testing the waters, so to speak....

[jimmyjoe]

   Good evening. I'm thinking (just thinking, that's all) of having a crankbait rod made up on the Rainshadow RX6/E-Glass 3-pc blank. There's a lot I don't know about this whole affair. 1) This blank is 3.6 ounces. If I wanted the lightest rod possible, approximately how much might it weigh?  2) This blank can be made into a spinning rod or a casting rod. Which would probably turn out to be lighter?  3) I had a L/F rod that used the Minima TiCh black guides. I used both mono and braid for 5 years, and I had no problems. I liked those guides. Is there any reason not to use them on this power of rod?  Thanks for your help and your opinions.   jj    http://www.rainshadowrodblanks.com/product-line/rx6eglass-travel/

[spoonplugger1]

I'd save an ounce and use a SB843-3CG. Get with Batson, they won"t steer you wrong.

[MickD]

The final weight will depend on design and materials, i.e. split grip or full?  natural cork or burl (burl is about 1.5 times the weight of natural), or other grip material, guides (although this is minor today with most using small guides).  I usually find my rods weigh about 1.6 - 1.8 oz  + the blank weight.  These are both spin and cast with graphite seats, split grips, and small or no foregrips. 

 

I just finished a spin off the Rainshadow SB841-3 and it was 4.0 oz.  (burl cork, split grip, small foregrip), Fuji corrosion control stainless KLH reduction + 6 5mm KB's and Kt"s.  The 841 is called a medium light power  but it is much more powerful than that.  The fact that it really is an extra fast action with a really powerful butt makes it a very versatile rod that will cast well anything from about 1/16 to 3/4 and will handle big fish well.  I built on the same blank earlier and found the rod great for casting light squarebill cranks, works pretty well with tubes and snapping swim jigs off the bottom for bass and walleye.  I plan the earlier build to be my bonefish spin rod for casting glider jigs when the winds are too high for fly. 

 

This type blank shows the inaccuracies in the power and action ratings from manufacturers.  I think Rainshadow is a little confused by its having such a powerful butt coupled with a light, lively tip.

[jimmyjoe]

17 hours ago, jimmyjoe said:

   

1 hour ago, MickD said:

The final weight will depend on design and materials, i.e. split grip or full?  natural cork or burl (burl is about 1.5 times the weight of natural), or other grip material, guides (although this is minor today with most using small guides).  I usually find my rods weigh about 1.6 - 1.8 oz  + the blank weight.  These are both spin and cast with graphite seats, split grips, and small or no foregrips. 

 

I just finished a spin off the Rainshadow SB841-3 and it was 4.0 oz.  (burl cork, split grip, small foregrip), Fuji corrosion control stainless KLH reduction + 6 5mm KB's and Kt"s.  The 841 is called a medium light power  but it is much more powerful than that.  The fact that it really is an extra fast action with a really powerful butt makes it a very versatile rod that will cast well anything from about 1/16 to 3/4 and will handle big fish well.  I built on the same blank earlier and found the rod great for casting light squarebill cranks, works pretty well with tubes and snapping swim jigs off the bottom for bass and walleye.  I plan the earlier build to be my bonefish spin rod for casting glider jigs when the winds are too high for fly. 

 

This type blank shows the inaccuracies in the power and action ratings from manufacturers.  I think Rainshadow is a little confused by its having such a powerful butt coupled with a light, lively tip.

 

   Well, now I'm so confused that I don't know what to think. Let me tell you my problem, and maybe you'll see why I was asking about the swt70m-3. I'm  a shorecaster, and I carry my gear in the trunk of my car. Out of sight, out of mind. Secure that way. I already have a M/F 2-pc rod. It seems I have an annoyingly large percentage of fish jump the hook on trebles about 2 to 6 feet from the net. So I asked around, and I think you can guess what I was told; get a more moderate action rod. The increased flex will keep the hooks stuck better, especially close in. I searched and searched, and I couldn't find a 7' M/M rod that was 2 or 3 pc.  So I figured that I'd have to go the custom route. I called Batson, and they did, at first, recommend a different blank. Maybe it was the SB843-3. I can't remember. But I remember that the blank was fast action, so I thought that it was the wrong thing to use for my problem. Now here you guys come in an recommend fast and even xtra-fast blanks for a crankbait rod. Am I crazy? Am I barking up the wrong tree? I have no problems with spinnerbaits or spoons. In fact, not even with in-line spinners, like Mepps #5. Just crankbaits. And specifically, with squarebills, a lure I dearly love to use. I didn't like the weight of the SWT70M-3 because I have arthritis, and "forcing" a heavier rod on the cast tends to hurt sometimes. So there. Now you know where I was coming from, and why my questions were "tentative". Sorry if I wasted your time.      jj

[spoonplugger1]

JimmyJoe,

Problems like yours make rod building worthwhile, so let's see if we can come up with something.

