Tackle Tour recently reviewed an Eternity RX10 custom BFS build they designed and put together. See the full review at the link below. If you have a BFS (Bait Finesse System) build on the horizon be sure to visit BatsonEnterprises.com. Just enter "BFS" in the search box to see available Rainshadow blank models that fit the bill, or reach out to our sales guys at 360-681-2381.

[www.tackletour.com]

-The Batson TEAM
BatsonEnterprises.com

Interesting read. I'm a little surprised the tester didn't have a higher opinion on the sensitivity of the blank. I haven't built on that specific blank, but I have built on the ETEC72M blank (I built it as a spinning rod) and its' sensitivity is every bit as good as the NFC X ray blanks I have built on. And Tackle Tour did a review of a rod built on an X Ray blank, and they gave high praise of the sensitivity of the X ray blank in that article. Oh well ..... I wonder if they fished any bottom contact baits with the rod during their testing?

Good read though, and I got a chuckle out the tester saying that rod building has caused him to consider ever bit of weight be puts on a rod. Going so far as to leave off two winding checks in the rear grip assembly, to save weight. I wonder how much two 13MM rubber winding checks weigh? LOL At least he mentioned what component selection in the grip area can do in helping the balance of a rod.

Keep in mind, David, that the Tackle Tour tester had no way to actually test the blank for sensitivity, so it was simply a subjective evaluation similar to wine tasting. Could have been influenced by the setting. Or the name "RX10" wasn't considered as high tech-appealing as "X-Ray." Or he missed having the ridges.

Good point about the winding checks. Those "rubber" checks are highly underated. If one totally encapsulates them in wrap epoxy they provide a classy, black, line. Unobtrusive, light, inexpensive, durable, but handsome. Not gaudy like so many checks these days. Yes this comment is subjective , too.

Well, TT Tester writes that he assembled the rod himself and that he is not very experienced. He had to do sth wrong beacause he writes that he added 2 oz in components to the blank - this is a lot. Maybe too much epoxy or sth. I mean 3.7 oz end weight is not that bad but it should be 0.5 oz less if he was so careful with components choice. Maybe some mistakes in the assembly affected the sensitivity as well.

Best regards,
Pavel

I use size 17 Fuji DPSS seats (seats are the largest mass add to my rod builds and the seat also is on this build) on my spin builds and figure that blank weight + 2 oz is about what I get. Maybe a little less, but not much. I have minimal cork and titanium guides. Looking at the components used in the Tackle Tour review, I don't think a significant savings could be made unless one used a skeleton seat.

I cannot think of any significant mistakes that can be made in assembly that would affect sensitivity. The builder obviously did not leave any parts loose.

The most significant effect on sensitivity are the running guides and tiptop ( based on TNF measurements). While titanium guides and tiptops are measurably better than SS, they still affect TNF.

If one believes that TNF is a good indicator of sensitivity, and I do, then the RX10 blank that I built (ETES72M) is very close but not at the top of frequencies for similar blanks. So close that I doubt if the difference is significant. It fishes very well, feels very sensitive with a high recovery speed. As TNF predicted. The RX10 blank is clearly a premium blank.

I really think the tester was simply giving his subjective sensitivity evaluation and he may not have recognized how good it was. Like wine tasting at times. "While lacking that hyper sensitivity some high end blanks can deliver,. . ." It would be interesting to know what those "hyper sensitive" blanks are.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I cannot think of any significant mistakes that
> can be made in assembly that would affect
> sensitivity.

Arbor type, size, amount of epoxy used to glue the reel seat, material of grips, their length and diameter. Preparing guide foots. Quite a lot of things.
I agree that +2 oz is decent but I had the impression that @Cal is 'weight entusiast' and this project was going to be 'enthusiast level' not the average built

Best regards,
Pavel

I respectfully challenge one to find the opportunities the builder missed that would take this build weight from "average" to "enthusiast." I don't think there are any.

Separating "sensitivity" from the weight issue, I don't think there were any opportunities missed there either. I don't think that seat even has an arbor, and if not, it would be glued directly to the blank. It appears that he reamed the grips accurately, so excess epoxy there wouldn't be likely. Even if there was an excess, it's at the grip/seat area where weight doesn't affect sensitivity that much. The grips are about as light as grips can get and as long as they are in fact glued to the blank, that's about all one can do. Preparing the guide feet? That cannot be significant to sensitivity. If the wraps were really blobby with epoxy, that could affect it. But they don't appear to be. Relative to sensitivity, I think the builder didn't miss anything.

Just my opinion compared to another.

Many people here speak highly of the RX10, but this review certainly causes a bit of hesitation if at around $350 it feels just good and not great or better. I was hoping to bump into an RX10 on sale for black friday, alas I did not.

Pawel Tymendorf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Danek Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > I cannot think of any significant mistakes
> that
> > can be made in assembly that would affect
> > sensitivity.
>
> Arbor type, size, amount of epoxy used to glue the
> reel seat, material of grips, their length and
> diameter. Preparing guide foots. Quite a lot of
> things.
> I agree that +2 oz is decent but I had the
> impression that @Cal is 'weight entusiast' and
> this project was going to be 'enthusiast level'
> not the average built

I would very much appreciate if you would share your specific choices for all of those components - I also would like to build as light as possible.

You average only adding 1.5 oz after completing a build?

Do you always use an arbor instead of tape and epoxy for reel seats?

How do you measure your amount of epoxy to eliminate excess but still have a reliably sturdy build?

In what way do you prepare guides to lessen their weight/impact on sensitivity?

