MickD

Sounds a little stronger than speculation. I have to admit, it is tempting to put a couple other definitions up here. But I'll just check out on this one.

OK , I concede not all have done it. Glad you read the article, anyway.

Not his research, as you later state. The rest of your response seems to agree with the article. The reason I posted this was only to point out a risky thing that we have all done, but which has a much higher risk in the fall of endangering the biggest of the fish we catch and want to release unharmed.

Here is a must-read article from Outdoor Canada for those of us who really like fall Great Lakes smallmouth bass fishing. http://www.outdoorcanada.ca/keeping-fall-smallmouth-in-your-livewell-all-day-you-may-be-killing-them/?fbclid=IwAR1AHPXgU0xTtL0TtcJXgJsezCX4xsC8roP6_Ub0vKgadFIpnLwT1lqxNfU

A coincidence regarding customer support, I was just coming to the forum to communicate how fast and effective Humminbird Customer Service is, e-mail form and phone number on their web site. I've used them a number of times and it's always the same.

Yes, but in this case there was one rod tested twice, once before breaking and repair, and once after the repair. It gives objective data on power and action, numbers, not terms like "med-light." It would be very valuable for a person who has a favorite rod and is trying to duplicate it, but the exact rod is no longer available. The favorite rod could be tested, then a candidate second rod could be taken home from the store, and tested. If the numbers were not close enough, it could be returned. Of course the process does not damage the rod or blank. If a rod is found that is close in the numbers, it will be close in the feel, power, and action. I recently received a new blank and before even testing it I thought it was very close to another premium blank that I like. When I tested it the numbers were almost identical. It was originally developed for fly rods, and the info below focuses on fly rods, but it may be used for ANY rod or blank. Exc possibly for the really heavy salt rods where flexing them to a deflection of 33% of their length doesn't make sense or cannot be done. http://www.common-cents.info/

I did an RX8 Rainshadow built as a casting rod that was broken about 6-8 inches from the tip and it came out well. The rod was not a high powered rod, a "med-L" power, fast to X fast action. I agree that the lighter the power, when broken near the tip, the more the action and sensitivity will be affected by the repair. Mass is being added at the exact wrong place. The fly rod I mentioned was broken quite far from the tip, at the bottom of the second section. It was shattered to the point there were loose pieces. If the rod is an expensive one I submit it is worth a try-not that hard to do. Very good point about this issue. Did you get my message about the line sample you sent me?

The expense, of course, depends on the builder's rates. But it really is not that big a deal to repair as the article suggests. I'm a hobby builder who gets requests from my friends to repair their rods, and I do it gratis. And they give me waypoints and their latest greatest lure. One case I did a repair of a fly rod with an internal spigot and external sleeve for a person who found me on line, and I charged him $20. For him, it made sense even with my caveats that I couldn't guarantee the repair. it all depends on what your favorite rod is worth to you. But I maintain, it is not out of the question to repair rods like we are discussing for a price that makes sense to most people. And, after the repair, if done right, they will fish just fine. I cannot stand simply putting a tiptop on a broken tip. It simply is never quite right. But this repair is not like that. it yields a rod that fishes just fine. At what point is the rod repair not practical? I'm not sure, but between the simple 4 inches from the tip failure to the shattered rods I mentioned, my repairs have been effective worth the effort. But as stated before, it depends on the cost you have to pay for the repair. And the value of the rod. For a fifty buck rod, replace it. For a $200 rod, the repair most likely makes sense.

You understand CCS objective rod testing? Measures power and action? I repaired a "shattered" 8 wt Pac Bay Quickline that I built and had tested as new. The repair consisted of both an internal spigot and an external sleeve. The CCS and AA after repair matched what it was when new, and I subjectively evaluated its casting characteristics as being unchanged. No it's not the same, has to be a little heavier and the characteristics have to have changed with the repair. But I could not find the difference either with CCS or my evaluation of the repaired rod. So, don't dismiss the repair as being one that will change a great rod into a dog. It will still be a great rod. With a lump in it. I've done other rods where the rod owner said the rods performed the same after repair.

Sure, we'd all like to keep our stuff inside, but to answer the question directly, cold will not hurt rods or reels. Nylon line can get brittle, like all nylon does, from low humidity. But I've never had a problem with line left in an unheated building. Probably because when I use it, it's wet . ?

I assume you have seen this site: https://www.rodbuilding.org/library/repair-oquinn.html Glass is preferred, but not mandatory for a good repair. Find any graphite, preferably cheap, rod (lower modulus comes with cheap) at second hand stores or similar possible places, or simply buy a really cheap rod to use for this repair of a rod you want to save. I have a few old rods that I'm willing to sacrifice if this comes up on one of my favs.

A friend of mine, a very accomplished builder and bluegill fisherman, swears by the Revelation blank you mention, or the UL version of it. Until Rainshadow came out with these the only choice for those wanting a longer light or ultra light was to build a fly blank into a spin rod. And the Rainshadow blanks we're talking about are far superior than using a fly blank. You are on the right track looking at 7' blanks and those close to that length. Short UL and L rods are an abomination.