As Mick alluded to, power is probably your problem and not rod action, x fast rods were developed for plugs for 40 years now and they work well, the type blank I'm talking about has been incorporating in four rod types at G Loomis over the years. Hotshot steelhead/salmon, mag bass, walleye, and the Green water saltwater series. Same blanks with different grips/reel seat and guide layout depending on the application. A three pc. version in spinning has been my go to rod for 15+ years. It has caught native rainbows to over 30 inches, coho salmon and steelhead to 20 lbs., one Chinook salmon to 28 lbs., and one day 3 little football 13 to 15 lb springer Chinook while shad fishing with a #1 Dick Nite spoon that is so small it carries a #8 little siwash single hook. It's caught some smallies also, but no LMB.

In salt it has caught bonefish, flounder, sea trout, and red drum.

The rod is the G Loomis HSR9000-3S. Mag Light power, 6 - 12 lb. line, 1/4 - 1/2 oz. lure weight. As you can see just reading the specs really doesn't tell the story, this plug rod is using plugs less than 5% of the time.

[MickD]

What matters for lure retention, for not having the lure pulled out of the fish's mouth, is the force applied to the line and the rate of buildup of that force.  Let's go to the extremes for the sake of discussion.  If you have a heavy power rod in moderate action is the force applied to the line more or less than that with a medium power extra fast action.  Like the rod I described with the light lively tip?  I don't know without knowing more about the specific rods.  And most likely trying the rods.

 

What I do know is that the SB841-3 works well with cranks and a lot of other stuff too.

 

And what I think I know is that with the right power, extra fast actions will work with cranks.

 

My son has two Anglers Resource Point Blank rods that I made for him, and they are a lot like the SB841-3.  And he uses them for cranks all the time and has not trouble with hooks tearing out.

 

Until we get to dealing with objective numbers for power and action, we will be struggling with issues like this.  When I asked a manufacturer's rep why they did not publish CCS objective numbers he answered that it is so much easier to not offer them.  He elaborated that when the numbers are out there a bunch of know-it-all rod builders complain the numbers are wrong.  It's just easier to avoid the issue and say "medium heavy."

 

I like the response above from spoonplugger, good stuff.  I think that any time you see "mag" in the rod description, it will be extra fast action.  But who would write "mag" to describe a fairly light power rod?  But there is no reason you cannot have a light power extra fast action rod.

 

 

[jimmyjoe]

   Now that I read what you guys are saying, a lot of things make sense that didn't make sense to me before. I'm going to go back over a LOT of choices a second time; choices that I rejected out of hand because they didn't adhere to the dogmatic criteria I thought were correct. Thank you, both of you. (Please renew your teacher's certificates. You're doing a GREAT job! And that, my friends, is no joke.)  ??   jj

[Delaware Valley Tackle]

3 hours ago, MickD said:

What matters for lure retention, for not having the lure pulled out of the fish's mouth, is the force applied to the line and the rate of buildup of that force.  Let's go to the extremes for the sake of discussion.  If you have a heavy power rod in moderate action is the force applied to the line more or less than that with a medium power extra fast action.  Like the rod I described with the light lively tip?  I don't know without knowing more about the specific rods.  And most likely trying the rods.

 

What I do know is that the SB841-3 works well with cranks and a lot of other stuff too.

 

And what I think I know is that with the right power, extra fast actions will work with cranks.

 

My son has two Anglers Resource Point Blank rods that I made for him, and they are a lot like the SB841-3.  And he uses them for cranks all the time and has not trouble with hooks tearing out.

 

Until we get to dealing with objective numbers for power and action, we will be struggling with issues like this.  When I asked a manufacturer's rep why they did not publish CCS objective numbers he answered that it is so much easier to not offer them.  He elaborated that when the numbers are out there a bunch of know-it-all rod builders complain the numbers are wrong.  It's just easier to avoid the issue and say "medium heavy."

 

I like the response above from spoonplugger, good stuff.  I think that any time you see "mag" in the rod description, it will be extra fast action.  But who would write "mag" to describe a fairly light power rod?  But there is no reason you cannot have a light power extra fast action rod.

 

 

"Know it all" rod builders huh? School that fool by pointing out that arguing CCS is like arguing inches or ounces, an objective measurement. 

[jimmyjoe]

14 minutes ago, Delaware Valley Tackle said:

School that fool...

   Sounds like a good line in hip-hop ...... ?    jj

[Delaware Valley Tackle]

On a more relevant note, don't confuse fast action with a stiff rod. That's the uniqueness of some of the blank suggestions. 

