Hello all,

I've built a few rods with the concept system. I've also read a bit on forums and in the Library in this forum.

First of all this is difficult to explain but when I say "straight line parallel to the reel spindle" I am referring the the line from the reel to the choke point. The table is used for this in Tom Kirkman's "Concept Primer" in the Library section.

When I built my rods I made the straight line parallel to the reel spindle pass through the center of the guide rings. In Tom Kirkman's "Concept Primer" in the library he recommends to line up the guides so the top of each guide touches the straight line parallel to the spindle.

It seems to me that the guides centered on the straight path would be slightly better. This way the guide rings are concentrically framed with each other and the first guide would be concentrically framed within the outer ring of the reel spool (if you could see through the center of the reel spool). This seems to provide the optimum straight path from the reel to the choke guide.

Centering the rings on the straight path puts the guides further from the reel and/or forces the use of larger/higher framed guides. This is an advantage I see with lining up the top edge of the guides with the straight path.

Has anyone tried it both ways? Looking at guides and spacing lately seems to indicate that the optimum solution may be a comprimise of the two, with the straight line path passing through the top portion of the rings.

Any comments? Observations?

Frank

The guides will still be concentrically centered if you do it my way. And since gravity pulls the line downward, the line is never going to run through the center of any guide - it always runs along the bottom of the ring.

I have tried casting both types and there is no difference in distance. Thus, being able to use a little lower and smaller rings reduces weight even more and, saves you a few bucks.

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

Yes, the guides will be concetrically centered with each other but they will not be centered on the reel spool.

Do you think gravity keeps the line on the bottom of the ring even when casting? When watching someone cast you can see the line unspooling off the reel spool. It comes off in large circular loops and "chokes" down as it goes through the rings. It appears to touch more than just the bottom of the rings.

I'm not surprised that there is no difference in casting distance. It must be too small a difference to notice, even when test casting.

It still seems that theoretically the path through the center of the rings is best. It is probably so negligible that the small weight reduction and cost reduction outweighs any advantage anyway.

Thanks for your sharing your experience.

Frank

Gravity keeps the line on the bottom of the rings. The reel spool is of little to no consequence. As soon as the line leaves the spool it begins to drop.

The line will never pass through the center of the rings. If it would, then guide rings would not even be necessary.

...........

In any spinning rod, there is some sense in which the line flow travels within the confines of an imaginary funnel, or some sort of cone-of-flight. Any cylinder that starts with a larger diameter (the reel spool) and tapers to a much smaller diameter (the tip-top) is, by the definitions of geometry, a cone (or perhaps a frustrum). Even a rod blank could be considered a cone (or frustrum), but in the parlance of rod-building, calling it's shape a "tapered rod" is the norm.

My point is to simply say that regardless of what a guide spacing method is called ("Concept" or whatever) there is some aspect of it that constrains and guides the lines path within the boundaries of a cone. How far that cone lies away from or close to the rod blank; how wide or narrow you want that cone to be; how often that cone is choked down to a smaller diameter; and how much that angle of approach is bent along the way to the tip-top; etc., is all a matter of your design priorities. (And, frankly, it is probably easier to buy a more supple fishing line than it is to achieve the optimum guide layout!)

And the guide layout has to not only perform well for casting, but also for distributing the load of a fish along the rod. And that will also effect the style, size and the placement of the rod guides.

And the overall dynamic feel and sensitivity of the rod, as effected by the weight and balance of the guides, is another very big issue in many cases.

How we decide to prioritize and make those decisions is a matter of quasi-science and mostly art. The methods we select and blend for our guide layouts / designs are as varied as the shoes we wear, or our idea of Thanksgiving dinner.

I would say that it's important to pay attention to the details and use rational methods as a guidleline or starting point. But realize that there is a wide range of acceptable and very satisfactory solutions to rod-building designs, and go with that "cone-of-flight" for yourself. IMO, -Cliff Hall-.

Thanks guys for easing my desire to get every aspect of the spacing "just right". I know that the spacing is somewhat of a "quasi-science".

It can be difficult to get the tapering of the ring size, guide spacing, and appearance exactly how I want it. Your experiences confirm what I have noticed myself: The method used to taper the "cone" of the line coming off the reel has a small impact on casting distance (assuming that it follows a reasonable path). I have noticed an improvement in rod feel using the quickly tapering concept system but it mostly comes from the reduction of weight in the top half of the rod. This is mostly with steelhead length rods (8'6" +). I was more concerned at this point because I'm about to start a 11'6" float rod that I want to keep as light as possible.

Now I'll share a method I discovered for spacing the guides to the choke guide.

I tie/wrap some string on the reel spindle. (stretchy string works best)
I then thread the string through the guide rings I plan to use.
Tape the string to the blank at a location that places the string in a straight line with the reel spindle.
Now position the guides so that the foot is on the blank and the string passes through the guide how you want it (top, or center, or?)
Attach the guides to the blank and remove the string.

You can also attach the string going through the guides and then place the guides so they just touch the string. This works the same as Tom's system in the library but it works better for me since you can move the blank around while aligning the guides, align the guides with the path through the rings, and I don't have a straight table edge where I work on rods. :)

This may be simple to most here but I wanted to share something with everyone here since I've gained so much knowledge from all of you.

Frank

Remember that there is also three types of guide hight, the all purpose guides, the concept guides, and the what is called a " M " height guide. The all purpose is generally the lowest guide ring. With that one has to use a larger ring size to get the line to go though. The concept is popular, and the easyest to use. The " M " type are high, and are prone to break if the rod is used hard.
Any streaght edge will give you the line for your guides.
I myself inlarge the chock guide so the line goes though the center. Just the way I do it. If using #6's for running guides, I may use a #7 for the chock
I have also done it with the edge of a tape measure