Do you use the smallest size seat and diameter grips to lessen total weight?

I very much want to reach enthusiast level with my builds - absolutely maximizing performance.

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

I have a Xray 765 Neo that was exactly 2.0 oz of added weight. The ECSM reel seat under the threads filled completely with the blank, it did not need an arbor. CFX carbon split grip, no fore grip, threads trimmed on reel seat, regular Alconites (size 6 runners, probably a 12 for butt guide.

I have a P700 xray with the same build but micro guides, added 1.7 oz. Smaller butt on split grip. Needed an arbor under the threads on the reel seat.

I do not like the split reel seats, but am starting to take out some material on the ECSM to expose the blank more. It looks like this will remove about .11 oz.

Gents,

ECS16 with SD hood, trimmed from the top as Dean suggsets will be, depending on the version:

- about 24 grams (standard Fuji)
- about 20 grams (modified from China)

TCS16 carbon version is 16-17 grams if you like sth more fancy

Set of titanium casting microguides guides is about 2 grams

No fore grip, no WC, no hookkeeper etc.

Split grip - 3" reargrip of plain white cork or simple EVA is approx 5 grams, bottom part about the same, so 10 grams altogether. So far we have approx 36 grams. Thread, glue and epoxy should be about 3-4 grams which gives 2 grams below 1.5 oz

Best regards,
Pavel



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2023 02:01PM by Pawel Tymendorf.

How about just chalking it up to a different opinion ? Just because David says he thinks the RX10 is even more sensitive than an XRAY doesn't mean everybody else thinks that way so the guy reviewing it must have screwed up or been mistaken.

Good point Chris. I just wonder how he ended up with quite heavy rod using quite light components and minimalistic design. It just does not sum up to me. If I understood the article right, there's reel seat about 20 gr, 8 gr + 5 gr reargrip and titanium guides so where are those 2 ounces added to the blank ?

Best regards,
Pavel

"Just because David says he thinks the RX10 is even more sensitive than an XRAY doesn't mean everybody else thinks that way so the guy reviewing it must have screwed up or been mistaken."

I have only checked the TNF on one X-Ray that could be compared to the RX10 and its TNF is well below the RX10. And it was 5 inches shorter, which should be in its favor.

There is another possibility other than "mistaken." I'm only saying it could be , not that it is, but it could be bias. Without any objective data it's all conjecture as to what's going on.

Pawel Tymendorf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>...If I understood the article right, there's
> reel seat about 20 gr, 8 gr + 5 gr reargrip and
> titanium guides so where are those 2 ounces added
> to the blank ?

The article never covered the reel seat hood...which I would guess is 12+ grams.

LOL ..... Pretty sure I said I thought the sensitivity of the RX 10 blank I built on is "every bit as good as the NFC X ray blanks I have built on." I have said in a previous post to a far earlier thread, that the RX10 rod I have may be, (key words ....... may, and be) more sensitive than the X ray builds I have.

May be.

And yep ...... it's just my personal opinion, and I certainly will not say someone with a differing opinion, is wrong. I merely questioned why he didn't find it to be an extremely sensitive rod, and questioned whether he used any bottom contact baits with it.

As far as all of the other stuff being discussed goes, i will say what I have said in numerous other threads ......... the lightest over all rod may win in a bench test, but that doesn't mean it's going to win in an on the water test.

You guys have fun !!!

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... the lightest over all rod
> may win in a bench test, but that doesn't mean
> it's going to win in an on the water test.
>

I have to agree. The one thing a light rod has going for it is its light.

FWIW....two rubber winding checks weigh 0.25 grams.

BFS rod, something else I don't need. Lol Anybody wanting one, go for it.

BFS is kinda fun. I wasn’t sure I would like it, but it has been fun for my backyard pond fishing. Something else to experiment. Some day, I will put a BFS rod up against a similar spinning and do some comparisons with the exact same lure weights. For me, experimenting is a part of the fun of rod build, making lures, and fishing.

The only reason I would be interested in a BFS rod would be because bait casting gear deals with line twist far better than spinning gear does, which would be perfect for fishing a drop shot. And while casting gear would be fine if all of your drop shot fishing was you dragging a drop shot rig around ..... casting gear is horrible if you're doing any kind of vertical fishing where you have to drop the bait to the bottom on a free line.

Could you imagine having to strip 20 - 30' of line off the reel every single time you make a presentation so you can get the bait to drop quickly to the bottom?

It hurts even thinking about it LOL

I built an RX10 on Rainshadow’s dedicated drop shot blank. It’s as sensitive as any rod I’ve ever fished. I’ve felt the fall of lightly weighted plastic baits interrupted by smallmouths inhaling them at 80’ depths. The rod balanced perfectly with Torzite guides and CFX grips (split). I used the Fuji “New Guide Concept System”, as described by a “Rodbuilding” article, and made sure the layout was spot on. I also used the Angler’s Resource layout system to get a draft place for making fine adjustments. My point is that these are exceptionally sensitive blanks when carefully built with an intentional purpose. I highly doubt that there is a blank that could be determined to be more sensitive with a similar build. When you get into the class typified by names like RX10, SCV, Point Blank, X-Ray, upper-line Megabass, etc, the sensitivity on good builds is splitting hairs close with braid and even fluorocarbon. These are very high modulus, very light blanks featuring similar resins and tapers. They aren’t going to vary that much in a measure that is actually very subjective (those who measure frequency are forgetting amplitude).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2023 01:08AM by Kendall Cikanek.