[MickD]

1 hour ago, Delaware Valley Tackle said:

Know it all" rod builders huh? School that fool by pointing out that arguing CCS is like arguing inches or ounces, an objective measurement. 

I don't get your point.  And if you knew who said it, you would know he is not a fool.

[jimmyjoe]

10 minutes ago, Delaware Valley Tackle said:

On a more relevant note, don't confuse fast action with a stiff rod. That's the uniqueness of some of the blank suggestions. 

   Correct. And that was exactly the mistake I was making. Give me awhile here, and I might be in a different position.   jj

[MickD]

I hope not to confuse more, but it is possible that fish getting off trebles when fishing from shore (long casts, right?) might be due to poor hook sets, not hooks tearing out.  What line are you using?  If mono or FC, on a long cast, with stretch, you won't be applying much force on the set.  If braid, with no stretch, hook sets should by as good as it gets, maybe too good (meaning tear-out could be happening.)  Good luck.  When you get out of this you will know a lot more than you did going in.

[jimmyjoe]

17 minutes ago, MickD said:

it is possible that fish getting off trebles when fishing from shore (long casts, right?) might be due to poor hook sets, not hooks tearing out. 

  Yeah, it's certainly possible. I've been talking to the 2 guys with whom I go fishing the most. They're almost as opinionated as I am ???, and they're usually 25-50 feet from where I'm standing when we fish. The first (I'll call him Mr. Fiberglass) swears up and down that he has seen fish that I've lost eject the hook UPWARDS as they jump. That would mean that I had too little pressure on the fish, which I KNOW doesn't happen very often. He's the guy who told me I need a more moderate action rod. He's also the one who told me to look into a custom multi-piece rod.

     The second guy (I'll call him Mr. Fenwick) swears that he knows exactly what this thread is talking about, and swears that the Fenwick Elite Tech Walleye rods are just what I need, end of subject. Because he believes that the sun rises and sets on Fenwick, I take his comments with a grain of salt. However, he did let me cast with one of his 6'9" ML/XF rods, and it sure felt like a good cranking rod. The thing is, it's winter here, and I doubt I can catch anything, much less have the fish act the same way it would in warmer water. 

    As I said, anyway, the trouble doesn't crop up until the fish are about 6-8 feet or less from where I'm standing. Then they jump, shake like a hula dancer on speed, and come unhooked. Fish don't shake the hook 50 feet away. And by the way, this is all monofilament. No braid.

    Y'think maybe I should just take violin lessons?          jj

[Delaware Valley Tackle]

21 hours ago, MickD said:

I don't get your point.  And if you knew who said it, you would know he is not a fool.

Maybe I misinterpreted the comment and took offense at all Rod builders being classified as know it all. My main point was that CCS is intended to eliminate subjectivity. I think manufacturers prefer the subjectivity to aid in marketing. 

[MickD]

1 hour ago, Delaware Valley Tackle said:

Maybe I misinterpreted the comment and took offense at all Rod builders being classified as know it all. My main point was that CCS is intended to eliminate subjectivity. I think manufacturers prefer the subjectivity to aid in marketing. 

This guy is not the type to call all rod builders know it all.  He has just found that when his company started publishing CCS they had lots of noise from people arguing about their numbers.  And he concluded it's easier to avoid the conflict by not publishing.  Yes, CCS goes a long way in bringing clarity to rod characteristics with objective numbers.  I don't disagree with your last statement.  They probably employ wine label writers to write their rod descriptions. 

[spoonplugger1]

JimmyJoe,

Now that we have you totally confused hopefully I can give you sage advise on who to talk to about a build. He is both a dealer in all the components you need from three good companies, two you've mentioned, but also a builder. Like us he's getting long in the tooth, so he knows about that part of building too.

Schneider"s Rod Shop, nice family business and a square shooter. Just remember to feed him as much info as you can about your needs. Your builder can never have to much info.

Hope I've helped.

[jimmyjoe]

   You've helped. A lot. Thank you.    jj

[jimmyjoe]

   New rod came today from Ron's. 8 ft, built on an rx7 ip963f that Ron had. That's 2-pc, btw. Just what I need. I can't take it out today and test it, but from the flex I can get inside, it's sweeeeet!  Thank you, @spoonplugger1 and @MickD. I've been years wanting this. Now if I can just get my  Curado 70 to quit dancing around all over .....??  jj

[spoonplugger1]

Looks like a sweet stick to me, I'm glad for you.

All my personal cranking sticks are Batson popping blanks, except my big crank stick which is a Batson graphite CB80H, and an old S-glass Lamiglas SMB841M rod, it's the same blank Skeeter Reese used in his early crank bait successes only in lighter S-glass. My first bass rod build.