Matt Ruggie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good stuff John! I have the SB684 and find it
> alittle stiffer than expected. Sounds like the
> MB684 might be alittle softer action being ya like
> it for TW and jerks. How do the 4 power SB and MB
> xrays compare in power?


I did get an MB724 & SB724, to try and find a blank a hair stiffer (in the butt section) than the SJ703 (all X-rays). The MB 724 was pretty stiff. Labeled a “medium”, but I’d call it a med heavy - it might have even been a tad stiffer than a MB705.

Matt Ruggie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good stuff John! I have the SB684 and find it
> alittle stiffer than expected. Sounds like the
> MB684 might be alittle softer action being ya like
> it for TW and jerks. How do the 4 power SB and MB
> xrays compare in power?


Another one I like for jerkbaits/top waters (smaller baits) is the Rainshadow Eternity ETEC68M.

Dean, I noticed the same thing you're talking about with the MB 736 and the SJ 736. Which makes me wonder about how accurate the "comparator" is.

There is a 125 gram difference in IP between the MB 736 (IP 668) and the SJ 736 (IP 793) That big of a difference should be apparent in a side by side comparison of the two blanks. I currently have the two blanks pulled up on the comparator, and at the 800 level they are identical, and they shouldn't be. Not with a 125 gram difference in IP.

David/Dean.
X3...I noticed this when trying to decide between the MB684 and SB684..nearly identical on the comparator. I picked the SB over the MB since it was lighter. So yes I question the accuracy too.

I ran the SB 724 win the mix with those, and it was lighter than the 4 I put in. Go figure. I did not try the 684. I need to get a fixture for mounting and measuring CCS stuff set up in the shop at some point. I have wanted to CRB deflection tool so I can hold two rods side by side to compare, but it has been out of stock everywhere since I started looking for it last year. I have most of the X-Ray’s, at least most powers, not all the various lengths. So, I should be able to get a fair amount of measurements.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2023 09:17PM by Dean Veltman.

Yeah, last time I was comparing nfc blanks I realized how misleading the comparator was, definitely can't trust it.

Dean, I would very much appreciate if you could share what X-ray blanks you've used and what you use them for and your thoughts on them. Please feel free to email me if you don't want to post it all here, if you wouldn't mind.

I feel like I pretty much can't trust any of the general ratings for any manufacturer at this point.

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

El,

Our HM utilizes paper carbon scrim in its material matrix - which is what was used in prototype GLX blanks, and largely this material got Gary inducted into the IGFA hall of fame. (The other manufacturer went away from using the paper carbon scrim due to the difficulty of manufacturing).

X-Ray blanks are scrim-less, the fiber is kept together by a different weight of fiber in the cross ply direction/orientation.

I am not going to go into detail of what we use to keep the M40x together in C6O2, but it is neither a scrim or material, we provided a video of it, and there is a reason we call it "air carbon"

El Bolinger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My buddy wants a new rod and I'm looking at these
> two blanks for him, I haven't found any CCS data
> on the MB735 in any carbon, and can only find
> MB736 in Xray... but looking at them got me
> wondering
>
> If X-ray is the top tier blanks why does the HM
> MB736 cost more than the X-ray? When not on sale
> of course.
>
> Is there a noticeable difference in quality or
> performance or anything? Weight doesn't change by
> much if at all on a number of Blanks and sometimes
> the HM is lighter than the Xray (like in this
> case)?!??

David,

There is actually a great deal of work that goes into our pricing strategy, and as a domestic manufacturer that keeps their prices highly competitive with blanks that are imported - there is not a lot of margin for error.

Manufacturers have to make volume commitments to suppliers like Toray/Hexcel/AGY/Mitsubishi etc, and our fiber prices are highly dependent on the volume of a specific fiber used. Pre-preg also has a shelf life (it kicks over and expires after a certain date, so it needs to be used), some fiber is used in Antennas that we make, some in conduit tubing, some in other products, so in essence other projects often underwrite a lot of the fiber cost that are used in certain blanks, which allow someone like me some leeway in pricing, especially in areas where I want to take market share.

You are right, HM blanks are more expensive to manufacture. They utilize paper carbon scrim, and need to be processed by the aid of vacuum tables to keep the paper carbon scrim from expanding during production.

X-ray material comes pre-plied with a cross fiber (we have also published a video on this - link below), so although the labor rate in processing is lower, the cost of the material is higher.

[northforkcomposites.com]

What I do find rather humorous is that we/I/NFC go to great lengths to disclose parts of our manufacturing process that NO OTHER factory would ever disclose with the rod-building community, as we are very much against techno-babble and fake technology, and to see that thrown back as pure "marketing" is a pity.

