This new Message Post & Replies is a continuation from last week’s Post & Replies: New Guide Concept,,,,,,,,,OOOOOPS!!!!! dick laxton July 28, 2005 20:29
For the full background, please go to OLD / Original Thread (7/28): [www.rodbuilding.org]

Shawn Moore asks: “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.”

First of all, let me say that anyone is free to choose whatever method they want to use. What you do in the privacy of your own rod room with your choke ring and where you stick it is your business.

But if you want to export that method to the legions of other rod-builders out there who are looking for reliable advice and instruction on guide placement, then I’d like to think that there is some sound reasoning to the method described and the explanation given. Those methods should have a basis in both art and science. They should be based on sound principles, and not just gator logic and gumbo engineering. I hope that I can help in that department. If you are content with the way things are, then my input isn’t going to reach you. I respect that. But if you have been frustrated, read on.

There are many variations on a theme out there for selecting the style, size and placement of guides on a spinning rod. And there are many variations on a theme for deciding where the butt guide (choke guide, tamer guide, funnel guide, etc.) on an open-face spinning rod should be positioned. The more popular methods would include*: the Ratio Method; the Cone-of-Flight Method; the Fuji Concept Method; the Kirkman-RBO Concept Method; the FlexCoat-This Method; the MudHole That Method; the 90-degree Bend-Over-Here Method; the 120-degree Bend-Over-There Method; and, of course, the ever popular LRTM (Looks Right To Me) Method, and the Legacy Method (“That’s the way I was shown”). And there are many combinations of blending various parts of these monocular methods into your own recipe for concocting the perfect guide placement Method. … So, let’s get to the facts already.

[* There was also the Nodal Method, which paid attention, not to the slightly sinusoidal shape of the line vortex, but rather, to the nodal points on the rod blank, when it is vibrated at it’s resonant frequency. It attempted to place and size guide rings in concert with those principles. It seems to have lost its usefulness, or never really proven it, and is thus not included in my discussion.) See at:
Re: "Sine Wave" static guide placement from Scimitar Aurthur Mercer 12/09/04 10:26PM
[www.rodbuilding.org]
Yes, as soon as you add the line guides, then the nodal point changes [due to the change in mass]! It's one of those things that sounds good in advertising, but when put to actual use on the water, doesn't really hold water. -Pun intended-, A.Mercer ]

Let me begin this discussion by saying that the physical shape of the line flowing off an open-face spinning reel in the middle period of the cast is that of a cone. And a cone is essentially like an isosceles triangle. The triangle formed by the cast line, the rod blank, and an imaginary line from and parallel to the face of the mounted reel spool and perpendicular to the rod blank, is a right triangle. The most common graphical representation of the very definition of a proportion or of a ratio is some form of a triangle. This can be a right triangle, as formed by the reel and the rod blank. This can be a cone (which is simply a spinning triangle), as formed by the cast fishing line’s cone-of-flight (which I will also refer to as a vortex). And it can also be the triangle formed by the centerline thru the line guides and the rod blank; or it can be the cone formed by the guide rings themselves. Cones and triangles and proportions and ratios are indeed inexorably connected with each other, and they are interchangeable, geometrically and mathematically. That simply is one of the fundamental axioms of geometry and should be self-evident upon sufficient contemplation and experience, both naturally and mathematically. Cones and triangles are literally everywhere in the issue of guide selection and placement, and the dynamics of the line vortex. The plane of every guide ring (which is perpendicular to the rod blank) forms the altitude of a new right triangle as we proceed from the reel spool toward the rod tip. The rod blank forms the right triangle’s base; and the line path thru the guides, or some compass position on the guides themselves, forms the hypotenuse.

To say that a Ratio Approach for determining the position of the choke guide, (or the other guides), using a “1/3rd distance from spool to tip is a very poor method, if not more so, than other methods for finding this location” would seem to overlook everything I just wrote, and all the geometry involved and mathematics implied. We may quibble over whether that Ratio Method should use a value of 67% or 62%, or some other value. But let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. PROPORTIONS & RATIOS are EVERYWHERE in guide selection and placement, both explicitly and implicitly. To intentionally ignore them in an attempt to (over)-simplify the process for positioning the butt guide is to not avail ourselves of a convenient and highly relevant and very controllable factor in our rod-building design. Some form of the Ratio Method should be considered, and the principles involved understood, even if the rod-builder elects to make another method his predominant and determinant method. The right to do that remains, it isn’t disrespected by me. But I wish to exercise my privilege to discuss these ratios & methodologies here, if I may.

What is Cliff Hall’s secret formula for determining the first approximation for the position of the choke guide on an open-face spinning rod? Place it at 2/3 the distance from the rod tip to the reel spool. Period. That is the method I prefer to use, and I will refine it later in this discourse. It has been around long before I ever first heard of rod-building 30 years ago. This proportion seems to be universally applicable to everything from the tiniest UL 4’6” fairy wand to the 12+ foot telephone poles used to catapult baits or lures into some raging surf. (In championship casting with spinning rods, this ratio would not apply, but that is not what I am addressing here.) It doesn’t seem to matter that much if the rod is a slow taper or a fast taper blank, or what the rod is used to fish. It is so readily and widely observable a condition that it seems like a conspiracy. Just take a look around and see for yourself. The actual ratio may shift with rod length or taper, but will become predictable.

