MickD

And that 3mm is the OD of the blank, so the mandrel inside is ???? And at the end of probably a 7 foot mandrel.

HFF out of Taylor, MI has tons of it made by a great company, Cork4Us. Some burl has very little character, looking more like particle board. Cork4Us exotic burl has pieces varying in size and shape, so it has what I call "character." One can go overboard, IMO, with this stuff, and the rods start to look gaudy, contrived, un-natural. But, everyone has their own preferences, and you can express it with exotic burl cork. HFF is having a sale for the next few days. https://www.hffcustomrods.com/

my comment was based on spinning rods. I prefer split grip for both cast and spin, and for spin I make my own parts from what is called "exotic burl" cork, which is denser than natural cork, but much more durable and comes in a wide variety of patterns. For spin I use 7 1/2 inch rings and 4 1/8 inch rings, turning them on a rig I cobbled for my drill press. I uplock Fuji DPSSD seats, ending up with short ramps off both ends + a butt knob. For cast I've evolved into using carbon fiber grips, a short 3 1/2 inch grip + a butt knob. No front grip or ramp. Photo is an example of the spin design.

The sinker and the proportions of your rig will determine everything, not the material of the leader.

Might help to stop it just before it hits the water, too. I've gotten into the habit of doing this with most lures, especially spinnerbaits. Little to no experience with A rigs.

Decimal inches best, but mm will work. Get it accurate in thousandths of an inch. The problem with some hardware store epoxies is that they are too brittle. Epoxy adhesives designed for rod building will flex with the rod without cracking. With hardware store epoxies I don't know which will work well and which will not. For the top few inches, which don't flex that much, many will PROBABLY work. U40 Quik Bond, a ten minute one works well. Pro Paste works well but takes longer to cure which is OK, just different. U40 Rodbond is Trondak's version of a longer pot life epoxy adhesive, also designed for rodbuilding. While it's inconvenient to order just this on line, they have a long shelf life and are handy to have around for other jobs. I'm sure there are alternatives available locally, but I just don't know which they are. Maybe another builder with experience can help.

Cutting off the butt changes little, but directionally it reduces power and slows the action. Most of the time insignificantly unless you cut a "lot" off . Cutting off the tip changes a lot, mostly with how the rod feels, directionally it increases power and slows action. But I would NEVER cut anything off the tip.

I'll repeat this post I made on another topic-fits this one better anyway: As a side note on CCS and the subjective ratings given by manufacturers, we really need an industry wide correlation between CCS numbers and the descriptions. For example I have two blanks from different manufacturers, both called medium light fast. One measures a power number (ERN-effective rod number) of 9, Action Angle (the angle of the tip when deflected, a measure of action) 65, and the other is 19.9 ERN and AA of 77. I have measured medium power blanks that range from less than 15 ERN to 25.9. I assure you that differences of ERN and AA of 3 are significant and the rods will fish much differently. This same kind of discrepancy is clearly there with finished rods. Interestingly, major discrepancies exist even within a single brand's lineup. Part of it is due to how the blanks/rods are being marketed. For example, a medium power drop shot blank might have an ERN of 13, a medium power jig rod of 20. With the growth of interest in baitcasting finesse (BFS) I'm sure we are going to see some rods called medium power that measure less than 10 ERN. It would make more sense to agree on a correlation, then chose the rod for the technique based on actual numbers, not someone's interpretation of how it will be used. Note: Use pennies minted after 1983 to make sure they all weigh 2.5 grams.

As a side note on CCS and the subjective ratings given by manufacturers, we really need an industry wide correlation between CCS numbers and the descriptions. For example I have two blanks from different manufacturers, both called medium light fast. One measures a power number (ERN-effective rod number) of 9, Action Angle (the angle of the tip when deflected, a measure of action) 65, and the other is 19.9 ERN and AA of 77. I have measured medium power blanks that range from less than 15 ERN to 25.9. I assure you that differences of ERN and AA of 3 are significant and the rods will fish much differently. This same kind of discrepancy is clearly there with finished rods. Interestingly, major discrepancies exist even within a single brand's lineup. Part of it is due to how the blanks/rods are being marketed. For example, a medium power drop shot blank might have an ERN of 13, a medium power jig rod of 20. With the growth of interest in baitcasting finesse (BFS) I'm sure we are going to see some rods called medium power that measure less than 10 ERN. It would make more sense to agree on a correlation, then chose the rod for the technique based on actual numbers, not someone's interpretation of how it will be used.

https://common-cents.info/ This system was developed many years ago before the devices we have today. To measure the action angle, a level app on a cell phone works better than fooling around with the angle "chart" in the article. I check all my blanks before I build. The action and power numbers do not change with the addition of grips/seats/guides, but the True Natural Frequency does. TNF is not part of CCS, but is a process recently developed using android devices to measure how fast the rod recovers from deflection, and how that is affected by the addition of the guides.

It might have to do with seeing that sleeve out there. Might be playing with the mind. I broke one of the rods I had made, and when it was new I checked the objective CCS numbers for power and action for the rod. After I repaired it I checked it again, and the numbers were the same. It was a fly rod, and it seemed to cast the same. Since weight is being added way out on the rod, the recovery speed will be affected, and in one case a rod I had made got broken right about where this one we are talking about was broken, about 3 inches from the tip. The natural frequency went down about 10%. But the guy who owns it still fishes it and likes it. You don't want to put both inner and outer sleeves in, and you don't want the sleeves to be any longer than necessary, about 3 inches total length. I certainly would rather have an unbroken rod, but for a spare, or backup, or to add to one's "quiver," it can work. And most would not pass a blindfold test between new and repaired. The contention that it's a waste of time and the rod will not be fishable is an exaggeration, and basically not true.

