All of my rods are built with SK2 split seats size 16. I have it on my list to try the ECSM seat and my next build is a BFS rod. The ID of the section it'd go is 10.5. The blank itself is a Rainshadow SB781-3 which is 6'6 in length. I'm pairing it with a Aldebaran BFS XG Left reel.

 

Do you think I should use the ECSM with this rod or would it be too bulky compared to doing another SK2 build?

I should also ask if it ends up being the ECSM, Anglers Resource's catalog shows the ECSM16 should be paired with the BGA95RC back handle but anyone know if the RGK6016RC or RGSK1617RC-W would fit? I kind of like the latter on my SK2 even though it's a bit smaller.

ECSM 16 is not bulky.  To me the most comfortable casting seat there is.

Some prefer ACSM but the contour doesn't fit me as well.

Don't know about those particular grips.  I usually custom shape cork or EVA.  Mud Hole CFX rear cast split grip matches up well.

Agree with Mike K, I personally think the SK2 seat and a other split seats aren't comfortable on a blank under 12 mm, the bigger the better for comfort.

For anyone curious, here is an SK2 vs ECSM comparison photo.

 

I probably should have reserved the ECSM for my regular MH rods instead of using this on an extreme lightweight BFS rod but I didn't have any MH builds in the pipeline.

 

I palm reels with the trigger between my ring and middle finger and notice that half the back cork isn't used. I really like the contoured cork backing of the SK2 - it's very comfortable the two fingers fwd, two fingers back compared to the convex and much larger diameter BGA95RC.

 

Anyway, only time will tell after I've fished them side by side.

If I remember right when we weighed skeleton vs ECSM seats back in the 90's when we first experimented with this stuff, including trying to build BFS setups by machining the crap out of existing reels. The difference in reel seat weight was 1/6 oz. and that weight is balanced under your hand not out on the ends of the rod where it is exaggerated by distance from your hand, we also found that reel seat failures under abusive tests were much greater for skeleton seats, you can't overcome the increased glue area of a one piece exposed seat, that bridge under the reel increase strength a huge amount. The reel and line you use can make up any difference between the two. We were also experimenting with grip lengths and balance within the lengths we were using then.

Yup I've already had one SK2 fail in the field for thinking I was smart with using as little glue as possible - I've since learned from that. I agree anything down the handle should be geared for comfort rather than weight savings. I've been waving it around a bit today and the ECSM indeed feels more solid. Also easier to attach compared to the SK2 with those graphite inserts, measuring distance between them, etc..

I don't build with skeleton seats, but if I did, I would read this article and follow it to a T.  I use this process on all reel seats and the blank surfaces.  

 

https://www.rodbuilding.org/library/waterfree.html

8 hours ago, MickD said:

I don't build with skeleton seats, but if I did, I would read this article and follow it to a T.  I use this process on all reel seats and the blank surfaces.  

 

https://www.rodbuilding.org/library/waterfree.html

That's a great article and one I read only after having built my first couple of rods. I've since prepped my bonding surfaces with a magic pad which seems to do the trick.

Also not a fan of split seats. Never saw a real advantage on the water. A water break free surface prep and full adhesive coverage will save you headaches