But it is true, nevertheless. Describing it as 2/3 (67%) the distance from the rod tip to the reel spool, or as 1/3 (33%) the distance from the reel spool to the rod tip, is a bit of a mathematical convenience. It could just as well be described as a percentage: 65% or 35%. But, as a normal range for values in ordinary engineering is often considered to be +/- 5%, then we could also say that the range for the first approximation for the placement of the choke guide would be 60 – 70 % of the distance from the rod tip to the reel spool. Again, it borders on ubiquitous; go and see for yourself.

And this ratio appears without apology and without explanation, just like stray cats. Look at your factory rods. Look at the Guide Placement Tables in any rod-building reference that you have, or at any manufacturer’s or supplier’s website or catalog. Better yet, look at your own rod-building records and notes on the custom rods which you have built. Do the math. I’ll bet you will find that many of these references recommend the placement of the choke guide of a spinning rod at 2/3 the distance from the rod tip to the reel (or 1/3 the distance from the reel spool to the rod tip). Again, it will be approximately 60 – 70%, for sure. It will not be as low as 50%, nor as high as 75%. When you check the math on such Tables, you must remember to subtract the rear handle length and the reel seat length from the overall rod blank length. Then multiply that distance by 2/3, accordingly.

Example: 9 ft surf rod = 0.67 (108” – 12” handle – 5” reel seat) = put choke guide 61” from rod tip. This butt guide will be 5 feet from the rod tip, (~ 55% of overall rod length) and ~ 6” below ferrule.

For a FIRST APPROXIMATION of a good place to position the choke guide, I’d pit this method against ANY. Period. It requires no muss, no fuss. It doesn’t depend on the rod taper or the rod’s power. It only assumes that you are using a matched-size spinning reel, and a reasonably large ring size for your choke guide. Experience will show how much variation from the 2/3 rule you prefer to use when you build your rods. You will be prone to prefer a certain style of guides & ring sizes, and certain reel sizes in proportion to the overall rod length. You will incorporate your own touch.

Again, it must be remembered that my intent and my context in recommending this “2/3 Rule” is to establish a reasonable FIRST APPROXIMATION of the Choke Guide’s Position. It is adjustable.

My NEXT recommendation is to immediately move to a Graphical Representation of a Cone-of-Flight Model, on graph paper (Metric or English.) This step does indeed incorporate the intended spinning reel: it’s height off the blank and the spool diameter (in actual-size scale). [Refer to my First Reply, posted above, on July 29, 2005 at 05:47AM, Paragraph 11 (eleven), if this is unclear.]

By moving the real-life guides around, along the Distance from the Rod Tip (X-axis, “to-scale”), you can readily see the extent of choking that your Choke Guide will impose on your Theoretical Cone-of-Flight. This is the Cone defined by the Rod Blank (fixed edge) and any of several lines drawn from the Reel Spool or the Spool Rotor to the Rod Tip (variable edge). One condition is when the line roller is at the closest position (0 degrees) to the Rod Blank; another is for the farthest position (180 degrees). Or you can use the spool’s edge. Or a centerline from the Spool Shaft. Lots of room for experimentation and discovery here. Usually, the closest condition is the only one which can be satisfied by a reasonably sized guide. The purpose of using this to-scale Graphical Cone Model is that it provides a realistic model of the Rod and Reel, and allows rapid and convenient testing of different guide styles, ring sizes and placement positions along the rod blank.

It is useful for determining the position and the extent of line choking that you want to impose on your line flow with your butt guide. And then you can successively continue to choke the cone on the 2nd and even the 3rd guide. With each N+1 guide, you can define a new Variable Edge to your Cone Boundary, and choke the line Cone to whatever extent you deem necessary, based on your rod design goals and considerations regarding guide mass and your relative position from the rod tip. As you get to the last 30 – 40% of the rod toward the tip, the rod-building design priority for guide placement switches from taming the line vortex to distributing the load on the rod in a curvilinear fashion. Let there be the most obtuse angle reasonably possible between any 3 guides when the rod is well-loaded. (Hence my preference for calling this eclectic method the Loaded Cone Method.)

Let’s return to the original issue of choosing a reliable method for determining the position of the Choke Guide. In my opinion, I have read no compelling reason or evidence in these Replies or elsewhere that has impressed upon me the danger of using a “2/3 the distance from the rod tip to the reel spool Rule” as a first approximation for the placement of the Choke Guide for an open-face spinning rod. I am not trying to be defensive or stubborn. Maybe there is; I have failed to see it. (Again, I’m using the rod tip to reel spool distance as my 100% value, NOT the overall rod length!)

Other factors beside simply geometry do affect the placement of the Choke Guide. But even after successive cycles of re-adjusting, after test-casting this and static-flexing that, I’ll still bet that even with all that tweaking and all those iterations that the rod-builder will decide to put that choke guide in the 60 – 70% slot for the final placement. To say that the distance from the rod tip to the reel spool is an irrelevant variable, but that the reel spool diameter and the line diameter are relevant variables, seems incongruous, if not mistaken, to me. I would agree that rod LENGTH itself is not the real longitudinal variable. Handle lengths for the same (say 9 foot) rod blank could vary widely. It is the rod lay-out between the reel seat and the rod tip that are relevant.

So, what is the rationale for this “2/3 Rule” formula. … Ah, that is more complicated to explain than the Rule is to apply. This recommendation is based on many things, not the least of which is sheer convention and a long history of consensus among generations of rod builders. But don’t scoff too much just yet, please. I am persuaded that there is much more to this than first meets the eye.

