to 1/3 its length.

I would think the other rod, the 68ML, would be my choice for a drop shot rod. Even at its power, which is higher than the 68mxf, it's pretty light power for my taste, and the tip will be very light in power as indicated by its higher AA. The other rod seems a lot like David's rod which he said is a good panfish rod. I tend to agree with him on this one.

Dean -

This relates to your specific question and the thread topic overall:

I have a few St. Croix rods with the tip profile you describe. (That's one of the things I like about that brand of rod - the Extra-Fast action is out there on the first 12-inches of the tip.)

If you get into the section of the CCS which describes the process of determining the DBI (Defined Bending Index), you may find your answer of how to measure a rod in 12" increments, starting at the tip. If you graph out your results, as Dr. H does in the article, you will see how each blank section works with other sections to create an overall profile. Pretty fascinating stuff.

The point is, CCS can define blanks in multiple ways.

Based on the CCS data for the RX 10 blanks, and my personal experience with drop shot rod I have built on an NFC DS 6107 IM blank, I would go with a blank that hasn't been mentioned in these conversations. And that would be the ETES72ML blank.

It's CCS numbers for IP are exactly what I came up with when doing CCS testing on the drop shot rod I referenced above. AA is extremely close as well, I got an AA of 79 - 80 on the rod built on the DS 6107 blank.

I absolutely love the rod for working vertically by the boat, or when making short pitches to targets that I know are there. For the inland lakes and the depths I fish in those lakes, (up to 20') it's an awesome rod that works very well. When I go up to Lake Erie, it's a different story. If I am fishing bedding smallmouth in the spring, it's great, and a lot of fun when you get one of those big girls on. When summer comes and the fish move out to the rock humps and reefs, it's a different story. Out there it is way under powered. Out there you're making long casts and fishing water up to 35' deep.

As I don't hit Lake Erie all that often, I probably won't build another drop shot rod for that kind of water, bu if I did, the CCS numbers for the ETES72M blank looks like it would make a dynamite drop shot rod if a lot of your drop shot fishing is spent making long casts, and dragging the rig, Probably make a nice little Ned rig rod as well.