After setting the rod with all the guides on top, i flipped all except the butt guides to the bottom of the rod. i run a line from the reel to the tip to check the line path.

With the rod unloaded, i notice that on the first 180 degrees guide, the line touches slightly off center on the bottom of the guide, on the second and third 180 degrees guide, the line passes both the guides at the center without touching the guide rings. on the rest of the guides to the tip, the line touches the top of the guides.
When i load the rod, the line did not touch any part of the first 180 degrees guide. From the second 180 degrees guide to the tip, the line touches the top of the guides.
I have yet to put on the bumper guide as the crossover point seems to be different when loaded and unloaded which is cause by the line moving from the bottom of th first 180 degrees guide to the center of the guide without touching the guide ring.

What i would like to know is if i'm on the right track or something is wrong with my settings?
With the line not touching the guides means that the load is not evenly distributed on the rod, right?
What did i do wrong?

any help will be appreciated, Thanks

Vincent.

I'm also interested in hearing the replies to this post regarding the bumper guide. Vincent, while I've not built a large amount of rods, I can tell you that my first rod (cod-jigging) was spiral wrapped, but I did it so aggressively that the the first (butt) guide was 45 degrees, the second was around 70 and the third about 160 (with zero straight up and 180 straight down). Despite this agressive spiral, the rod worked well. Conversely, I built a tuna/stand-up rod with spiral roller guides that were designed to be placed with the 1st (butt) guide off center about 10 degrees and the second at about 170 or so, just enough for the line to clear the blank. Granted, you're not casting with this rod, but it loaded just fine. Lastly, at a rodbuilder's conclave, I saw a short rod built with an immediate transition between the first two guides and the builder stated that the rod casted lures just as well as any other rod. Go figure... I have yet another cod rod on the bench with new AmTac blue ring (beautiful) guides ready to go. So I am also debating how to spiral wrap it. I'm planning to try the bumper guide method also. I hope more folks chime in on this one. Scott

There is no need to run a line to the tip to check the line path - that should be done while all the guides are still on top. Set it up just like you're setting up a regular conventional baitcasting rod (a good method for doing this in on the library page here). At that point, flip all but the butt guide to the bottom (180 degree axis) and then install a small, low framed guide exactly between the 1st and 2nd guide but on the 90 degree axis. That's all there is to it.

If your original set up and guide spacing was good, then you won't have any problems. The bumper guide will not carry an side loads - the line will only press it directly into the blank.

Reading your post, I tend to think your guides past the butt guide are much too large. What sizes are you using?

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

Vincent,

Guide size could be the issue as Tom pointed out. It seems funny that the line can hit the first 180 guide ring when the rod isn't loaded, but not touch the guide ring at all when the rod IS loaded. A smaller guide for your first 180 might be the ticket.

A likely reason for the amount of line travel at your "bumper zone" is that you might have placed your first 180 guide a little bit too far up the blank, past the "lock up point" of the rod.

When the first 180 guide is placed at or in before the lock up point, I've found that the line tends to lay on the guides in much the same way regardless of whether the rod if loaded or not.

When the first 180 guide is placed on a point of the blank that sees a lot of travel when the blank is loaded (i.e. past the lock up point), it results in a proportional amount of "up and down" travel of the line in the transition zone... or in this case in the bumper zone.

I've found that finding this balance is always a key to getting the best spiral guide placement for a particular blank. I don't personally like the line to hit the side of any particular ring except for in light tackle applications. Sometimes, as in the case of moderate or slow action blanks, you just have to live with it because the lock up point is so close to the butt of the rod... then you have to make a choice about whether you want a fast line transition or a more gradual "O'Quinn style" transition.

I should point out that I haven't read the Bumper article yet, but it seems pretty straightforward based on the messages on the board. I don't know what the Bumper method says about guides in relation to the "lock up point"... but seems to me that the principle should probably still apply.

Erik

Nothing about a lock up point is mentioned, because this one isn't set up like most other spiral wraps are. It has be set up as a "guides-on-top" rod and that means the guide that ends up at the 180 degree location is going to be way back down the rod near the reel - just where it would be if all the guides were up on top of the rod.


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

Tom,
Setting the guides up normally and then flipping all but the first and then adding an intermediate guide between the first and second guide to get the line around the blank makes a lot of sense to me.
Using a small low framed guide between the first and what would normally be the second guide makes sense to me as well if the rod is not going to be used for casting. If the rod is going to be used for casting then it seems to me that a second guide that is much smaller then the following guides does not make sense as it will tend to restrict line flow and reduce the casting distance. If this smaller guide is not a problem when casting with a spiral wrap then why not use very small low framed guides from the second guide to the tip on all rods whether they are spiral wrapped or not. This would save weight and increase the rods efficiency but unfortunately we know that these smaller guides would also reduce the casting distance.
It seems to me that if a normal sized guide were used as this intermediate guide but it were mounted at a more vertical angle that resulted in the line just barely missing the rod it would work better in casting applications and have the same effect as the smaller guide in non casting applications.

