I set up my rod and spinning reel with the table edge reference to start locating guides,,,,heres what happened, the rod and the table edge only come together out there in infiniti somewhere. I changed out to a different reel ,same story.

This is a refinish project and the rod is a converted bait caster to spinning,are the reel seats different on a bait caster than on a spinning??

Stumped again,but whats new,this sure has been a learning experience,,,,,This was not a redo to save a buck but to save a rod ,bad idea huh??

Don't feel bad if you laugh,heck ,I'm laughing,,,,,,,,,,,

dick

This happens quite often. What you'll have to do is just create an artificial intersect/choke point and use that. Some guys will stand the blank up and flex the blank until it first forms a 90 degree bend. On fast action rods, this is going to happen somewhere in the upper 1/3rd of the rod's length. Find the spot where it first deviates from straight and make that the intersect point. Now put that on the table edge and the reel spool centerline on the table edge and size and space between those two points.

How long is this rod? Is it very short? More than 5 or 6 feet, use the above. If shorter, come back and ask again and we'll try something different, although the same technique can still work if the blank has a fairly fast taper.

...........

Tom,
I have seen the approach that you mentioned above before but it has never made any sense to me other than a couple of the guides could be smaller. I must be missing or overlooking something. When casting and the rod is deflected so that the tip is at 90 degrees relative to the butt or relative to the line coming off of the reel the line velocity is typically zero or at least very low so it makes almost no difference where the null point is when the rod is deflected to 90 degrees. The line velocity is highest when the rod is straight or close to straight so isn't there going to be more losses, more friction, using this type of null point (closer to reel) then there would be using the cone of flight method?? Or what am I missing??

Okay Tom thats not a biggie, can do,,,,,,,,,,,,,its a 7'-0" rod, handle butt to tip

dick,thanks

The 90 degree flex thing is just to provide an arbitrary point for him to locate what would normally be the intersect point. It's something you pull out of hat. Not something that has anything to do with the casting dynamics of the rod. It provides him or anyone a place to start when they can't figure out where to put the first running guide when the reel spool upsweep doesn't put that guide somewhere on the rod. And it works pretty well.

I've pointed out before, that the upsweep on a spinning reel is mostly meaningless - gravity pulls the line downward as soon as it leaves the spool. Whether one reel has 2 degrees of upsweep and another has 4 degrees is really of no great importance. In fact, there is a better and more optimum way to locate the point where the first running guide should be located (closer to the reel is nearly always better than farther from the reel - less weight on the upper half of the rod that way). But I can't get into the specifics in a short message board post.

So... we use the point where a center line drawn from the reel spool centerline to the blank intersects. Failing that, we pick an arbitrary point that would be in about the same general area. Unless he's using an extremely short or extremely long rod, the point I told him to use will work pretty well.

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

At the risk of seeming "sacrilegious", I must say that this is my favorite example of hocus-pocus in rod-building design: The idea that the angle between the spinning reel's spindle / shaft and the rod blank in the Concept System has anything whatsoever to do with the path of the line flying off the reel, down the running guides and thru the tip-top. It doesn't. (And TK has said as much.) And my next favorite example of rod-building hocus-pocus is the idea that the Concept System has somehow made the principle of a “cone-of-flight” obsolete. (Maybe I seem to be stating the obvious. But it is only after several weeks of reading the banter on this subject nearly a year ago that the short-comings of this Concept System became apparent to me.)

I hope that this and other discussions of this subject can propose a more valid criteria for where to place the first guide, and what the ring size should be and how far off the blank the ring should be. Admittedly, this will be still be a somewhat arbitrary decision, but hopefully (much) less dependent than the original description of the Fuji Concept System on a flawed concept. (LOL)

It is the forward momentum, the pull of the cast bait or lure, and the guide placement, the ring size, and the height-off-the-blank that determine the line path. Spool diameter and line stiffness would also be a consideration. Gravity is a minor player compared to the forward acceleration of the cast, except at the very end of the cast when air resistance and ring friction and the sudden deceleration of the lure hitting the water all conspire to stop the line. But there is still some forward momentum on the line as it comes off the spool, which is why we finger or feather the spool, especially at the end of the cast. Much like the educated thumb of the revolving spool bait-caster must thumb the spool, lest the spool over-run and bird-nest. But at that point, the friction of the line passing thru the rings has already had it’s peak effect, and the cast is essentially over.

