Hi, software for free in English helps constructing a rod (distances, diameters, heights of guides): Guide-Calculation V2.0en (self-extracting exe-file). How to get it? Use searchengine altavista anjd look for 'casting aktuell ebook'. You will find the Download and the bottom of the site.
With best regards R.-R.

We do not have commercial interests. Copying and furthering the complete program without a fee is
explicitly desired.

HALLELUJAH !!! - Mr. Ralf Voss - THANK YOU !!! Your guardian angel must have been talking to my guardian angel sometime in the last 9 weeks, because what you have described (above) sounds like the nut I tried to crack here at RBO for the last week of July and the first week of August 2005.
OLD / Original Thread (7/28): [www.rodbuilding.org]
NEW / Phase II Thread (8/4): ): [www.rodbuilding.org]

Ralf, Let me offer you a thanks in advance for answering my prayers. I am working right now with a fellow rod-builder on this very subject of guide sizing & placement, based on spacing formula and / or guide dimensions.

I'll be going to lunch, and checking this out on a computer that has a stronger anti-viral capacity than mine. Just in case something was fishy in the *.EXE. I'll be in touch sometime later tonight or tomorrow, that's for sure! ... Thanks, Ralf Voss.

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

Great! Another generic guide formula to set custom rod building and individual guide placement back 20 years. Anybody that thinks they can get good guide spacing from a chart or formula is way off.

That really depends upon the criteria that are used to factor into the actual sizing and spacing, although I would agree that thus far I've not seen any guide placement formula that provides optimum sizing or placement. You almost always do better with a one-on-one approach to each individual rod/reel/line combination. With the New Guide Concept system, we're already down to a 2 minute guide placement system that gives really, really great results fine tuned for the particular set up you're fishing with.

But, at some point such a mathematical formula is possible. It just takes some smart heads kicking it around for a while to come up with a better idea.


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

“... at some point such a mathematical formula is possible. It just takes some smart heads kicking it around for a while to come up with a better idea.” -TK.

”Anybody that thinks they can get good guide spacing from a chart or formula is way off.” -SM

IMO, IF observational or empirical or conformational or artistic approaches are already producing a proven track record of satisfactory solutions to the design considerations for guide selection and layout, THEN that it and of itself constitutes DEFACTO PROOF that there does indeed exist a method of some kind behind the artistry. Otherwise, the artistry would not be so predictable or so reproducible !! Or, it may work for you, but not for me. That would be next to useless, or at least fairly frustrating, if that were the case. Apparently it is not the case.

It is, of course, important to note that there are a MYRIAD of possible choices for guide selection and placement which can produce satisfactory and even great results for guide layout. And more than one method, or combination of methods, is capable of doing this. But from among all these methods and rod-builders, there must be some way of expressing these choices as an algorithm / heuristic, in combination with some mathematical approaches that accurately & realistically model & describe a least some portions of the real world system.

In other words, if your conscious and subconscious brain and hands and eyes can arrive at a suitable / proper solution for guide selection & placement, then that is proof defacto that such a system of conformational constraints and methods does indeed exist. (If not, then any ole ding-dang layout would work. I think we'd all agree that it ain't quite that simple.) And if a method did NOT exist, then your guides are finding their way onto your rod blank by hocus-pocus, like a Ouija board. Or the rod fairies are whispering in your ears when you're doing your guide layouts. I am NOT saying that is what is happening. And I’m pretty sure that none of my critics would say that’s how they do – you know, Santa & The Elves. … I AM saying that if you are already able to do it, THAT is proof POSITIVE that some system exists for guiding these choices. Mathematics and physics are already involved, whether one is aware of it or not.

