I can appreciate the time and though that Cliff has put into this. But I believe the correct or best position and size of the butt guide on a spinning rod is determined by the diameter of the reel spool much moreso than any other single factor. So I have to go along with Tom's thinking that if you are to have a ratio of some sort for determining the butt guide location, it must involve the reel spool diameter and the line size rather than the rod length.

I would think it would be a simple matter to obtain some good spacings and sizings by trial and error and than average the number of inches in front of the reel per the spool diameter. Wouldn't that be the easier and better way to go about this?

The only drawback I see to any of these ratios is that you still have to place the rest of the guides. So you really aren't saving anything other than the time spent to locate the butt guide. Not a big deal in my book. Never was.

The concept system as it has been written about in the articles here, seems to locate the intersect guide first, after which the location of the remainder of the guides including the butt guide, is almost automatic. I've switched to it and after watching Tom demo it in Charlotte the last two years it would seem to be the simplest and most effective way to set up nearly any spinning rod.

Here Here Mike!
Qucker and easier!! But I am also waiting for more input! ( like #5, I love INPUT!! )

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

Hey Raymond,
You're either a glutton for punishment or have a lot ofTylenol!!!!!!



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!!

I find it more of a" crrrrrrrfwappa fwappa fwapppa fwappa "( can't be good) sound. People are still using these guides, or the giant ceramics for surf rods and I hope that in the future that my children will never hear that sound on spinning rods.

Mike,
Yes, I am a glutton and an addict! My wife also has prescription for 800mg. Tylenol for which I am very gratefull.

NEED INPUT !!

LOL ! LOL ! LOL !

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

Some discussions on this site pass into areas that many builders aren't interested in. When that happens, best thing is just to bypass the topic and move on to other threads that might hold more interest for you. Although I disagree with Cliff on his ratio using rod length as a factor, I thank him for taking the time to consider a possible variation on a method to locate the butt guide and for sharing it here. He spent a lot of time thinking it over and considerable time typing it up and posting it here. More information is usually better than less - you can always sidestep what you don't want but it's hard to obtain what isn't offered in the first place.

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

It's thinkers like Cliff that feeds my craving for INPUT ! Hats off to him and others!

Off topic : My wife is wondering if I can be cured or not? I tell her it's better than cats scratch fever!!

I think I need an attorny! LOL !!

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

Just Kidding! No offense intended!!!

Mike

Enough clowning,
In a way, I am new to rod building as I lost the addiction for almost 15 yrs! I have since the last holiday season
picked it back up again and only since May have I found this board and really got serious about blank construction,
componant construction and placement, and the other technical aspects of the craft that I once took for granted.
There have been many new developments in this craft and people like Cliff, Emory, Tom, Bill B. and Billy V. and
others are the reason I can't stay away from this forum. I don't always aggree with what is posted but the reading
keeps the juices flowing and brain going as well.

Looking forward to more topics and humorous discussion!



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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2005 03:12AM by Raymond_Adams.

None Taken Mike,
It's all good!! as my son would say!

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

Hey - I'm about to fall over from too little sleep. But there are still 4 or 5 brain cells talking and arguing together, and now I'll tell them to cooperate and talk to you guys. ... Raymond, you want input, cousin, I'll give you guys one or two more thing to think about, even if all it does is seem like I'm pouring out more of my own blood in the water. ...I can see the blacktips circling now, ... I'm still processing these Replies, so this will be very brief and spotty.

Regarding the value used for the Ratio Method for determining the position of the butt guide: “Everybody” has pointed out the fact that placing the butt guide at 67% (2/3rds) of the distance from the rod tip to the reel spool is too low for a surf rod, and too high for an ultralite rod. Ken Finch put it pretty succinctly: “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.” And certainly Tom Kirkman also said as much, and more. … But before I go all the way there, (if that will ever be possible), let me propose that this Florida Gator’s logic in gumbo engineering may have a bright idea: Ye Old Fudge Factor.

LOA = Overall ROD Length = ORL
[FUDGE FACTOR: SQRT(LOA/7’)] 67% Normalizer
Example: ( 2/ 3rds ) SQRT ( 9’ surf rod / 7 ft normalizer) = 75%
Example: ( 2/ 3rds ) SQRT ( 5’ ultralite / 7 ft normalizer) = 57%

Is that any better? Is that any closer to what you found in your collective experiences??

What we / I need is more data, using rods that you have built, and are very happy with the casting. The information that I would need is: LOA; rod tip to reel spool distance; your butt guide’s distance from the rod tip; the brand, style & size butt guide used; the brand & model # of your reel; your reel spool diameter and the distance the center-shaft of the reel lies above the near edge of the rod blank (estimate the few millimeters added by reel seat). You can also tell me the brand, model & taper of the rod blank, too. But I must have your measures for spool diameter and it’s height above the blank. I must have your butt guide’s ring size AND the height above the blank for that guide at the edge farthest away from the rod blank. (I’m not a tackle dealer.) Let’s see how far we get with that. You guys can help make that happen. There’s many more of you than there is of me.

E-mail me directly at [[email protected]] I’ll see if there is enough data of sufficient quality to form a better picture of what on earth is going on here. If I don’t get enough data, it won’t be because I wasn’t willing to give it a try. Just be patient. I may need to wait until Saturday before I can get enough data and the time to process it. If it only trickles in, and I am busy, I’ll just re-open a new Message Thread later next week with the follow-up results.