The fact remains that spinning rod guides are only available in a given number of largest rings and greatest heights. That constraint on guide selection by the manufacturers inherently imposes certain limits on the placement of that choke guide. They are deciding for us that there is no good reason to make a choke guide that is almost equal to the diameter of the spool, and to place that guide very close to the spool. And I imagine that such a guide, placed within a few inches of the spool, would be more trouble than it could ever be worth. And we also can surmise that too small a choke guide, either too close to or too far away from the reel spool, would not perform well, because of excessive ring friction or excessive line-slap against the rod blank.

Now, for those of you who are really paying attention, and really thinking, you are no doubt asking yourself about a very common special case where my comments seem to be blown out of the water. The Closed-Face Spinning Reel, like the classic Zebco 202 Spin-Caster, is such a special case. The entire front of the reel, the reel cover or shield or whatever they call it, acts as one continuous choking / taming / funnel guide placed directly over the reel spool. They cast fairly well, considering the choking function is almost fully accomplished before the line ever leaves the reel cover. How can they cast so well, if all this discussion of the line flow is so important? I would say that the key to the spin-casters success is that the reel cover robs the line flow of its inertia and freedom to expand before it ever fully develops. With an open-face spinner, those energies in the line are not hindered, so they can contribute to a longer casting distance. It seems that the turbulent line vortex needs some space and time to dissipate its line memory, and forward and rotational kinetic energy, allowing the line to travel freely, before its path can be efficiently restrained again.

So, why pick the value of the Ratio to be 2/3rds ?? Shouldn’t there be some scientific basis for arbitrarily selecting this proportion? That would be satisfying, but not essential. Again, as I’m describing this Ratio Method, I am using the ratio of 2/3 as a convenient pneumonic, and because it is a fractional value by which most people can readily multiply or divide to calculate the resulting product or quotient, respectively. Is the true value 2/3rds (66.7%), or 65%, or 5/8ths (62.5%). I think you will agree that it is easier to work with 2/3rds than either 65% or 62% without a calculator. But does there exist a true value for this Ratio? Or does it matter, even if it does exist??

In architecture, art and nature, there is something observed that is truly unique called the Divine Proportion (phi = 0.618034) or the Golden Ratio (Phi = 1.618034). It can be expressed as the ratio by which a whole line (A) can be divided, such that the ratio of the whole line (A) to the longer segment (B) is the same as the ratio of the longer segment (B) to the shorter segment (C).
That is, if A = B + C, (where B > C), then this proportion is true: (A / B) = (B / C) .
Let me also call these the Phi Lines and the Phi Proportion.
[Visual is available at [goldennumber.net]

I’d like to come back to these lines and their ratios, and make some extrapolations into rod-building, after the following discussion of the mathematical properties of Phi.

This value of the unique ratio Phi can also be expressed mathematically as the Fibonacci Sequence.
Phi is the value of the Sequence, such that:
{X} = Term3 / Term2 ,
where Term3 = Term1 + Term2
and Phi = Term3 / Term2 = 1.618034

Example-1: {X} = 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, …
{X} = 89 / 55 = 1.618
Example-2: {X} = 1, 100, 101, 201, 302, 503, 805, 1308, 2113, 3421…
{X} = 3421 / 2113 = 1.619

It may seem impossible, but it does NOT matter which 2 values you select for the first 2 terms of this series. The value of this Fibonacci’s ratio will rapidly converge in 5 to 10 terms upon 1.618.

In mathematics, the value of Phi is the only positive solution to the equation:
X – 1 = 1/ X.
[ The exact solutions using the quadratic formula are X = 0.500 +/- 0.500 (square-root 5.000). Therefore, X1 = 1.618034 and X2 = (-) 0.618034 .
Please note that X2 = (-) 1 / X1, which only adds to the intrigue of this number, Phi.
FYI: The Quadratic Formula is X = [ (–) b +/- square-root (b*b – 4ac) ] / [2a] .]

For more information on this 13th century mathematical discovery by Leonardo Fibonacci, visit [http://www.investopedia.com/articles/technical/04/033104.asp ] . Or set your Google Search = GOLDEN RATIO 1.618 , etc., and go to the many other websites available on this subject.

Okay, no more equations ! Back to the Phi Lines, … If a stack of these lines were made, it would look not like an ice cream cone, but more like a tornado or hurricane. It would have a plot along its axis that looks somewhat like the flare of a trumpet. I would like to suggest that the choking functions of the line guides on an open-face spinning reel should funnel the vortex of advancing fishing line by using a sequence of successive guides that forms a curvilinear cone. This curvilinear cone should be flared more at the mouth and rapidly achieve a narrower passage, perhaps within as few as 3 guides. Since the reel spool and the choker guide are like the whole line (A) and the longer segment (B) in the Divine Proportion; or like the first two terms in the Fibonacci sequence; then I am suggesting that some incorporation of this ratio Phi exists intrinsically. And I am further suggesting that it is appropriate on the part of the builder of custom fishing rods to consider the usefulness of consciously applying this ratio Phi in guide spacing and the selection of ring size.

Still not persuaded of the significance of this conspiracy or the prevalence of its occurrence? Look at your own references and guide selection Tables, and see for yourself. In the common case suggested by Shawn Moore (30, 20, 16, 12, 10, 8 mm rings), for the 3 guides nearest the spinning reel, the ratio of the diameter of the rings is moving toward a value near the Golden Ratio (1.618). I’m suggesting that the ratio phi = 0.618 will likely produce a good placement of the choke guide.

