3pc Travel Blanks: MHX vs ATX vs Rainshadow

[RipHair]

There doesn't seem to be many options when it comes to 3pc travel rods. I've narrowed it down to these and hoping to hear some feedback good and bad especially if any people have used each.

 

Specifically looking at MHF SB843-3 vs AT843-3 and TR844-3. ATX seems to the heaviest by far with the Rainshadow SB843 being the lightest. Someone at mudhole recommended that they liked the sensitivity and look of the ATX over the MHX. @MickD here recommended the Rainshadow.

 

FWIW, I plan on building 2 MF rods for weightless plastics using 8lb FC only. 1 MHF rod with 15lb FC only for weighted plastics and some crankbaits, topwater ,etc..

[RipHair]

It seems there is also Phenix Redeye https://phenixrods.com/product/redeye-trout-fly-blanks/ but their site lists them as trout-fly rods but the specs certainly seem to suggest they should work with casting/spinning setups. These appear to be even lighter than the other 3 I mentioned. Any experience with these guys?

[RipHair]

After speaking to a rep at Phenix, they mentioned the Redeye line is more mod-fast than fast, unsure how this will work for my proposed use of plastics compared to the others that might be rated more fast. I guess that's why CCS numbers are important so one can compare and describe more quantitatively.

[MickD]

I only have experience with the Phenix M1 7 foot 2 inch MXF blank.  Its action measures consistent with what I call XF (about 82 degrees CCS) and the power is similar to other M power spin blanks I've measured.  It is what I would call a "premium blank" with respect to sensitivity.  Its true natural frequency is among the better ones I've tested but not the highest.  So I expect that their other offerings will be fairly true to their designation.  It costs about twice what the Rainshadow I recommended does and is lighter.  For what you want to do I prefer a F or XF and not a moderate fast action, but that is personal taste.  A mod-fast Rainshadow popping rod I built for my son pleases him for drop shot and tubes.

 

I think I need to repeat that the Rainshadow blank I recommended is truly XFast action (82 degrees CCS) and much more powerful than one would expect from a "medium light"l power.  Its tip is soft (remember, XF rods of power similar to a F action will have the softer tip) so it casts lighter lures well, but the powerful butt comes into play quickly making it suitable for big fish.  It reminds me of Point Blanks.  It handled a 4 foot cuda quite nicely.

 

While they don't advertise it, blank companies either have CCS data or will get it for you if you ask.  I have it for the blanks I've built but have little experience with MHX rods you are considering.

 

When this is done you will understand action and power more than most fishermen do and more than a few pro builders do.

I just looked at the specs for the MHF Phenix and based on its power and weight it has to be a high modulus blank, but if it's truly a mod fast action its tip will be a little stiffer than what I would want for your use.  Its recommended casting weight seems a little high indicating its power is truly MH, probably higher than 25 ERN.  

[RipHair]

Thanks again Mick. I think what you wrote makes a lot of sense and I certainly appreciate your candidness and patience with me while I try to wrap my head around all of this.

 

My only points of reference are really just these Triumphs that are all MF and MHF. I actually do have a St. Croix TIC70MHF3 Tidemaster Inshore Casting 7' 3 PieceTravel Rod that I bought for Muskie fishing but I really don't like that rod at all. It seems heavy, clunky and since I don't throw massive musky lures anyway (just mepps #5 mostly), my Triump 66MHF is much more fun to use.

 

I will see if I can get the CCS numbers from them to hopefully be able to quantify just how much more moderate the Redeye's are.

 

Regarding F vs XF for my application, I think F for my MH would be most prudent for weighed plastics, crankbaits, topwater, general clear water lake use in the North East. For M, sounds to me that both F and XF might fit the bill for mostly lighter presentations - XF having the backbone as you say and also providing a bit more sensitivity.

[MickD]

If you would like help in interpreting CCS numbers, let me know and I'll send you my email address.  What might help is to compare CCS numbers with known popular blanks that we have experience fishing.

[RipHair]

Sure. I remember reading a PDF somewhere on how CCS is calculated and how to interpret it but seemed to have lost the link.

 

Also, I just ordered up both SB843-3 and SB841-3 so should hopefully get them in sometime next week. I figure if I don't like the action I can gift it to someone that doesn't mind it. Also, I calculated that the heaviest lure I throw is 3/4oz (mepps 5 musky killer) so went with the SB843-3. That oar of a rod TIC70MHF3 I don't like has a lure rating of 1/2oz - 1 1/4oz.

 

Only ones left to narrow down are 1 more rod for weightless ~3/8oz rigs and 2-3 more rods for weighted plastics and up to 3/4oz presentations.

 

 

Edited December 31, 2021 by RipHair
Add data on TIC80

[RipHair]

1 hour ago, MickD said:

If you would like help in interpreting CCS numbers, let me know and I'll send you my email address.  What might help is to compare CCS numbers with known popular blanks that we have experience fishing.