But they can be. . .do the repair per the link.

If you end up getting stuck with it, then there is a good chance that it can be made fishable. Just putting a new tiptop guide on it is not going to do that. But you can, if you can find the right diameter piece of a graphite rod, repair it. The last few inches of the rod don't flex that much, so matching the flex is not a big deal. But for some reason I don't fully understand, take that last few inches off and it's not going to feel right. Here is the link to a procedure that has worked for me multiple times: https://www.rodbuilding.org/library/repair-oquinn.html I know it says the repair sleeve should be glass, but I have used graphite and it works just fine, and doesn't look as bad as a thick glass sleeve. If you want to measure the exact outer diameter of the blank where it was broken off, I might have a piece I could send you. It would mean doing the repair with the sleeve, adding one guide, and a tiptop guide. If you want to try this, give me the OD and message me.

Ever wonder what the blank mandrel that can produce a 3.5 diameter tip looks like? And how one would even handle it? Have to admit, I'm impressed with the quality of the blanks I am seeing, and amazed that they can be produced.

If the only thing wrong with the Castaway is a loose seat or grip, that might be fixed by drilling small holes and injecting epoxyl adhesive. It often works. In this case a liquid form of epoxy adhesive would be used, not quik bond or other gel types.

Amen! You can replace parts from the rear by reaming the cork pieces so they just fit over the butt of the blank, the largest diameter of the blank. As you go farther up, the diameter decreases and you build up arbors with masking tape tightly wrapped to form a "cylindrically" shaped set of arbors on which to mount the parts. Of course the farther up the blank you go, the more tape is required to maintain the same OD all the way up. This way the parts will slide up from the butt. When you glue them together make sure to totally encapsulate the tape arbors in epoxy adhesive to prevent deterioration if water gets in. Don't skimp on epoxy adhesive-the reason your one rod failed is insufficient adhesive. I like U40 Quik Bond, a gel adhesive which gives you time to adjust the fit of parts, but doesn't run like liquid and doesn't take a long time to set. Be sure to dry fit all the parts before trying to glue. You want to ensure that everything fits together before gluing. You don't really need a drying setup for the guide wraps with wrap epoxy , either. Apply the epoxy sparingly. If it drips off you're using too much. Mount it level and rotate the rod by hand every 10 minutes or so for a couple hours and it will be fine. If you need a second coat, do the same thing again. The room temp should be about 70 or higher.

You don't have to totally rebuild. If you can take the look of a sleeve, you can repair and the rods and they will fish very nicely. You will get posts saying they will never be the same, but they will be so close that you couldn't pass a blindfold test. I have the CCS numbers before and after a similar failure, and they are the same. https://www.rodbuilding.org/library/repair-oquinn.html I have used graphite sleeves instead of glass, which have thicker walls, to make them less obtrusive, and they work just fine.

I am a two handed caster too, and like split grips because the butt knob gives something with a good, definitive, shape to grip. If looking for more to grip, I would first try just a bigger butt knob. If you turn your own from cork rings they can be about any size and shape you want. Nice work, AJ. About time to start from the bare blank with a build. But beware, it may change your mind about some of your current rods.

My starting and trolling motor batteries, 2 of the latter, were new in 2017 and I've seen no perceptible drop in performance. Starting battery is a gel. 80 HP Merc 4 stroke

The method shown works well for 3 or more threads, as does a nail knot (3 with metallics usually works, 4 or more with regular thread). Trickier is making a single thread trim band, but it's not that tricky by wrapping the trim thread under your main wrap with a separate pull through for it, then when the main wrap is done, wrap the trim thread a couple turns, pull it through, then "unwrap" it carefully until you have a single trim thread. You can also use CP to pin a single thread trim band if you are using CP on the rest of the wrap. A recent article in Rodmaker Magazine showed this method.

If you think you really need 20 pound braid, go with premium braid, 8-12 strands in order to get good casting performance. Those using 10 pound braid know what I mean. The lighter stuff casts so much better than most 20 pound braids, but the premiums do very well. Look at line diameters, and don't go over about .006 for best casting performance. I use from 10-15 pound braid most of the time, and with premium FC leaders of up to 15 pound test to avoid the fragility of some of the lighter stuff. Use one of the smaller knots like FG or Alberto when using the leaders of about 15 and above.

Agree with Mike K. Give it a try, but finish with aggressive wiping with a clean paper towel or other lint free device. While many have had no trouble with alcohol as a last step before epoxying, the experts do not recommend the final step as being any liquid. So I would clean it up, wipe it dry, wipe it again to make sure no lint, then re-wrap.

Will find out, I guess. Using manufacturers' power ratings is frustrating. I have ML blanks/rods that measure less than 15 CCS ERN (effective rod number) number, and one that measures 20. I have Med power rods that measure between 16 and 25 and one blank from one of the biggest blank makers in the country that is called Med power and it's about 11. Because it's supposedly a "drop shot" rod its rating is skewed by the intended use. Only when you use CCS and get actual, measured, objective NUMBERS will you know exactly what the power and action of your rods are. With respect to the rod I am going to use, remember that a friend already uses that rod for BFS and likes how it works. By the way its action is described as "fast," but I'm sure most would consider it moderate-fast after fishing it. Its CCS action number puts it below what I would consider fast.

You are basing this on the ML rating of the rod. I have CCS numbers which tell me it's more like what most would call L. And I have the rod in spin and have experience with it, so know what it can do. Thanks for your opinion. Do you do CCS on your rods? No. I'm not stupid.

It does for spin, so why not for BFS? Thinking neds and small cranks, but basically just wanting to experience the technique and have an excuse to build another rod.