Simple algebra, geometry, trigonometry, statics and dynamics are involved in guide placement and selection, implicitly or explicitly. I am saying let's observe what works, and see if a more stringent description of what makes a choice a good choice can be defined. Even if that means using math to pick up where words leave off, or opinions differ on the surface. Earnestly, -Cliff Hall, Gainesville, FL-USA+++

I am confident that with serious scientific attention improved guide placement formulae are likely to surface. They will increase the accuracy of generic guide placement charts but will never accomdate the myriad of variations encountered among individual blanks. There are many other considerations that will remain distinct from project to project. Ours is an endeavor to create optimal results for a specific individual. Mathematical cookie cutter patterns are the domain of mass manufacturing interests. They do not belong in the workshop of a custom craftsman. If I could build a rod by programing a CNC machine I think I'd pass on the opportiunity. I enjoy taking my time and fidgeting with the guides and watching how the rod responds. I like using my hands and eyes to formulate decisions. Matching the particular requirements, whether for myself or a client, remains an inherently unique endeavor. If you can quantify the specifics of every detail involved in the construction of even one custom built rod I think you will have accomplished a remarkable feat. The resulting data will be of little use for the next custom rod. You will need a new formula for each custom rod project. The nice thing about creating something unique is that it is.
Dave

If no two blanks flex the same ???
How can a formula work on two even of the same make and model ?

Hi Ralh Voss can you please post that link or e-mail it to me at:

TejasTackle@fishhoo.com

Another good method for guide placement is the Don Morton Method. Where he had the different angles on poster or foam board, the rod was flexed 90 degrees and the angles would cross the blank which would mark where the guides should be placed from the set up guide to the tip. I think it was called the Equal Angle and the Progressive Angle Guide Placement Method. IMO, Don Morton is a genius.

Steve

Cliff Hall said:
Simple algebra, geometry, trigonometry, statics and dynamics are involved in guide placement and selection, implicitly or explicitly.
Our software depends on that. And an experienced rodbuilder. He need the conventional method to tset out the first distance (top guide to next guide). And he has to know what distance is needed between reel and leading guide. No software can tell us this.
With best regards
R.-R.

Cliff Hall said:
Simple algebra, geometry, trigonometry, statics and dynamics are involved in guide placement and selection, implicitly or explicitly.
Our software depends on that. And an experienced rodbuilder. He need the conventional method to tset out the first distance (top guide to next guide). And he has to know what distance is needed between reel and leading guide. No software can tell us this.
With best regards
R.-R.

Hi, calculating the first distance from tip to next guide this will help al little ...

A = distance leading guide to tip - for example 100 cm
B = number of guides - for ex. 5 pieces
C = A : B - for ex. 100 : 5 = 20
D = C : B - for ex. 20 : 5 = 4
E = (B – 1) : 2 x D - for ex. (5 – 1 ) : 2 x 4 = 8
F = C – E = distance from tip guide to next guide - for example 20 – 8 = 12 cm
all other distances + D - for ex. 16 cm ; 20 cm ; 24 cm; 28 cm

Sorry, this is not my knowhow. And the solution is only 75 to 80% correct. So we do not use this in our software.
With best regards R.-R.

I grabbed a reference card from a recent rod that and plugged in the numbers to see what happened. Here is the difference between my numbers (from static testing) and this software (numbers are rounded).

tip #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7

cm n/a n/a 1 3 6 8.5 7.8 5

inch n/a n/a .4 1.2 2.4 3.3 3 2

In other words, the software will put you in the ballpark, but you'll still have to tweak. IMO, if anybody feels that "close is good enough", I think it will work for you just fine. Not for me though. Until somebody can incorporate the parameters and characterstics of the rod blank itself into a software like this, close is all you will get. Another problem I have with the software is that you have to tell it how many guides you will be using. Sometimes the rod blank demands more guides, or less, than you imagine it would at first look.

Not trying to discourage you, Ralf, as this is a neat program, but in the end, at least from what I just tried, it is not much different than a standard guide placement chart in existence today. The rod blank HAS to be factored in.

Also, I'm not sure what is going on with the "guide selection" area. I ran it a dozen times so far triple-checking my math, but unless I'm doing something really wrong, it is recommending a size 75 ring for the first guide, and a size 15 for the guide behind the tip.

I'm not fully up to speed on this formula so I don't want to say it's not good or that it's not something that can be improved as more builders use it and offer their own improvements, but David has made some good statements concerning the use of what often only amounts to spacing methods that do not take into account some of the very most important criteria in the overall picture of guide sizing and placement.

