Since I still have no idea what good versus bad line angles in the static test exactly look like, I'm inclined to stay with the Don Morton Equal Angle (and Progressive Angle) guide spacing method for my initial setup. I made up a chart with concentric circles and various angles on a posterboard that I use for fly rods but I would like to update my chart for spinning blanks as well (if needed). My equal angle lines are every 5 degrees through 120 degrees. My progressive angle lines are 9-19-30-42-55-69-84-100-117.

Are there any other combinations of line angles that I should consider adding to my chart?

I'm probably going to get a white peg board and set it up exactly like Don's article with the tip holder and verticle spine finder. I just have too much trouble with 1/4 flexed, 1/2 flexed, good line angles/bad line angles - but even a dummy like me can flex a blank tip 90 degrees and plot marks from a graph. Thanks.

There is one method here that everyone is overlooking - dump the pre-arranged angles and intersecting lines. Start with a clean slate.

Now, take a rod and through trial and error come up with the very best guide placement you can muster. Don't worry about how long it takes or how much test casting or static distribution you have to do. Just spend enough time to get that rod as good as you can get it.

Now, once you've done that, stand that rod up against your blank chart. Draw a line from each guide location back to a central point. This will give you the angles and spacing for a rod that you know has been set up in the most optimum fashion possible. Each rod you then locate against that chart with those angles, will reflect the same work you did on the intial rod. And, it will work regardless of the rod length involved.

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

Well that sounds easy enough - all I need to do now is come up with that perfect guide spacing on a rod to use as a pattern (sort of a catch 22 for me). One set of angle lines will cover fly rods, spinning rods, fast action or moderate - that should make spacings more simple. Thanks.

Exactly, it's sort of a "reverse engineering" type of thing where you use a perfect model to plot the angles that would then be used on other rods.

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

I think static guide placement becomes a compromise between how "good" your angles are going to be versus how many guides (extra weight), you are willing to put on a blank. One can reduce all the angles greatly if one is willing to use enough guides. But, you are also probably trying keep as much extra weight off the blank as possible, too. And also, which area of the blank do you want to favor with slightly extra guide coverage? When a moderate amount of pressure is applied to the blank, there may be alot of curve in the tip section, as more pressure is applied the most curved, or pressured area on the blank moves toward the butt. Since the most curved area has the steepest angles, the guides should be slightly bunched together in this area. I think its important to avoid the steep angles in the "power", or middle section of the blank, as maximum stress is applied to guides and the blank in this area. In my limited experience there is usually a part of the blank I'd like to get a little better, but I say, ok , good enough.

If you have the new MUD-HOLE 2006 Catalog, page 94 has a picture of the “Don Morton Equal Angle Line Guide Spacing Placement Grid” ($55). Since I don't have a Morton Grid, I am not sure I "see" or understand how it accounts for a wide range of different rod TAPERS and LENGTHS, and how the Grid design determines the correct location of the CENTER of the rod's curvature.

But that may be MY problem, and not a limitation of the actual graphical grid. I do see the approximately parallel or nearly concentric curves along which the rod may be curved. I guess they account for the differences in rod length and taper (within a certain range). But I am in the process of asking myself if the two fixed points (one for the rod butt, and a clamp for the rod tip) FORCE a certain curvature. Or if the fixed points FIND a natural loading curve for that rod blank, without placing too artificial a constraint on the loaded rod’s curvature. …

It may not make much difference, ... and that uncertainty (or skepticism) may go beyond my superficial question. For $55, it sure looks as scientific as you can get (and avoids the mumbo-jumbo). The Morton Grid is tangible, visual, interactive and sure looks easy to use. The Morton Grid should definitely take a lot of guess-work out of the guide-spacing process, at whatever level of expertise you are at. And, as far as a wall-hanging goes, it sure looks professional, ... -Cliff Hall+++, Gainesville, FL-USA*****

P.S. - I just checked 5 VERY different rods, 2 or 3 at a time (5’UL-Fast, 6’-Light-Fast, two 6’6”-Med-F and a 7’-XXHeavy-SLOW blank, from the top section of an old 9’ Surf rod ferruled at the reel seat). Tips down in the carpet, hold the handles together, and push them down, until the tips were parallel to the floor. To my surprise, they did form very similarly shaped curves, which implies a common center. So, if that is how the Morton Grid works, it looks like another “LGTM” method & device. I don’t have 5 floor-mounted rod holders to use while tying the rod tips to the wall or floor at a 90 degree angle of deflection. Such a test is a test more like an actual load from fishing, because the carpet has a tendency to push the rod tip backwards. But it does look like this Morton Grid is a pretty neat tool, … IMO, –CMH. [“Looks Good To Me”]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2005 12:04AM by Cliff Hall.

OOPS! - DOUBLE-POST. –CMH



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