MickD

I notice on the Point Blank specs that both the Light and MedLight blanks have Action Angles of 77 degrees, meaning under the protocols of CCS, they are both the same action. Yet they describe the Light as XFast and the MedLight as Fast. I fish the MedLight and consider it an "almost X-Fast" ? It is not quite as fast as a couple other rods with 80 degree AA's. There is a slight difference in the powers of the blanks. Since one can never have too many rods, take your best shot at selecting one and build the other later.

No, it describes the stiffness to weight ratio, not just the stiffness. A broom stick is very stiff, but its stiffness to weight ration is not very high. Because it is heavy. The natural frequency measurement is a direct measure of how fast the blank will recover. If you want the fastest recovery, you want the blank with the highest natural frequency, and you want to put on the lightest possible running guides.

Permagloss is a very light, tough, flexible, thin, coating and doesn't build anywhere near what epoxy wrap finish does. It is said to never yellow like epoxy ultimately will. It has nasty fumes and hardens very fast. Practice with it is good advice, IMHO. It will probably require a number of coats to get a look you like. But it definitely is a good, serviceable, coating. In the past it had problems hardening in the bottle before one could use it but improved packaging has about solved that, I think. I have a bottle in my fridge that I've had for a couple years and it's still good.

The best of the best for the blank, IMHO, is the Point Blank 701MLF. You may go lighter, but you won't get the same power, and you won't get a faster recovery, I've tested all the best for true natural frequency, and PB is the best. Period. Then any size guide will work.

The real issue is the length and objective power, not described power. What is the blank length and ERN of the blanks on which they are built? The two biggest components of rod weight are the weight of the blank and the weight of the reel seat. Everyone brags about their light rods without even knowing the objective specs for them. Go for it! Love the attitude. I'm a little cheap. But I have a LOT of rods.

You can go Torzite if you want the absolute best, but they are very pricey for little value over SIC. I have NEVER grooved any guide of any material, and I used a lot of cheapies before I started building. If I were doing it I would go with titanium SIC's. I would get one KB and the rest KT's. The KB would go right after the 5.5M. I just weighed the set I'm going to use on a new rod, and to use up stuff I have on hand I have a KLH 16 stainless, a KLH 8 stainless, a 5.5M titanium, a KB4 titanium, and 5 KT4 titaniums. The whole set (all SIC rings) weighed .141 oz. 9 guides at .141. This brings what DVT was arguing into perspective. See my other comment. The link doesn't show the size. If you go into the 4 and 4.5 size you need to be prepared to tie some pretty small knots, like FG or at least an Alberto in order to get the knots between braid and leader through the guides somewhat cleanly.

You should go KG in my opinion, either SIC or torzite. I've never used Torzite, always use SIC. Never grooved a SIC. Use tip top cement, a hot melt, to attach it. If you use epoxy and ever need to replace it you may sacrifice a half inch of tip of the blank because with epoxy you may not be able to get it off. Order the ring size that matches or is one size larger than the runners, and a tube size 1/2 size larger than the advertised tip diameter. It is not a problem if the tube is too large. It is an unsolvable problem if it's too small.

Yes, not 1.4 when we are picking nits. Anglersresource.net use the KR software to locate the reduction guides, locate the running guides with the 2 line stress test, tutorial on same site. I always use 3 reduction guides + 6 runners on a 7 foot rod. Most use 5 runners.

Accuweather and Windfinder. Where I fish wind predictions are more of interest than weather for planning. While on the water Accuweather usually is very accurate down to a few minutes of rain coming in.

1.48 in my view of their catalog. NFC , unfortunately so far, is strange in their descriptions which often do not match the measured values for power and action. If I were choosing between NFC and St Croix, I would go St Croix. More likely to get what is closer to the description. I just received an NFC drop shot rod rated Medium power. Its CCS ERN is 12.8 and it feels about that light in power and weights 1.6 oz. I have asked for their data to confirm the ERN. I have not yet finished the build, so I have not fished it. I seriously question whether another NFC blank weighing 1.48 will have any more power than about ERN 13. A Point Blank PB701MLF measures ERN 19.9 and weighs 1.76 oz. It is probably my favorite rod for spin finesse. I have measured the true natural frequency of blanks and Point Blanks have the highest of any blanks measured which indicates the highest stiffness to weight ratios, the fastest recovery times,and most likely the most sensitivity. I often fish a St Croix SCV70MF, and it's a very fine rod. I expect the SCV70MLF (orXF) is also. I seem to remember many on this forum having the SCV70MLF as a favorite. The Xray that I have is the mirror finish, not the highly textured one. While the mirror has only very small grooves in the finish, it still is a bit of a pain to wrap due to the difficulty of moving the wrap thread on its surface. I prefer to build on St. Croix and Point Blank, or any other un-textured blanks.

