MickD

Sorry I missed the fact that it was not yours, but you have to admit, easy to do in that long posting. I still maintain that the simple spiral, functionally, works just fine. And there is nothing wrong with "simple."

There is no problem with the simple spiral and it simply works. If there is any side loading on the guides, at least with "bass" rods as opposed to boat rods, it isn't enough to cause any problems. I've done many, never had any issue, and they cast just fine. Keep in mind that while your design does really look good, it takes a long while to set it up while the simple spiral takes a couple minutes. Also keep in mind that a perfectly straight path is not necessary for great casting-the first guide , the level wind guide of the reel, turns the line often an inch laterally for an inch of line travel. And it works just fine. Guide misalignments of even major magnitudes don't cause problems. Yes, you have an elegant design, but that does not justify trashing other options that, contrary to your opinion, fundamentally work just fine. I think the third guide of the NRX is side loaded. If it were not the line would go through at 0, or 180 degrees. In fact it looks like the first three guides are side loaded. And it will work just fine.

Premium FC fly tippets, Hitena and Cortland, 12.9-15 pound test. When I've tried lighter pound tests I've found them just too fragile when handling fish at the boat. I don't think there is a significant difference between the visibility of the lighter stuff and 12-15

It is using two lines on the blank to load the blank instead of one. You tie one to the tiptop and load the rod. The other goes through the guides and has a light weight on the end of it just to keep the line taut. You use the line through the guides to evaluate how the guides are located. It is actually easier to use than a one line test. More info at Anglersresource.net, click on menu, then go down to the listing of resources which includes the very good KR software for selecting and locating the reduction KLH guides. I don't even test cast any more, just use the software + the two line test for spin.

I think there may be misconceptions about what a bright sky is. I was surprised when evaluating cars with auto headlamp systems when they would turn on sooner late in the day with a clear sky than with a cloudy sky. We put a meter on to measure the light levels and found that if the sun is not directly overhead a clear blue sky emits less light onto the sensor on the dashboard (and therefore water) than a cloudy sky at the same time of day. If the sun is directly overhead, then it's "bright sky." When fishing Lake St Clair for smallmouth bass we have found that during the brighter part of the day, sun high, mixed clouds, that we catch more fish when the sun is out than when it's behind clouds. I've always preferred sunny days for smallies, given a choice. But I've had good and bad days under both.

Both same line and same guide train? If I remember correctly the ETES has less power than the PB, so maybe that's getting into it. I admit I have not made a concentrated effort to compare them one immediately after the other. I just use them sort of interchangeably and haven't noticed any major deficiencies in the ETES. I do like the PB better. I pick it up first.

Doesn't even have to be a Zillion. There are plenty of reels for less than $200 that cast great. By the way, I cast right handed and have a right shoulder that's been repaired twice and torn up another time without repair. It can rebel a little at the end of a long day on the water, but I'm getting along pretty well with it by not using it much in casting. Mostly two handed overhead casts using mostly wrist and arms from the elbows down. The proper technique can do a lot for those of us with physical problems.

GetBit shows them at $100. In stock? Doesn't say out of stock. If still interested, call them. I am mystified by all the reports of failing PB's when I've had no trouble at all and have one experience when I fully expected a failure and it didn't. ???

How are you measuring its sensitivity?⁷

I have had one for many years, no issues. I snagged a lure in shallow water, moving along quite fast, and wrapped a 731MXF around my trolling motor, fully expecting it to fail, and all that was damaged was a bent guide. I built one for a friend and he laid it on the floor with some line off the tip and his wife caught the line in the vacuum. Broke it and I repaired it and he is using it regularly. We have two other PB's in the family, no problems. Not sure why the difference.

RX10 is very close and they are fine blanks a lot like PB. OP'er, have you checked with GetBit.com? I have an ETES72ML built as a spin, and while it's a little less powerful than the PB701, it fishes a lot like it. I consider them pretty interchangeable.

701 is more powerful than some blanks called medium, so get ccs data if you can for what you are planning.. Have you thought about repairing the broken one? Can be done usually and most fish just fine. If you don't know how , let me know.

This is a very likely possibility. You can also check guide/tiptop rings by twisting a QTip in the rings. If cracked it should "catch" on the fuzz of the QTip. FC line is very sensitive to damage by picking out backlashes. If you did that just before, good chance that's it. The fix: Mono

This is a definite possibility, would likely work if you can find a blank with a butt diameter just below the ID of the failed rod. I don't think a sleeve would be necessary or desireable since it would take up space resulting in a very light powered rod with any blank that much smaller than the original. Blank butt diameters are listed in the specs for most blanks. Select a blank longer than the rod you want since you will lose the engagement length of the butt of the new blank into the seat. If you are unfamiliar with blank specs and ordering, and would like some help, message me with your hoped for final rod specs- technique, spin/cast, length, power, action, and budget and I will do some searching. "Why didn't I think of that!?"

Epoxy doesn't melt, so if one expects it to soften like hot melt, won't happen. It is formed as a chemical reaction between two materials, and heat doesn't melt it. Get it hot enough and it will degrade and weaken, that's about the same temperature that degrades and weakens blanks, so one has to be quite careful if trying to reclaim a blank instead of the seat/grip. Epoxied tiptops don't just slide off. If one comes off easily, it was installed with hot melt. Removing epoxied tiptops from blanks is a very "fragile" process. Fragile might not be the best word to describe it, but it's the best I can think of. I doubt if there is a process in which the blank can be removed from within a grip/seat without destroying or at least damaging the cork. Good luck, hope you can get it done.