Best,
Alex


David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> El, I certainly wouldn't try to apply logic to
> NFC's pricing. But if you want to, the pricing
> would seem to indicate that the HM blanks are more
> costly to manufacture. Or ..... they want to sell
> more X ray blanks.
>
> As far as the weights of various blanks goes. I
> realize that NFC states that their "HM X ray is
> 20% lighter than our existing HM" but we all know
> how advertising can be. Just look at the thread
> currently running that is discussing the weight of
> the CO6 (or whatever it's called) blanks. There
> seems to be some questioning about their weights
> versus what has been said about how much lighter
> the material is than their other materials.
>
> As far as a difference in quality between the HM
> and HM X ray blanks goes ...... I have yet to
> build on a HM blank, but I have built on X rays
> and IM blanks. There is zero difference in quality
> between those series of rod blanks. At least none
> that I can see, And as far as a difference in
> performance goes, I highly doubt if there is much
> difference between an X ray blank and an HM blank,
> when it comes to performance.

Thanks for the run down Aleks, and certainly recognize the value of what you share about manufacturing (appreciate it) and that I have never seen a bit of info about what other manufacturers are doing - probably because they don't want to go to China and start filming in one of their factories, might land them in prison over there for it.

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

Aleks, when I say that I certainly wouldn't try and apply logic to NFC's pricing, it is strictly based on the crazy low price of a blank that is a good as the X ray blanks. In today's day and age of businesses seeming to try and make every little penny they can, the number of sales, as well as the crazy pricing in some of those sales, buy 3 non X ray blanks and each blank is 55% off? that's a crazy sale. Crazy good.

I think you took it the wrong way. I was offering scenario that I thought El may be able to better relate to. Nothing more. I actually suspected that the HM blanks were more costly to manufacture, and that NFC had an abundance of the material used to build X ray blanks. It's perfectly logical and makes good business sense that when introducing a new blank, or offering such low (crazy, my word) pricing on such a high performance blank, knowing you're going to sell a lot of them, to have a lot of that material in stock. I had my own contractors business for several years and have worked in manufacturing for the last 10 years, Where I work now stocks large amounts of the things we use most often, and I did the same thing when I had my business.

As far as throwing the "m" word around .... That had nothing to do with my belief that NFCs is truthful in their descriptions of the X ray material, and C6O2 material. I have zero doubts that you are. Personally. I'm not the least concerned whether an X ray blank weighs more than an HM or a C6O2 weighs more than an X ray blank. I could go into a long explanation as to why I chose to pass it off as marketing, instead of offering a more reason based answer to a posted question, but it would just make this a much longer post and I really don't want to do that.

I don't doubt the honestly of NFC. If an X ray blank with its' 20% lighter material weighs more than an HM blank, that's fine and dandy by me. I'm not the one questioning blank weights.

David, just got a SJ 736.
My IP measured 670 @ 75 degrees.
But will measure again.

TJB

Thanks David,

All clear.

With the board and our general social media posts, We/I want to have a direct communication with the rod building community. I am happy to share many of the "why's" of what we do, it is a big and a small industry, one that we hope to be a part of for a long time.

Best,
Alex


David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aleks, when I say that I certainly wouldn't try
> and apply logic to NFC's pricing, it is strictly
> based on the crazy low price of a blank that is a
> good as the X ray blanks. In today's day and age
> of businesses seeming to try and make every little
> penny they can, the number of sales, as well as
> the crazy pricing in some of those sales, buy 3
> non X ray blanks and each blank is 55% off? that's
> a crazy sale. Crazy good.
>
> I think you took it the wrong way. I was offering
> scenario that I thought El may be able to better
> relate to. Nothing more. I actually suspected that
> the HM blanks were more costly to manufacture, and
> that NFC had an abundance of the material used to
> build X ray blanks. It's perfectly logical and
> makes good business sense that when introducing a
> new blank, or offering such low (crazy, my word)
> pricing on such a high performance blank, knowing
> you're going to sell a lot of them, to have a lot
> of that material in stock. I had my own
> contractors business for several years and have
> worked in manufacturing for the last 10 years,
> Where I work now stocks large amounts of the
> things we use most often, and I did the same thing
> when I had my business.
>
> As far as throwing the "m" word around .... That
> had nothing to do with my belief that NFCs is
> truthful in their descriptions of the X ray
> material, and C6O2 material. I have zero doubts
> that you are. Personally. I'm not the least
> concerned whether an X ray blank weighs more than
> an HM or a C6O2 weighs more than an X ray blank. I
> could go into a long explanation as to why I chose
> to pass it off as marketing, instead of offering a
> more reason based answer to a posted question, but
> it would just make this a much longer post and I
> really don't want to do that.
>
> I don't doubt the honestly of NFC. If an X ray
> blank with its' 20% lighter material weighs more
> than an HM blank, that's fine and dandy by me. I'm
> not the one questioning blank weights.

Alex, I would say you have done more to make rodbuilding affordable with high end blanks than any other company. Speaking as someone that does not build for a living, just as a hobby.