 

I may have jumped the gun on the SB841-3 as the lure rating is 1/8-3/8oz and I read that a 5" senko is around 3/8oz to start... In your experience, do you think the SB841-3 would do well to cast a 5" weightless senko using 6-8lb FC? If so, how about adding a 1/16-1/8oz bullet weight? Is this something the CCS system can help determine or would you need to go by your own feel for it after you had it in hand or even after building it?

[MickD]

The SB841-3 should be able to nicely cast a 5 inch Senko + 1/8 oz bullet weight.  It will not be overpowered.  

 

Once one becomes familiar with CCS and how rods with different ERN's and AA's perform they are confident in selecting rods for specific purposes.  If they know the CCS numbers of the rods they are considering.  Both Point Blank and NFC are now publishing CCS numbers on all their blanks.  Rainshadow is publishing for their new RX10 series, and I expect the trend towards publishing to continue.    To show how knowing the numbers can help note that NFC's chart shows blanks ranging from 58 to 80 degrees all described as "moderate action."  I assure you that a 58 degree rod will fish much differently than an 80 degree rod.  Similarly, calling the SB941-3 a "medium light" power rod does not tell the accurate story on how  it will fish.  Be aware that its finished weight is 4.7 oz.  Travel rods are a little heavier than one piece rods due to the ferrules.   My spin rods come in at about 2 oz + the weight of the blank.  The SB941-3 has a large diameter butt section, with an ERN of 19.1 and an AA of 82 degrees.

 

My favorite tube rod has an ERN of 17 and an AA of 75.  I have other rods with similar numbers and they fish a lot alike.  The favorite is a premium modulus rod with one of the highest true natural frequencies of my rods. It weighs 3.8 oz.  I use it with tubes usually 3 1/2 inches long with a 3/16 jig.  If I were to fish 1/2 oz jigs I most likely would go with an ERN of about 23.  But a similar AA.  

 

With rods as fast as about 80 degrees many fishermen get worried about keeping fish "pinned"  during the fight.  I have found that for rods of 7 feet or a little longer this is not a problem, but if I were to have a 6 foot rod with an AA of 80 degrees, the flexing section would be pretty short and keeping fish pinned could very well be a problem.

[RipHair]

4 hours ago, MickD said:

The SB841-3 should be able to nicely cast a 5 inch Senko + 1/8 oz bullet weight.  It will not be overpowered.  

 

Very informative, thanks. 

 

Did you have the specific CCS numbers for the SB841-3 or was it only the SB941-3 (having trouble referencing the context)?

 

I will be picking up a few rolls of pennies today so I can measure my St Croix Triumph 66MH/F-4 to get some CCS figures on my best frame of reference.

 

I take it by "pinned" you mean being able to keep a consistent line tension? I crimp all of my barbs so keeping tension is something I strive for lest I lose fish (which is OK to me, it's all part of the fun).

 

From your tube fishing example, I'm curious to know how you think an AA of 70 and 80 (or 82 in my case) would differ in performance compared to your preferred AA=75 for the same application. It's been many years since I tube fished and I forget how/why rod ratings would need to differ from weighted and unweighted TR, plastics, etc...

 

Also curious why the RX10 table isn't really consistent in their action ratings vs AA figures (both XF rods have lower AA ratings then their F counterparts). Perhaps they gave the ratings before measuring CCS/AA?

 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/p2hjw9iy0dco851atbd9a/Eternity-RX10-Full-Specs-for-Release.xls?dl=0&rlkey=9tcno300i96ldj530n6ibpi9q

 

[MickD]

5 hours ago, RipHair said:

Did you have the specific CCS numbers for the SB841-3 or was it only the SB941-3 (having trouble referencing the context)?

The numbers I gave are for my SB841-3.  19.1-82

 

I would rather have an 82 for tubes than a 70.  My son uses a 65 and is pleased.  There is a lot of personal preference, but generally people like tube rods described as fast.  And I find most rods described as fast are about 75 degrees.  My tube fishing is on big water and long casts are important, so to me the power of the rod has to be consistent with the weight of the lure which means the rod will load well and make long casts easily.  For tubes that I most often use the power of about 17-19 is about right, and for that power a lively tip feels good, feels sensitive to the subtle bites,  and that means most likely an AA of 75-80.   Remember that for two rods of the same power the faster action rod will have the softer tip.   

 

Notice that ETES72M in the RX10 chart.  That is one of the few rods where my data and the published data disagree, and I am very confident of the AA that I measured for my ETES72M and I got 80 degrees.  I also found it more powerful than 466 grams by about 7%.  It fishes like my numbers.  I normally have correlated well with Rainshadow data.  Rest assured that the ETES72M is at least a fast action, and it fishes tubes very well.  It has a high true natural frequency, but is not the highest I've measured.  (It is fair to point out that if I erred and deflected the rod more than 33% of its length both the power and AA that I got would be high.)

 

I have no idea why the RX10 chart shows rods described inconsistently with the numbers.  I would go with the numbers.  But again, the NFC chart has the same inconsistencies.  

