I know a lot of this is subjective, but if you were trying to build a bass rod as sensitive or more sensitive to a G Loomis NRX+ what blank would you use?

Point blank
NFC Xray
NFC Xray C6O2
Rainshadow eternity rx10
Rodgeeks Carbon 5

Those will all get you in the same ballpark as the NRX+. At that level, it's all subjective, but every one of those blanks is extremely sensitive.

To give a specific model blank recommendation, you'd need to provide the intended application. There are special models in each of those blank lines depending on your technique.

A longer version of whatever blank you intend to use.

.........

The blank used is not the magic, what you put on the blank becomes a composite whole new entity, got to play with an 843C about a month ago, nice rod, but put the same components on many of the above and you are in business, the 783 and 843C has got to be close to the most copied blank design in existence.

I will be putting torzite and recoil guides with carbon fiber handles. Its going to be a 7ft ish Medium spinning rod. I want this thing to be as light and sensitive as possible. I basically want it to be a 852S in black. I want it to look like Batman built it lol.

Point Blank 701MLF

RX10 ETCES 72M

Use the smallest running guides you can get away with. I use 4's for rods I want to maximize sensitivity. I prefer a size 17 DPSSD up locking to have a smooth place for fingers, small ramp same diameter as the seat hood, small ramp off the back, split grip. You might have trouble going this way with commercially available carbon fiber components. Should come in well under 4 oz. Built as above with exotic burl cork components it will come in very close to blank weight + 2 oz. Maybe a little less with carbon fiber.

The biggest thing you can do for sensitivity is to use braided line.. If you use mono or FC and want the MOST sensitive outfit, you are missing the objective.

Having built on all the blanks listed above except c6o2, and having an NRX 852s, I can say that Point Blank is going to get you closest to the NRX "rigid" extra fast feel. I won't pretend to say what blank is more sensitive, but the NRX and Point Blank perform best with bottom contact baits (jigs for me mostly). Also, I think there is no way recoil guides make a rod more sensitive and the hundredths of an ounce saved over torzite runners is not worth the horrible sound they make with braid. As Mick said, if you aren't using braid you are missing out on bottom contact sensitivity. Yes, I cut the recoils off my NRX and put on titanium SIC runners and like the rod even more.

Peter Yawn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Having built on all the blanks listed above except
> c6o2, and having an NRX 852s, I can say that Point
> Blank is going to get you closest to the NRX
> "rigid" extra fast feel. I won't pretend to say
> what blank is more sensitive, but the NRX and
> Point Blank perform best with bottom contact baits
> (jigs for me mostly). Also, I think there is no
> way recoil guides make a rod more sensitive and
> the hundredths of an ounce saved over torzite
> runners is not worth the horrible sound they make
> with braid. As Mick said, if you aren't using
> braid you are missing out on bottom contact
> sensitivity. Yes, I cut the recoils off my NRX and
> put on titanium SIC runners and like the rod even
> more.


I like a more parabolic bend that goes through the blank. I think that keeps fished pinned better but I love sensitivity and weight the most.

I would say parabolic = md/fast or fast. IMO you will lose some sensitivity vs an x fast action. Pick your poison.

I'm not a braid guy, and I have never heard braid going through recoil guides. With that said, I agree with Peter on his guide suggestion. Fuji titanium with SIC rings. In your case, since you want it to look like Batman built it, I'd go with the black titanium colored frames. Fuji calls them T2's. I love the color, so that's the guides I use when I want super light weight.

As far as the Torzites go. I have Torzites on one of the casting rods I built on NFC MB 725 C6O2 blanks. I have Fuji T2's on the other one. Since they're casting rods I haven't weighed any spinning reduction train guides with Torzite rings, but I can tell you that the difference in weight between the Torzite ringed guides and SIC ringed guides in size 5's, is miniscule.

While not an exact apples to apples comparison, a Torzite KT 4.5 weighs .060 grams. A SIC KT 5, weighs .085 grams. Just for giggles, lets say an SIC 4.5 weighs .080 grams. So a .02 gram difference in weight. If you want to use Torzite ringed guides just so you can say you have Torzite guides, which is what I did on one of the casting rods I mentioned, then I totally get it.. But I can tell you this, both of the rods I mentioned weigh the exact same 3.35 oz. And I can't tell any difference in sensitivity, or balance, between the two rods.