I appreciate what NFC has done and their pricing structure and sales. I would have taken advantage of a sale that just ended, but I just have too many blanks to build to add more to the pile right now, Best sale I have seen since I started building rods in the early 2000’s.

I appreciate what NFC has done for the rod building industry.

Thomas, did you happen to measure the dimensions of the blank? Specifically the butt diameter of the blank. If so, do they match or are they at least close to matching the published dimensions of the blank?

I'll explain why I ask, once I see what you came up with.

David, butt diameter is 0.61 inches and tip is around 5/64. It's also 1/2 inch short! ( I CCS's on it being 87 inches so I'm going to be off by a little but not 100g!!!)
That seems pretty close to published specks.
There is a red label of 881 which i believe is their SKU.

TJB

Thomas, yeah that's pretty close to published specs. I thought you may have gotten the wrong blank. With the dimensions you came up with, it doesn't look that way. And definitely a hmmm kind of thing with the CCS numbers you came up with.

I am hesitant to mention it here, because I never contacted NFC with what I am about to post, but a few years ago, pretty soon after they introduced the X ray blanks, I ordered 2 MB 736 blanks. When I got them I checked their dimensions and found a rather large discrepancy between the published dimensions of the MB 736 blank and the blanks I received. I mentioned it in a thread at the time and it was suggested that I may have gotten the wrong blanks. I responded that I was thinking it was more of a misprint than it was getting the wrong blanks. The person that suggested I may have gotten the wrong blanks provided CCS numbers they had gotten for the MB 736 and the SJ 736 blanks that they had gotten.

I checked one of my rods, and the CCS numbers I came up with, were within 5 grams of the numbers he provided for the SJ 736. Even after that if I was posting in a related thread, I would say that I have two rods built on MB 736 blanks. It wasn't until a year or so later that I requested decals for the MB 736 blanks I ordered (my blanks didn't come with decals) and they sent me 2 decals for SJ 736 blanks, that I finally figured I have SJ 736 blanks. So now I say I have two rods built on SJ 736 X ray blanks. lol

Something kind of funny, at least to me. I've done CCS measurements on almost every rod I've built. I had lost the paper I had them written on, but while cleaning out a junk drawer recently, what did I find? My paper with my CCS numbers on it. I have the blanks listed as MB 736 X ray blanks. lol IP 793, AA 75. I only tested one of the two rods. Anyhow ..... something is definitely fishy. And I know I certainly don't have an explanation for it.

Oh, and the member that supplied the CCS numbers I mentioned earlier, is one of, if not the most respected member of this forum, so I definitely trust the CCS numbers he posted.

David, reran the ccs with 665 g @ 75 degrees.
Also got a SJ 725 which ccs'd at 690, 685 - both times at 68 degrees.

Both rods will fit my needs and I'm looking forward to the build.

It would be interesting to see the variance between batches, or even in the same batches.

I bet it my be higher than we would like, BUT as they are all hand made and I've only watched them being made, I'm not sure I have a standing to judge.

Heck, just that we're comparing all this data is great.

And a big thanks to the folks keeping up the CCS thread.

TJB

Thomas, I forgot to mention in my previous thread, that the dimensions of the blanks I received, matched the published dimensions for the SJ 736 blanks. Which coupled with the CCS numbers I spoke of earlier, is the reason I have been calling them SJ 736 blanks

As far as the blanks you have, as long as you're happy with the power of your blanks, that's what ultimately counts. I am actually very happy with the power of the blanks I received, whatever the heck they are. LOL They fish like what I am used to in a medium heavy power rod.

I will say what has me a bit concerned though, and that is that I have a friend that I've let fish one of the rods I have been talking about. He wants me to build him one. If I order an SJ 736 X ray and it has CCS numbers like the one you have been talking about. It's not going to feel, power wise, like the rod I let him fish. I can't see how it could with a 128 gram difference in IP. Were that to happen, since I am trying to closely match an existing rod, I'd be wanting to return the blank.

I wouldn't expect a blank I may subsequently order to have the same exact IP of the rods I have. I'd find a 30, maybe even 40 gram difference in an IP number acceptable. But not 128. Not when trying to match an existing rod.

Aleks? Any chance you can get some CCS tests for IP done, and let us know what numbers you guys come up with for the MB 736 and the SJ 736 X ray blanks?

Aleks- if you could provide CCS for some of the stuff you already produce I'd likely be buying more blanks.

I'm very curious about the 736 in MB and SJ. presently for my own rods I need to reign in the spending and building, but I'm trying to get everybody I know that fishes an NFC blank and grips.

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

I just finished measuring mine, completed rods, not blanks. SJ736 = 800g AA 75 MB736 = 790g AA 72. SJ seems right in line with what others have gotten. MB seems more powerful than what others have gotten. I had myself convinced from fishing the SJ was significantly more powerful. Shows what feelings get you.