If you took 20 rod makers - 10 of them experts and 10 that thought they were experts, had them take turns and each arrange guides on the exact same blank via the static deflection test, how much variation would there be that would be acceptable? I know while working for a major automotive company, Statistical Process Control will verify there are variances in even the best and most stable manufacturing processes so anything that involves human input surely will have a dispersion of variations as well.

If the majority of the 20 builders put the first guide around 4 ½”, I would think it would be reasonable to believe somebody would place the first guide at 4 ¼” and someone else at 4 ¾”. That’s a total variation of ½” for the first guide alone. And as guides were added the variances would accumulate throughout the length of the spacings. If the spacings for the 4th guide were +/- half an inch, it’s total variation would be an inch. It would be reasonable to believe there could be a +/- difference of and inch (total variation of 2”) by the time we got to the butt guide.

So my first question is, would guide placement variances between rod builders normally have this much variation and would these variations be acceptable - or would they arrange them all within an 1/8“ or so? And if you blindfolded the best expert, would they be able to tell the casting difference between the “best spaced rod” versus one whose guides were spaced exponentially further apart in the variation listed above?

I still have trouble with the static test - do I have ¼ of the rod flexed or is it closer to 1/5 or 1/3- it‘s hard to tell sometimes? When I tweak my spacings, am I looking to do so in 1/16", 1/8”, ¼”, or ½” increments? Whenever I do wind up with a potential spacing arrangement, I still lay it out on an excel spreadsheet so I can see exactly how the spacings relate to each other. If I have a particular spacing that looks good on the static test, I will still tweak it mathematically so it will have a “smooth flow” in the relationships from one guide to the next. And when I static test those results, it looks good too. Since I don’t know the difference between good and bad line angles, I’m unable to tell the difference between a good static test arrangement and a better one. I’d really like to know whether this is an exact science or if we’re just trying to get it in the ballpark somewhere? With all of the attention this subject gets, I’m under the opinion it must be exact science. If it’s just getting somewhere in the ballpark then I’m spending too much time on it. Thanks for any advice.

I would say that the variance would be much greater than 1/2" on the first guide alone. Just my thoughts on the subject; I've thought about this and discussed it with other builders before.

Putter
Williston, ND

I've never thought about was the blank flexed 1/4 from the tip or 1/3, 1/5, or 1/2 during a static test. I try to apply the MAXIMUM drag from a reel that I feel the rod will ever see (and then add just a little extra). That is how I get my guide line. When I'm on a boat with a 300# tuna on the other end of the line and 40# of drag on my reel I don't have a flex chart with me. At that given time I don't need to be worring if the rod is bent a certain degree. I use the same principle when setting up my guides. I pretend I have that 300# tuna on during my static test...or a 10# trout whatever the case may be.

There will certainly be variance between rod builders. Who's to say their guide placement is perfect or that someone else's even if there is that 1/4" difference? If there were no variance, it would mean we were all using the same chart...and we know that isn't the best way to build a rod. Good question though.

Jay

That's like asking 10 people the same question. 10 different answers. It is all personal prospective.

I'm more than sure there would be variations in the placement of the guides. Would they be acceptable? In the majority, I would think so. Even with variations I would think that most placements would achieve an acceptable setup.

I don't spend much time on the initial placement of the guides, but leave the finial placement to the test casting.

Regards......Doug@
TCRds

Pretty simple matter Tim. If you think you are spending too much time on it then you probably are.

You bet there will be Variances, There are variences in each blank made.

Casting differences can be measured but if you cast an effective distance, isnt that enough?

Find a system that works for you and stay with it, but putting guides in an effective place shouldnt take all day Tim.

By the way this is a fun craft so try to keep it that way or you will burn out.

Back to my Cave

Custom rod building is just that: custom. Each rod builder has his/her way of building a rod, including the guide spacing. I would be unhappy if the answers to the question showed almost no variation!

My own "formula": depending on the action of the rod, I place the guides according to what I believe to be the most appropriate of several published formulas. After temporarily mounting the guides, I put a reel on the rod with some line and an old leader. Then I attach another length of leader directly to the tip top and secure both to an eye bolt. I flex the rod at about the angle that it bends while playing a fish using the tip-top leader, then reel in gently until the line has a little tension and note any guides that seem to be out of place. I adjust the guides and repeat the process until the line and rod describe the same arc. That's it. I don't cast the rod until it's finished, as casting varies so much that I don't want to skew the decision in favor of a short or long cast, reach cast, dry fly or nymph/shot/indicator cast, or ...

I wouldn't get too hung up on determining a mathematically correct placement. Fly fishing is much more art than science and the fish don't care.

Jim

Agree with everyone above. Out of the 20 you'd be lucky to get 2 that were close. Each and every one of us has their own preferences and predjudices and can probably arguably defend them. Bottom line is does it work! Invariably they all do except in some unique circumstances. When Rich published his equal distance spacing system I thought wow how easy! I've built many that way but now have gone back to my old way (a variance on Fuji's Concept System) not because equal spacing does not work but because I like the way my old way LOOKS! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and functionality is very difficult to measure.

Good thread, isn't it? There have been times in the past when particular threads seemed to take on a right vs. wrong, or us vs. them mentality -- not necessarily maliciously, but rather from an opinionated viewpoint. However, looking through the previous responses here, and recollecting some of the concerns we've seen in the past in total, it's pretty obvious there's no right or wrong. Some folks focus on casting distance as their proof of the pudding, Dan Corbett commits rod-building heresy when he says he "like(s) the way his old way LOOKS", others try to develop mathematical formulae for determining spacing, etc., etc. DocSki's response about this being a fun craft is right on the money, but I think the variety of ways folks approach and emphasize the various facets of custom rod building, such as blank selection, development of methodology for guide spacing, blank modifications, and improvement of decorative wraps, is what each of them view as "fun" -- and what keeps this board so darned interesting.

Obviously nothing really new here -- it just struck me as an interesting thread.

Bilgee

Based on the answers here, one would have to surmise that fly rod guide placement, like spine, perhaps has been over emphasized over the years and may not matter that much within a certain set of parameters. Over the years of attending this BB, I think I have have heard the following reasons for guide placement on fly rods: looks good, casts best at distance, cast best at normal fishing ranges, always done it that way, mathematically correct, and a few others.

It is good to know that if it works reasonably well and it pleases you (the builder), it is just fine to build it that way.

That's the way that I do it. Glad to hear some confirmation.