SPONSORS
2024 ICRBE EXPO |
concept casting vs conventional setup
Posted by:
tom kaufmann
(---.nmci.navy.mil)
Date: September 24, 2005 01:02PM
Good morning/afternoon to all of you,
I was doing a little wrapping this morning and I came up with a question that I didn't find an answer for in the archives. What is the advantage of the Fuji concept on a conventional casting (person doesn't want spiral) vice the standard setup. I usually find that I can get away with 7 guides on a 6'6" caster for bass ie... 783 but the Fuji guys use 9 can some of the pro's here enlighten me on this? Thanks, Tom Kaufmann SSgt USMC Re: concept casting vs conventional setup
Posted by:
Mike Barkley
(---.nap.wideopenwest.com)
Date: September 24, 2005 01:29PM
As far as I know, the "Concept" system would only apply to spinning rods with the guides on the bottom (or spiral wrap) Don't confuse the "Concept " system with what Fuji has on their site and refers to as concept system (poor setup as it is very generic and pretty much neutralizes any benefits). Two completely different animals. Read the article in the library above.
Mike Re: concept casting vs conventional setup
Posted by:
Mark Griffin
(---.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net)
Date: September 24, 2005 02:05PM
From what I gather, the advantages of the Concept guides on a conventional set-up are:
1.) Much stronger frame 2.) Lower center of gravity (ring is closer to the blank) reducing twist/torque 3.) Much lighter weight What I'm not 100% clear on, is whether the lighter weight is offset by the additional guides needed to keep the line off the blank when loaded due to their lower profile. If the concept setup does indeed weight more in the application you listed ( 9 guides VS. 7), I would assume that you could STILL benefit from the system as it would better harness the power of the blank, depending on it's action. As I haven't played around with these guides yet, I'm only going on what I've read. I'm curious to see if those who have used these guides extensively can confirm my assumption! Re: concept casting vs conventional setup
Posted by:
Anonymous User
(Moderator)
Date: September 24, 2005 02:08PM
Smaller and lower guides would at least tend to reduce (but never eliminate) the tendency of the rod to twist under load. Yes, you'd have to use more of them, but if they're small and light the overall weight could still be less than a more common and conventional set up.
........ Re: concept casting vs conventional setup
Posted by:
Dave Gilberg
(---.pghk.east.verizon.net)
Date: September 24, 2005 02:17PM
SSgt Kaufman;
A spiral set up is far superior to the traditional casting configuration. The simplicity of the Bumper system makes it a breeze to set up. As far as I am concerned it is my responsibiity as a rod builder to do my best to educate clients on the latest improvements in the craft. wioth that in mind, I suggest you aply some of your leadership skills in raising the understanding of this client. A spiral wrap is frankly the only way to go, in my humble opinion. All gain and no downside. Even though more guides are used they are smaller and weigh less...especially at the tip..so the rod performance is actually improved. More guides also keep the line closert to the natural arc of the blank. I have no sympathy for those who resist improvements simply because it looks different thatn they are sued to seeing. Dave Former U.S. Army Sp4/ Medical Corpsman Re: concept casting vs conventional setup
Posted by:
tom kaufmann
(---.nmci.navy.mil)
Date: September 24, 2005 02:52PM
Dave,
I too love the bumper system and am currently employing it on all of my personal rods as well as using it for others who I build for. I've applied all of the leadership skills that I have gathered over my 13 yrs in the Corps, however the stubborn old guy (Father) (former Army) wont buy off on it. I have let him use mine and have shown him the great works of Mr Forhan and yet he still is not convinced. Oh well, he at least likes the conventional ones that I have built for him so far. Heck, I can't even get him convinced on the use of a split grip. I guess once I get him sold on all of it, I will be able to sell ice to penguins and I'll be all set for recruiting duty. YEAH RIGHT!!!!!! LOL. Tom Kaufmann SSgt USMC. Re: concept casting vs conventional setup
Posted by:
Spencer Phipps
(---.il-chicago0.sa.earthlink.net)
Date: September 24, 2005 11:21PM
Sounds like my old man, likes everything old school. The new salmon rod I built him had to be a glass blank, Lakeland metal casting reelseat, cork grips and conservative wraps. He still uses an old Pfeuger Rocket knucklebuster also. He does however also get a lot of positive comments from other same aged gentlemen in the hogline when he brings another one to the net. Re: concept casting vs conventional setup
Posted by:
bill boettcher
(---.an2.nyc41.da.uu.net)
Date: September 24, 2005 11:34PM
On a conventional casting rod I like the Forecast fly guides because the ring on them is just a little higher then others I have used.
How many you use with either system depends on the blank. Guides are taped on then a line run thought them . pressure is put on the blank which then shows if the line touches the blank. Then you either add more, maybe move them closer ?? Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
|