Does length and/or AA have an effect on the power (or perceived power) of a rod?

I ask because if you look at my list of Megabass factory rods, the X4 711 has an IP of 'only' 675 which would be in between a medium and medium heavy in most people's descriptions. But when actually fishing with the rod, it's obviously more powerful most of the rods on my list. I used it it for flipping with up to 3/4oz weights and it was not overpowered. It's certainly not a punching rod, but IMO it's a true "heavy" powered rod, but that's not reflected by it's IP. I fished with these rods for several years and am in tune with how they perform and compare to each other, so when I measured the X4 711 at only 675 grams I was surprised...To the point I had to redo the measurement several times to make sure I wasn't screwing something up.

My thought was that the long length at 7'11" and slower taper at 70 degrees made it feel/perform more powerful than the just the IP alone would indicate when compared to a shorter and faster rod.

That MHX CB907 seems like it fits into this conversation as well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2023 09:39AM by Logan Summers.

Good question. I would answer it by stating that power is power, and action is action, meaning that the objective measurements are true and factual. Perceptions are something else and surely can be influenced by length. And weight. And recovery speed. And ergonomics. And even visual cues. There is a lot more to a rod than just power and action.

But I'm sure this question will generate a lot of opinions that may or may not agree with mine.

One thing to consider is that longer length gives one a lower mechanical advantage. Another thing to consider is that longer length with XF action is sort of like a shorter rod of mod/fast or fast action on the end of a rigid stick.. Meaning that the often quoted advantage of slower actions in keeping a fish "pinned" isn't as big a deal on longer rods as it is on shorter rods. I have no problem keeping fish "pinned" on my PB 731MXF. In my opinion, XF action rods cast a larger range of lure weights well since the limber tip loads well and casts well the lighter lures, while when using the heavier lures the tip gets "powered" out of the way and the stiffer mid section comes into play and loads well without the whole rod being overpowered. Of course every rod has its limits. I just believe that XF actions have a wider range of lure weights that work well.

I can confirm the the mhx cb907 is pretty unique. Doesn’t feel like a heavy but is when you really lay into one it is. It’s mod fast 100% but the tip doesn’t flex hard until needed. That’s my 1/2 oz chatterbait rod. The numbers are all fine as a road map but you need to fish a blank to really feel it out. Was going to try the nfc cb704 but swapped it out last minute, so can’t compare.

I'm interested in the perceptions of others who have built and fished the NFC CB704. It's a nice blank, IMHO, fishes nicely, but is a really fast, maybe Xfast action according to my testing and perception. Not what one would normally consider a crank rod. But because of its length, I think it works well with cranks. Anyone else have CCS numbers on it?

Patrick Noll Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can confirm the the mhx cb907 is pretty unique.
> Doesn’t feel like a heavy but is when you really
> lay into one it is. It’s mod fast 100% but the
> tip doesn’t flex hard until needed. That’s my
> 1/2 oz chatterbait rod. The numbers are all fine
> as a road map but you need to fish a blank to
> really feel it out. Was going to try the nfc cb704
> but swapped it out last minute, so can’t
> compare.

Good to hear you like the CB907 for chatter bait fishing. Exactly what I built it for. I'm finishing up my build and will be sending to my son in College. He has three college tourneys in Florida in Jan/Feb so I'm hoping he can test it out on some nice green fish :)

Hello all - I have spent a good bit of time over last few weeks compiling info from this thread into a spreadsheet. With the info posted on this thread we now have 930 records. Most of the time spent going thru this info was spent adding in lengths of the different rods/blanks so that you could sort/filter by rod length. With different manufacturers coding their model names differently it took some time. For example, NFC's model numbers include the length in Ft and In. So say the SB724 is a 7'-2" rod. Others like MHX and G Loomis code there stuff in straight inches. So an MHX MB873 is 87 inches long. Anyhow, I converted all the lengths to inches so length could be filtered/sorted on just one value. If you notice that I messed up any information let me know either via email or by replying back to this thread. Another update to the info is that we now have ERN data for rods going upto ~30.

I think this can be pretty handy if we keep getting additional date from other builders and would be awesome if some manufacturers would provide some info as well. An example scenario where this would be useful:

Say you have a 7' rod that you like but you want to have something with a bit more power and faster action. If you take CCS measurements on your existing rod and you can go into this spreadsheet and create a filtered view of 84" long blanks and sort by IP. Then you can see a listing of all the other 84" rods and find one with a higher IP and Higher AA that should get you pretty close to what you are seeking. If you are only interested in a couple brands you can filter down to just those brands. I think that could be really handy!

I would like to add in more data on Blank Weight but that will require alot of time. I will chip away at it when I can but if anyone wants to do some research on weights that are missing let me know. For me anyhow as I start replacing out my factory arsenal I am primarily going to be looking at the lightest weight options that have comparable actions to my factory rods.

