MickD

That's the next step up. The finish on that blank is really nice, IMO. It will go with just about any color thread.

Rainshadow Revelations are very fine blanks at a good price. S610MXF-SB Drop Shot/Shaky head 6'10" 6-14 3/16-1/2 0.425 4.5 X-Fast M 1.78 $65.83

I guess I should have stated it differently. If your rig casts long enough without going to really small guide sizes, then there is no need to, or no priority in using them. To me the only real reason for micros is sensitivity. I can build rods with bigger guides that cast far enough without using micros. If I were trying to milk the absolute most distance from a rod I would use "micros," about 3mm. I usually use 4-5 mm. What is a micro guide? Good question. I think a micro is a guide that the manufacturer says is a micro. Some manufacturers have other names for what most of us call micros. All guides have hole and a foot. Some have two feet. If the hole is small enough people call them micros, but there really isn't anything specific about what makes a micro a micro. Fuji offers a line of guides they call micro that go as big as 5.5. They are lightly built and have smaller feet than most other running guides. But they offer their KB guide which has the small ring and a bigger, stronger , foot for use in the higher stressed middle sections of rods. I've never had a micro fail. While they may bend more easily than some guides, they are usually so low that they don't snag on things and I find they don't get bent any more than other guides. Because it is so hard to apply a bending load to them, I find them less apt to bend than small diameter "Y" guides. I think the inspiration for the high reduction guides of smaller diameter and very small running guides was the use of similar configurations in distance casting competitions, but I could be wrong.

What is the difference between a 5 mm micro and a 5 mm standard guide? Most custom makers put something like a 6 or 8 as the first guide, based more on height than diameter, then the same size all the way to the tip. 2x + larger if you are considering a 2 or 3 mm micro for the comparison, but certainly not for a 4 or 5 as the micro comparison. I still maintain one must talk about ring sizes and not "micro" vs. "standard." It takes a pretty darned large knot to cause problems with a 5 mm micro. Or a 5 mm standard. I agree that the bigger the ring size the less problem you will have with knots. Part of the problem is the mis-use of small guides. For example, small guides on a big swim-bait rod. The reason for small guides is two-fold- increased sensitivity and longer casts. If the rod is to be used with lures like big-swim-baits or large cranks, sensitivity and long casts are a very low priority. Better to use larger, more reliable, guides.

With a double uni each line is more than doubled, more like 5 layers of it. We keep talking about "micros" as if that describes the guides. "micros" are available from about 2 to 5.5 mm, so there certainly are combinations of lines/leader/knots that will work with some of these and combinations that won't work with the smallest ones.

I just reread the original post, and I believe that the FG is the only knot that will work with micros and that heavy leader and line. On the other hand, tying the FG on that heavy leader and line is easier than tying it on lighter lines. It may be simply that you don't realize how hard you have to pull to tighten it. You have to pull it tighter than you've had to pull any other knot. EVER. EVER. I suggest you try a test FG with that combination, then take it apart with a razor blade. If that leader is not VERY distorted, permanent curls, you are not tightening the knot enough. I still suggest the half hitch treatment as I have proposed earlier when you tie a knot intended for fishing.

I am an FG fan, but the knot is very easy to screw up. Also, it doesn't like an aggressive twitching retrieve. Same for the Alberto. My suggestions are: 1. More wraps than normal as recommended above. 2. You have to pull it VERY tight to set it. What the knot actually does is deform the leader to form mechanical interlocks in the leader for the braid wraps, but if the braid comes loose, the knot is gone. So the next suggestion is 3. Concentrate on very tight, multiple, half hitches to finish it, then apply super glue or UV curing epoxy to just the half hitches. If you take one of your FG knots apart and see no permanent distortion of the leader, you are not tightening it enough. If it slips as you pull it tight, you are not using enough weaves. If the knot continues to slip as you pull, start over with more weaves-this knot is not salvageable. The FG is also different with lighter lines and leaders than with heavy ones for which it was developed. For lighter lines and leaders you really have to use a lot of wraps, and very tight, multiple, glued half hitches. I know there are those who don't seem to need to do all these things, but I wonder if they really use the knot with aggressive twitches. I cannot get away without doing them. The FG done right is a dream, very strong, very long lasting, very clean and quiet through the guides.

Bass Pro has a reel service offering in their catalogs and presumably on their web site. Why not go there with a BPS reel? Make sure it's not simply the pawl nut backing off which will allow the pawl to come out of engagement with the worm gear. The pawl and worm gear get the most crap, and are the most likely system to fail. I always lube them more often than the rest of the reel. Also, if the pawl were to freeze up and not pivot within the nut it would freeze the whole reel up. If that is what you are experiencing, don't force it.

The clearer the water and the brighter the day the lighter the color. The murkier the water and the duller the day the darker the color. This how I start the day. + chartreuse on any day, always worth a try. But you can never be sure, so if the habitat is suitable for spinnerbaits and you think bass are there, change every 5 casts or so until you find what they want. If they are bumping it and not eating it, you are close, but something is wrong, either blade color or skirt/trailer color, most likely.

The Simms is form fitting and ventilated around the mouth and nose, so it's my favorite over a few others I have that are simply tubular. I have not tried the Buff mentioned above. I think all are of a light, breathable, material, but verify to be sure. They not only shield from the sun, but wind, too. Face feels much better at the end of a long day vs. just sunscreen.

I have no river experience , but on lakes where the fish are coming in for the baitfish that are moving in, a 4 inch white Strike King KVD swim bait on a 3/16 darter head jig is really effective when allowed to drop almost to the bottom then snapped sharply up. Get into a regular cadence with it.Yesterday it was the only thing two of us could get action with from-63 degree water, very windy, very cloudy water. One interesting bite-I had my jig hung up and I sharply jerked it a few times to free it. As soon as it started to come, a fish hit it. Our best 5 were just shy of 25 pounds. Biggest two were 5-9.

