I
nternet gathering place for custom rod builders
  • Custom Rod Builders - This message board is provided for your use by the sponsors listed on the left side of the page. Feel free to post any question, answers or topics related in any way to custom building. When purchasing products please remember those who sponsor this board.

  • Manufacturers and Vendors - Only board sponsors are permitted and encouraged to promote and advertise products on the board. You may become a sponsor for a nominal fee. It is the sponsor fees that pay for this message board.

  • Rules - Rod building is a decent and rewarding craft. Those who participate in it are assumed to be civilized individuals who are kind and considerate in their dealings with others. Please respond to others in the same fashion in which you would like to be responded to. Registration IS NOW required in order to post. You must include your actual First and Last name and a correct email address when registering or posting. Posts which are inflammatory, insulting, or that fail to include a proper name and email address will be removed and the persons responsible will be barred from further participation.

    Registration is now required in order to post. You must include your actual First and Last name and a correct email address when registering or posting.
SPONSORS

2024 ICRBE EXPO
CCS Database
Custom Rod Symbol
Common Cents Info
American Grips Piscari
American Tackle
Anglers Rsrc - Fuji
BackCreek Custom Rods
BatsonRainshadowALPS
CRB
Cork4Us
HNL Rod Blanks–CTS
Custom Fly Grips LLC
Decal Connection
Flex Coat Co.
Get Bit Outdoors
HFF Custom Rods
HYDRA
Janns Netcraft
Mudhole Custom Tackle
MHX Rod Blanks
North Fork Composites
Palmarius Rods
REC Components
RodBuilders Warehouse
RodHouse France
RodMaker Magazine
Schneiders Rod Shop
SeaGuide Corp.
Stryker Rods & Blanks
TackleZoom
The Rod Room
The FlySpoke Shop
USAmadefactory.com
Utmost Enterprises
VooDoo Rods

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

Options: ReplyQuote
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

Options: ReplyQuote
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!

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

........

Options: ReplyQuote
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

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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.

Options: ReplyQuote
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 ??

Options: ReplyQuote


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Webmaster