Thread: Generic Blanks

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Huntsville Al
    Posts
    4,029

    Generic Blanks

    Occasionally Mud Hole sells generic blanks on special. I have had very good luck . I just bought one that was advertised as a 7:4 rod. It was only $50 so I ordered it. It came with a glossy finish and somewhere between a moderate and fast action. It is very sensitive,. If you thump the base of the blank it keeps vibrating all the way to the tip for quite a while. Also a strong spine. I just got through building it and it will be one of the best cranking and jerk bait rods in my arsenal. In fact I like it better than there MHX rods. Does anyone know anything about these generic blanks?
    I wish I knew how to get more of these.

  2. Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Mohawk, New York
    Posts
    9,553
    #2
    I wish I knew more too. I built a 7’ ML-Fast for my brother and it’s a great rod for the money. Great action, taper, rated accurately for power and action, and surprisingly sensitive and very light. I’m not a fan of the mudhole CRB blanks at all (ratings are way off from what’s advertised).

    Seems like most rods i buy end up having actions like broomsticks (NFC, MHX, RodGeeks, etc) Just bought an NFC IM DS6107 and from what everyone has said I was expecting it to have the action of a wet noodle. Was hoping it would have similar action to that OEM70ML. Took it out of the package and it’s stiffer than any Med-Lite I’ve ever held. Thinking about putting conventional guides on it to slow the action and get more flex
    1995 Ranger 481v
    1995 Johnson Fast Strike 175hp

  3. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,401
    #3
    Interesting how different people judge blank powers. I built my drop shot rod on an NFC IM DS6107 blank. If memory serves me well, it's labeled as Mag Light. I'd say that name fits it quite well. It's less powerful than any of the medium light blanks I've built on.

    Just for comparison, I built a rod on a Rainshadow Revelation series REVS68ML and it's CCS numbers are an IP of 433 grams, with an AA of 73. The NFC IM DS6107 has an IP of 387 grams, with an AA of 78. Less powerful and a bit faster than the Revelation blank.

  4. Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Mohawk, New York
    Posts
    9,553
    #4
    Ah see that’s probably why I was thinking it would be much softer than it actually is. Based on the rodbuilding.org CCS database, someone reported the IM DS6107 as having an IP of 316 and an AA of 75.. which would put it more in lines of a true, light power rod.

    But your ratings make much more sense and places it in the realm of reality. The rod feels very similar to an Avid 6’9” ML-XF (which is my unicorn rod) which has an IP 358 and AA of 77, so your numbers explain why it feels like a true Med-Lite because it’s nearly identical to the Avid. And it shows why it doesn’t feel like a typical mag light too.
    Last edited by ECobb91; 04-18-2023 at 07:45 AM.
    1995 Ranger 481v
    1995 Johnson Fast Strike 175hp

  5. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    League City, TX
    Posts
    1,307
    #5
    I downloaded the CCS database and question some of the numbers people have measured and reported on various blanks. From the old NFC spec sheet the IM DS6107 specs are ERN 12.98 (~317.5 grams) with AA 74.80.

    2018 LEGEND 211R | 250 MERC PROXS

  6. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,401
    #6
    jbabin76, I know what you mean about the Rodbuilding.org database. I also have a link to old NFC database, and the numbers are vastly different on some blanks. The DS 6107 IM we are talking about is a perfect example. I do CCS IP and AA tests on my rods when I am doing static load guide placement, and I tested my rod on that blank and found that my numbers were way different than those from the NFC data base, so I checked it again. My second set of numbers were IP 398 with an AA of 76. A slight difference in numbers, but still not even close to those in the NFC data base.

    The problem is, I don't know where the problem lies. In my testing, or in NFC's testing. I have two rods built on MB 709 IM blanks. The numbers I came up with for those are within 27 grams of those on the NFC database. I built a rod on an MB 704 IM and my numbers were within 4 grams of the NFC site numbers. Most of the numbers I've come up with on NFC blanks are pretty close to the NFC database numbers, except for the DS 6107 IM. That ones way off.