If I remember right, you mentioned that cost was not a big consideration. So spend whatever it takes to get you what you think is the best blank available. Consider that your kids will pay for it through less inheritance, and if you brought them up right, they will not begrudge it. Also, consider that one of them will get the rod which will last them a lifetime if they take care of it properly. And it will be special to the them. I provide this advice based on experience. I've done it a number of times. Consider a little more advice. You cannot have too many rods. Learn from this one and have another go at the next, better, rod. This rod is not world peace. It's a rod. To answer your questions, .3 oz will not make a blank a "slug." All the blanks in the that weight range (~ 1.8 oz) will build into a fine rod. Weight depends on a lot of factors of blank design and construction. I do believe the more expensive materials make better rods, but I have a lot of nice rods from $75 blanks. I have started with many blanks in the 1.7 to 1.9 weight range, and they all are fine rods. The weight of the finished rod will be about 2 oz more than the blank weight, assuming a 1 oz reel seat and 1 oz for cork/carbon fiber/EVA etc and guides/wraps. This is for an efficient design without a lot of excess cork (split grip/no foregrip). A little more for burl cork, a little less for a skeleton seat (which I don't recommend due to poor ergonomics/comfort) or carbon fiber. Go for it!

One thing that Eternity 2 has that the others may not is the nano technology which is claimed to provide tougher blanks. The top St Croix blanks have their version of this. Probably others, but I'm not sure. If I were to to build right now and my goal was max sensitivity, with what I think I know, it would be Eternity 2 or Point Blank. I would use the Fuji KlH guide system with 4.5 or 5 runners, the reduction guides to be determined by the likely braid pound test I would be using. If you're not talking braid, the blank selection is not nearly as important for sensitivity.

There is really a lot of good fishing info on this forum, but using it as a source of reliable physics information would not, in my opinion, work. I don't know how you would "qualify" your sources.

You'll get a lot of opinions on this one. Here is mine. Sensitivity can vary a lot depending on the build, mostly the weight of the guides in the upper third or half of the rod. It can make a significant, easily felt, difference. I believe that the overall weight can affect felt sensitivity too, but not as much as the top guide weights. Fancy, long , wraps can add unwanted weight. Butt wraps are less an issue due to their position on the rod. I also believe that harder grip materials, like carbon fiber and burl cork (but it's heavier than regular cork, a trade-off?) vs regular cork, or especially soft EVA, are more sensitive. Don't believe that hard materials don't feel good-the big thing is shape. With a rigid ramp off the front of a spin seat you are in essence putting you fingers on the blank. Put a big front grip on, and that will detract from feel/sensitivity if your fingers are on it and not on the blank. Last question- are the differences minor or major? I think they are more toward minor than major. I've built a lot of blanks on RX7 material and they have been great. I've built AmTac Bushido blanks into rods and they too have been very sensitive, and they are to the low end of the cost spectrum. I have little experience with MHX, but what I have has been positive.

I agree with going with the easy stuff first, and my first look would be fuel problems likely associated with ethanol damage to the hoses, clogged filter from same cause. You've had the compression checked recently, so not likely that unless you've experienced something pretty drastic that could cause scoring, like running with low oil injection. Didn't run out of oil, did you? I think that your idle quality will go to hell if cylinders are scored. If the fuel filter is accessible, change it, then run on a borrowed set of hoses and tank of known good fuel. As someone has stated already, bad fuel cannot be solved by simply putting new fuel in-ethanol damage can contaminate the fuel, leave residue that clogs filters, eats hoses and puts more crap in the system from them. To check it out you need to run from fully clean fuel storage and delivery system and a clean filter.

One area that is tight enough and is definitely ruled by the laws of physics is casting distance as affected by rod length, power, action, line characteristics, guide design (diameter of the ring, type of ring, height of ring, angle of ring with respect to the reel axis or line guide,) casting reel vs spinning reel, etc etc etc . While writing this I see that it too is probably too wide open. If I were going to do a project like this I would restrict it to a few of the variables. Much of what's being talked about here is not physics.

Your 150 is as magic as the Impala of a friend of mine, 40 mph overall for three years. I advise you both to keep them. I doubt if you will do as well with the next one. At least for the non-towing vs towing. But that 17.8 while not towing is pretty low. The difficulty is driving the same for all comparisons.

A friend of mine had one taken out of his forehead. Got it in the tropics. He could feel it moving around in there. Only one of many doctors in the states knew what it was and how to handle it.

Any warranty? NFC has gone bankrupt, haven't they?

But the day to day fuel economy of the 12,000 capacity vehicle is significantly worse than the smaller vehicle. So there is a trade-off. And the laws of physics do prevail. The fuel economy will go down on any vehicle the equivalent of driving the towed weight down the road (approximately because there may be a small advantage of the towed weight drafting the tow vehicle). But anyone can believe what they want and buy what they want; it's not my money. I have to argue, with due respect, that your down by half and only .1 mpg just do not make sense.

The fuel economy will always go down when towing. Unless you can repeal the laws of physics.

Great day for sure. That' s the way it can be in the fall. Can you tell me the water temp?

I guess I have yet to encounter that situation. It looks great, with fine detail, but I've not yet seen a single fish on it, mostly just weeds Thanks everyone for their comments , sorry I hi-jacked the thread. I'll be more careful in the future.

Has any Humminbird owner found justification for DI? I've been using it all summer and cannot find anything of value in it.