It seems that the magnitude of gravity’s downward component on the line is small compared to the magnitude of the forward / pulling force on the line from the projectile (lure, bait). The rate of gravitational acceleration is ~ 32 feet per second per second. The linear velocity of a 60 mph cast is 88 feet per second. That is nearly 3 times the gravitational rate. Toward the end of the cast, when all this air resistance and ring drag is taking over, is when the line starts sagging in the rings. Not during the period of peak line flow (linear velocity) and acceleration. (That is one thing I think Emory Harry was trying to point out.)

Also, what does affect the path of the line and its friction is the angle formed by the line between the spool and the rod tip, and the line represented by the rod blank. Here the tip-top is the vertex of the angle or cone, the point of intersection of those two lines. The boundaries of that unrestricted and so-called "cone-of-flight" generally require guides with rings that are too massive and extend too far from the blank for practical considerations. Therefore, we concede to the imperfect nature of the world and we arbitrarily decide to start to constrict this cone coming off the reel in a successive manner at each guide. Now the cone does not have two straight lines as its boundaries. Instead, the side of the cone defined by the rod blank remains a straight line, while the ring-side boundary has a parabolic-type curvature.

We, as experienced (and sometimes whimsical) rod-builder’s, impose whatever set of priorities and criteria that we think are relevant in deciding how aggressively to constrict that flight path from it’s unencumbered origin at the spool to it’s narrowest point at the tip-top ring.

This so-called "intersect point" in the Concept System is confusing, because the initial criteria is often NOT satisfied. Then the rod builder asks, "What am I doing wrong ?" Answer: Nothing - it is the initial condition that is not valid, because it is a flawed and misleading design criteria. It does not represent any physical reality, other than being a convenient “pull it out of your hat” rule.

So, … Where should the first and successive guides go? And how large a ring, and where to place them? May I suggest that it is still valid, safe and effective to think of the guide placement as a cone-of-flight that should capture the line with as little resistance as possible at the mouth, but bring the line under control and into a smaller funnel in as few guides a possible. This has always been part of the ideal design, but it bears repeating and emphasis in this context here.

Referring to the ideal system as including a modified cone-of-flight aspect:
Is valid because of the geometry and dynamics involved;
Is safe because it doesn’t introduce any misleading design criteria that are irrelevant or impossible to satisfy;
And it is effective because this modified form of the older cone-of-flight tames the flowing line just as well, and does so with guides (and thread + finish weights) that are (much) less massive than the old cone-of-flight method.

I am not suggesting that what I have written above is new. Hardly. But I have attempted to gut the Concept System of any nonsense about the spool shaft determining an “intersect-point” for the first guide. And I have attempted to re-establish that the dynamic condition (when the line is flowing thru the guides, and the rod is essentially straight and pointed toward the target) should be selected as the major condition for guide placement, as Emory Harry has suggested. And I have tried to re-establish that even in the Concept System, the fact remains that the flowing line path is conical. And successive constrictions are performed by the running guides. But even there, after the first 2 or 3 guides, the remaining running guides function more to distribute the force on a loaded rod over the rod’s natural taper, than to reduce the cone size of the line en route to the tip-top. Hence, closer to the rod tip, smaller ring sizes are more tolerable with respect to additional friction (because the line is already tamed). And less massive guides are highly desirable for preserving the rod’s crispness / sensitivity once it is wrapped (because unnecessary weight has the most detrimental effect on rod performance as that weight is placed closer toward the rod tip).

Some guide placement can be accomplished on a preliminary basis using a sheet of graph paper as a “to-scale” version of the rod and reel. The Y-axis can be a real-life scale of the reel’s Spool and Height Off the Blank. The X-axis can be drawn to scale to represent the distance from the Spool to the Tip-Top. The unrestricted cone boundary can now be drawn from the Spool to the Rod-Tip, using the near-side or center or far-side of the spool as its boundary. Tentative guide selection and placement can be done right on the graph paper. New cone lines can be drawn (or implied) by the constriction of successive guides acting as the new mouth of the cone. It’s quick, and easily transfers to the rod blank in real-scale with a tape measure. Test casting is just minutes away.

