Like to play devils advocate.Has anyone considered using single foot spinning guides instead of a fly rod guides to build a fly rod? The spinning guides would be higher so you would use less of them,would this equal a lighter rod?I haven't considered the aerodynamics while casting nor do I know the weight of fly rod guides compared spinning guides.What do you think?

On FAOL, Al Campbell's series on Graphite Rod Building, part three.....states he "usually used" ceramic spinning guides in sizes 12 and 10 for stripper guides fly rods he built.

I agree, I'm talking about using spinning guides for the whole rod excluding the tip top.

Most fly rod builders on this site seem to prefer small ceramic guides instead of snake guides for fly rods. Most of the guide manufacturers make guides just for this purpose. They look like miniature spinning guides. They also resemble the single foot closed-ring style of single foot wire fly guides but have a ceramic insert. If you use small ones (#6 seems adequate up to at least a 6wt. line), you don't add much weight and get nice smooth, quiet line flow. Fuji makes some titanium alloy framed ones that are actually as light or lighter than a steel snake guide, but they cost a bunch. I personally use the lower priced single foot ceramic guides and they perform very well for me and barely cost more than wire snake guides.

Good point Steve ,but I'm talking abt. something like the Fuji BLVLG guide.

Haven't used anything that high framed myself. My guess is that those large frames would add too much weight, considering that most fly blanks, even in the saltwater line weights, have about the same amount of power as light power freshwater spinning rods. Only one way to find out though...wrap or tape one up. Just don't finish the wraps until you see how you like it. You're always better off satisfying your own curiousity with your own experiment, I think. Worst case you just don't like it and end up going with different guides. Best case, you make a great discovery. If you do it, let us know what you think.

Bill, I take that back. I have made 2 spin/fly rods that were each 6' long and had ERNs of about 5.0. I wrapped them in the new concept method using Fuji alconites. They cast and fished great, but of course part of the new concept method is that the guides near the tip are the "fly type" guides I referred to above and therefore keep the weight off the rod's tip. Specifically, they were BLAG6J near the tip. From the butt guide out 2 or 3 more guides, I used the high framed style but the weight was low-enough on the blank that it didn't cause any problem.

But there would be less guides with the spinning?

I think the number of guides to distribute the stress on the blank would be the same for any type blank or guide. But again, you could easily mock one up with tape and see how it casts. Test out the guide type and number and see what happens.

I'm talking strictly for fly rod use perhaps the last 2 next to the top top would be "fly rod type " because I don"t believe they make a size 5or 6 in a spinning guide.

I respectfully disagree Steve. I think because of the higher frame the weight distrubution would different and you would use less spinning giudes.

What you really are talking about is a tradeoff between the number of guides and the combined weight of the guides on the rod. I think everyone can agree that achieving the lightest possible tip weight is a desireable outcome.

My sense is that the small ceramic fly guides, even if you use more of them, will probably weigh less than higher framed spinning guides... even if you used fewer of them. It also seems to me that if the guides were high framed in the tip section, casting performance could be impacted because of the longer "lever arm" afforded by the high framed guides... might find the rod wanting to twist during the casting motion.

I'm not completely convinced that stress distribution would really be that much different with higher versus lower framed guides. Because the line is farther from the blank they may appear to distribute the stress differently, but I just don't think it would actually distribute the stress differently to any serious extent.

This is just my opinion... no data to back it up... feel free to disagree.

Erik

I have done that and there is little point (low frame fly guides were predated by higher spinning type guides, so many of us just used them). It buys you nothing. In terms of stress distribution, you still use the same number of guides so there is no weight savings, in fact, you may have a slightly heavier rod in the end.

Higher guides also tend to snag and hang on things. Thus, they're not apt to hold up over the long haul as well as the lower fly type ceramic guides.

If you feel strongly about trying a set of BLVLG's or similar, by all means do so. That will tell you more than any of us here can. But I think when you do you'll find that there is little if any difference and that any difference you do find will not be on the plus side.

...........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2005 04:08PM by Tom Kirkman.

We might be talking about different things. I usually like to think first about how many guides are necessary to protect the blank (line curve in a smooth arc with no sharp angles). Then, I figure out how best to get the line from the reel to the tip top while 1) minimizing weight; and 2) creating good line flow through the guides. I agree that with the higher framed guides you will virtually eliminate line slap and therefore could reduce the number of guides to get good line flow. But, in the process of dropping guides, you may expose some part of the blank to too much stress. I don't know that this will happen though, just a thought. I talked to a guy who has some shoulder arthritis who decided to test the limits of fly rod design. He made a 7' fly rod with only about 4 spinning guides and a tip top. He claims (and I absolutely believe him) that with a short agressive spinning lure type of cast, he can cast more line than he can with any other fly rod. Talk about thinking outside the box - this is the only kind of rod he fishes now. That's what's great about rodbuilding. If you like it and it does what you want it to do, then it is a great rod and nobody can say differently. You are the one and only authority on what you like.

You've got me real curious now to start up some more prototype projects myself. Why not?

Well taken Erik, Thats why I'm advocating the last couple of guides to be "fly rod type". I'm not talking the ultra high frame I'm talking the FUGI BLVLG type.

I'm building my second rod using spinning guides, Forecast VS style. The first one was very easy to cast. I got the idea from seeing a picture of a rod Mark Janeck built. If you look at the specs on the Batson site or in their catalog, you'll see that the model VS guides are only a tiny bit taller than a comparable size single foot ceramic fly guides. One of the reasons I use them is that everyone, except Fuji, has a truly stupid shape on the foot of the ceramic fly guides. Without a great deal of reshaping, you can't use a locking wrap because the leg of the guide is narrower than the foot, how dumb can you get!! That's never a problem with the spinning guides.

Gerry, another way to look at the stupid shape of the fly rod feet is that it can eliminate the need for the locking wrap. I don't hear anyone making this point, but there ain't no way that thing can pull out, especially on the feet like the PacBay Hialoy fly guides, my personal favorites and, it seems, everyone else's least favorite. I agree it is not the most aesthetically pleasing shape but it performs a valuable function in my opinion.

They're my favorite, too, Steve.

Putter
Williston, ND

Gerry
I do a locking wrap. You talking about the wider part of the foot right. Did not get in my way. Used Forecast fly guides. Used a forhan with two turns on them

I grind the wide part of the foot off and use a locking wrap.