MickD

Yes, I've used it to get a gloss finish on a blank and used it (because it is so thin and light) on the reinforcing wraps of external sleeve rod repairs. Good stuff, but yes, you want good ventilation. I have never used it to stabilize a nail knot. CP is always on my bench, easy to use, and most of the time I will be using it on the main wrap so a pinch of it on the nail knot that might get into the main wrap isn't a problem.

Nail knot is the easiest for me as long as it is about 4 wraps. I can get three with most metallics. A tip that will help is to put a dab of CP onto the knot before cutting off the ends. This will stabilize the knot somewhat preventing it from unravelling when the cutting of the ends is done. Also, I think you'll find using a small dowel or similar instrument like a small paint brush handle will work better than wrapping around the finger. Give it a try.

The problem is: What does "heavy" mean? The use of the term varies with the blank maker and the suggested application, so it's tough to recommend a "heavy" because I don't know how you define it and I don't know how the makers define it. My best shot comes from thinking that a CCS power ERN over about 27 would be considered by most as "heavy." Go to this site and find blanks with an ERN greater than 27. Click on the tab at the bottom "CCS data base." Then look for blanks with ERN greater than about 27.

I like the Simms because of their hidden but large pair of pockets. If not full of stuff, you don't even see the pockets, so the shirts are good looking as opposed to those with big, floppy, exposed, pockets. Nicely detailed fine plaids look good as well as very functional.

Underwrap on a keeper is functionally not necessary. Underwrap on most guides is also functionally not necessary. I've built a lot of fresh water rods, never had a failure that an underwrap would have prevented, never used an underwrap. I have never noticed any odor from any wrap finish. Yes, from adhesive epoxies, but even them are not really bad enough for me to worry about. I don't notice it unless I stick my nose right up to the jar. I agree that your loose ends problem is associated with insufficient tension and/or not enough covering wraps. Probably more tension.

I checked my Merc 60 four stroke today and the pee hole is in the middle of a flat boss about 1/2 inch across. Would be easy to just place a piece of tape over it. This is not rocket science.

It just has to stick in storage. If it won't stick use regular masking tape. I expect the water pressure will blow that off , too. I'm not sure what is meant by "the line." I was thinking of taping the water outlet which is a boss on the housing on most engines. I'll take a look at mine. Luckily I've not had a problem.

If I were to be spending the night close to the launch, I would sleep in my truck.

Performance first, but I still like my rods to look good. And with different wraps I can easily distinguish between rods. If all black. . . . ??

If you want to get informed, go here: https://www.common-cents.info/ For TNF, send me a message and I'll give you the instructions. But the fact is, whether you want to believe it or not, you cannot tell what you are getting from the usual subjective descriptors such as "MH," , "Mod-Fast," etc. FYI, it's not "science/geek talk," it's objective rod descriptions. Sort like length and weight. Rather than like soft, slow, weak, and soulful. But if you like the latter, stick with it and keep getting surprised.

Thanks, A-Jay.

Was yellow a Red Sox color in the magic days gone by? For some strange reason I have always associated "Red Sox" with red.

I cannot help but comment on the rating of this rod as "Fast" action yet it has an AA of only 63. This is an example of the problem with subjective rating descriptions. It should have been called "moderate," or "mod-fast" but that would IMHO be a stretch. The power is a good one for it's ERN, I believe.

OK, A-Jay, what's with the yellow?

One easy way to prevent is to put a piece of blue masking tape over the hole. If you forget it, it will easily blow off when the motor starts pushing water.

390 is not a particularly high TNF, and the AA makes it pretty slow in action, so I would think the power would make it a great light crankbait rod. High TNF not necessary, moderate action, power appropriate for smaller cranks. I think you'll like it for that. Could be BFS; I'm not an expert on that. For drop shot and neds I'd like a faster action and higher TNF. But it will work for anything. Especially if you use braid.

A PVC cobbled rod case that would accept the tall guides that we are talking about would weigh so much it really doesn't make sense. And opening and closing it would be difficult. Temple Fork has the answer.

I think the lengths are the lengths of the rods. Look closely at the specs. I assure you there are ones that are MUCH shorter than 8 feet. Fuji KLH guides are very tall and the rod case I recommend will take them. https://www.amazon.com/OUTFITTERS-Lightweight-Portable-Storage-Triangular/dp/B003ENASIO/ref=sr_1_9?crid=2XLVNXD6ZUKLS&keywords=Temple%2BFork&qid=1692825697&sprefix=temple%2Bfork%2Caps%2C145&sr=8-9&th=1 38 inches long.

Temple Fork makes triangular rod cases that easily hold spinning rods with tall guides. I have one that holds two spinning rods with very tall guides + two fly rods. They come in different lengths. Very nice cases.

I have built the old RX6 travel blank 7 foot ML power into an inshore spin rod, (SB841-3) and it is a great rod. It has a little more power than I would characterize as ML but has a very fast action (~80 degrees AA) so it casts a wide range of lure weights, including light jigs, very well. I've used it for freash water finesse, cranks, and salt bonefish jigs and cudas. I even took a 5 foot shark on it last year, and it has done everything well. I expect the RX7's will be very good too.

Both companies make fine titanium guides. I like the Fuji design better (KLH reduction, RV first casting guide, and KB/KT runners-they are all I use now.)

Sorry we got off your track. Bottom line is , and I think it was covered, the lighter the guides the faster the recovery from deflection, and the crisper/cleaner the rod will feel. AND, it will be more sensitive. The differences can be measured with the True Natural Frequency process with an Android device. It was mentioned that from a stress perspective double foot guides are unnecessary for any fresh water rod. I have not used a double foot for anything other than the first guide on casting rods for many years, and I've never had a guide failure. Even there a single foot will work, and my first micro casting rods were built with single foot micro first guides and they worked fine. I believe you mentioned wanting to use metallic thread, and I cautioned that it is harder to handle, but that it is strong enough for the job contrary to what another had posted. PM me for the TNF process if you want to do it.

Unless I missed something, this whole string of posts advocates for powers and actions using the subjective descriptors (Power = light, ML, M, MH, etc and Action = XF, F, MF, M, etc) and not once are any actual objective numbers (CCS) offered. I respectfully submit that the variance of the subjective descriptors is so high not only between makers but within makers' offerings that there is no way of knowing if all the advocates of the same power/action combination are in fact talking about the same power/action. It will remain this way until manufacturers start providing the CCS numbers. I know that at least most blank makers know the numbers for their products, and the number of those that are providing those numbers up front is growing. Maybe someday . . . One thing that is possibly as important as action is length. A 7 1/2 foot XF (~80 degree action angle) is nothing more than a 6 1/2 foot F (~75 degree action angle) on a 1 foot rigid stick. To the fish there will be very little difference. They will both perform about the same with respect to "keeping the fish pinned." What I'm saying is that the longer you go, the less important the action descriptor gets when considering "keeping the fish pinned." Especially since no one really knows how accurate the descriptor is in the first place.

Yes. They are, I believe, supposed to be equivalent to SC 4 St Croix. I have fished one for quite a few years and find it very good at what it's supposed to do. 70MF, with CCS power just above the St Croix SC5 70MF.