Tom,

My butt guide is a size 12, the first 180 degrees guide is a size 10, followed by a size 8, a size 7, two size 6, two size 5 plus a size 5 tip. i don t'hink the guides that i use are too large. In fact, it could be a bit small towards the top.

What i would like to find out is... when running the line directly from the spool, loaded and unloaded, which part of the first 180 degree guide should the line be in contact with? at the bottom of the guide(close to the blank), on top of the guide(away from the blank) or not touching the guide ring at all?

On my current setting, when loaded(fish fighting situation), the line does not touch any part of the first 180 degrees guide at all! is this normal?

Emory,

This thing casts great! It may not make sense but it works like the dickens. Everyone I that I personally know who is now using it has remarked on how well it casts. The proof is in the pudding. Nothing restricts line flow more than a Zebco 33 spincast reel - it goes from a spool of about 50mm to an opening the size of a #10 guide ring in less than 3/8th of an inch, and it casts quite well. Too much is made of line restriction - line is flexible. It rarely uses more than 1mm to 2mm of the actual inside diameter of any guide. Frame height and guide location is nearly always more important than the ring diameter.



Vincent,

Because the line is passing the blank on one side, you will find that it will naturally sit to one side of the guide ring, even ever so slightly. That's the nature of the beast but it doesn't really have any detrimental effect. While it may not make that much difference, I'd toss out the graduated guide sizing and just go with your #12 butt guide, then drop on down to a 10 followed by the 6's. on out. Then go back and install a #8 or #10 low frame guide for the bumper. Tape up a set and go out and cast it and see what you think.

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

By the way, the point in using a small ring guide for the bumper, doesn't have anything to do with the ring size - it's just what you have to do to get a very low sitting guide. You won't find any #16's or whatever that sit very close to the blank and keeping that line as close as possible to the blank is what we're after. I bend the frames on my bumper guides to make the ring sit even that much closer to the blank.


...........



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2005 10:54AM by Tom Kirkman.

Sounds like a spinning reel and it's rod guide sizes should be re-looked at too based on this???

Putter
Williston, ND

Is the spine on the 0 axis or the 180 axis when spiral wrapping trolling/baitcasting rods? I just mailed a check out for my subscription of Rodmaker and common cents. Thanks, Ed



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2005 09:49PM by Ed Grella.

Tom,
My experience with the closed face spinning reels like the Zebco is that they do not cast well at all. And I am sure that a rod with a smaller second guide will cast OK but it will not cast as well as a rod that has guides that gradually reduce the off axis motion of the line.
When the line comes off of the reel most of its motion is naturally down the rod but it is also moving in the other two axis as well. If this motion is reduced abruptly with a very quick reduction in the size of the guides there will be more losses and the rod will not cast as far. That is not to say that it will not cast at all, it just says that it will not cast as well. It seems to me that to follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion would be to result in using very small guides on all rods including spinning rods. I think that we know how a spinning rod will cast with very small guides after the first guide. Let's say that we set up a spinning rod with a #16 or #18 as the first guide and make all the rest of the guides #6s. I have not attempted this but I would be willing to bet a nickle that you could not cast it out of your shadow.

I was skeptical of the smaller "bumper" guide also, for the reasons that Emory mentioned. So, I set up a rod up as the article suggested, and went out and cast it. Even with a sz. 6 fly guide as the "bumper" guide, it casts like a dream. While I didn't measure the casts, I would say that it casts at least as far, if not farther, than my typical guides-on-top setup. Now, a sz. 6 might end up being a little too small for some applications, but I mainly wanted to see what would happen. I was test casting with 15 lb. line. If I were to go up to 20 or 25 lb. line, the 6 "might" cause a little "chatter." Or, if the rod got under an EXTREME load, there "might" be a situation that introduced a little sideways pressure on the guide (I should be so lucky to be fighting a fish that large!). But, I would think that a sz. 8 fly guide would be plenty large to accomodate any size line used in bass fishing.

Here's the great part. As I cast, I watched the "bumper" quite closely. After all, my line was going through the butt guide (sz. 10), then going through the "bumper" 6, and then into a sz. 8. So, I should have line piling up at the 6, right? It didn't happen. No matter how I cast, I couldn't make line pile up at the 6. If I agressively loaded the rod tip on the cast (using a small lure), I could force line to pile up between the butt guide and the reel, but never at the "bumper." The bumper really doesn't function as a typical guide at all. All it does is keep the line off the blank.

That's the only difficult part of this scenario: forcing yourself to not think of the "bumper" as a typical guide.

Tom,

I do undertand that the line will tend to sit slightly to the side of the guide. If the line passes the blank on the left, the line will tend to sit slightly to the left side of the guide. That is not my main concern. i have test casted the rod and all i can say is it is superb!