  7. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    League City, TX
    Posts
    1,307
    #7
    Bassbme, I would tend to lean towards your numbers on the DS6107. I have the unsanded version in delta and it seems more powerful than the listed specs. It actually seems to be a really good drop shot blank at your tested numbers.

    2018 LEGEND 211R | 250 MERC PROXS

  8. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Milwaukie, OR
    Posts
    369
    #8
    Early history all over again, wasn't that long ago bass anglers were saying the same thing about G Loomis blanks/rods, however as presentations went lighter and evolved other ways in the mid '80s thru early 90's they were welcomed with open arms, popularity grew, and the others had to play catch up. I have no idea how old your first CC numbers are, but I'm not surprised that his blanks evolve, he has always done this, and he is not the only one, all the good designers do. Dropshotting sure has evolved since I started, why shouldn't the blanks.

  9. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    League City, TX
    Posts
    1,307
    #9
    Bassme, What NFC Xray blanks have you measured?

    2018 LEGEND 211R | 250 MERC PROXS

  10. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Milwaukie, OR
    Posts
    369
    #10
    Gary sold G Loomis in 1997, retired there May of 2008, NFC was in production 2009, the DS 6107 was not on my build sheet than, but it is on the 2010 version but with no blank dimensions, ERN or AA values, actually very few of the blanks on that list are valued yet. The list you found is from an individual and includes other companies and generated in 2017 it looks like. Could be any number of reasons your values don't match. What are the values on the G Loomis DS 820 that it is supposed to copy? That may help figure it out.

  11. Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Mohawk, New York
    Posts
    9,553
    #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassbme View Post
    Interesting how different people judge blank powers. I built my drop shot rod on an NFC IM DS6107 blank. If memory serves me well, it's labeled as Mag Light. I'd say that name fits it quite well. It's less powerful than any of the medium light blanks I've built on.

    Just for comparison, I built a rod on a Rainshadow Revelation series REVS68ML and its CCS numbers are an IP of 433 grams, with an AA of 73. The NFC IM DS6107 has an IP of 387 grams, with an AA of 78. Less powerful and a bit faster than the Revelation blank.
    just thought I’d give my CCS numbers for the NFC IM DS6107. IP was 391g, AA was 76. 1% difference. So I’d say that’s spot on.

    St Croix Avid X 69MLXF: IP 372g, AA 78. (From the CCS data log, IP 338, AA 77; 4% difference)

    I think we should have a running CCS thread similar to rodbuilding.org.
    1995 Ranger 481v
    1995 Johnson Fast Strike 175hp

  12. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    League City, TX
    Posts
    1,307
    #12
    Anyone measure the Xray 6100 drop shot blank? Curious how is stacks up against the 6107.

    2018 LEGEND 211R | 250 MERC PROXS

  13. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Milwaukie, OR
    Posts
    369
    #13
    Values for the DS6100 are published, it's part of the process you have to learn, look it up. You do realize the CC system was not designed for what many seem to be using it for, the originator cautioned against using it for any other reason than comparing blanks in the hope of getting one similar after you have done the research into materials used, layup type, etc.. Comparing dissimilar blanks by IP, ERN, and AA alone has very little actual value. You can make blanks with these exact values out of virtually any rod building materials used in the last century, but they will in no way resemble each other in use.
    Last edited by Spoonplugger1; 05-04-2023 at 10:33 PM.

  14. Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Mohawk, New York
    Posts
    9,553
    #14
    Numbers from the rod building CCS database of the NFC XRay DS1600: IP 275-300; AA 78. So it is a very light blank.

    While spoonplugger didn’t answer your question, what he said is correct. you can have a SJ, MB, and DS blank with similar numbers but they will all act differently. And different Manufacturers with the similar ratings will behave differently. The IMDS6107 is a perfect example. It’s rated as XF, IP and AA is similar to a St Croix 6’9 MLXF, but the tip isn’t nearly as soft as the St Croix.