Like I said, if you want Torzite just so you can say you have Torzites on the rod, I get it, but I have two more of the MB 725 blanks yet to build on, and they won't be wearing Torzite. I'll use the money I save, on other fishing related activities. Or maybe a nice steak dinner.

If you want to objectively evaluate the effect different guides have on a blank you can test for True Natural Frequency. With the same, minimal amount of tape on each set, and with them in the same locations on the blank, run comparisons. You then can decide what makes the most sense for you. IMO, the higher the TNF, the higher the sensitivity. Certainly, the higher the TNF the crisper and cleaner the rod will feel.

Frequency has more to do with rod speed than sensitivity. What you feel on the end of your line isn't some sort of electrical current - it's tension on the line. Something stopping, moving, resisting. There's a reason you cannot feel anything on a slack line.

...........

As Peter has said, Recoil guides ??, Torzite guides? #4 guides?

Sure, you can go out and spend the money for all of these things, and have the hassle of threading line through #4 guides.

But, I dare say, that there are a lot of guides on the market that are less expensive, and guides that are larger than #4 - and if you were to build a rod with those components and build a rod with the afore mentioned components, and used the same reel on both rods and fished with the rod blindfolded that likely at the end of the day, you would end up with the same number of bites, and the same number of fish in the well.

Sure, if you want to spend your money - by all means go for it.

But, often - in this game as other games, there is a point of diminishing returns.

Note:
Just because something is more expensive - does not necessarily make it better, nor does it necessarily do much for you to put more fish in the boat.

Your money. Your time. By all means do what is right, and what works for you.

Best wishes.

Hello All.

Here are some articles in RodMaker Magazine on the subject.

Volume/Issue...............Article.........................Author...................................Date.
26/5 TNF An easy method for determining True Natural Frequency. By Michael Danek. 12
16/1 Feature: Frequency …and the Custom Rod Builder. By W. Wm. Henneman. 10
10/1 Sensitivity (What is it? What makes one rod more sensitive than another?). By Emory Harry. 28
25/5 Sensitivity- A Practical Test By Tom Kirkman. 24
23/1 Sensitivity… By Tom Kirkman. 18



Tight Wrap & Tighter Lines.

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not a braid guy, and I have never heard braid
> going through recoil guides. With that said, I
> agree with Peter on his guide suggestion. Fuji
> titanium with SIC rings. In your case, since you
> want it to look like Batman built it, I'd go with
> the black titanium colored frames. Fuji calls them
> T2's. I love the color, so that's the guides I use
> when I want super light weight.
>
> As far as the Torzites go. I have Torzites on one
> of the casting rods I built on NFC MB 725 C6O2
> blanks. I have Fuji T2's on the other one. Since
> they're casting rods I haven't weighed any
> spinning reduction train guides with Torzite
> rings, but I can tell you that the difference in
> weight between the Torzite ringed guides and SIC
> ringed guides in size 5's, is miniscule.
>
> While not an exact apples to apples comparison, a
> Torzite KT 4.5 weighs .060 grams. A SIC KT 5,
> weighs .085 grams. Just for giggles, lets say an
> SIC 4.5 weighs .080 grams. So a .02 gram
> difference in weight. If you want to use Torzite
> ringed guides just so you can say you have Torzite
> guides, which is what I did on one of the casting
> rods I mentioned, then I totally get it.. But I
> can tell you this, both of the rods I mentioned
> weigh the exact same 3.35 oz. And I can't tell any
> difference in sensitivity, or balance, between the
> two rods.
>
> Like I said, if you want Torzite just so you can
> say you have Torzites on the rod, I get it, but I
> have two more of the MB 725 blanks yet to build
> on, and they won't be wearing Torzite. I'll use
> the money I save, on other fishing related
> activities. Or maybe a nice steak dinner.

If everything was the same why wouldn't the one with torzite weigh less?

I've used 4 mm ceramic for 40 years and REC 4 mm guides since they came out maybe 17+ years ago, my CTS travel rod I take to AK and elsewhere has them, at 72 I have never had a problem threading line through either, they are just not that small, there are many other things more difficult in my everyday life and as a rod builder with what we must do, they are nothing.