First, any placement method for fly, spinning and casting rods will each be different. Or they should be. Same for surf, or trolling or stand up. What works mathematically for one may not and probably will not for the other. This has been the biggest pitfall for most of the charts and formulas over the years - no one formula is going to work for all types of rods.

Way back when I built my first few rods, I decided I'd come up with a formula for guide placement so that I wouldn't need to mess around with the static placement stuff. I based the system on percentages of the rod that extended beyond the reel. It worked pretty well as far as stress distribution went, but I found that depending on the action of the rod, I had to use a different set of percentages depending on how fast or how slow the rod was. Suddenly, I found myself with about 20 different equations to get the percentages for each varying rod action. It was easier and more accurate to just do the static placement. I threw in the towell.

Don's method is exactly the same, except his chart allows the action of the rod to play directly into the equation (which has already been done for you and plotted by the intersect lines on the chart). For many rod types it's an improvement. It's also fast and easy to do. But it also requires that you manually flex the blank and plot the guide positions. Not a big deal, however, and it again takes the placement out of an equation and puts it in a form that is interactive. Over the years, I've come to believe that these interactive methods are the future of guide placement, much more so than the straight equations or formulas.

When I started playing with the New Guide Concept for spinning rods and found a quick and easy interactive way to set it up, I knew I'd found guide spacing nirvana. It's so quick and so simple that I doubt any mathematical equation can be worked out in the same time that I can take a naked blank and have the guides optimumly located, sized and taped in place. I'll be surprised when someone improves on this.

But, somebody at some time will improve on it. It's all a continued evolution fueled by guys trying different things along the way. I doubt we'd ever land at a place where we could say that we have found the final, best, most quick, etc., guide placement system that will ever be developed. But I do believe that the best systems will always be interactive (yes they involve math behind the scenes, but you don't see it or have to understand it to use it). The interactive systems that put the rod action, reel and line into play just allow you to klll several birds with one stone.

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

Hi, please, we are involved in castingsport. We use wide guides for enormous distance-casts. please change the figures which are preset please.
R.-R.

I just re-ran the program on one of my long crappie rods. The guide distances were much further off, and as far as guide sizes, I played around with the variables and the nearest thing I got to reality was a size 35 "stripper" and a 0.4 "next to tip". A 0.4 guide?

Unless every rod blank on the market is deflected and measured for it's application, not to mention the different reels possible, a computer program to determine guide location is simply unrealistic. It will at best be only be a starting point.

For the record, I don't think my intent was that formulas would replace the rod-builder's design skills or his judgment. Formulas as a first approximation -Yes. Formulas as the final arbiter - No.

A formula would depend on the type of rod and the guide geometry. I haven't even attempted to factor in rod taper or power yet. I'm still tyring to get some consensus on the geometry of a simple unbent rod and a set of guides. That's before the static deflection or casting tests. Altering the basic equation to account for taper and power, with additional factors, or terms or coefficients or exponents, would come later. I hope, ... LOL, Cliff Hall+++

P.S. - No, I haven't yet run, nor even down-loaded, the *.EXE program yet. I'm going to go to sleep first. It's too late to start on this tonite, and "tomorrow's another day". Good night, -Cliff+++

I think I'll just stick with the plain ole static deflection and the table top method for New Concept set ups. That seems to be so much easier. This high-tech stuff has my head hurting. LOL


Besides I never could find the software he's talking about.

Mick makes the point I tried to, but in far fewer words.

Stepping back a moment to Don's Equal Angle plotting chart - you can see how the same chart/plotter will put guides in different locations per the action of the rod. It's automatic. It's done on an interactive basis and you accomplish several things at one time. Most straight mathematical formulas or equations aren't going to do this, unless you are able to plug in a host of measurements and data, and at that point you're really taking the long way around.

It's not my intent to discourage anyone from further work on trying to improvise or improve any type of guide placement system. But in all the years I've been doing this, it's the interactive systems that seem to work better and with far less work than any of the mathematical formulas or equations.


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