Point Blank 701LXF specs

[Lefty372]

Conflicting specs on their website. One spot on their site says 1/32-3/8. Another spot on the site says 1/16-3/16. Anyone built on this blank?

[dennis_rf]

Got it on my desk, ordered it but it’s way too close to the 701MLF I already got. A tiny bit softer in the backbone and less fast in the tip section. So it’s not XF what so ever. I’ve measured both according to the Tackle Tour method and for both the graphs turned out super close on the Medium Power average graph…

On the pic you can see both with 200g on each.

Lure weight wise - as the text on the website says - 1/4oz weight + 3“ soft plastic (slim stuff, not a fat craw or beaver) is the sweet spot. You could do 1/8oz Ned head + 3“ plastic if you do short range and like your tip rather stiff for that weight.

[Lefty372]

Got it on my desk, ordered it but it’s way too close to the 701MLF I already got. A tiny bit softer in the backbone and less fast in the tip section. So it’s not XF what so ever. I’ve measured both according to the Tackle Tour method and for both the graphs turned out super close on the Medium Power average graph…

On the pic you can see both with 200g on each.

Lure weight wise - as the text on the website says - 1/4oz weight + 3“ soft plastic (slim stuff, not a fat craw or beaver) is the sweet spot. You could do 1/8oz Ned head + 3“ plastic if you do short range and like your tip rather stiff for that weight.

This is what I was hoping for. Main use will be for ned rigs, marabou jigs and maybe small topwater.

[Cal]

I built on this blank last Winter (2020/2021) and fished it with both ned and drop shot rigs during Spring '21. I liked it more for neds than drop shot.. in fact, I liked it a lot for that application.

[Hogsticker2]

Got it on my desk, ordered it but it’s way too close to the 701MLF I already got. A tiny bit softer in the backbone and less fast in the tip section. So it’s not XF what so ever. I’ve measured both according to the Tackle Tour method and for both the graphs turned out super close on the Medium Power average graph…

On the pic you can see both with 200g on each.

Lure weight wise - as the text on the website says - 1/4oz weight + 3“ soft plastic (slim stuff, not a fat craw or beaver) is the sweet spot. You could do 1/8oz Ned head + 3“ plastic if you do short range and like your tip rather stiff for that weight.

Wow. This was one of the most helpful responses I've seen. The OP got the bullseye on the 1st shot. How come I never get replies like this when I ask a question about blanks

[dennis_rf]

Wow. This was one of the most helpful responses I've seen. The OP got the bullseye on the 1st shot. How come I never get replies like this when I ask a question about blanks

Only got my rod deflection stand recently. I’ll do my best in the future
I‘m planning on doing a database to share in the forum and RoD-graphing every rod I can get a hold of - wondering if I could get the exact values for the power averages graphs from Cal? I like it way above intrinsic power values as the values are absolute rather to relative to the rods length / working length.

[Cal]

We list the averages we've accumulated over the last 20 years in the reviews... but if you're going to be scientific about it, I think the method custom rod builders use is more accepted approach. I don't have the wall space to dedicate to something like that otherwise I'd have converted to their method when I started wrapping rods.

The name of their methodology escapes me, but it's discussed in several places here in this section of the forum.

[dennis_rf]

Do you update the average with every new rod measured?

Taking the rod length into the calculation f*cks up comparability to some extent. Example: Point Blank 701MLF and 691MLXF are basically the same blank, one’s just longer on the butt. RDA says 410g for the 7’ and 370g for the 6’9 but with the RoD method the curves match, revealing the identical strength of tip, middle and butt.
The only thing I’d do differently is fixing the rods horizontally, as when fighting a fish you usually have the line in a 90°angle and usually not go beyond that.

[Cal]

The GOAL is to update the averages once a year... BUT... we haven't updated in probably two or three. At this point, with a roughly 20 year average, the changes are pretty small.