I posted this question earlier but may have hit "back" instead of "post"! I clamped my recently built Sage XP 10' 8wt along side my just
wrapped-only Dan Craft FT 10' 8wt on my stress test mounting board. I flex both blanks to the same height off the floor. I posted a picture of them on the Member Gallerly section and would appreciate some feedback. As seen in the phota, the XP with the blue line has a much faster action than the FT with the orange line, but the FT should make a super Salmon rod. When I built the Sage, I started with their guide spacings and made very minor changes to it during my own stress distribution test - which I'm not very good at anyway.

Based on the picture of the two blanks, can I assume since the FT has a stiffer tip that I could have the guide spacings spread out a bit further in comparison to the XP spacings? I'd like to lighten up the tip section on the FT before I put finish on to help balance it better with the reel that I have dedicated for it, and spacing out the guides a bit and/or dropping from 11 guides to 10 overall would help solve my problem. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

I think what you say makes sense. Also, and this should make you feel in good company and reassured, Bob Meiser built that rod with only 6 or 7 guides total and said it performed like a champ as a switch rod and handling some major grain loads. If you search his name, you'll find his posts from late summer or fall of last year.

Tim,
I would go back over the CC System and use the proceedure that it recommended. It appears to me from the picture that you posted, unless the picture is deceiving, that neither of the rods is level at the butt end and that they are not both deflected 1/3 of their length so I do not know how you can compare either the action or the power of them to each other.

Emory, I could be wrong but I don't think that Tim said he is using the CCS - he is just deflecting both some to compare which has faster action. That seems like a valid comparison to me. Certainly as valid or more valid than the old "tip into the floor or ceiling" test.

I have nothing at stake with this conversation, but would also rather see both rods stressed by hanging weights from the tip. I haven't seen the picture so I can't see how the rods were stressed, but feel that dead weight on both might give a better impression of each rod's flex point. When I do a floor flex test, I find that I can make the rod flex just about anywhere that I want it to. Not saying Tim is trying to demonstrate any particular outcome, but feel hanging weights on both might be more accurate.

Jeff Shafer

Steve,
Yes, I think that you are right about not using the CCSystem. But if you look at the photo's the butts of the two rods are not mounted level or even at the same angle so I think that Tim may be chasing his tail trying to compare the action of the two rods.

I agree that running a CC test on both will help determine a more accurate comparison. The resulting AA numbers will provide a detailed reference of their respective Actions. I would also run a line from the tip of each rod/blank to a stationary point. This will let you see how each flexes under various loads. I find this is the best test for determining guide placement. I try to mimic the flex the blank takes with just a line from the tip when I finally place the guides. I go back and forth between flexing the line just from the tip to using the other line from butt thought the guides..until they are identical. So long as the space between guides conforms to good sense. and the line takes good angles between guides I am satrisfied that I have found the right placement. Test casting determines the fine tuning to be sure I have optimized the set up.