I personally don't use braid on baitcasters because mono casts better. FC is too fragile and manageable FC is way too expensive considering how easily damaged it is. On spinning I use braid almost exclusively, for everything including cranks. I use about a 5 foot leader of FC or mono, and it gives some shock absorption without significantly compromising feel and hook sets.

Yes. straight floro is only about .3 mm for 16 pound test, the ID of size 4 runners is way above that.

Many braids have a coating for lubricity, and they have no stretch, which nylon wrapping thread has, and which helps to keep it tight to the blank. Using braid for guide wraps may or may not work. What I know will work is nylon or polyester wrapping thread. Thread designed for rod building. If you want to buy something locally that will work, then the polyneon embroidery threads available in sewing shops will work IF you use color preservative to keep the lubes in it from affecting the epoxy coating and to retain its color. The rayon embroidery threads are to be totally avoided. Even CP will not save their color.

White

I build for a lot of reasons, I love the feeling when I finish the rod, admiring its beauty, looking forward to fishing it. Also very important to me is that I can fish the best rods in the world for about half the cost of what it would cost to buy the name brand hi mod rod. But I agree with DVT, if saving $$ is your ONLY reason to get into building, it's not a good idea. I think I keep building spin rods, even when I don't need another, is that I have developed a "signature" design that really works, and no factory company offers anything close to it. I also have built a bunch of rods for an educational foundation auction. Nice to support local education with my skills, and neat to see what others will pay for one of my rods. Many builders are building rods for kids and rods for vets, both admirable endeavors. I built my first rod when I was a teen, parts from Herters, "Finest Procurable Quality," built a fly rod during college finals week one year when I was well scholastically prepared, fished it before taking my last final. I have many fine memories from rod building. It is a neat hobby, even if you don't get into selling. Especially if you don't get into selling (warranty issues, broken rods, "that's not what I meant by MH") My family and a few close friends value their rods from "Custom Fishing Rods - MJ Danek" That's what the label says.

All good points. The advantage of a kit is that it familiarizes one with the parts and processes. I still at times don't exactly know what to buy. Fuji fazlites are fine guides for a very fair price. Use the right software on the anglersresource site to match the KR guides (to locate the reduction guides). Use the two line stress test to locate the runners. I would not go super small on the runners, the smallest ones are tough to wrap. I'd suggest 5.5's for a first rod. They still are probably smaller than you're used to.

Good advice, too. One thing that always stumps new builders is reel seat location-what is important is where the reel is, not the seat. Seats vary. But one good way to locate it is to do it in the same location as a rod you have that you like. Or put it close, then move it a little if you feel you can improve on it (seats can be taped to a blank for evaluation before gluing in place. One of my first spin rods I made I used a stock rear grip and it put the reel too far forward. It ended up snagging my elbow area when going from tip up to down and vice versa. I ended up having to cut 1 1/2 inches off the butt to fix the ergonomics. Since then I've used the rod for many years and it's been a good rod. But I still regret cutting 1 1/2 inches off the butt of a $160 blank. On another rod I mis-aligned the guide with respect to the seat/reel stem. I had to totally rebuild that one. Moral: Your first or second build will usually not be the best work you are capable of doing once you get some experience under your belt.

I think this is a very smart strategy. I recommend starting with a kit, and before that review the good tutorials at places like Flexcoat.com and Mudhole.com. Additionally the Library at this site has excellent information. https://www.rodbuilding.org/library/library.html I don't know exactly what "super cheap" is, but get what appears to be a decent kit from Mudhole.com or Getbitoutdoors.com, and maybe there are other sources I'm not familiar with. Search on line for "fishing rod building kit" and see what you get. There are an untold number of videos on line, search by the subject you are interested in, including the word "video." Keep in mind that what you will be seeing are opinions and everything may not be fact, that there are many ways of doing different things, and when we describe what we are doing to others, we may not always include the subtle things we are doing to make it work. Don't hesitate to ask specific questions on rodbuilding forums.