"If everything was the same why wouldn't the one with torzite weigh less?' If the guides weigh less the rod will weigh less. The issue is as I see it: Is the weight savings SIGNIFIGANT ENOUGH to affect rod performance? If it is, does the difference in performance justify the difference in cost. I suspect that for running guides size 4 and close to 4 the differences between titanium/torzite and titanium/SIC are insignificant. Now we can argue about what is the definition of significant.

"Frequency has more to do with rod speed than sensitivity. What you feel on the end of your line isn't some sort of electrical current - it's tension on the line. Something stopping, moving, resisting. There's a reason you cannot feel anything on a slack line." I know your OPINION, have heard it before. But I remind you that the only subjective test comparing two blanks with different TNF's was poorly designed, with blanks far different from each other in length, power, action, and weight. I know of no objective test that has disproved my OPINION that GENERALLY blanks with higher TNF's are more sensitive than blanks with lower TNF's. So we both have our OPINIONS about TNF and its significance. I totally agree that TNF is about rod speed. And theoretically, higher TNF should mean longer casts since the recovery from deflection is faster. SIGNIFICANT? I don't know.

From my testing I believe that if you have two blanks of equal length, action, and power, the one with the higher TNF will be more sensitive than the one with the lower TNF. It will also be lighter. When I have tested premium, high modulus, blanks they have the highest TNF's. What do manufacturers advertise about them? That they are more sensitive. What is their power to weight ratio? It's higher on the higher modulus, higher TNF blanks. While there is no proof that I am right, there is no proof that I am wrong either. And technical logic leans strongly to side of a correlation between higher modulus, higher power to weight ratio, higher TNF ;and higher sensitivity. We have been over this many times in the past and I am not going to get into another discussion on it.

The TNF process is cheap, easy, repeatable, and the article in Rodmaker tells how to do it.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "If everything was the same why wouldn't the one
> with torzite weigh less?' If the guides weigh
> less the rod will weigh less. The issue is as I
> see it: Is the weight savings SIGNIFIGANT ENOUGH
> to affect rod performance? If it is, does the
> difference in performance justify the difference
> in cost. I suspect that for running guides size 4
> and close to 4 the differences between
> titanium/torzite and titanium/SIC are
> insignificant. Now we can argue about what is the
> definition of significant.
>
> "Frequency has more to do with rod speed than
> sensitivity. What you feel on the end of your line
> isn't some sort of electrical current - it's
> tension on the line. Something stopping, moving,
> resisting. There's a reason you cannot feel
> anything on a slack line." I know your OPINION,
> have heard it before. But I remind you that the
> only subjective test comparing two blanks with
> different TNF's was poorly designed, with blanks
> far different from each other in length, power,
> action, and weight. I know of no objective test
> that has disproved my OPINION that GENERALLY
> blanks with higher TNF's are more sensitive than
> blanks with lower TNF's. So we both have our
> OPINIONS about TNF and its significance. I
> totally agree that TNF is about rod speed. And
> theoretically, higher TNF should mean longer casts
> since the recovery from deflection is faster.
> SIGNIFICANT? I don't know.
>
> From my testing I believe that if you have two
> blanks of equal length, action, and power, the one
> with the higher TNF will be more sensitive than
> the one with the lower TNF. It will also be
> lighter. When I have tested premium, high
> modulus, blanks they have the highest TNF's. What
> do manufacturers advertise about them? That they
> are more sensitive. What is their power to weight
> ratio? It's higher on the higher modulus, higher
> TNF blanks. While there is no proof that I am
> right, there is no proof that I am wrong either.
> And technical logic leans strongly to side of a
> correlation between higher modulus, higher power
> to weight ratio, higher TNF ;and higher
> sensitivity. We have been over this many times in
> the past and I am not going to get into another
> discussion on it.
>
> The TNF process is cheap, easy, repeatable, and
> the article in Rodmaker tells how to do it.

Emory Harry was as certain as you are about frequency and how it relates to sensitivity - he wrote an article on it. But after trying a practical test he changed his mind and asked me not to run his second article on sensitivity.

An afternoon with a couple guys with a rod, a blindfold and a swimming pool does a lot to dispel certain opinions.

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

Last time I heard that story it was about rod length.

I'll pass.