The inverse, phi = 0.618, is conveniently close to the fractional expression 5/8ths (62.5%). Or to 2/3rds (66.7%). I’d like to consider a slot limit of 62% – 67 % as the working value for this Ratio Method. It includes the values for both the Golden Ratio (61.8%) and the 2/3 Rule (67%). If the Golden Ratio is the true value for the Ratio Method, then the slot limit may be 62% (+/- 5%) = 57% – 67%. If the true value lies somewhere between 62% – 67%, then a slot limit for the Ratio Method of determining the first approximation of the distance of the butt guide from the rod tip of 60 – 70% of the distance from the rod tip to the reel spool may be more suitable.

Is this just circular reasoning? That may be true of my attempt to simplify the value of the Ratio Method by shifting it to a more convenient number. And even of my insistence that the value of that magic ratio in rod-building is also Phi. But there is little reason to reject the hypothesis that there is a spatial relationship between the reel position and the choke guide position, and that the nature of that relationship is inherent in cones and tapering. That relationship is expressible as a ratio; and a numerical value for that ratio, as implied by Phi or phi, does exist and is affecting that guide spacing. The fishing reel used and its diameter and distance from the rod tip are fixed. The reel spool forms the mouth of the line cone, and the rod tip forms the vertex of the line cone. The only variable, then, is the choke guide selected and its position as you slid it up or down the rod blank.

Why the Golden Ratio has a value of 1.618 or the Divine Proportion has a value of 0.618 is unclear. Why not something like one-third the square root of 3 (0.577)? Who knows?! It’s a bit like asking the question, Why is the ratio of a circumference to a diameter always equal to Pi = 3.14159. Or, Why is the value of the natural growth number function (e) = 2.71828. When I get to heaven, I’ll ask the Creator. But for now, I’ll just take it as a given. Just as the manufacturers of line guides have chosen to select ring sizes with ratios similar to the Golden Ratio 1.618 (Divine Proportion 0.618).

Now, I’ll admit that this does not seem to be an observation that is directly grounded in the geometry and physics and mechanical engineering of tapered rods, as far as I know. I suppose that I should apologize for not knowing more on that subject, since I am the one making the case for Phi. Perhaps some of you ME’s (mechanical engineers) or mathematicians out there can enlighten us. Perhaps there are some things inherent in the manufacturing of fishing rod blanks, which I don’t know enough about, which could give a clue. Such as the rate of change of the tapered rod’s spring constant as you move from reel to rod tip. But that’s enough speculation. Empirically, it is clear that the choke guide on a typical spinning rod using an open-face spinning reel is placed somewhere in this 60 – 70% slot of the distance from the rod tip to the reel spool. Whether you call that ratio 2/3rds, 5/8ths, the Golden Ratio, the 60 – 70% Slot, etc, seems relatively immaterial. The difference in maximum casting distance and line handling between versions of this Ratio or “Loaded Cone” Method of guide placement is within the engineering error or reproducibility variance of 5%. That seems reasonable, reliable and useful. And that’s the main reason I have lobbied so hard for its use.

I would like to suggest the hypothesis that the principles which cause this Divine Proportion or Golden Ratio to exist are also operating in building of modern fishing rods, and in the science of tapered rods, and in the realm of our visual appeal when sizing and placing our line guides. There is a great deal of LRTM (“looks right to me”) decision-making involved in rod-building, and I am suggesting that this value of Phi, or the inverse, phi, is at work covertly. I would like to elevate it to the realm of overt knowledge and influence. Thus, I hope to provide some further facility for and insight into the expression of our creative talents and our capacity for intelligent design.

Before I conclude, let’s take a step back for a moment, and return to the overall design scheme of our fishing rod. It has essentially three sections (not pieces): the lower handling section; the middle line-choking section; and the upper loading-casting section. Line guides are only found on the middle choking section and the upper casting-loading section. Since the rod is performing mixed functions in these sections, so should the line guides themselves. As the function shifts from choking at the butt guide to mostly load distribution at the rod tip, so should our design priorities. Hence, the methodology and criteria for choosing and placing our choking guides will differ from our running (casting-loading) guides. This “Zone” Approach is most definitely operating in the mind of the rod blank’s designer, and should therefore most definitely be a part of our thinking as custom rod-builders when we are laying out and wrapping our guides. So, add “Zone” thinking to our “Cone” concept. I guess that makes this the “Ratio Scalar Loaded Cone Zone” Method. LOL!

In summary, let me say that I am describing this “Loaded Cone” Method as follows: Use the Ratio Method of 2/3 the distance from the rod tip to the reel spool for the first approximation of the choke guide. Then use a Graphical Cone-of-Flight Model to assist in the selection of the style, size and placement of the choke guide, and to determine the extent of choking you want to use for your rod design. Successively choke the line cone with the next 1 or 2 (or 3) guides, using each as a new Cone Model. Then, determine where the blank starts to bend significantly; that is the loading zone. For this higher-flex region of the blank, and for those running guides forward of that position, select and space these guides based on load distribution and guide weight. Whether that spacing is based on some ratio or spacing formula (equal spacing, geometric progression, mathematical) is relatively immaterial, so long as the rod stress is reduced and the rod performance is preserved. Like any given step in rod-building, it seems to take longer to describe it than to perform it. Once you’ve done it a couple of times, it will go more quickly and with (much) less fuss.