    But also rods within the same manufacturer that are labled identical I’ve found aren’t the same too. A RodGeeks C266MLF is much stiffer than a St Croix Premier 6’6 ML-F, even though they are supposed to be the same blank.

    I’m just diving into the whole CCS world but in my opinion, it does give you a relative idea of the characteristics of the blank which definitely helps in choosing the right blank based on the power you want. Action angle can be deceiving. Just because rods have a similar action number doesn’t mean they have the “softness” or flex (like as seen above with the RG and St Croix blanks).

    that said There’s some that I’ve built on which the manufacturer completely rated wrong and I would’ve actually stepped down a power if I knew that ahead of time. For example, nearly all CRB blanks I’ve built on felt completely off form what they were rated as.

    I plan on doing CCS testing in every rod blank I own just to keep my own log.
    Last edited by ECobb91; 05-05-2023 at 06:38 AM.
    1995 Ranger 481v
    1995 Johnson Fast Strike 175hp

  15. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,401
    #15
    ECobb, you and I participated in the CCS data log thread on Rodbuilding.org. I'm the one that posted numbers for the DS 6107 IM rod I have as well as the 2 NFC SJ 736 X ray rods, the 2 MB 709 IM rods, and the 3 different Rainshadow blanks. Also posted the picture of my newly built CCS jig set up. Since using my current set up, I'm confident that my measurements are sound.

    The only other NFC blank I've tested is an SJ 704 IM. But I'm not really sure I got the blank that I ordered. The tip and butt measurements aren't even close to the numbers the NFC web site has posted. The tip on the blank I received took a 5.5 tube to fit (snugly) when it was supposed to be a 4.5. And the butt diameter was .028" larger than the numbers on the web site.

    I did an IP test and came up with 629 grams. Didn't do an AA measurement yet. An IP of 629 grams for a blank rated 1/8 - 3/8 and 6 - 12 lb line? That's more than out of the ordinary in my book. So I'm not sure which blank I got.

  16. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,401
    #16
    jbabin, the only X ray blank I've built on is the SJ 736. I have two rods built on that blank. IPs of 734 grams and 729 grams. AA 78, AA 77.

    I've been doing CCS tests for a while, but I was getting some numbers for blanks that weren't close to some of the numbers I'd seen posted, for the same blanks. That made me revisit my set up, and I found some problems with it. Without going into some long explanation, I'll just say that I fixed those problems. The numbers I just posted are numbers from my new set up.

    New numbers for the DS 6107 IM blank that I posted numbers for above, are IP 364 grams, AA 75.2

  17. Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Mohawk, New York
    Posts
    9,553
    #17
    I’ll give it another shot to see what numbers I get. My setup is no where near as sophisticated as yours. Basically I’m using wood clamps to hold the rod on top of a wooden rod rack, then using shims to get the rod level. There’s no uplift in the rods when weight is applied, that was my first mistakes when I tested them originally. I’m also testing unfinished blanks by putting a masking tape “flag” at the top with a hole punched through to hang weights on.

    I might go back down tonight and try to do it again. 7% difference in out numbers and I more so believe yours to be more accurate. .

    one thing that surprised me is the Lews TP-1 M-MF, i ended up getting an IP of 665 which puts it in a Med-heavy range, but definitely acts more like a Med+ with a nice taper.

    when I retest the rods I’ll make another thread to for the numbers I get.

    just curious how are you measuring the AA? I was using a construction square and that wasn’t accurate at all. Just didn’t know if something like a protractor would suffice or if there was an app or some other tool
    1995 Ranger 481v
    1995 Johnson Fast Strike 175hp

  18. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Milwaukie, OR
    Posts
    369
    #18
    I have an cheap angle finder from Harbor Freight that has a level built in. Align the arm to the tip, take the reading. There are some cellphone apps that are fairly accurate from what I understand.

