I'm hoping some of the experienced rod builders on here can help me get a better idea of the correct way to find a blank without actually having it in hand. I have a few older rods I really like such as a G Loomis Spinnerbait Rod and All Star Crank Bait Rod from about 20 years ago that I would like to replace by building new ones on blanks that mimic them. I believe I read somewhere that there are charts / spec sheets for rod blanks that an experienced builder could read and get an educated idea if the blanks are similar. Any advice on "How To" match a blank without just hoping or guessing they will be similar, is appreciated.

Put CCS Data Log in the Search function and select either "Last Year" or "All Dates" from the lower box. The number don't mean much if the blank materials aren't the same. This system is for comparing things not selecting things unless you delve into things quite a bit more. You use a tape measure to find the length of something, but not to select the quality of a board for instance, its species, straightness, whether it's kiln dried, pressure treated, or has a twist in it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2023 10:16AM by Spencer Phipps.

A few guys on here are creating an extensive CCS data log that provides number ratings for the action and power of a rod no matter who the manufacturer is. I suggest doing the CCS testing on your rods that you’d like to match and find similar numbers on the data log.

[www.common-cents.info]
[www.common-cents.info]

Leonard,
I posed the same question on this forum 6-8 years ago in hopes of discovering the “magic” that the veterans used in choosing their blanks. While possibly intimidating at first, and it certainly does require a bit of time and effort, CCS is about the only game-in-town and can afford someone an extremely close match to another blank / rod. It is COMPARING blanks, not necessarily which one is good or bad. Add in Michael Danek’s TNF and you have the best possible method to “duplicate” the properties of one blank to another. We all owe the instigator / updater, as well as those supplying acquired data, of the CCS Data Log a great deal of gratitude; no more magic.

Mark Talmo
FISHING IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM LIFE BUT RATHER A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO IT!!! BUILDING YOUR OWN SIMPLY ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE.

For trying to match the G Loomis rod, you may be in luck in that on North Fork Composites web site (NFC is Gary Loomis' company now) they list some "classics" which are blanks that were very popular back when Gary still owned G Loomis. Go to their web site and see if the blank you have has been remastered. If so, I'd imagine it would be pretty much spot on to what you have.

The All Star rod, it's as others have said already. Take the time to learn and do CCS tests on the rod you have. Once you know the numbers you can find a blank with similar numbers and it should perform pretty close to expectations. That's IF the numbers actually match the blank you receive. I bought a blank because of it's published CCS numbers and the blank was much more powerful than it was supposed to be. So even though CCS is a great way of selecting a blank. You may not get what you think you're getting.

It is important to keep in mind that the reason why one may not get what he thought he was going to get is not a deficiency in CCS; it is a deficiency in the subjective ratings of the blank sources. If they would publish CCS numbers for their blanks, it would solve this problem. They all have the numbers, and most will provide them if you ask. But it's long past time for them to provide them. Thanks, Point Blank! Thanks Rainshadow RX10. Thanks NFC for at least some of your newer blanks,
Whom did I miss? The list of CCS providers is very short., unfortunately .

Leonard,

First, I highly recommend doing a CCS test on any rod you want to mimic. Carefully follow all the steps for how to do the test as CLOSELY as you can. It's a relatively simple test to do, however, the more you pay attention to the details the more accurate your data....and the closer you can get to what you want.

Second, check out the CCS Data Log and see where your numbers fall vis-a-vis other listed blanks/rods.

Third, post your CCS numbers on the Forum, and get some feedback from the vets and pros. Ask for some blank suggestions to mimic your numbers and purpose for the rod. Hundreds of Thousands of hours of experience represented here collectively.

Finally, adjust your expectations. Expect to try a few different blanks before you have it dialed in. As Mark said, the CCS is not a magic wand nor crystal ball; it is a Comparative Tool. That's not to say you won't find a blank you like better than the one you originally thought was the GOAT. I know I have.

It's a fun exercise and you'll learn a ton about rods!

In my case, based on its' published CCS numbers, the blank I ordered was to have an IP of 750 grams. I did CCS measurements on the blank after receiving it, and came up with an IP of 895 grams.

Although I will say that I had another blank in that same order that I ordered based on its' published CCS numbers, and found the IP of that blank to be within 8 grams of the published IP for that blank. I am extremely happy with the latter mentioned blank and the rod I built on it. It does what I built if for, extremely well.

If anyone is looking to build a 6'6" rod for throwing 3/8 - 1/2 oz chatterbaits, you might want to consider an NFC MB 666 IM blank. I think you'd be very happy with it as a chatterbait rod. I know I am.

The AllStar crankbait rod is going to best be duplicated in 2023 by the RodGeeks B473MM. It’s more or less equivalent, but better (I did own an AllStar Carbon crankbait rod. You could easily cut one to three inches off, but the standard length is just fine. Either of the Rod Geeks (St. Croix) Carbon4 or Carbon5 crankbait blanks are just outstanding in my opinion. I’ve caught thousands of fish on the Carbon5 and maybe a hundred on the Carbon4. I can’t give you a reliable opinion on the spinnerbait rod.

