The 6'9 medium model has 440 grams of power and is rated up to 5/8 oz. The 7'0 medium model has 460 grams of power and is only rated up to 1/2 oz. Is the higher lure rating on the 6'9 model due to the Xtra fast taper, or are the ratings on the 7'0 model off and should be higher or at least the same as the 6'9 model?

The Action Angle numbers would indicate the 701 (78) is actually a faster action than the 691 (76), which could possibly be the reason that it is rated for a bit less casting weight than the 691. A faster, lighter tip would not have as much tip power and therefore not carry as high of a lure casting range. Although it could be something else. I'm sure Jim or Donnie will weigh in and let you know if it's something else.

................

I have the PB701MF as a personal spin rod and I love it. I feel that the lure rating for this rod is under rated. It will cast 5/8 oz with absolutely no problems without the slightest feeling that the blank is over loaded. For a medium powered rod it has a lot of power, but is extremely light and responsive. I did a CCS deflection test on this blank and I found that it took significantly more weight to deflect it 33% of it length then the listed RDA deflection #. RDA is obviously different from CCS. I think you can safely pick the length you want without any problems with the lure rating differences.
Norm

RDA numbers (the CCS Big Picture) aren't relative to each other except on the same blank at different portions. The CCS provides numbers that are relative across the board. Note that on the two blanks the poster mentions, the RDA "Action Angles" peg the slower action blank with a higher AA number than the faster action blank.

............

Thank you Norman. I just wanted to make sure the blank can comfortably handle a half ounce. I figured the top rating of 1/2 oz was on the low side. I've been told to trust the Point Blank Rda numbers more so than Ccs or lure ratings. I'll be ordering the 7 footer in hopes that 3/8 is rig right around the blanks sweet spot. Much appreciated



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2016 07:07PM by Mark Hogquist.

Tom - Yes I saw that. Not knowing what RDA was, l learned very quickly when I did the CCS deflection procedure on the blank that it was not the same as IP. I wish Point Blank would give the CCS IP number rather than the ERN. With the ERN that high it is difficult to back track to the IP value, since ERN vs IP does not appear to be linear. Cannot remember off the top of my head exactly what the measured IP number was for that blank but it was approximately 240 +/- a few cents. I did try to extrapolate the expected IP number from the ERN given by Point Blank using the ERN vs IP table in the CCS article (making a few assumptions). The extrapolated IP number I got was very close to what I actually measured. Using the 240 cents number in the formula given in the CCS article, the upper end of the lure range is close to 3/4 oz. and the lower end is close to 3/8 oz. I know this rod will cast 1/4 oz lure quite well. So it seems to me that this Point Blank has a relatively broad lure range. I think this is a good thing and confirms my feelings that the lure range was under rated. To some I am sure this is quite boring, like reading a foreign language, but I think Tom and a few others know what I am trying to say.
Norm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2016 07:33PM by Norman Miller.

The CCS allows relative comparisons between blanks. The RDA (taken from the CCS Big Picture) doesn't necessarily do that. A more powerful or faster blank can appear less powerful or slower depending on the portion you measure. Not so with the CCS.

There is really no reason to convert back to IP (if you just want relative power), as the ERN figures are relative. Higher figures indicate more power, lower numbers less power. But you already know that. The important thing is that they are relative to each other. The URRS chart has some tip power numbers which are better for determining casting lure weight range, if you want to do that.

....................

Norm,
I agree with you regarding IP number rather than ERN. I’d like to see a published conversion from cents to ERN. I think many of us use IP numbers and see no reason to make a further conversion to ERN. I have several versions of “bootleg” conversion charts, which may or may not be legitimate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2016 10:13AM by jim spooner.

The Rosetta Stone chart is cents to ERN. North Fork once published a complete graph that included ERN up to 200, including Tip Power and Power Reserve figures. I believe Dr. Hanneman signed off on it.

...........

The Rosetta Stone chart stops at 173/16.00 and the URRL (table 2) does not provide a direct conversion. I'm glad to hear about NFC publishing a complete "authorized" conversion. I don't think many of us were aware of it. I'll contact them to see if it's available.

[northforkcomposites.com]

If the download no longer works someone there may be able to get it for you.

.............



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2016 09:51AM by Tom Kirkman.

Thanks Tom, that's helpful.

If they don't have it, I probably still have it on my computer somewhere and I'll see if I can get it added to the online library here so folks can download it directly. Won't happen today, however. Maybe early in the week.

..................

Thanks Tom, that would be greatly appreciated. The resolution of the chart makes it almost impossible to read. .
Norm

Yes, it's much larger in original size. I'll see if I can find it.

.............