Speaking of factory rods we have a few in there but keep putting those in this thread and I will add them in as well.

I know alot of you aren't spreadsheet gurus but as I get time I will try and post some pics and/or videos on how to filter/sort, etc.... For now, if you view this spreadsheet and want to play around with filtering goto DATA -> Filter Views -> Create New Temporary Filter View then from there just select whatever column or columns you'd like to filter down or sort. This is just a temporary view so anything you do will not harm the original data.

One last tip. This spreadsheet is viewable on a mobile device but it is really hard to get around in. My suggestion is to access on a computer if you can.

El has a link to this info at the top of the thread but I will also list it below:
[docs.google.com]

Awesome! Great work bro

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

You guys are doing a great job with keeping on this. I for one am very appreciative. As Kevin outlined above, this kind of thing can make picking a blank that you can be confident that you will be happy with.

This is very interesting data and, if I understand what I'm reading correctly, possibly answers a couple of questions I've had regarding manufacturers' ratings. Example, I have a Favorite White Bird that is listed as 7'0" MH / Fast action. I've never known if the rod was mislabeled or what but I do know there's no way it's a MH power rod. It's a medium at best and I love it for applications where that's needed. After reading this thread, I wonder if it technically falls into the MH category by testing low at 626 grams (just on the threshold). It would be interesting to know, as I see this with other manufacturers as well. It's almost like there's not really a standard. Dobyns, generally speaking, all feel a bit lighter to me in the power department than they're rated.

Daryl Ferguson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is very interesting data and, if I understand
> what I'm reading correctly, possibly answers a
> couple of questions I've had regarding
> manufacturers' ratings. Example, I have a Favorite
> White Bird that is listed as 7'0" MH / Fast
> action. I've never known if the rod was mislabeled
> or what but I do know there's no way it's a MH
> power rod. It's a medium at best and I love it for
> applications where that's needed. After reading
> this thread, I wonder if it technically falls into
> the MH category by testing low at 626 grams (just
> on the threshold). It would be interesting to
> know, as I see this with other manufacturers as
> well. It's almost like there's not really a
> standard. Dobyns, generally speaking, all feel a
> bit lighter to me in the power department than
> they're rated.

Yep, manufacturer data can vary. That is where CCS helps keep it objective. If you have some factory rods and are setup to measure CCS post your data on here and this info should help you figure out other comparable blanks.

Kevin Fiant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Daryl Ferguson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This is very interesting data and, if I
> understand
> > what I'm reading correctly, possibly answers a
> > couple of questions I've had regarding
> > manufacturers' ratings. Example, I have a
> Favorite
> > White Bird that is listed as 7'0" MH / Fast
> > action. I've never known if the rod was
> mislabeled
> > or what but I do know there's no way it's a MH
> > power rod. It's a medium at best and I love it
> for
> > applications where that's needed. After reading
> > this thread, I wonder if it technically falls
> into
> > the MH category by testing low at 626 grams
> (just
> > on the threshold). It would be interesting to
> > know, as I see this with other manufacturers as
> > well. It's almost like there's not really a
> > standard. Dobyns, generally speaking, all feel
> a
> > bit lighter to me in the power department than
> > they're rated.
>
> Yep, manufacturer data can vary. That is where
> CCS helps keep it objective. If you have some
> factory rods and are setup to measure CCS post
> your data on here and this info should help you
> figure out other comparable blanks.

I'm not currently setup (I'm new to building), but I will certainly look into it.

Great work, Kevin, much appreciated.

Maybe it's just that I haven't mastered Excel well enough, but I have found that the filtering is much easier to set up when opening the file in Open Office, a free bunch of office programs. Available at

[techsoftapp.com]

If one wants a 7 foot blank, between 18 and 22 ERN and with an AA greater than 75 the data base yields 6 blanks.

Manufacturer Factory Rod (Y/N) Series Model ID Length (Inches) IP (Grams) AA ERN Pieces Blank Weight (Oz) Blank Modified Y/N Description of Modification Type of Report (Manufacturer or User or Source) Date Manufacturer Power Manufacturer Action Manufacturer Line Weight Low (Mono lbs test) Manufacturer Line Weight High (Mono lbs test) Manufacturer Lure Weight Low (Oz) Manufacturer Lure Weight High (Oz) Manufacturer Fly Rod Weight
NFC N Gamma SM-CB704-1 84 558.35 82 19.45 1 2.99 N Manufacturer 4/1/2017 M MOD
NFC N Psi IM-CB704-1 84 564.15 78.7 19.58 1 2.56 N Manufacturer 3/31/2017 M MOD
NFC N CB 704 84 565 79 19.65 N rodbuilding.org 12/28/2022
NFC N Lambda HM-MB705-1 84 608.39 75.4 20.62 1 1.97 N Manufacturer 3/29/2017 MH F
Point Blank N Point Blank PB701MLF 84 570.32 77 19.79 1 1.76 N Manufacturer 4/1/2017 ML F
Point Blank N 701MLF 84 572 77 19.79 N rodbuilding.org 12/29/2022


In the program it will be much easier to understand since the formatting will not be changed. This shows the power of this effort by Kevin and by those submitting data. I did the filtering using Open Office. How you do that is to download the file to your computer, giving it a specific name that includes a date identifier so you will recognize the dates of future downloads. When you have it on your computer you open it in Open Office instead of Excel. Of course if you are good at Excel and have it, no need to use Open Office.

bump...


maybe this can be a sticky and stay at top of page?