Sounds a lot like a Lorentz transformation. Not sure what a Lowrance transformation is. Seriously, if you aren't interested forget it. If what you have works, fine.

The best jigs I've found for retaining the bait and preventing early damage to it are the ones with the light wire screw feature rather than a barb. https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/VMC_Hybrid_Swimbait_Jig/descpage-VHSJ.html

Glad you got some humor in your life. Besides being humerous, it allows one to determine objectively whether or not his premium dollars are yielding any value. How do you accomplish that now? Advertising copy?

I believe that "5 power" is an older power designation that does indicate pretty heavy power, although I don't know if it's based on actual measurements or on opinions, as most power ratings (M-H-MH-H) are. Not every brand's H is the same power. The only objective power rating system is CCS, I believe. https://www.common-cents.info/ It measures the weight that it takes to deflect the blank/rod to 1/3 its length. Many of us builders use it to select blanks to build that meet our power (and action) requirements, once we have become familiar with it and many of the popular blanks. A few blank manufacturers are starting to publish the CCS numbers for their blanks, Point Blank, Rainshadow Eternity RX10, and NFC to name the ones I know about. I have never seen a CCS rating published by a rod manufacturer. CCS measures power and action objectively, but does not measure anything relative to sensitivity or response/recovery time. But I have a simple, inexpensive, process for that, if anyone is interested in measuring recovery time, true natural frequency (TNF).. PM me for a tutorial. (It requires an Android phone/Kindle/tablet + a free app). This number is a power description, not an action description. But whether power (L-M-H etc) or action (slow-moderate-fast-etc), they are very imprecise with not all makers rating the blanks/rods the same. A recent example on another forum has a blank described as M, MH, and H by 3 different people.

Very true, but I wanted to point out that there is a performance cost for those footballs some builders seem to like. It can be measured. I have a process for measuring the true natural frequency (TNF) of a blank or rod that shows the difference in frequency between KT4 stainless and KT4 titaniums. Titaniums degrade the natural frequency less than stainless guides do, resulting in a faster recovery time for the rod. The process shows that some premium blanks have higher natural frequencies than others, often by a significant margin. The process can show whether a specific guide set or tiiptop affects TNF more or less than another. When a builder is going for the ultimate, little differences can become significant. The process is possible with miniumal equipment, the most important is an Android phone, Kindle, or tablet plus a free app. The butt has to be restrained, but forces are low, deflections minor; meaning it is safe and doesn't risk damage to the blank. It no longer takes expensive equipment to measure the response time of blanks and rods. Many believe that sensitivity is proportional to true natural frequency. It has been argued for years that sensitivity is proportional to stiffness to weight ratio, and TNF is a measure of stiffness to weight ratio. If true, and I think it generally is, then there is a method of actually measuring the value of different components in maintaining the sensitivity of the blank through the build. TNF clearly directly measures recovery time. Anyone wishing to get the details on the process may PM me and I'll send a short, simple , tutorial.

575-600 grams. Response time of the rod is part of performance. With all due respect for your expertise, I invite you to show us your objective data supporting this statement. The variability of epoxy covered wraps is vast. There is definitely an advantage in response time of the rod with having a wrap covered in Permagloss vs a football of epoxy times 4-6 guides on a light tip of an Xfast action rod built on a premium blank. Built on an old Ugli Stick, no, but on a new premium blank, yes. The OP asked for how to attain the ultimate. Unless something like Permagloss is used on the wraps, it will not be the ultimate.

Relative to blank weight, I have never found a discrepancy in the weight of a graphite rod blank, actual vs claimed weight. I'm not a high volume builder, but over the years I've totaled quite a few. The only discrepancy has been with a glass blank which weighed 2.3 oz vs a claimed weight of 2.0. There is no logical reason why weights should vary much since the material that goes into the blank is carefully prepared, measured, cut, and then processed.