I already got enough critics. I could use a few partners. … I’m not a glutton for punishment. But I do have quite an appetite for the truth. Show me your data; mine are prejudiced by my impositions. Let’s see what yours tell us. …

Good night, -Cliff Hall, Gainesville, FL-USA+++ cmkmhall@ufl.edu

I must be missing something. Go to the on-line library article on the new guide concept system primer and just do what it says. No ratios to remember, no numbers to crunch. Just use a table edge or slip a scrap section of rod blank over your spools support pin and find the intersection point. Everything sets up perfectly from there. The system takes into account the size of the reel automatically and locating the butt guide is pretty simple. Best of all, it that it just works and works as well or better than you can do by trial and error.

Yes, let's all be robots and do everything the same. That's exactly why so many people built rods with straight guides, and cone of flight, guide spacing charts, and fly rods only use snake guides. Think outside the box, tweak everything, keep trial & erroring.

It would be much easier if we went back to teh days of factory spacing & sizing for guides, forced everyone to use the same reel and braided line, as braid casts well no matter how the rod is set up. Then we wouldnt' need to talk about anything, except for butt wraps and weaves. lol

I wish I could partnet with Cliff, but I didn't know people were having trouble with locating the butt guide on their spinning rod. I thought it was the choke-intersect guide that was throwing people off in those rare cases where you have a reel with no upsweep on a short rod.

I haven't run into this problem yet. All my reels seem to intersect the rod a just few feet up the blank and the set up is simple and quick. I locate the butt guide by the range given in the article and size the ring and frame height so that it falls within the range given. So far so good. Everything seems to work well and one system seems to work for any length rod or any size reel.

I'll keep reading in the event something better comes along but for now I'll stay with the concept system. It's working very good for me. If you were going to come up with some sort of ratio, it should be for the choke-intersect guide, not the butt guide. That one is easy to locate.

Cliff,
I can understand your attempt to come up with a quanitative method for determining optimum guide positioning. But I do not think that you can get there with just blank length as the only variable. I think that there are in fact too many variables for most of us to deal with and it is therefore probably better to just fall back on one of the practical approaches that have been developed in the past.

As far as there being some universal or magic number or ratio or set of numbers that would dictate guide positioning look at the Fibonacci Series. In the middle ages there were many who felt that this series of numbers was at the heart of all natural phenomena. In fact there was a fairly sizable religeon based on the Fibonacci Series. 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, etc. etc.

Sorry Cliff, I could not resist.

Emory - did they Stone people who based their religion on the Fibonacci series, or were they just stoned themselves?

I got got a chuckle out of your post. I hope that Cliff gets a chuckle out of mine and does not take it too seriously.

It is interesting though that a lot of things in nature seem to be based on this series of numbers and in the dark ages there were some that were preoccupied with the Fibonacci Series.

I guess that I should set the guides up on a rod using the Fibonacci Series to position them and send the data to Cliff.

I think Penn already uses a version of the F Series on their guide placement. First guide, 4". Second 4". Then 8", then 12", then 20" and that's it, regardless of the size of the blank. They use the method of Halves for guide siszes for a Spinning rod: 50, 25, 12, 6, 6.

lol.

Billy,
Yes that is a Fibonacci series, each number being the sum of the previous two numbers.

Just for fun I just did a Google on Fibonacci Series and it turns out that there is a Fibonacci Association that publishes a quarterly journal and there is an International Fibonacci Conference. Some people are very serious about predicting stock market behavior using the series and are even selling a stock market service based on it. I thought that people treating it seriously was all over in the middle ages.

Cliff,
In the Google search I found something that I found interesting and might interest you and may mean that I owe you an apology. The ratio of the numbers in the Fibonacci series, each number divided by the previous number, turns out to hone in on your Divine Proportion or Golden Ratio or PHI.

Regarding creative thinking - I thought I was trying to think outside the box; to understand why something works – or why it doesn’t work. Clearly, lots of people have no reason to alter their methods. I did have reason, so I put myself on a quest to discover what I hoped would be a system of thinking and methods that would work better for me (and maybe some other people, too). LOL ! I am not trying to create an army of robots or a rival faction. I am trying to avoid my own uncertainties and improve my problem-solving and rod-building skills. Thanks for all the input; it has been very helpful. No data has been sent yet, so that would be appreciated if some of you would chime in there. Thanks in advance. –Cliff Hall+++

P.S. – Billy Vivona, I may be up to NYC for a wedding and a baptism around August 27-28. I’ll be thinking about you and Visual-Wrap. Maybe I can get down to the Bay on the Flamingo. Now I’m getting nostalgic, … and for those of you who followed that series, "Thread Arts History" (Michael Joyce), you may find it interesting to note that the word NOSTALGIA comes from Latin and Greek roots meaning “our pain” or a “pain for home”.

P.S.S - Emory, PHI or the value 1.618 or phi 0.616 is definitely a fascinating number, as is the Fibonacci sequence. And there aren't too many other mathematicians remembered from the 13th century. ... Will anybody be remembering us or what we did 100 years from now, ...? Maybe there will still be Visual Wrap, ...? And a working CCS database, ... if there are any places left to fish, or fish left to catch.