How does the method of turning the fly rod so the guides are facing upward ,placing the line thru the guides and adding stress in this mannor compare to the more conventional method discribed in the libary section. Is there a difference ? Why is one better than the other?

When the line is on top of the rod it's easier to see how the line flows based on how close it comes to touching the blank. On a conventional casting rod this is how you'd want to do it anyway to be sure the line doesn't contact the blank when deeply flexed.

Many fine casters prefer the guides placed on the spine (seems to improve casting length) while others prefer them opposite the spine ( for fighting fish) Guide placement on a fly rod may benefit from either of these methods, so checking to see how the line path flows under stress may be slightly different for a fly rod with these two guide placement methods. Try both ways and test cast and see how you (or your customer) likes it.
Regards,
Kenneth Prager

Preface: Okay, I ain’t a fly-rodder. But I’ve watched the Lefty Kreh’s and the Flip Pallot’s throw enough to understand what’s going on, at least at this rudimentary level. So, here goes some spewing after my chewing on this subject.

Since so much of a fly rod’s performance indeed depends on the line flow thru the guides when the rod is back-flexing or back-casting (or whatever fly-rodders call it), you definitely want to check your fly rod’s static distribution in both directions – forwards and backwards – for casting. I cannot imagine that this “cannon effect” that seems to be the difference between a good fly rod and a GREAT fly rod is possible unless the back-cast lets the fly-line flow QUICKLY & SMOOTHLY behind you.

I think the cannon boom really comes from the rod’s energy storage, which is a function of momentum and rod taper and modulus, etc. Part of that forward velocity is the rod taper-action and the angler’s forward drive. But the other part of this energy storage is the VELOCITY of the backward-flying fly-LINE, as it loads the rod for its equal but opposite Newtonian reaction. The less friction on the back-cast, the more rapidly the rod can be loaded by the fly line, and the more gunpowder in the cannon when you set it off.

Also, the length of fly line that you can get up into the air and hold there on the back-cast depends on much how much line friction is coming from the guides, and from rubbing the rod blank. I think THAT’S where your reverse static distribution testing and real casting tests will be KEY to getting that extra level of performance out of your fly rod. Don’t skimp or miss any steps here. (Good luck, Bill Cohen.) -Cliff Hall+++

Here is a somewhat different view on this issue for what it is worth.
The number of guides is a trade off between line control, distribution of stress and rod performance. More guides will result in a little better line control and stress distribution but the added weight of too many guides can significantly lower the performance of the rod.
Placing the guides by turning the rod so that the guides are up and then insuring that the line does not touch the blank when the blank is at the maximum deflection results in an excessive number of guides and lower the rod performance.
When using the rod the line is not normally moving when the rod is at the maximum deflection. When casting the line is not moving when the rod is at maximum deflection. When casting the highest line velocity occurs when the rod is virtually straight and when fighting a fish the rod tip should be lowered, reducing the amount of deflection when the maximum force is on the rod. So the number of guides dictated by the above method is too many from this standpoint.
The stress on the rod that results from guide position increases approximately the amount that the distance between the guides increases. For example, if in order to use fewer guides and get better performance the distance between the guides increases about 10% the stress will increase about 10%, not normally enough to result in any problem.
Experiments have been done that show that, depending upon a number of factors including the power and the action of the blank, each additional guide that is added will lower the performance of the rod somewhere in the area of 5% to 10%.

Thank you for those very interesting messages. Emory would you care to tell us the method of guide placement you use?

Emory, thank you, you have cleared up some troubling issues for me & thanks Bill for asking the right question. John

In conjunction with my previous request what would say would be the proper amt. of guides for a 13 foot medium action spey rod. this would include a n extra taming guide. What is your opinion on a taming guide (another guide)?

Bill,
Basically I use the static method but I try to not use any more guides or any larger guides than the application dictates.
It is particularly important to minumize the added weight out toward the tip of the rod. As far as anyone has been able to determine, at least as far as I know, the effect of added weight increases logarithmically from the butt to the tip of the blank. You can demonstrate this to yourself by just shaking a rod to get a feel for it then taping a couple of extra guides on near the tip and then shaking it again. It will feel much slower and less responsive after the extra guides are taped on.
I have experimented with this by measuring the resonant frequency of a blank with different guide configurations and it is surprising how much effect a couple of extra guides or guides that are too large can have.

Bill,
I would not worry too much about a taming guide if you want to use one because it will be mounted toward the butt of the rod where the added weight has less effect.
It will depend a lot on the individual blank but I feel that generally fly rods, because they tend to be slower actions and therefore the strain is more uniformly distributed than with faster action blanks, can get by with fewer guides. It is really hard to say without seeing the blank and knowing the type of guides that you plan to use but I doubt that I would use any more than the old one per foot rule of thumb and probably one or two less, so 11 or 12 guides not counting the taming guide. And I know this is quite a few less than others will recommend.
Your best bet, though it may take some time and effort, is probably to start off using the static method to begin with but then tape on different guide configurations and test cast the rod with the different configurations.
When testing the different guide configurations there are probably two different tests that you may want to try. One is to see how the rod feels with the different configurations but in this case you do not want to get very much line in the air because that will tend to swamp the effect of the guides weight or how much difference in feel you will get. And two is to just see how far the rod will confortably cast with the different configurations.

Emory, While I was static testing this rod I felt I could extend the guides out a lot further than I did .My concern was not having that perfect line conture and not knowing the stress value I was exerting on the rod by extending the guides too far.If there was no discernable difference in the way a rod preformed would you allow the line to be straight from guide to guide instead of conforming to the rods natural bend? Thank you