MickD

With what you know about the SB841-3, you might consider this one: SB781-3 Trout / panfish light jigs and tube etc. 6.6" 6-12 1/8-3/8 3 0.5 5 Fast 1.89 ML I'm no expert at BFS, but this sounds about right. I don't like fly blanks made into spin/cast rods. They seem to be just too sloppy. But as stated, I'm no expert.

Right on, voltage alone won't tell whether the battery is OK. Most stores that sell batteries will test free. If bad, buy from them. If flooding was your problem the plugs should have been wet. Gas problems (ethanol damage) as suggested by others is a real possibility, too.

Tatula LT is a great reel. I won't buy a Shimano any more since they don't have anti-reverse switches. Every reel, spin or cast, that I've ever had from Daiwa has been first class.

I have used the VMC rigs and like them because I often screw up the palomar knot. Here is a rig I've just tied on, but have not tried it yet. A friend was using one with good success recently. I think with the hook off on a line a few inches the lure will be more free to move and the swivel will be forced to work better. https://www.tackledirect.com/spro-power-swivels-combo-black.html?mainc=SPR-0105-4&gclid=Cj0KCQjwuO6WBhDLARIsAIdeyDLuC7ijCOwRuzfWW9iGnjV7XztD1L132VgaZL35Epwi1W3Bul8LmwIaAsvkEALw_wcB

I personally find all fishing tournaments boring. And I cannot stand to listen to the idiots calling the weigh-ins.

There are times when fishing tubes and smaller swimbaits for SMB and LMB that I don't let out line to get a vertical fall because many time fish hit on the fall and keeping slack out of the system makes them easier to detect.

Epoxy does not melt, if that's what you're thinking. It will degrade with heat but you have to be very careful because the temp that does that is close to the temp that will degrade the blank. I don't use heat at all to loosen epoxied parts. The mechanical means is your best bet, least risk. That 691 is a very nice blank. I'd just complete the build unless I didn't like the seat location.

If you can, wait for the end of the year events at Cabelas and others. Or maybe the Tackle Warehouse Labor Day sale. I have a Daiwa Fuego spin reel that is very nice. I cannot tell it from the Tatula for the way it fishes. For your technique I would look for a 7 foot , fast action, medium power rod.

If the blank were defective it would have broken before. I suspect it either had been damaged before this incident, or simple high sticking, or both. One cannot tell from this picture what the cause was. If Lew's does not want it back, keep it for repair parts. Not only the guides, but the blank. The blank can be cut for sleeves for repair of other rods. When I am teaching newbies how to handle the rods I emphasize that if they keep the rod pointing generally in the direction of the fish, they will not break it. I expect if this one had been pointed towards the fish and dragging the fish it would not have broken.

It's not a green. Jann's Netcraft root beer/pepper is a little dark. I've got some tubes about that color, but I cannot find one on line to recommend. Can't believe it , but true. I'd keep looking for pumpkin, as suggested already, or mustard.

The drag works by the tightening of the nut compressing the stack of discs in the spool. Something is "bottomed out" preventing the compression of the stack. Something is taking the load usually transmitted to the stack. Something jammed on the threads of the shaft on which the drag nut is threaded? Look very closely for something that is taking that load.

I keep hearing about "bad batches," but I don't believe there are as many as reported. FC is very fragile, and you may not even know what's causing its failure. However, I think using FC on a baitcaster for weightless wackies is a tough assignment for it. A recipe for line loose on the reel , and then about anything can happen. I recommend using spin for weightless wackies and save the BC for heavier stuff. I know, I'll get responses from all the light BC purists saying I'm nuts. But I know I'm not skilled enough to do weightless wackies with FC on a BC outfit, and maybe most others are not either. And their life would be simpler, with more time fishing rather than fixing, if they used spin where it makes the most sense and BC where it makes the most sense. Rather than challenging the boundaries. OK, unload. Be gentle. ?

There are many on this forum who recommend Big Game, which is a very reasonably priced mono. Makes sense to give it a try before going with the pricier options that are harder to learn on.

For a new BC fisherman I would not recommend FC or braid, or old mono. New mono is not expensive, so get some decent quality mono, about 12-16 pound test, and learn on that. FC is hard to manage, expensive, and easily damaged trying to get backlashes out. Braid, IMO, does not cast as well as mono and you might be tempted to use a leader which further complicates the issue. Once you become competent with mono for your types of fishing, you can decide when you're ready to go to braid or FC if you desire. I gave up on FC a long time ago and recently gave up on braid. I'm all mono on BC now. I don't know anything that they will do to my advantage that makes up for their poorer casting performance.