I myself see little reason to pursue creating a method or model of a system for guide selection or placement that includes principally focusing on the spool diameter and line diameter, while deliberately ignoring the distance from the rod tip to the reel spool. That is my understanding of what Mr. Kirkman seems to have suggested, and I am unable to perceive the value in that, compared to what I have proposed herein. I hope that my discussion, as elaborated above, includes all the relevant physical factors affecting guide selection and placement. My discussion and Models and Methods incorporate the variables of the reel and the spool diameter; the length of the rod blank from the rod tip to the reel spool; and the choice of guide style, size and placement. My discussion also addresses the dynamic aspects of the rod’s taper, and the issues of guide weight and load distribution. I trust that I have established that a ratio-approach to guide spacing, especially for the choke guide, is as reliable a method as any of the others out there, and merits your consideration. After all, this approach was first applied decades ago by our predecessors, and the essential nature of the design problems, and the laws of physics, geometry and math, have not changed that much. My extensive discourse may or may not be especially novel, but at least it attempts to integrate the full gamut of the principles involved in guide layout into a single treatment, more so than others.

It is my personal opinion that the only reason the intersect line, from the spool shaft theory of using that intersect point with the rod blank as the choke point, seems to work is the luck of the draw. That angle of upsweep in the reel shaft is determined by the reel manufacturer, just like the manufacturers decide the ring size and height off the blank for line guides. Maybe there is a conscious attempt to “aim” the line toward the rod tip. There must be some such intention, because, clearly, we do not see severe aiming of the reel shaft and spool away from the rod tip. But the relationship between upsweep angle and the choke point seems uncertain at best, and nearly independent at its worst. When it doesn’t work and can’t provide a satisfactory solution, then what?

As Mr. Tom Kirkman has said above, and stated in similar terms in other Replies: “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.”

So, this 90 degree Flex-Test also seems to work. But I, like Emory Harry, don’t see why, because the rod is quite straight when the line flow is pouring out like a cyclone. As Mr. Kirkman has said about this 90 degree Flex-Test, he said: “It's something you pull out of a hat. Not something that has anything to do with the casting dynamics of the rod.” And about this Intersect Point, he said: “It's not meant to have any scientific underpinnings.” Mr. Kirkman has said, “In fact, there is a better and more optimum way to locate the point where the first running guide should be located. … But I can't get into the specifics in a short message board post.” Perhaps this can be addressed later, as in a future issue of Rod-Maker Magazine, or in the RBO Forum at a time more convenient to him.

This Intersect Point and Flex Test seem to work for whatever reason for many RBO rod-builders. I’m glad for you. … But for those rod-builders for whom it doesn’t seem to work so well, or who think that a more realistic or “elegant” design and modification model is in order, I have made this presentation of the “Ratio Scalar Loaded Cone Zone” Method of imposing a Choke Point and selecting the style, size and placement of the line guides on an open-face spinning rod. I hope this comprehensive discussion has provided some useful insight into guide placement for rod builders who are searching for another cogent method for spacing their line guides. And that reading it has fostered a closer examination of their own methods. … (I know it has of mine ! – See; Do; Teach !)

Many thanks to the custom rod builders who have come (and some gone) before me, who were kind enough to share their knowledge in various ways. And to those who Posted their questions at RBO. Thru this learning process, “Was blind, but now I see.” … And a very special thanks to Mr. Tom Kirkman, for so freely sharing his exhaustive expertise and diligently providing the world’s best Rod-Building website, throughout history and throughout the known world. Peerless. Priceless. That’s RBO. … Thanks, Tom ! … Earnestly, –Cliff Hall, Gainesville, FL-USA +++



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2005 07:37AM by Cliff Hall.

Dear Reader: I don't know why, but in the math section of this Post, there were times when the Text-Box Editor used the "Mr. Cool Shades" icon instead of printing (B), the letter B surrounded by parentheses. This (B) always refers to the LONGER segment of what I called the "PHI LINES" in the section on the Golden Ratio / Divine Proportion. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. -Cliff Hall, FL-USA +++

Hey Cliff you bored mate, I think you have broken the record for the most words in a post.

Your ratio will work, as will a half dozen others. But they won't give you as good of results as using the reel spool upsweep will (and that's not always going to be perfect as we all know).

Here's the problem - For any given reel spool diameter and line size (diameter, suppleness, etc.) there will be an ideal or optimum butt guide size, height and location. If you put the same reel on two rods, of different lengths, that butt guide size, height and location should be the same. But if you figure your location based on any ratio that includes rod length, that location is going to differ even though you are using the same reel and the same line.

On very long rods, you're going to end up with a butt guide location that is much, much too far up the rod. On very short rods, the butt guide location will be much too close to the reel spool face. A distance of 1/3rd from reel spool to tip (or 2/3rds behind the rod tip between tip and reel spool) is very well worn ratio used by more than a few builders over the years. On rods around 6 feet in length, it's not bad. Shorter or longer, however, and it really begins to put the butt guide in a bad spot. I learned this during the first or second spinning rod I ever built way back in the 1970's.

A good ratio for determining butt guide location could be worked out, but it needs to involve the factors that directly involve themselves in the cast - the reel spool and the line size. Rod length should not factor into it at all. If you note the butt guide measurements I listed in the article here in our library, I offered a range of distances that seem to work well for various reel sizes. If you fall much out of that range, you will certainly notice some loss of distance or other unusual things happening on the cast.