I have a few more blank entries that were given to me by another poster at my personal email:

I believe he said these were rods in the Mud Hole color series.

IS661L: 340 grams, IP = 136; ERN = 13.4 (no AA listed)
IS661ML: 390 grams (average of four blanks) IP = 156; ERN = 14.8 (no AA listed)
IS661M: 402 grams (average of seven blanks) IP = 160.8; ERN = 15.1: AA = 64
IS701L: 338 grams; IP = 135.2; ERN 13.41; AA = 61
IS701 ML: 344 grams: IP = 137.6; ERN = 13.4 (no AA listed)

This is a nice look at gradations of these model blanks and their numbers. Interesting the rods are very similar except for the IS661ML and the IS661M, which are similar to each other, but less similar compared to the others.

I added these additional blanks to the database/spreadsheet. I assume you are talking about the CRB color series correct? These blanks: [mudhole.com]

[docs.google.com]

Also, note that you do not have to export spreadsheet to be able to do sorting/filtering.

Kevin Fiant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I added these additional blanks to the
> database/spreadsheet. I assume you are talking
> about the CRB color series correct? These blanks:
> [mudhole.com]
> od-blanks
>
> [docs.google.com]
> jPBa-c5LT9RTYeDR_pnCDIkVIdDv0YoeQ/edit#gid=9884645
> 62
>
> Also, note that you do not have to export
> spreadsheet to be able to d
Yes, those are the CRB color series blanks. I recognize the IS701ML because I'm getting ready to build a rod using that blank.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2023 12:50AM by Daryl Ferguson.

Les Cline Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have a few more blank entries that were given to
> me by another poster at my personal email:
>
> I believe he said these were rods in the Mud Hole
> color series.
>
> IS661L: 340 grams, IP = 136; ERN = 13.4 (no AA
> listed)
> IS661ML: 390 grams (average of four blanks) IP =
> 156; ERN = 14.8 (no AA listed)
> IS661M: 402 grams (average of seven blanks) IP =
> 160.8; ERN = 15.1: AA = 64
> IS701L: 338 grams; IP = 135.2; ERN 13.41; AA = 61
> IS701 ML: 344 grams: IP = 137.6; ERN = 13.4 (no AA
> listed)
>
> This is a nice look at gradations of these model
> blanks and their numbers. Interesting the rods are
> very similar except for the IS661ML and the
> IS661M, which are similar to each other, but less
> similar compared to the others.

whats the 2 sets of IP numbers on these blanks? is the IP= # a conversion to cents?

Matt Ruggie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> whats the 2 sets of IP numbers on these blanks?
> is the IP= # a conversion to cents?

Matt - I noticed that too and before adding them into spreadsheet did a little checking. The lower and higher numbers for each rod are different by a factor of 2.5 so I'm 99% sure the lower number is the # of pennies and the higher number is the mass in grams to deflect the rods to the 1/3 length. What was curious to me was that the lower number was in decimal units for a few of the rods meaning partial pennies. Maybe the person that measured them had a Gram weight set and then just converted to pennies.

@Les - maybe you can clear that up for us?

Hey guys!

The numbers I listed were from someone on the forum. I did not list the name of the person for privacy reasons. (The person who provided me the data is more than welcome to post, of course!)

The first IP number is in grams, as given to me. (Some models were in multiple blanks so I averaged them. This resulted in 'partial' pennies, or decimal pennies.)

I divided by 2.5 as the weight of a penny in grams. So, IP in grams divided by 2.5 = IP number. Sorry for any confusion! (Kevin is a great detective!)

ERN was a general estimation based on the Rosetta Stone (CCS File) and is a +/- estimation. The Rosetta Stone Chart is listed in whole Penny/Gram numbers; I went with the closest correlation.

Thanks for your attention to this!

I found the data interesting and useful because it listed a series of similar blanks in terms of power and length. Multiple blanks of the same kind, too, which I averaged for a single number, and sometimes yielded a decimal.

There were a couple surprises in there, too, where the power numbers jump in the middle of the series! CCS don't take sides!

Hope this clarifies things for you! If not, you know how to reach out.

Les