Some type of static deflection test will affect the final positioning of the guides. But this should be thought of as a load-bearing issue, which has little if any effect on casting performance per se. When you perform that test is up to you. But flexing the rod only simulates actual casting conditions for a small fraction of the life of the cone-of-flight, because the line should not be released until the rod’s forward flex on the cast has nearly straightened out, thus minimizing the curvilinear condition (line path). IMO.

Well, that was quite an excursion ! Looking forward to your analysis and comments. Again, nothing new under the sun here, as far as my proposals. I’m just hoping our comments will have an over-arching view, and help to identify the significant criteria, dis-spell the irrelevant ones, and integrate the overall design parameters for casting, load-bearing, and sensitivity.

-Cliff Hall, Gainesville, FL-U.S.A +++

Whew!!!!!!

We'll, it's plain to see I haven't been charging enough for setting up a spinner! LOL.

Regards......Doug@
TCRds

Using the spool shaft and centerline as a point for locating the first running guide (intersect point) is only done out of convenience. It's not meant to have any scientific underpinnings - it's simply there and because it turns out to provide a reasonable and workable starting point. We use it when we can (and that would be most of the time). In most cases, it turns out to work quite well.

Generally, the spool diameter coupled with the line diameter/stiffness you're using, would be the defining criteria for the optimum butt guide size and where the first small running guide should be located. However, if you can use the reel spool centerline as a basis for locating your intersect point and can follow the instructions in the article in the online library here, you'll most likely find the result to be a very nice casting rod. On those rare occasions where the rod is very short or the reel used has little or no upsweep, then it's time to locate an arbitrary intersect point. If this is done wisely, the lack of any spool upsweep is not going to matter once you get out and do some casting. Spool upsweep just doesn't figure heavily into the casting attributes of a spinning rod.

The Cone of Flight system used for so many years, typically results in a less efficient rod because it puts far too much weight on the upper half of the rod and utilizes guides that are much, much larger than what are actually needed to pass most lines. Not that it won't work - but there will be some drawbacks to it. The New Guide Concept System usually bests any Cone of Flight system on the same blank by 3% to 5% distance-wise, primarily because a rod carrying less weight on the tip area will be a more efficient casting tool - more of the imparted energy can be used for casting the lure rather than in starting and stopping the rod tip.

.........

What we really need are breakaway guides. When you cast they open up so the line goes directly off the spool and there is no friction whatsoever except the line hitting the top lip of the spool. Please do not ask how to get teh line back into teh guides to retrieve or fight a fish, I havent' gotten that far yet..

Very interesting and thought provoking.

I once tried casting a rod that only had a tip-top installed. Just wanted to see what would happen. The results were pretty poor, but it was interesting nonetheless.

Friction between the line and the guides isn't really as much of an issue, or something that makes a huge difference, at least between different materials. If they were sized and spaced the same, a rod sporting guides made from paper clips would likely cast just as far as one sporting guides with ceramic rings. The one thing that does make a noticeable difference, is reducing the weight the rod has to carry during the cast.


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

One more variable that imposes force vectors on fishning line flying off the spool of the haybailers. Watch most fisherpeople using one of those upside down contraptions. They will open the bale - hook a finger and drape the line through a dangling finger - rear back and chunk - the line is still flailing around through the extended finger. It might be the best thing to call the choke guide Mr. Index. It is a good thing that Sir Iaasic wrote no Laws of Motion that controlled the speed or agility of rodbuilders brains. Good to see you back Emory! I am glad it is no longer my burden to defend rodbuilding science and engineering with gator and gumbo logic!

Two stints inserted in an old graft yesterday and it went well! Andy I am ready to haul you into the marsh - leave your fly rods at home!

Gon Fishn

Bill, that guy from Gainsville has to be the one teaching the rocket scientist and brain surgeons. Jesse

Jessie,
That guy from Gainsville is Cliff and he can teach you a thing or two I bet!

LOL!

Raymond Adams
Eventually, all things merge, and a river runs through it..

There ya go, Billy Vivona! Now that is creative thinking. Impractical, maybe, but it accommodates the fact that the problem is that the guides themselves are the main source of friction and hindrance to the line flow, throughout most of the cast. If we could get the guide rings out of the way, then we would only have to contend with the air resistance on the lure itself (sling tin), and the ever-increasing air resistance on the line itself (go braid).

In my estimation, the initial guideline for setting-up the Concept System - to use an "intersect line" from the spool shaft axis intersecting the rod blank - works by sheer coincidence (on those occasions when it does work) with other latent design models (a cone-of-flight approach) and related conventions (position your butt guide at ~1/3 of the way up the rod blank from the spool). It is not a "cause and effect" issue. Can we agree on that ? I think that is a safe concession for all of us.

The proof that this is so is the frequent fact that the intersect point is often forward of the rod tip, or out at infinity, as Dick Laxton so well said. It is sheer coincidence and the self-imposition of conformity to a consensus norm: that being, that the line path should be far enough away from the rod blank to reduce line slap, and the guide rings should be large enough to reduce friction, but small enough to constrict the cone, and that the overall mass and placement of the guides should have the least effect on the rod’s resonant frequency (as described in Emory Harry’s article in RMM-8(2)). Again, I think we have a consensus here as well. IMO, it would have been more legitimate for Fuji to say “For a first approximation, position the 1st guide at ~1/3 the distance from the spool to the rod tip.” For Fuji to propose this “intersect line” parameter on such a flimsy basis seems very misleading to me.

The problem with the Concept System is that is has the right idea in mind (rapid taming of the line flow; low guide mass; and curvilinear load distribution), and is explained very well. But it uses the wrong design model (the intersect line) to transfer that “Concept” onto the rod when deciding the placement of the first 2 or 3 guides.

After the first 2 or 3 guides, the cone-of-flight is now so narrow that nearly any guide in the 8-10 mm ring size could be used. The rest of these running guides are now principally operating in the critical function of distributing the force on the loaded rod over the most flexible section of the rod blank in a smooth and curvilinear fashion. This is done so as to minimize the stress over any given segment of rod length, by reducing the angle of the line deflection when the rod is increasingly bent.

So, that is my contention with the New Concept: it has the right idea, and the right results; but it has the wrong model and design method. It is unfortunate that this “intersect line” theory did not get displaced by a more logical, reliable and realistic model of the line dynamics and the 3-dimensional geometry of the line path while it was still in it’s infancy. I would dare say that that fact is Fuji’s fault.

As a way to distinguish this “New Concept Guide System” from the old “Cone-of-Flight” Model, it sounds like they threw the baby out with the bath water. And rod-builders ever since have been too intimidated to say that something is wrong with this picture. It is an awkward burden to have to learn, and then later defend, an untenable position and line of reasoning. I would like to relieve as many future Rod-Builders of that nonsense as soon as possible. I know how confused I was, for months, and now I understand why. (Maybe this Discussion will help reduce the insanity and inanity out there.)

Only a design model and set-up method that includes a cone-of-flight approach to the situation seems to incorporate and reasonably approximate the full range of conditions encountered by the rod builder when designing the set-up for a new spinning rod. Adding the criteria of guide low mass and good load distribution must also be simultaneously observed for guide selection and placement. Again, I think we have a consensus here. You can flex the rod for load distribution, and shake & tap the rod for sensitivity whenever you want, as much as you want. (I do!) Just do it before the final choice of guide style, size and placement, I hope. And think of it as a load test or a sensitivity test – not as having a major bearing on the line’s cone-of-flight during a cast. And cone-of-flight (or line vortex, or whatever we want to call it) is a term used to describe the dynamic line path – not always a guide set-up method.

That’s the way I see it. And Doug Moore is probably right – there’s more to this set-up of a modified Cone-of-Flight or modified Concept method for a spinning rod than meets the eye. (Maybe we can call this blended method “The Loaded Cone Concept”. Or the Hallerian Vortex, like an episode from Star Trek. I don’t care, … and maybe, after reading this much, you don’t care either!)

But it is for the sake of the new rod builder who is trying to learn what are the operating forces on and the design criteria for selecting the style, size and placement of guides on a new spinning rod that I have so strenuously sought to dislodge the mindset of the flawed aspects of the original Concept set-up. Using design models that make sense, are reproducible, and view our design steps as part of an interdependent and integrated whole is more helpful than blindly following too isolated a context for any given rod-making decision. Guide selection and placement, and rod-building in general, may not be rocket science. But if there is too much arbitrary art and not enough rational science, then all systems may not be “Go!” once that fishing rod gets put to use. (The recent troubles with NASA’s Space Shuttle can attest to that.)

Earnestly, -Cliff Hall, Gainesville, FL +++

>> There ya go, Billy Vivona! Now that is creative thinking. Impractical, maybe,

You want more off the wall ideas???? Here you go:

>> we would only have to contend with the air resistance on the lure itself (sling tin), and the ever-increasing air resistance on the line itself (go braid).

To fix this problem, they need to stop wasting their money transplanting Florida & Texas strain LMB to othre parts of the country. They need to go one step further, and on teh next space shutle fill one of those large tanks up with Okeechobee water with some 10#++ LMB, and have them fill one of the craters up on teh moon up with the water. We could then send our rods up there and test all these theories where wind/air resistance is nil, and see which one really casts teh best. lol.

I PROMISE the first pictures sent back to Earth would contain at least one Astronaut holding the spinning reel upside down with a big smile on his/her face.

Some observations- The new guide concept as set forth and outlined by Fuji just plain stinks. I tried it when it came out or just after maybe and it's not very good. I got more distance with my old cone of flight or whatever you call the regular 30 - 20 - 16 - 12 - 10 - 8 type thing.

The new guide concept that was explained in Rodmaker and in the library here is a different animal and doesn't rely on predetermined spacings but on a system that creates a certain line path. When I tried it I was amazed at how well it worked. I think Fuji would do themselves a BIG favor to throw out their silly new concept spacing charts and adopt the same article that Tom has in the library here, with credit of course.Now that system WORKS!


Cliff- You spent a lot of time with your response and I appreciate it. Now, tell us how you would figure where the choke guide would go. Using the spool intersect point seems to work fine and it's on the rod more often than not. If you have a better way to figure it or where to put it, let's have it. I'm all ears and always open to an easier and better way.

Cliff,

Wow, and thanks. I think your two responses would fill up half an issue of Rodmaker....:)

LOL.

Quick question for you guys.

For shorter rods, Cliff you mentioned perhaps 1/3 distance from spool to tip.

What about for spin rods that are 9' long designed for 10lb braided lines and casting 1/4 oz lures? (Meaning light rods) Curious if you would still do the 1/3 rule?

Thanks,
MO

1/3rd distance from spool to tip isn't going to be a very good method, and certainly won't provide the optimum choke guide location, nor even a consistent location for that guide. It would mean the location would change due to rod length, even if the reel used was the same. That doesn't make sense - it's the reel spool diameter and line diameter that need accomodating.

Ratios involving rod length would be very poor indeed, for finding an appropriate choke guide location. You may get it to work, particularly on longer rods, but you'll have no consistency from rod to rod. Remember, even if you have two rods of differing lengths, if the same reel is used, the choke guide position should be the same. It won't be if you use 1/3rd distance from spool to tip to figure it.

Any ratio for locating the choke guide position must center around the spool diameter and line diameter. With some work, those could probably be combined to get you a really good method for determing the optimum choke guide location. Such a ratio would be ideal, but again, it would have to center around the spool diameter and line size, not rod length.

Until we have that ratio, on any rod longer than about 5 feet, using the spool upsweep angle to plot an intersection point will put you closer to a good choke guide location than anything else that is nearly as easy. Now if somebody (Cliff?) wanted to go to work on a good spool diameter/line diameter to choke guide distance, that would be a very worthwhile endeavor.
..............



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2005 03:48PM by Tom Kirkman.