With some surface lures the sinking FC screws up their action. If using that kind of lure go with a hard mono salt water leader material, like Mason. Since it is hard (stiff) knots will be difficult in the higher pound test leaders; you;ll need to set them with pliers. 30 pound test is .028 inch diameter, and is really tough. You may have to buy it from a saltwater fly source. If sinking leaders is not a problem, FC is usually smaller in diameter for the same pound test, so knots should be easier.

A very reasoned, well thought out, response.

Thanks. So the average difference is a little over 4 grams. or water. I think you've proven Tom's and my point on weight variation. The variation is not significant to fatigue or durability. Other factors are significant to durability, like some defect in the blank that was not detectable during the manufacturing process. I'd like to point out that I stress each blank I receive and I've never had one break. The only rods I've broken have been due to abuse, not a problem with the blanks.

Better than the deflection charts would be CCS data which give numerical values for power and action. I test all my blanks for CCS so I have a growing data base of values. These values do vary more than weights of blanks (and components) due to blank variations and test error, but they are still adequate for describing blanks. For example, they will show the difference between power of a blank spline up or spline down. Few blank manufacturers offer them in their nomenclature, not sure why, but I suspect it's due to two reasons: 1. Few fishermen understand them so would add to rather than eliminate confusion with most fishermen, and 2. I think they fear some builders will mis-use the data to falsely claim advantages/disadvantages. http://www.common-cents.info/ I would be interested in hearing how components can vary in weight. I can only see cork density as a component variable, and it would be minuscule. The guides, wraps, epoxy, decals, seats, keepers cannot vary significantly.

Since you've weighed several hundred you should be able to produce data on say maybe, 10 of the same model? Right? It really doesn't matter whether custom or production, they are all made from some model of blank, and the producer doesn't know when they are made whether they are going to a rod manufacturer or a custom rod builder. And obviously, the rest of the components are not going to vary much at all. How could they?

As a builder who weighs every blank I get, I assure you that weight variation is very small. Always either right on or at most a few hundreths of an ounce off. The other components will not vary that much, and even the wraps and epoxy will be essentially the same for all rods of the same design. How many rods of the same model have you weighed? Tom is right on.

My experience with their blanks has been all positive. Not so much with their guides.

AmTak Bushido Mag bass blanks are very nice, also at a very good price. I'm sure the guide train will work, but if I were doing it I would buy the Fuji RV 6mm reverse casting guide, no transition guide necessary, but won't hurt, so if you want it, do it, then buy the right number of KB and KT tangle free guides to make the number of guides right. I would use KT's near the tip, where the tip diameter is small, and the rest of the running guides, KB (bigger foot, stronger). If you do the transition guide, it would be a KB. The issue with the LN is that it is about 4 mm lower than the Fuji recommended guide height for the first guide. And the KB's are more tangle-free than the L's. If you prefer dark guides, use the T2 RV guide and if you prefer bright guides the regular titanium RV , which works well with bright stainless guides. The T2 is not yet shown in the Fuji catalog, at least I've not found it, but vendors have it. The Fuji Fazlite ring with their new corrosion control stainless frame is a very high performing, inexpensive guide. I would use a SIC tiptop for max grooving resistance. ONly a buck or two more. It's obvious I'm a Fuji devotee', but I really like the RV, KB, KT combination for cast.

This is not rocket science. Get a postal scale and weigh them. Or buy one of many other nice, very accurate scales on line.

Depends on the rod also. With a moderate action rod and a few feet of leader (mono or FC) braid works very well for cranks. I especially like my ML power moderate-fast action 7 ' spin rod (Rainshadow RX7 ISP 843) with 15 pound braid for small cranks up to Rapala DT6's. In the spring when SMB are fairly shallow, using small squarebills is effective and this outfit is ideal. Advocates of moderate action (crankbait) rods with mono or FC should try light braid-much better feel of the lure to detect weed fouling and strikes feel like strikes rather than snags.

Unless you are really proficient with a BC outfit, don't go FC. Its advantages are minuscule, and its problems are not. Expensive, fragile, stiff. It's good for leaders (leader grade FC.). OK, FC fans, pile on.

Your MH suggestion is good for a rod. Unless you're fishing really weed-choked areas, I see no need for more than 20 # braid. 15# leader is fine, too. If you're running a 15# leader, heavier line doesn't do much exc cost you casting quality. If it's really weedy and you're running over 20# braid, then use a 20# leader. I like what I consider the better feel I get with spin. Not sure why this should be true, but seems like it to me.

Yes. I recommend, if you want to do it yourself, flaming the thread fuzzies, then clean the surface by gently rubbing with fine steel wool, or preferably, Scotchbrite pad. Wipe clean, no alcohol, and apply epoxy. A light coat will unlikely cause a blob, but to be sure, just turn it every 15 minutes until it's jelled. Check its condition by touching the epoxy in the mix container, not the epoxy on the rod. With the color of the thread, and the fact that it is such a small area, any liquid epoxy will work just fine. Thin coat!