None of this is a knock on Cliff's thoughtful ideas - that's what custom rod building is all about. The idea of a ratio between items to create an ideal butt guide location is a very, very sound one - it just needs to involve the actual factors at work during the cast and rod length is really not one of them, at least not as far as how and where the line leaves the spool on a spinning reel.


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

Cliff I don't think your ratio works very well. Tell me if I have misunderstood something. On a 9 foot medium power fast action spining blank. With a Quantum 30 reel located so that the spool face is 22 inches from the butt of the rod, that leaves 86 inches from the spool face to the rod tip. So with a one third ratio you suggest, that puts the butt guide location at 28.5 inches from the reel spool face. Is that correct?

That distance is WAY off in actual practice casting. I've built many of these rods and over time and trial and error I know that a distance of more than about 24 inches will create line slap like you can't believe. Mine all tend to fall at about the 23 inch point in front of the reel spool face. I've moved them up and back, tried different sizes and heights and a high frame concept 30 guide at 23 inches is just about perfect. Using the NGC (new guide concept) in the online library with that same reel, the butt guide in that size is pegged at 22.5 inches. So it's damn close. Way closer than having the butt guide stuck out there at 28.5 inches.

All the math is great but if it doesn't pan out and work well it's a lost cause. No way can I put a guide at 28.5 inches on that rod with that reel and expect to have a nice casting experience. It will work for sure, but the line will smack the blank on every revolution, even with a high frame 40. I've tried and know what happens.

If I'm not reading your ratio correctly just let me know. I'm willing to learn a better way if it exists. I don't like all the test casting anyway.

Myles Boon -- Hey, Mate . "Bored"? ... No, ... "Driven,..." Yeah ! I definitely threw myself into this one !! What started as a peeble in my shoe became a boulder like Sisyphus. Now I'm done, and I enjoyed every wrangle with it. -Cheers, Pal. Cliff Hall, FL-USA+++

Hey Cliff you bored mate, I think you have broken the record for the most words in a post. ... Myles (Bearclaw) .... Brisbane, Australia

Sisyphus (SIS-i-fus) King of Corinth, condemned in Tartarus to an eternity of rolling a boulder uphill, then watching it roll back down again.

Emory - I think you should join me and slowly and carefully watch, in a detached manner, the development of this thread. Direct involvement into the viability, credibility, derivation and implementation of such ideas may cause the Reynolds Number of your of your internal fluids to create an adverse situation involving your new plumbing!

Proponent of Gators and Gumbo
Gon Fishn

Cliff's ratio may be for the location of the choke guide, not the butt guide. Or he may be using the term interchangeably - I'll have to let him elaborate. But 2/3 distance back from the tip for the choke/intersect guide would also be out place on most rods. That's the trouble with ratios involving rod length - locations change as the rod length changes - they shouldn't.

The only thing that should change as rod length increases or decreases, is the number and perhaps the spacing of the running guides - those guides past the choke/intersect point. The higher frame guides to that point, should remain the same if you are still employing the same reel. The dynamics between the reel spool and line and butt guide don't change - so they would remain the same regardless of any change in rod length.

This concept holds true even in fly and casting reels. The location of the butt guide is determined by the reel size, height, width, line size, etc. Rod length has nothing to do with how the line from the reel spool enters that first guide. The criteria that determines where the butt guide should go on any rod, would have nothing to do with rod length. And this is the fallacy with all guide placement systems based on rod length. I fell into this trap once, too, and I'll explain later when I can find my original set of guide placement ratios.

Granted, using the reel spool upsweep angle to determine the intersect guide location (and from which butt guide location is then determined) will sometimes be impossible if you're using a very, very short rod or a reel with little or no upsweep. But these are the exceptions rather than the rule. And in the 95+% of cases where the rod length is greater than say, 5 or 5 - 1/2 feet, and where you have from 3 to 5 degrees of spool upsweep, you will find that the system outlined in the online library here works extremely well. It's quick and easy to set up and you'll be hard pressed to improve even if you spend an hour test casting and locating by trial and error.

By all means, don't let this stop anyone from trying various other systems or concepts. It hasn't stopped Cliff and I hope it won't stop anyone else. But the system outlined in the library is not exactly flawed - it will work extremely well on all spinning rods/reels with the exception of those very few and very short rods or with reels having little or no spool upsweep.

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

Danny,

On the Quantum Kinetic/Catalyst series reels (if this is what you have), the size 30 reel will put you having a butt guide at about 23 to 24 inches. You would use either a standard spinning type such as the SVSG40 or similar, or if you can obtain one, the older high frame surf 30, which has the exact same overall height as the standard spinning frame with a 40 ring. If you move much past about 23-24 inches with that butt guide, you'll have terrible line slap. You can reduce it by moving to a super high frame guide, but then you'll have a hard time getting down to the smaller sizes that you should have on the tip area.



...........

Cliff! .... WOW! You must have stayed up all night on this one!! Good on \'ya.

But the mention of looking at all the rod building books or going by factory spacing to get that ratio is something custom builders have found lacking all these years. It\'s why we spend more time on our spacings! The 1/3rd rule is a \"catch all\" that works okay but not that well in particular.