I haven't tried Spoonpluggers's equation, but I think it has been around as long as CCS. I think Dr. William Hanneman, the inventor of CCS, may have suggested it. But I do believe there is more to it than that. I believe that length, casting skill or technique, and action get into it in addition to power. I think that Xf is more tolerant of a larger range of lure weights than a slow action, especially if the XF is longer. When you think about it, a 7 1/2 foot XF rod is basically a 6 1/2 foot Fast or Mod-fast on a 1 foot "broomstick." I think that a 6 foot XF will not have the same range of well-casting lure weights that a 7 foot XF of the same power. XF has a wider range because, IMO, the less powerful tip casts the light lures well and the stiff butt and mid sections keep it from overloading with heavier lures. But it will require a little more skill to take advantage of it. One should keep in mind that casting technique gets very much into it. Some expert casters by changing their technique surely can cast a wider range of lure weights easily than less expert casters. Maybe with all the variables, especially casting technique, action and power getting into it we are asking too much of even our objective measurements. Even trying to get published data bases on the original CCS has been a challenge as people start them, and sooner or later they fall into neglect. There is one that is pretty good, has lasted a while, and seems to be at least holding its own, and that is the one Kevin Fiant has authored. Many thanks to Kevin-I've used (and contributed to) his data for a few years now. I believe it only includes blanks. It's available at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r3zv1ygtuUjPBa-c5LT9RTYeDR_pnCDIkVIdDv0YoeQ/edit?pli=1&gid=1592691333#gid=1592691333 It would be nice to expand it to include factory built rods, and I'm not sure Kevin would agree to that. He is the sole power behind this data base. The achilles heel with these projects is not only the devotion of the author but also the cooperation of builders/anglers to provide data. Here is where I pitch True Natural Frequency, or TNF, which is an accurate objective measure of guess what: the True Natural Frequency in bending of a blank or rod. It is the only dynamic objective measure that we have to go along with the static length, weight, power, and action attributes, and if one knows all five of these attributes he pretty well knows how the rod will perform. The higher the TNF the higher the recovery speed from deflection and the crisper, cleaner, the rod will feel. Some argue, me included, that it is a good indicator of sensitivity. It technically logical that of two rods/blanks of the same length, power and action , the one with the higher TNF will be more sensitive. One can see how the TNF changes with the different weights of the guides being used. It is easy to measure and only requires a way to hold the butt of the rod, an Android device, and a free app. Takes less than 5 minutes. Good discussion! Thanks for the suggestion DVT. But I think my bottom line opinion is: Maybe with all the variables, especially casting technique, action and power getting into it we are asking too much of even our objective measurements. I should elaborate. One has to add length into the variables, IMO. With all these variables it would take someone much more skilled in data analysis than I to figure out if this is feasible, if there is a correlation. If one concluded that yes, there is a correlation between the variables and the "claimed" lure casting weight range, it would still depend on one's casting skill to make it work for them. All it would take, however, is one very skilled data analyst and a lot of time to see if a correlation exists.

I'm not so worried about the mistakes I made early on, more on the mistakes I'm still making. I think the biggest one is getting so tied up in the fishing that I don't stop about mid-day and calmly think about what I've forgotten to try.

Very imprecise, but if it works for you, fine.

I don't know how to interpret an image as power. ???

L + sounds like an extra fast light or medium light rod. Too bad they aren't just using CCS, would take all of the mystery out of it. From the description it will have a high Action Angle, likely about 80 degrees and most likely a power about ERN 10-13. Sort of a lighter power version of the old hot shot rods, I would predict. Being extra fast, it will be more challenging to cast than slower action rods. BFS is a sort of "smooth acceleration" rather than a "snappy/fast" casting motion and it's easier to get with slower actions. Many like short rods for BFS, under 6 feet. I built one at; 6 feet, CCS 8/69 (ERN/ActionAngle), and found I had trouble setting the hook. I then built one off a 7' 2" walleye spin blank, CCS 12.5/65 and found it cast farther and the higher power should result in better hook sets, but have not fished it yet. For a big river, I don't think I'd even fool around with BFS, but directionally, it would lead me to a longer rod. If Gravity's BFS rods are as good as their reels, it would be a good place to start. You might consult Rawr Fishing's Facebook group for some advice that would be better than mine.

Don't use FC line or leader because it sinks, and screws up the action of walking lures, pulling them under on slow retrieves. You also don't want a sinking braid, same logic. I would go straight mono of substantial strength, 16-20 pound test or thereabouts. It will cast better than braid or FC, cost less, adds a little stretch to the system, and has neutral bouyancy so the lures will perform better.

Sounds like the 701LXF would fit your preference quite well. I like the MLF because of the way it handles smallies that often go 4-5+ pounds.

What is your definition of finesse?. I use the 701mlf all the time for Neds, tubes, wacky, small swimbaits, does it all well. Yes it's more powerful than a lot of other blanks called mlf, note my numbers in previous posts. Set up to test CCS and the power/action mystery will be solved. Add True Natural Frequency and you'll be able to OBJECTIVELY describe all the attributes of a blank or rod accurately. NFC blank descriptions are notoriously all over the place.

Does anyone else think it's funny that SKUNKmaster uses garlic to get onion smell off?

I have a Fuego and a few Tatulas. I can't tell the difference. So it might make sense to buy a Fuego and if it gets rough in a few years, replace it with another. But I've never had any problem with any Daiwa spinning reel, and I have many different ones.