Unlike the normal spiral with two transition guides that hold the line away from the blank, the bumper system keep the line close to the blank. Because of this, the line passes the bottom of the first 180 degrees guide(close to the blank). On a fast action blank when in fish fighting position, the section between the bottom guide(0 degree) and the first 180 degrees guide only flexes slightly. When the blank flex, the line is lifted away from the bottom of th first 180 degrees guide. the flex is not enough for the line to reach the top(away from the blank) of the first 180 degrees guide, thus the line not touching the first 180 degrees guide on a fish fighting situation.

Anyone out there who tried loading the rod in a fish fighting situation face the same situation like mine?
With the line not touching the guide when loaded, this means that the guide is of no use unless when casting, should this be a concern? Anyone?

Thanks....

Emory,

You can argue over it all you want, but those of us who have built them know they cast just fine, better than fine, really. Even Vincent just said that his cast "superb." I wouldn't have put the article in RodMaker if I didn't feel the technique had been through enough testing to uncover any real pitfalls. (You've written articles for the magazine - you how I check things out.)

A spinning rod with very small guides actually casts pretty darn well. If you could get the height in conjunction with the small rings, it would cast nearly as well as anything out there today. Again, ring size is highly over-rated.

I don't own a Zebco spincast reel but had an older Heddon 180 for many years. In line sizes up to about 14lb test, it cast very nicely. The only way to really put a damper on how spincast reels perform, is to load them very heavy and very stiff line. 20lb and up. And at that point, you're dealing with reels that were never designed to be used with heavy line. Spincast and spinning reels were both designed for light line applications.


...........


Vincent,

I haven't had that experience with mine. You may wish to go to a smaller guide on that one, dropping on down to an 8 or 6 and do make sure it's a low frame model. That might well take care of the problem for you. Let me know. We'll try some things until we get it right for you.

.......

If there are any supposed technical reasons why this system won't work they must be so small as not to matter or they just don't heavily apply in the real world fishing situations we encounter. I went home after Charlotte and built two of these rods. They cast like a dream. No problem and I HAVE measured the distance compared to the same rod with the guides on top as conventional. I cannot tell any difference. I used a number 8 for my bumper. NSG model. This is the only way I'll build any baitcasting rod from this point on. I'm getting ready to build a 9 surf casting plugger and have already taped up the guides and test casted it. Great!!! I used a #10 for the bumper just to have it look more in tune with the other guides. It doesn't move the line out very far and like I said, it casts GREAT!

OK, OK, I have not built one so I guess I had better put my tail between my legs and shut up until I do.

I too have read the article and want to question the method simply based on how simple it is. I will be building two rods with this method in the near future. My question is this. To those who have built this way, have you used them in heavy applications? I am talking grouper, snapper, and cobia. The other rod will be stand up tuna and shark. I saw the article mentioned placing the bumper at 100* rather then at 90* for heavier loads. Any other words of wisdom or caution for the heavier applications? Is there a preferred side to place the bumper relative to the reel crank?

I've done several used for bottom and tuna fishing. They work fine. You never want to assume that just because something is simple, that it can't be any good. But we all do that at times.

The only reason you would place the bumper at 100 degrees on a heavy duty rod, or any rod that is expected to flex very deep into the butt section, is because at some point the line between the 0 and 180 guide will change the location of where it skirts the blank, by just a little. With a small ring bumper guide, it is possible you would end up with some side load on that guide, which you do not want. By adjusting the bumper down a bit to begin with, that problem is pretty much taken care of.

You do want to make sure you have enough guides on any rod you build. This is why it is so important to set up the rod as if you were going to be using it as a guides-on-top rod. If you do it that, you'll never have more than perhaps 10 inches or so between the 1st and 2nd guide and when they're all flipped, the amount of flex between those two is generally not enough to greatly change the location where the line skirts the blank. Thus, the bumper guide doesn't have to handle any side loads.

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

Tom

I'm in complete agreement with your statement that ring size is over rated on spinning rods. The rods I build are used for trolling, backtrolling and really aren't cast much at all, other than just to get a bit of line out behind the boat. I've been using 20 or even 16 sized guides to start with and when I do cast with them, they seem to do just fine for distance as compared to shore-style casting (spinning) rods that I have. I haven't actually tested this on land, but I sure don't see much difference here.

Putter
Williston, ND

I couldn't tell anyone the technical reasons why the bumper rods work or why they shouldn't work. But they do. Typically when somebody puts me onto something or I come up with an idea, I mock it up and just go out and try it. I'll know in a hurry if it works or not.

As far as ring size I have to say that I've seen casual fishermen using spinning reels on casting rods. They cast okay but make a lot of noise because the guides are low to the blank and the revolving line coming from the spinning reel hits the blank on every revolution. But they do seem to cast decent somehow. I'd be willing to bet that if you could put a small ring on a high stem you wouldn't see that much difference in casting performance on a spinning rod between that the larger rings commonly used. Now when you move to really heavy or stiff line that might be different. I can't really say as I don't do that kind of fishing where you need really heavy line.