Plus guide ring sizes, not micros are they? I have given up on braid on my baitcasters, don't see that there is a significant advantage, and the casting quality relative to good mono is very poor. I'm now using Suffix Elite 14 pound test and am very pleased with all aspects of it. There is another possible problem with braid that I've encountered, and it is, I believe, that some braids absorb water making them heavy, and that causes them to get loose on the spool during aggressive casts and hanging up on the reel supports (rods between the side plates). It doesn't happen in the yard with dry line, but surely does on the water with wet line.

There are common terms for the rod characteristics and methods for objectively measuring them if you want to do it. In your text you are redefining commonly used and understood terms ("action" for example). If one wants to eliminate confusion it would be better to leave the commonly known terms alone (action, power, weight, length), using them as they are currently understood. Dr. Bill Hanneman's work is pretty complete, not that complex, and can be found at https://www.common-cents.info/

I understand. Not having to move that 3.8 ounces of rod helps. (I apologize for the sarcasm-I just don't get it.)

Redfish around Charlotte? If yes, keep it. I don't understand the drama with whether to keep or sell ONE rod. I have many rods I haven't used in years, but I'm not selling them. If one has a new fishing experience that requires a different rod, get one. And keep the previous one for when you might need it.

Old broken rods, some I just cut up for repairs if I don't have plans to fish them, pawn shops for a few. But yes this is the biggest issue, getting the materials for sleeves. I also bought some glass tubes on line.

I have used an inside stent only once on a fly rod that had so many loose pieces that I needed it to stabilize the blank until the epoxy cured. I use only external sleeves. Using both inside and outside risks getting it too stiff, in my opinion. I prefer glass, but I have used cheapie low mod graphite when I haven't had the right size glass, and it seemed to work OK. I didn't detect a flat spot.

So slow or fast rods are trickier? Than what, moderate action? Just trying to understand. I've not noticed that action makes any difference. Of course the higher the power and the closer to the butt the less one would expect a rod to show a difference with repair.

I respectfully disagree. The biggest issue is the visual of having the sleeve on the rod. Yes, the 18/1000 of an ounce theoretically will slow the response of the rod, but for most rods, it is not noticed. The action on two of the rods I've fixed was checked (CCS ERN & AA) before and after the break and both the power and action numbers were unchanged. One is an ultra light power that one would expect would be affected more than more powerful rods, but I cannot measure the difference. I don't have true natural frequency numbers from before the break. I liken it to having the mongrel down the road impregnate one's prize bird dog. It will still hunt well, but in the back of the mind. . . It is certainly worth a try. If it doesn't seem right it can be used for another purpose, like a kid's starter rod. I have an 8 weight fly rod that "exploded" and I fixed it. It casts fine, but I use it for a spare. What is a "slow/fast" rod?

I've seen posts on many forums that express the opinion that any repaired fishing rod (repair of a complete break) will never fish well again. I use the process detailed here: https://www.rodbuilding.org/library/repair-oquinn.html I've done a good number of them, and all of the rods fished well after repair. I just completed one that I had built a couple years ago. It was broken cleanly about 10 inches below the tip. At initial build I had documented the CCS numbers on the rod, and after repair, I rechecked them. They were almost identical for both power and action. Within expected test error. The sleeve, reinforcing wraps and epoxy totaled only .018 ounce. The rod "feels" the same. The owner is happy as a clam that his favorite rod has been salvaged. I recommend that one give it a try before scrapping a broken rod. If the rod cannot be repaired one is wise to keep the pieces so they might be used to repair a rod in the future.

I still maintain that a cylinder with a wall thickness of zero will not be as stiff as one with a wall thickness that is not zero. And this makes the trend obvious. But, why do we care? We care because we are curious. Curiosity is good. We also care because we are striving for the highest stiffness to weight ratio where it counts. For many years experts have maintained that the sensitivity of a rod is proportional to its true natural frequency, which is proportional to the stiffness to weight ratio and is affected by many design parameters. The problem was that expensive , sophisticated equipment was required to measure the true natural frequency. (TNF is not the CCF that Hanneman developed in his CCS work. CCF is not TNF but a frequency derived by adding weight to the tip of the blank to get its resonant frequency into a range that could be measured with a stop watch.) As has been pointed out, it's easier to evaluate the finished product. Because of the capability of the inexpensive technology that we now have it is possible to quickly and easily measure the true natural frequency of blanks and rods. The effect of adding guides and wraps to a blank can be measured, and the differences between titanium and SS guides and guide sizes (weights) quantified. Differences between high and low modulus blanks can be checked. If anyone wants to know how to do this, send me a message with your email address and I'll send you a pdf file with instructions.

Let's take the thinner wall towards zero and see what the answer is. As the wall approaches zero, what happens to the stiffness?