[RipHair]

I just measured my St Croix Travel TRC66MHF4, 10 – 20 lb line, 3/8 – 1 oz lure, 5.4 oz physical weight to have an ERN of about 20.3 (IP of 587.5). I didn't have an effective way of measuring angles so left AA for another time.

 

I guess with your measured IP of 525g compared to what I consider to be my "heavy" rod at 587.5g I think you're right in that I shouldn't need to worry about the SB841-3 not being able to handle a weightless worm!

 

 

[MickD]

I have found the best way to get AA is to buy an electronic level, not expensive, easy to use, just line it up with the "indicator" recommended by the CCS process.  Or you can get a level app for your cell phone.  Most are free.

 

I am surprised that a MH rod is only 20.3 ERN.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Protractor-Inclinometer-Magnetic-Horizontal-Backlight/dp/B08HN47DJZ/ref=sr_1_12?crid=3EHI7CDEHEMAE&keywords=electronic+level&qid=1641002983&sprefix=electronic+level%2Caps%2C112&sr=8-12

[Dwight Hottle]

Not the blank you asked about but I had a custom built on a MHX-TR844.5-3 blank for crankbaits & topwater uses. It has held up well and made a great travel rod for treble hook baits up to 1.5 ounces. 

[RipHair]

2 hours ago, Dwight Hottle said:

Not the blank you asked about but I had a custom built on a MHX-TR844.5-3 blank for crankbaits & topwater uses. It has held up well and made a great travel rod for treble hook baits up to 1.5 ounces. 

 

I believe I read somewhere that mentioned the TR844 being a bit too strong to throw 1/4oz and a some people went to the TR843 to throw up to 3/4oz. Do you have any experience with this? Also how do you find the quality of the blank compared to some of your other blanks?

[Dwight Hottle]

22 minutes ago, RipHair said:

 

I believe I read somewhere that mentioned the TR844 being a bit too strong to throw 1/4oz and a some people went to the TR843 to throw up to 3/4oz. Do you have any experience with this? Also how do you find the quality of the blank compared to some of your other blanks?

The quality of the blank is good. I have only used it for 1/2 to 1.5 baits. The blank is rated medium heavy moderate fast as I recall. 

[MickD]

In my experience if it says St Croix on it , it will be of good quality.  Regardless of where their stuff is made, they don't put out junk.

[RipHair]

SB841-3 and SB843-3 arrived today. Really nice looking blanks and appear to be quite light. I don't have anything on them yet but they seem to be much stiff/less whippy than my St Croix MH 6'6 Triumph travel rods.

 

One thing I noticed is the butt ends are way more thick than I expected. The St Croix rods I'm comparing against are at least 10-20% thinner at the base.

[RipHair]

I measured the SB841-3 to be about 19.1 ERN and the SB843-3 to be 22 ERN. So this SB843-3 is quite a bit heavier than my existing heavy duty rod. I'm sure it will turn out fine!

[MickD]

Yes, they resemble the proportions of the Point Blanks.  I agree with your ERN, do you have an AA for the 841?  Because of the heavy butt the 841 is surprisingly powerful, and with its light tip it casts light lures well.  The true natural frequency of my 841 is surprisingly high for an RX6 material rod.  You are going to like it.

[RipHair]

4 hours ago, MickD said:

Yes, they resemble the proportions of the Point Blanks.  I agree with your ERN, do you have an AA for the 841?  Because of the heavy butt the 841 is surprisingly powerful, and with its light tip it casts light lures well.  The true natural frequency of my 841 is surprisingly high for an RX6 material rod.  You are going to like it.

Sorry I didn't have a good way to measure the AA so I left it as an exercise for later. I'm moving to a new place at the end of the month so I should be able to get these measured then.

 

Thanks again for the Rainshadow recommendation - it looks to be a really nice rod and I like the color/finish. As I plan on building a few more rods, perhaps I should continue with the Rainshadow instead of the MHX? MHX is about 2X the cost and I'm not a fan of the lighter gray of the MHX. Only downside I think is there was a Made in China sticker on the Rainshadow and I think MHX is made in the US.

 

Would be curious if anyone has CCS figures on the MHX blanks?

I also found this St Croix 2pc in SCV: https://rodgeeks.com/collections/st-croix-scv-blanks/products/scv70mf2

 

Wonder how this particular blank at $195 would compare to the SB841-3? Certainly not as portable as the 3pc, but looks like 3pc options are pretty limited and I'm sure one day I'll want to step up some builds.

 

[MickD]

The best way I've found to measure AA is with a digital level which can be placed against the tip extension.  You then don't have to have a card leveled + trying to see which line is the best fit.  They are only about $20-30.  Search Amazon.

 

There are free cell phone apps that turn the phone into a digital level, too.  I haven't tried one for this, but might work well.

 

[MikeK]

5 hours ago, RipHair said:

MHX is about 2X the cost and I'm not a fan of the lighter gray of the MHX. Only downside I think is there was a Made in China sticker on the Rainshadow and I think MHX is made in the US.

 

 

Currently all MHX blanks are manufactured in China.