In my local fishing circles and with the few rod builders I knew early on, the standard idea was to take the distance from the reel to the rod tip, figure a length of 30% and put the reel there. That\'s pretty close to the 1/3rd ratio anyway. It worked pretty good on some rods, but on longer ones it put the guide WAY up the rod too far. Now these old timers were used to putting size 85 wire guides up at 300 to 33 inches anyway because of this rule of thumb and their rods did cast. But man were they noisy!!! PFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTWHAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP! was what you heard on every cast. When Fuji came out with high frame ceramics we started pulling the butt guide location back and found we got as much or more distance and we didn\'t get all that line slap on the blank. I stopped using the 1/3rd distance a decade ago and just take the time to test cast and located the best position by trial and error. The new concept guide thing really does put the location for most reels at about the same place. I find I don\'t have to do nearly as much test casting with it as I did before with the old cone of flight system. But I still use the cone of flight system on larger surf rods because I can\'t get the guides I need to do the concept thing on the really big rods.

Danny Bundy - Hiya, Dan. Yes, you do have the math right for the 2/3 (108-22). Your Reply has reminded me of another important aspect of this: Is there some absolute upper (or lower) limit for the distance a butt guide can be placed ahead of the reel ? and what is that limit? and how proportional is it to the overall rod length. That is gonna vary some for different reels. More choking up front is better than too wild a line slap.

For a surf rod of 9'-10', should this ratio be 75% instead of 67% ? The numbers you told me (86-22) / (86) are exactly at 75% for the reel, your Quantum 30, and whatever line you are using. I think that provides you with an answer.

And I think that Mr. Tom Kirkman’s comments would corroborate this “sliding slot” approach: [If using the Ratio of 2/3 the distance from the rod tip to the reel spool, then …] “On very long rods, you're going to end up with a butt guide location that is much, much too far up the rod. On very short rods, the butt guide location will be much too close to the reel spool face.” So, use a higher % age for longer rods, and lower %age for shorter rods.

"Again, it must be remembered that my (CMH) intent and my context in recommending this “2/3 Rule” is to establish a reasonable FIRST APPROXIMATION of the Choke Guide’s Position. It is adjustable. " ... "Experience will show how much variation from the 2/3 rule you prefer to use when you build your rods. You will be prone to prefer a certain style of guides & ring sizes, and certain reel sizes in proportion to the overall rod length. You will incorporate your own touch."

I think another context to remember here is that I sought to establish that ratios and geometry and scalar models can be very useful here for a first approximation. That was definitely left in question by the end of the original Posts back around July 31st. In my mind, cause and effect works better than the LRTM method. And to be polite, the Intersect Method was completely ambiguous and far more arbitrary to me than a Ratio Method. A Ratio gives a direct estimate that does not depend on how far I bend the rod during a flex test, or what my reel’s upsweep angle happens to be. When the test-casting stage begins, and adjustments are needed, the Ratio Book gets revised and a new value or slot is used, consistent with rod length, and the size of the reel.

-Cliff Hall (CMH), Gainesville, FL-USA+++

"So, use a higher % age for longer rods, and lower %age for shorter rods." That's what I learned early on - you had to change the percentage for each rod, and to figure the optimum percentage, you had to go out and test cast. Once you had done a bunch, you could, sort of, apply it to similar length rods with similar reels. Again, it didn't really speed up anything or provide any better results, as far as I could see.

The New Guide Concept method outlined on the library page really cuts down on butt guide location. In 95+% of the cases it will put you on to the optimum location and butt guide size in a matter of a minute or two. Try it - set up one exactly as shown and go out and test cast the rod, moving the butt guide fore and aft or changing size. Most likely, you're going to find, that the system has put the butt guide in almost exactly the optimum location that you found by test casting, and it did it in less than a minute or two and with accuracy for any size reel or rod.

Again, I'm not throwing off on Cliff's method, but if the idea is to postion a butt guide quicker or better, the best system I've found in nearly 30 years of rod building is the New Concept Guide System as outlined on the library page. It's consistent, which no other method I've yet found is.

I feel sure, however, that at some point something better will come along.

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

The turbulent flow is definitely swirling around my neck. If it gets any higher, I may not be able to open my mouth, lest I drown. Bill & Emory: Can I count on you guys to throw me a lifeline later? It sounds like the odd-makers have already declared this a “no-contest”. I may have tried to be too narrow with my values for a good ratio, or too dogmatic in my insistence on geometric approach. But I am not kidding when I say that I found the Intersect Method to be unworkable in my mind and in my hands, so something else more methodical was sought. Necessity was the mother of that invention, not competition.

I suppose that if we were all in the same room, and had some rods & reels and a tape measure and a calculator handy, we could at least clear up any terminology errors, and I could see what you guys mean when you say that rod length is a non-factor. I keep thinking in terms of right triangles, and ratios; but it seems like empiricism and craftsmanship are driving the rationale for your descriptions.

And now I seem to be misusing terminology. I thought the butt guide was the choke guide. Is this so? Or is the choke guide the 2nd guide from the reel? And this intersect guide: how does it fix the position of the butt guide “in any way”. … All I can remember right now is how disparate the use of terminology was back March 2005, when we all bantered over the earliest descriptions of the Spiral Bumper System. That was quite a lesson in alternate and changing perspectives, and errors due to parallax. And I’m getting that same feeling now.

From what I've read in the Replies above, it sounds like an approach of absolute distance from the reel could hold strong promise for a method to place the butt guide.

Anyway, yes, I have been up all night. I’m gonna get some lunch, and take break. Your helpful Replies, (and your mercy where I am mistaken or out of step with the consensus) is appreciated. Thanks, -Cliff Hall-.

