I'm looking for some information on how the XRay mb765 neo will behave when cut down to 6'9".

I understand that it was somewhat designed to be cut down to this length, but I also know anytime you remove that much blank it has to have some impact on the power and action of a rod.

I have one coming in my next NFC order and I'm debating on whether to leave it full length to fish full size chatterbaits (which I've read it is great for) or if I can cut it to 6'9" and make it light enough powered to fish 1/4oz-3/8oz chatterbait mini max plus a trailer.

I primarily kayak fish small rivers for bass, and the mini max is a big time producer for me. I'd love to throw it on a rod I've built but have had trouble replicating the action and power of my current preferred rod (Shimano Expride A 610M-glass which has a super soft glass tip but a stiff backbone).

I’ve either butt cut or had Rod Geeks do it to three different blanks, but never by more than by three inches. I also have an original length rod that is on the same blank model of one cut down three inches (SCV70M). The action between those is just enough different that you can tell that the 6’9” (3.6% shortened) one is slightly slower in the middle to rear sections. Thus, I think a 90 inch blank cut 9” (10% shortened) would have a noticeably slower action in the middle and rear sections. I believe you would probably end up with a suitable rod after taking this amount off the butt of the blank, though.

A reputable blank company a few years ago recommended keeping butt cuts of their products to 6” inches. That works out to about 7.1% for a seven footer. A rod component company, which often strikes me as being rancid with hyperbole (certainly, not the manufacturer you mentioned), once claimed in their ad copy about how their blanks are made to be cut by lengths that would equal about 15%. From the studies of tapers I’ve done, I am very leery of cut ratios that large. I’ve never seen taper specifications that show an even taper from butt to tip. The flex of every zone of a rod blank affects and is affected by every other zone. Losing too much of the butt has to lose the function designed into the taper and wall thickness for that zone. My point is that the more you cut down a blank, then more you will affect the portion you keep. A ten percent reduction could be getting close to where a slowed-down action will turn into a wonky rod with flat spots and/or hinges when it bends.

Thanks for the response. I have read the thread where NFC launched the blank here: [www.rodbuilding.org] and Aleks mentions it was intended to be a blank you could cut down to 6'9" but I struggled to find any feedback from someone who has done that.

Even if the butt area is non-tapered, cutting anything from it will change the action and power to some degree. The more you cut the more the change, but the idea that a non-tapered butt allows you to cut it a few inches without changing anything other than the length is incorrect.

..........

It will change the action and power as measured by CCS. The last half of the blank will still flex identically if using weight as the constant instead of deflection percentage.

Aaron Petersen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It will change the action and power as measured by
> CCS. The last half of the blank will still flex
> identically if using weight as the constant
> instead of deflection percentage.


It changes the action and power regardless of the CCS, or anything else for that matter. Here's the problem - let's say the original blank flexed initially mostly in the upper 1/4 of its length. When you cut a few inches from the bottom, that percentage increases beyond whatever it was initially. You will have a slower action than what you started with and a bit less power. The last half of the blank is no longer the last half of the blank... it is 1/2 less than that by whatever amount you cut from the butt.

..................

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It changes the action and power regardless of the
> CCS, or anything else for that matter. Here's the
> problem - let's say the original blank flexed
> initially mostly in the upper 1/4 of its length.
> When you cut a few inches from the bottom, that
> percentage increases beyond whatever it was
> initially. You will have a slower action than what
> you started with and a bit less power. The last
> half of the blank is no longer the last half of
> the blank... it is 1/2 less than that by whatever
> amount you cut from the butt.
>
> ..................


You are still using the same constant of percentage flexed. I said with weight as the constant.

Let's say the blank flexed 20" down from the tip with 12oz attached. Then you cut 12" off the butt and attach 12oz to the tip. It still bends exactly 20" down the blank. Same amount of deflection in that section.

If an AA of 75 is required to work a bait and at 7'0" that rod works it well but I need to take a few inches off so I don't tip the water, it still works the bait the same because we only load it into barely the top 12" on a lot of presentations. But CCS has my AA down near 71. Only difference at this point is moment arm.

Patrick Coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm looking for some information on how the XRay
> mb765 neo will behave when cut down to 6'9".
>
> I understand that it was somewhat designed to be
> cut down to this length, but I also know anytime
> you remove that much blank it has to have some
> impact on the power and action of a rod.
>
> I have one coming in my next NFC order and I'm
> debating on whether to leave it full length to
> fish full size chatterbaits (which I've read it is
> great for) or if I can cut it to 6'9" and make it
> light enough powered to fish 1/4oz-3/8oz
> chatterbait mini max plus a trailer.
>
> I primarily kayak fish small rivers for bass, and
> the mini max is a big time producer for me. I'd
> love to throw it on a rod I've built but have had
> trouble replicating the action and power of my
> current preferred rod (Shimano Expride A
> 610M-glass which has a super soft glass tip but a
> stiff backbone).

I have six NEOs in my rod locker. I use one cut to 6'9" for chatterbaits and spinnerbaits when I am working closer structure. I use a full length when I need longer casts with those baits and some set up for deep cranks which all require long casts as well. The only actual notable differences are casting distance and the feel of the fish when fighting. The extra length increases speed of the tip with the same amount of your input and it increases the torque the fish can put on you since the weight is out further from you.

I hope one day you catch a giant that bends this rod down to the handle! I haven't had a fish do it yet. Not even the big drum and channel cats I occasionally hook.

It is an amazing rod for the job you are looking to complete.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you saying the AA numbers for the action change, but the actual blank action itself does not?

If so, The idea that the only change is in the measurements (the numbers) and not the actual blank is incorrect. The reason the CCS will show a difference in AA and ERN is because once you cut the blank you have indeed changed the action and the power.

.............



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2023 10:54AM by Tom Kirkman.

I just completed and tested a "Cut Down" rod - I was salvaging a broken factory rod. The rod sheared-off about 3/4 inch from the fore grip. (This removed approx. 13 to 14-inches from the butt section of the original rod length.)

The original rod (St. Croix Mojo Bass model MJS71MHF.) was 7'1" in length and called a 'Medium Heavy Power' and 'Fast Action'. The piece I could salvage was 5'10" and intact to the tip.

I extended the salvaged piece to an even 6-foot.....and CCS tested.

The numbers showed that the AA of 73-degrees still fit the 'Fast Action' nomenclature, but the IP of 607.5 was at the lower end of the subjective term, 'Medium Heavy' power range, IMO.

So, I learned that for THIS BLANK, removing a foot off the butt lowered the Power, but did not make much difference in the Action Angle. (Wish I could compare this to an intact MJS71MHF, but no data I can find so far.)

Here's a subtle difference between CCS and traditional concepts of Action as I see it:

a.) Traditional concepts see Action as a factor of how much the tip section bends relative to the overall length of the rod with what I would call an 'eyeball' test. And where one sees the 'initial bend/flex' may be different than where I see it. This is not bad, just traditional, and it makes sense in the big picture. (And if you like the rod and how it performs for your needs, who cares if it is 'Fast' or 'Extra Fast' or 'Moderate Fast' or 'Moderate'.) No dog in this fight.

b.) CCS measures Action as the actual number of degrees of the tip, measured with a protractor or other device, at a constant 1/3rd deflection point of the entire blank length. CCS yields numbers no matter what changes are made to a rod blank.

CCS is somewhat the same as the traditional method where rod length and tip deflection-degrees are Relative to each other....but CCS yields measurable numbers. That's the dividing line for me.

There ARE changes to the dynamics of how a blank performs when a change is made. These changes do not always follow a linear pattern or yield an easy formula for outcomes, though some general principles can be deduced.. CCS does not reveal all the dynamics of change...but it does show me how to measure the change in Power and Action Angle.

Another salvage-build would yield different results most likely....or if I extended this blank to 6'6" or 7-foot.

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Are
> you saying the AA numbers for the action change,
> but the actual blank action itself does not?
>
> If so, The idea that the only change is in the
> measurements (the numbers) and not the actual
> blank is incorrect. The reason the CCS will show
> a difference in AA and ERN is because once you cut
> the blank you have indeed changed the action and
> the power.
>
> .............

I am saying using CCS the numbers change indeed, because your constant is a percentage of total length and not an actual length. The third and final taper of that blanks construction is not inhibited. neither is the second or third at that length. So what I am saying is this; The way the rod loads to the forces you give it (using force as the constant and not the percentage of rod flex) will remain exactly the same when measured from the tip. So with the same wrist flick the jerkbait will work the same, except the length of which the tip moves. The bend of the rod and the impact it has to the bait remains the same. The "frequency" or rebound does not change.

Aaron,

That's simply incorrect. If the blank is shorter after trimming, then the percentage of the blank that flexes under the same lure weight, even if it is the same distance from the tip, increases. The action has become slower. And the frequency has almost certainly increased.

The reason the CCS numbers change is because the blank has changed.

............

If I remember from the previous thread Les was splicing his blank with an internal sleeve and another rod piece. If that is correct, it’s not a parallel exercise.

Les-

Your quote "The numbers showed that the AA of 73-degrees still fit the 'Fast Action' nomenclature, but the IP of 607.5 was at the lower end of the subjective term, 'Medium Heavy' power range, IMO."

Keep in mind that the CCS has never attempted to match itself to any subjective ratings such you mention. Nor has any blank manufacturer attempted to match their subjective ratings to the CCS measurements. I am sure you know this but for any others reading this topic, please understand any such attempt by rod builders to match the two is indeed purely subjective. And when they do not match, this does not mean the CCS has invalidated the mfg's subjective terms or vice versa. This is sort of like trying to put a round peg into a square hole. Neither is wrong, but they weren't meant to fit together.

.............

Aaron Petersen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------).

> I have six NEOs in my rod locker. I use one cut to
> 6'9" for chatterbaits and spinnerbaits when I am
> working closer structure. I use a full length when
> I need longer casts with those baits and some set
> up for deep cranks which all require long casts as
> well. The only actual notable differences are
> casting distance and the feel of the fish when
> fighting. The extra length increases speed of the
> tip with the same amount of your input and it
> increases the torque the fish can put on you since
> the weight is out further from you.
>
> I hope one day you catch a giant that bends this
> rod down to the handle! I haven't had a fish do it
> yet. Not even the big drum and channel cats I
> occasionally hook.
>
> It is an amazing rod for the job you are looking
> to complete.

Thank you! That's exactly the kind of hands on experiemce that I was looking for. Stoked about the blank.

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aaron,
>
> That's simply incorrect. If the blank is shorter
> after trimming, then the percentage of the blank
> that flexes under the same lure weight, even if it
> is the same distance from the tip, increases. The
> action has become slower. And the frequency has
> almost certainly increased.
>
> The reason the CCS numbers change is because the
> blank has changed.
>
> ............

You are still going by percentage of blank flexed not amount of deflection with the same weight. The tip section will still deflect exactly the same amount measured from original centerline to deflected tip with the identical weight attached as when it was whole. This is especially true on this blank where he has not even cut into a taper.

Set this blank in your CCS jig. Add weight until you hit your 33%. Now move the jig holding the blank forward 6" and leave the weight alone. Where does the tip fall?

If the tip section defects by the same amount, but the blank is now shorter, then the percentage of flex over the entire blank has increased, which means you now have a slower action. You don't need the CCS to tell you this. The blank has changed in action, power and speed.

..........

I agree, your comparison numbers change based on your CCS constant of flex percentage. But that is exactly what I am saying to look past to understand what I am saying.

In measure for comparison, CCS is great. But when actually using this rod (or any) the CCS does not tell the whole story. Because casting and working these baits should never flex the rod into the bottom 60%. Only when a fish is on will it do so. Then keeping the rod at a 90 degree bend hardly gets it past halfway. So the presentation (most important part) remains the same. The fish fighting improves due to shorter moment arm.

With the frequency, you have to take into effect what the tip section material is. It is a lower modulus than the rest of the blank. It's resistive strength is lower than the carbon. So it rebounds much slower. And thus, the action numbers don't compare directly to similar AA's of higher modulus.

Tom is absolutely right here. Change anything about a blank and it will change the action, power, and speed...subtly or dramatically depending on the changes made.

Can Aaron be right, too? The tip section may deflect the same amount after trimming a blank from the butt end, and yield the same AA #'s from CCS testing.

Just curious

Patrick,
Over the years, I have cut down a lot of blanks for specific reasons.

I just want a shorter rod with great sensitivity.
In every case, I have only trimmed the rod from the butt section of the rod blank.

In every case, I have maintained the sensitivity that I have desired, but, the rod is at the length that I wish to use.

For myself, any time that I have handled a rod that has had length trimmed from the tip - it always felt like a pool que and was essentially good for that use and that use only.

But, by all means, this is custom rod building, so do what you wish and enjoy the results of your labors.

Good luck in your endeavors.