Kendall Cikanek Wrote:

Either of the Rod Geeks (St. Croix)
>" Carbon4 or Carbon5 B473MM crankbait blanks are just outstanding in my opinion."

Kendall.......what crankbaits are you throwing with the B473MM? Shallow? Medium? Deep? or all?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2023 10:30AM by Rick Shaffer.

I throw shallow square bills and deep crankbaits with this rod. The medium crankbait season in the canyon reservoirs near where I live is pretty short and I’m usually using the SCV for my choice of those. Specifically, I’m throwing Megabass S-Crank 1.5-2.0’s, Deps Evoke 2.0’s, and OSP Blitz Max DR’s most of the time on it. The Spro Little John DD70 and the Jackall Digle 04 are the biggest crankbaits I throw with this rod, and it handles them well.

THANK YOU Kendall for your response.....much appreciated !!

I’ll be interested in hearing about your build after you fish it some. I’d caution against wanting an exact match for an old favorite rod of any kind. AllStar had different eras, designers, and rod series even in their lines. Their carbon crankbait rods used relatively small diameter butt dimensions and gradual tapers to get more moderate actions. The B473MM uses this paradigm, a little higher modulus material, and a newer resin. The ART system taper is also stepless unlike the AllStar. We are comparing the same basic rod design paradigms from different eras in these two. Both are equally wonderful in my opinion.

The problem with CCS and action angle in comparing rods is that one only measures power and the other just the flex angle at one point. Tapers are much more complex than a composite of these two measures. St. Croix, Don Mook (designed some AllStar rods, too), G Loomis, Thomas & Thomas, and some JDM makers have produced absolutely magic in this regard. Science and art come together in ways that simple mathematics can’t fully capture.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2023 12:29AM by Kendall Cikanek.

Kendall.....when you are talking about the RodGeeks Carbon 5 crankbait blank that you are using.... are you talking about the C572MM???

Michael Danek Wrote:

> Whom did I miss? The list of CCS providers is
> very short., unfortunately .

Pac Bay provided the CCS for their Quickline blanks back when they were still making them, which was a huge help to me. Unfortunately that model has been discontinued.

Yes, I remembered Pac Bay, but. . . not on the list now.

An interesting footnote about the Quickline series is that they were created by PacBay in collaboration with an offshore blank factory from scratch, with the primary goal of matching a target set of CCS numbers, and secondary goals of matching specific material and dimensional parameters. They weren't based on any previously existing series, and models were not changed after samples matched the original target data goals regardless of any subjective input from test casters.
I don't mean to de-romanticize anyone's processes or expertise, but I feel that if you have a basic frame of reference for CCS, have data for IP and AA, know tip and butt O.D.'s, and know what materials are involved, you don't need to "feel" anything. The math does a great job of defining a blank's characteristics. The blank will feel and perform darn close to how you think it will. CCF measurement, and I imagine a TNF measurement can act as a check, and should confirm a blank's combination of materials and taper dimensions.

-Geoff

My only experience with Quickline was an 8 wt fly rod, which I really enjoyed until I broke it mishandling it. I was somewhat surprised it broke as it did, and have always wondered if they were sort of fragile. I repaired it using the O'Quinn process and keep it as a backup rod.

I agree with almost all of Geoff's opinion but mention that CCF is so difficult, and utilizes an added weight based on ERN which is itself a derived number, that it is nowhere near as valuable as TNF. At least it is not for predicting the performance of blanks before building into rods. TNF utilizes nothing but the blank itself and a method of checking its natural frequency.

Before getting "corrected" about CCF, I freely admit it is "relative," but its value to most of us who don't want the hassle of attaching a weight, with the risk of its coming off, is very limited. I can do many TNF evaluations in the time it takes me to do one CCF and can do it with much less demanding structural demands in holding the blank. . I am confident that if Dr. Hanneman had had the inexpensive devices we have today he would have used them, and and would have found a way to accomplish his fly rod objectives by using TNF. . The more I work with TNF the more I see it as a valuable predictive tool for blank evaluation right alongside CCS. I see CCS as the #1 predictive method, and TNF as the second. I submit that it is absolute, "regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things."

I will add that for us builders to "know what materials are involved" is basically impossible beyond the basics of graphite vs. glass. Even that is complex due to the use of multiple different materials in blank making.

I only build fly rods, but the only thing that has ever worked for me is to go to the fly shop, grab some rods and head out and try them out. Make sure you buy something from them for their help, but once you find a rod you like, then find that blank (if it is available and wherever it is available) and build your own. If you are by one of the big box stores like Bass Pro/Cabellas, then you have a lot of selection (but might not be able to go outside to cast). I just usually try new models when I'm in a shop waiting for my guide or loading up on essentials, and I've never had a shop say no, even though they knew I wasn't going to buy it then and there. There is nothing more frustrating than building a rod based on recommendations, reviews and/or various algorithms and then when you get on the water, finding out that it just isn't right. Kudos to those of you who are able to determine what works based on recommendations/reviews/algorithms, but I've never been successful. Maybe that's a fly rod thing?