Cliff,
You have caused me to start thinking about this but the more I think about it the more complicated the problem becomes or at least the more variables there seem to be
For example;
One could argue that, in addition to the length, that both the rods action and power will have an effect on where the first and also subsequent guides should be located.
The guides size and weight also obviously has an effect on where the first and also subsequent guides should be located.
The number of guides will have an effect.
The rating of the line or at least how stiff the line is and how large the loop coming off of the reel is will have a major effect.
Not only the angle of the reel to the rod but also the size of the reels spool will have an effect.
How far that you are attempting to cast will have an effect, because that will affect the line velocity and the size of the cone, both diameter and length of the cone.
Even the rods resonant frequency will have an effect because it will have an effect on the lines velocity.
I think that it is interesting that we are discussing the issue of guide positioning on spinning rods. It seems to me that all of the same variables are there whether the guides are set up as spinning, casting, fly, or even spiral. The size of the effect that each variable will have will vary but the varaibles are all there in each case.

If Cliff's ratio is going to require a different ratio for each different rod length, then I don't see what it accomplishes. What is needed is a system that remains the same for each rod and reel but automatically takes into account the differences between them.

The new concept system article seems to me to be the best of all current worlds. I've had no trouble plotting the intersect/choke guide point on any rod PLUS the location for the butt guide is easily found as well. In my own tests and fishing, I've found these rods to cast as well or even a little better than any of the older ones where I used the cone of flight method that was outlined in the second Clemens book. Plus they tend to balance better and weigh a little less overall. You don't really have to remember anything or do any math. You just lay it out, plot it out and tape or wind on your guides and go. I've stopped doing any casting tests because when I did, I found that no matter how much I moved guides around or switched sizes, I was unable to improve any further on what the initial layout had provided me with.

Great discussion, but I think we may be trying to fix something that isn't really broken. I have seen a few posts where somebody can't get an intersect point on their rod due to an oddball reel, but personally I haven't run into that yet.

I'm not sure what Cliff means by "unworkable." I've used the system with beautiful results on hundreds of spinning rods and even had many local builders bring their spinning rods over for me to help them with. Larry Tysinger, Jerry Lee and Sammy Mickel can probably all attest to how well it works and how easy it is to set up. It automatically locates the choke/intersection guide, the butt guide and makes it easy and quick to set the others in place as well. If you do it correctly, it's truly rare that any additional test casting will improve on what it will give you right out of the box.

Yes, there are some oddball scenarios where you have the very, very short rod or a reel with little or no upsweep, but again, that's rare exception and not at all the rule.

Cliff, If you're in Charlotte this year, bring some rods and we'll take a few minutes to set up a few. I'm sure you know what you're doing with relation to the system, but just in case, let's set up a few. I normally do a session on the system anyway. We'll have plenty of room to cast anything other than perhaps the really long distance and heavy power surf rods.

Maybe we could have a session on some other systems as well. As has been pointed out, nearly all these systems and methods work - fishing line is flexible so there's a lot of leeway involved.



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

You guy's have taken the fun out of building rods!

A crappie I caught the other day was wondering about my guide spacing- he actually criticized my butt guide placement, stating that it was clearly too close to the foregrip. I ate him.....

I started using the new guide concept system as outlined in RM back in fall of 2000. Seemed easy and worked great. Took all the guesswork and trial and error out of it. I use mostly Shimano reels on rods from about 6 to 8 feet long, and maybe a few longer surf rods, and I have yet to have a situation where the line from the spool centerline did not intersect the blank. You have to keep a full set of guides on hand and a dozen or so small single foot fly type guides on hand in order to set it up, but it's got to be the easiest and best system going. Time to set up my last spinning rod? Under 5 minutes. Test casting and moving the butt guide did not improve things so I left it where the system showed me to put the guides and it's been casting and fishing great. I would say that you need to throw out Fuji's spacings. Set it up using your reel and actual blank like the article shows.

The New Concept Guide system in the library article or in RM prove that it doesn't have to be difficult to WORK! Sometimes simple is best!

There is no need to make any of this difficult. Set aside your sines, angles, golden ratios and everything else for just a moment. On most freshwater rods with reasonable sized reels, a butt guide diameter that is about half the size or slightly larger than the reel spool located at from 19" to 23" will be about right. Use a high frame spinning style if at all possible. On larger saltwater reels, follow the same for guide ring diameter and locate the guide at from 21" to 26" from the reel. Now go out and do some test casting. Start at one end of the range and move up or back 1" at a time until you realize your best distance and smoothest casting. That is all there is to it.

Fuji's spacing charts for the concept system have never made sense to me. If you have to set it up a certain way and this is dependent on your reel, how can they provide you with the spacings if they do not know what reel you are using? Anybody find this odd? I do not believe Fuji can read minds.

The article in the library on the concept system is good. I have used it and it works as advertised. I still like to go out and tweak that butt guide location if possible. Although I will say that I am not having to move it very much to get the most distance. So far I do not think I have moved it more than an inch in any direction to find the best casting performance. I suppose I could just stop doing any test casting, but I do not yet have the confidence to do so. Old habits are hard to break.

Here come the headaches again!!! For all you new/potential builders reading this, go to another thread immediately!!!!!!! Emory, Bill- Time for you guys to jump in. I'm with Rich and Richard I thought the key was the "easier and quicker, the better"



Mike (Southgate, MI)
If I don't want to, I don't have to and nobody can make me (except my wife) cuz I'm RETIRED!!