  19. Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Mohawk, New York
    Posts
    9,553
    #19
    Well I went back down and tested the IM DS6107 again.. I actually got a higher number than before. tested it three times, average AA 405g; around 3% of what I originally got, so acceptable range imo.

    I wonder if it’s just a difference in blanks or maybe I got a Delta (which I guess has a higher IP naturally).. I did test based on the IP that bassbme got and the rod deflected 26” from level, 1.33” less than 30% deflection required.

    here’s a breakdown of how I obtained it, feel free to critique my setup.

    Step 1. Braced the rod at 10% rod length (6’10”=82”x0.1=8.2”, say 8-1/4”)
    4E14BD31-5C36-4D8B-AEF7-B26E120E4E35.jpeg

    Step 2. Made sure the rod is level
    A80EE8DA-E4DC-45CB-94C8-5AC88EE8DEA6.jpeg

    Step 3: added weight to reach 30% deflection. (Rod measured at 54” from ground; 82”x0.33=27.33”;
    therefore tip from ground = 54”-27.33”=26.67”
    360139D1-7DA3-41F9-BCB7-ECF36C9A2178.jpeg

    Step 4. Measure clip, bag, and weight in grams on scale (checked scale, 4 newish Pennies = 10g, 1 penny = 2.5g, 2.5x4=10g, scale is accurate.
    AFB55A6B-BC96-4E53-8E54-0E3057FC4554.jpeg

    Step 5: measure AA (used an app). AA =90-16.33= 73.7.
    F3F00208-4B41-44E1-8C77-3FF1A37AA12D.jpeg

    Step 6: Results
    NFC IM DS6107, IP 405; AA 73.7
    Last edited by ECobb91; 05-09-2023 at 04:55 PM.
    1995 Ranger 481v
    1995 Johnson Fast Strike 175hp

  20. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,401
    #20
    ECobb, the only thing I would say about your set up, is that the rod blank is tapered, so while the surface of the blank may be level, the center line of the blank isn't level. Now if you're just measuring from the tip to the floor and getting your deflection numbers from that, the center line not being perfectly level isn't going to make that big of a difference. The distance of deflection is what counts. I just have mine set up to where the center line of the blank is level. Not a major difference in my book.

    As far as my numbers and yours. I can definitely see it being blank to blank variances. Kinda doubt you got a Delta, as those have ridges and from what I have read on Rodbuilding.org, the ridges are even bigger than what they were on the non sanded X ray blanks. But who really knows. As I mentioned above with the SJ 704 blank. The kind of differences in blank dimensions of what is posted and the blank I received, would definitely make a difference in CCS numbers. If our blanks or the blanks we both have different than each other, or different from the dimensions of the blank "they" tested, that could definitely be a reason for the different numbers.

    As far as AA measurements. I do the same as you're using. I use the Bubble Level / Spirit Level app from my Android phone. It can be calibrated, so I calibrated it with two of my construction levels. I have it calibrated to within .05 degrees of those two levels. And I checked those levels against a laser level we use at work. and they are as well as my eye can tell, dead on with a Dewalt rotating laser level.

    One thing I notice about your AA measurement, is that you're taking it off the rod / blank tip itself. I happen to agree that that is what it should be checked off of. But that's not what CCS calls for. They call for a pointer and to take the AA off the pointer. If you read my posts in that thread on Rodbuilding.org, you saw how I took both reading and posted the differences between the rod tip and the pointer. The largest difference I came up with was 1.4 degrees. The smallest difference was .6 degrees. Those kind of differences are definitely not something a person fishing a rod could tell the difference in. AA off the pointer is always higher than the AA off the rod tip itself.

    Anyhow ...... I find CCS very helpful with choosing a rod blank. But like you and Spoonplugger said, if you're comparing numbers from different families of rod blanks, then the rods with the same or close to the same numbers, can fish very different from one another.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast