It seems that one of the most frequent asked questions posted here has to do with
guide placement and spacing and I was very surprised to to read in an earlier post
that if 20 different builders were given the same blank that you would see many very
different placing arrangements. Now that would make sense to me if the skill level
and the understanding of the principles behind the use of guides on a rod blank were
not the same from builder to builder but given that all things are equal and skill levels
are the highest, why would that be? Is it that there are different opinions on how the
line travels through the guides and or how the guides effect stress distribution on the blank ? The laws of physics do not change but how they are interpreted and applied
does as it is apparent due to the different methods used by builders to come up with
the "best" guide arrangement for a given rod.

Cone of flight, Fuji's new guide concept, the new concept primer, just to name a few
are all different methods for arriving at the same result. "Proper placement of guides
on a rod blank " and with different opinions being expressed by the "experts" it easy to understand why so many newer and not so new builders would be confused or have
questions on this subject.

That being said, if we can all agree that the only reasons to attach guides to a blank
are: 1) to properly distribute pressure 2) to best control line as it travels from the
reel through the tip top with the least resistance, then why all the controversy?

I can understand how new developments in rod blank and guide frame materials and construction as well as new guide ring materials can effect how they all work together
but the method for determining the "best" way to put them together should not change.
ie: 1)stress test for correct pressure distribution, 2) test cast to get the best line control
and distance. Agreed?

Building on the exact same blank with the exact same guides and reel location should
have the exact same guide placement if all who are building it have the same understanding and opinions of the priciples involved, so I can only sermise that if the outcome is much different from builder to builder, then the understandind and opinions regarding how to best distribute stress and how to best control line flow would also be different and I guess this is where the contravercies come in to play and that is what is hard for me to understand I guess. It has been said that there is no "right or wrong as long as it works" well, common sence says that you have correctly distributed pressuer along the blank or you haven't and that you have best controlled line flow or you haven't. Right ?

If you do not "proporly" distribute the stress on the blank, at best it will not perform as well as it should. at worst you will cause it to break when it would not have otherwise and if you do not "best" control the line travel the problems that occure are variable and many
depending on the type of rod, reel, and style of fishing. Right ?

Am I missing something here? I think not.

Correct stress distibution along a rod blank is probobly where most of the differences comes in because that is an area most effected by the "personal judgement and feel"
of the builder and not many, myself included are not as knowlagable about blank materials and construction as others and of course knowlage effects judgement. I just bend the blank and decide where the guides need to go based on how and where the rod is bending and how the guide effects the line path along it. Now someone else with a better understanding of blank construction and the effect bending has on the material might place the guides a bit differently. How much differently I don't know. I would hope not much.

Correct line flow and control is much easier to figure out durring test casting because of the physical characturistics are revealed. Does the line slap? Is the sound smooth and quiet? Are coils hitting your nuckles? How's distance? These are all tangable thing easily noticed.

Interpitation and understanding the principles? Maybe I just answered my own question.

Off of my soap box!


Raymond Adams
Eventually, all things merge, and a river runs through it..

I don't think there is any controvery, just different ways ot doing things. Beyond a cerain point, you will have provided good stress distribution for the blank. As far as having the guides optimally sized and located for best overall performance, weight, etc., you certainly will have differences as different builders strive for different things. Right or wrong? Probably not. Bad, okay, good, better and best? Probably so.

Then again, many builders just don't make guide placement a priority. Let's face it, you can get away with almost anything and the line will still go out on the cast and the rod will still hold up, most of the time. And, many builders never really take the time to learn a good method for guide placement and many that do, still can't follow directions (sorry if that offends anyone - it is not aimed at anyone in particular).

I have had no less than 7 builders come by the shop here and ask for step by step instructions for laying out the Simple Spiral Bumper Wrap System. I not only showed them how to do it, but showed them rods where the system had been employed. It just seems so very simple that you wouldn't think anyone could mess it up. And yet, the two guys who came back and showed me their set-ups, based on what I showed them, both had it wrong. Very wrong. Neither one of them were even close. I have no idea how they arrived at the set-ups they did.

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

"And yet, the two guys who came back and showed me their set-ups, based on what I showed them, both had it wrong. Very wrong. Neither one of them were even close. I have no idea how they arrived at the set-ups they did. "

With my luck I'd fall under this catagory.... lol. Then again, if I actually saw a rod as an example, I don't think I could mess it up that bad.

Phil

Good post Ray, I share the same confusion about guide spacing. I agree there can be numerous ways to get to the same results. But I see there are too many different results and those variable seems acceptable too. I've tried (4) different new guide concept spacings plus Fuji's recommended spacings on a Rainforrest 8' one piece spinning rod and the difference between the best and worst casts ranged from 30 yards to 35 yards. The Fuji spacing casta averaged 34 yards. Since that one also looks like it will distribute stress the best for Salmon fishing, I'm going to use that one.

The other thing I don't see addressed all that much is the rod's "fishability". We stress using lightest and least amount of guides, test cast it, and then wrap and epoxy it. I guess afterwards it fishes however it fishes. In one of Don Morton's articles he suggested adding one extra guide and stated "you may be surprised how well it casts". After giving that some thought, an example might be if you have a spinning rod rated with a lure rating of 1/4 oz - 3/4 oz and consistantly threw 1/4 oz lures only, it would seem that you'd actually be "underloading" the rod so maybe that extra guide on the blank would help in the load the rod to it's fullest capacity. Does this make sense or am I still in the dark?

Tim,
The addition of that "extra" guide might add enough weight to easier deflect or "load" the rod better when casting a lure at the lower end of the blanks rating (depending on where you put it ) but IMO it would also slow the resonant frequency and dull the sensitivity at the same time effectively lowering the rods overall performance. The lighter and longer the blank is, the more effect good or poor guide placement and type will have on it's performance. IMO if you are consistantly throwing baits that are on the lower end of a particular blanks rating and find it uncomfortable you should switch to a lower rated or slower action blank instead of adding the additional weight.

Tom,
Don't you agree that making the best guide selection and placing a top priority is one of the things that separate a fair rod builder from a good one? I agree that most generic guide arrangements will produce a rod that performs well enough for the average fisherman. That is why factory rods incompace 98% of the rods out there, but if many rod builders do not concider guide placement to be very high on ther list of priorities I think they missing the boat. IMO it is the attention to detail and the understanding of how all the parts work together to arrive at the most optimum performance that separate the men from the boys. (so to speak) I also agree that the difference in performance good or bad that guide spacing has on some rods is very small indeed in some cases.

Raymond Adams
Eventually, all things merge, and a river runs through it..

I certainly do agree, but I've seen enough custom rods to know that the majority of builders just copy commercially made rods. This probably doesn't hold true for those who are seeking to really do something different or better, but for the average custom rod builder, I think what you'll find is a rod that is pretty much built as a copy of a factory produced model.

...........

I think that some may be looking for something that I am not sure exits, the perfect position for guides for a given blank. The number and positioning of guides involves a whole series of trade offs in my judgement. The most basic set of trade offs that we look at are line control, stress distribution and performance. But is it really quite that simple? I think that each of these variables involves other trade offs.
For example, I prefer the static method because I believe this positions the guides so that when the rod is being flexed, under the largest possible set of conditions, it will tend to flex generally along its natural curve and therefore minimize the stress and/or permit the fewest possible guides. This is done with a weight hung directly below the rod tip but how about when fishing and the fish is not directly below the tip of the rod, when this angle is much different, which I would argue is much of the time. Now the rod is deflecting differently and different guide positioning would be more optimum. In fact every time the fish moves and changes this angle the distribution of the stress across the rod changes and a different guide layout would result in better stress distribution.
I am not suggesting that guide positioning is not important or that we should do a sloppy job of guide positioning but I am suggesting that the number of guides we use and their positioning on the rod involves a set of trade offs that we should think about and that there is no perfect position for guides ignoring the other variables.
As far as adding extra guides(weight) to a rod "to make it feel better" is concerned, I think that is BOOOOGUS.

And that is unfortunate Tom, IMO if someone is going to put the time and effort to build a rod or anything else they should at leat try to build the best that they can instead of copying anothers idea of what it should be especially if it a comercial product.I remember an earlier post made by one of the regulars here (I think Putter or Billy Vivona) that said he had to listen to a fisherman stateing that there is no reason why anyone should buy a custom rod and had 2 custom rods there to support his statement that were "sub-standard" to put it nicely.

Raymond Adams
Eventually, all things merge, and a river runs through it..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2005 09:03PM by Raymond_Adams.

Quite true, and for those who sell their rods, every sub-par custom rod out there in the hands of disappointed fishermen just makes it that much harder on the next custom builder hoping to sell a few rods.

I also agree with Emory that adding weight to a rod by virtue of adding extra guides, rarely makes anything work or feel better. If you wanted to make your favorite rod better than it is now, the one thing you could do to improve it is just this - make it lighter.

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

Emory I never would have thought of it that way.
I have never thought of the line angle changing and therfore the stress on the rod while fighting a fish! I have however stress tested at a 45 degree line angle instead of the standard 90 degrees because that is the prefered angle to fight a fish.

Raymond Adams
Eventually, all things merge, and a river runs through it..

Then it must be me.
Even on spin rods when setting up guides I put the intersect guides where the line goes into the ring, not just at the outer edge. feel this will and then does act better.IMHO
I feel with the gravity thing it should only help. That's why I like the Fuji concept guides. and now the Amtek ti guides are almost the same height.
Now batson has come up with a new higher spin guide.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2005 12:29AM by bill boettcher.

Ray,
The main point is that there is no "perfect" way to determine the positioning of the guides or no "perfect" position for the guides. You are trading off several variables or looking for the best compromise between the variables.

Hmph.

Except for a few equations floating around, seems to me everyone is saying "well, the lure flies out there, and when I pick up some weight the rod looks like its bending, and the rings are'nt ripping off, so lets go with that. I mean, I just think there has to be more to it? You can't just copy a factory rod, the blanks may not be the same at all, I know! Thats why I am looking for the guide spacing holy grail. (me, who can't make finish behave!) I want some sortof formula that includes dia. of spool (spinning) , dia of blank, length of blank, height of guides, min number of guides (cause I'm cheap). I look at my line going into the first ring off the spool, I can move it around to where it like rides the top third as the bail rotates, or the center, or the bottom of the ring. You can see that line do the same thing on a smaller scale in the next guide, as well. The concept system, and most of the others (charts, whatnot) don't figure on the ring size I want, or length of rod. If I could get a 70 ring, you can bet I would put it on a rod, and I want to know vaguely where the rings should go, no matter how goofy the setup is. If it doesn't work, hey, I can take it, but it would be nice to know that a 70 ring on a 4 foot rod needs to placed 3 feet after the tip, before I buy stuff. Sure, I can make a nice normal bass rod, with concept guide spacing and all set up just like every other rod I've picked up since the late 70's. ( bear in mind I have no experience with custom rods, except my own attempts.) I want to MAKE something work, for what I want. My ideas on guide spacing will never mesh with someone not making the same rods I'm making, will they? Variety is the spice of life. I dont wanna live in a plastic world, I'm GLAD we don't all agree. That would creep me out. Levi

I am new at this game but the one thing that I haven't seen addressed is the difference between "the same" blank. Blanks have tolerances, custom building does what a factory can not do by placing the guides to take into account for the blank differences. I would guess that "the same" blank will vary +/- 10% or more.

rhr

I must admit that I had the same thought as Ray after reading the previous post on Guide spacing. It seems like several knowledgeable builders, all asked to space the same spinning rod, using the same guides (say, 25, 16, 12, 8, 6, 6, 6, 6, etc.), and the same reel, all following the Concept guide spacing, would all come to a well-spaced rod, with very similar results. And, when I say "very similar," I'm thinking that all the guides would be in the same place +/- 1/2". Maybe it's silly of me say that, but it sure seems like it would work out that way. (Now obviously, you change the butt guide to a 30, and the running guides to 7s, then that will demand some variation.)

Now, I only have experience with the rods I've built, but it really surprises me that most rod builders copy factory rods. I admit to doing this on my first 4 or 5 rods, but once I learned better, I changed. Further, once I built and fished a rod using the simple-spiral and proved to myself that it was a superior design, I decided that all my casting rods would have the guides on bottom. Likewise with split grips, split seats, lighter components, finishing techniques, etc. I just don't understand why I (or anyone else) would go to the trouble of building a fishing rod, if I am just going to copy a factory rod. It's way too much time and energy invested just so that I can use the thread colors I like. And, if I am building for someone else, I owe that person the absolute best fishing rod that the chosen blank/guides/components can become. Granted, I might not always make the exact best decisions, but I always owe that person the best effort (based on the best techniques) I can muster.

Andrew pretty much nailed it!! A custom rod is not just being pretty (although I like pretty)!! I feel that every "copy" of a factory rod that is sold by a custom builder is a disservice to not only the customer but every builder that is intent on building a BETTER Performing rod. Like it or not, every "custom" rod out there is a reflection on all of us!!

For the price that you command for a quality rod, you should take the time to coax every bit of performance out of it that you can. Guide placement is one area where the factory cannot possibly compete with a custom rod and we should practice, promote and take advantage of that ability!!!



Mike (Southgate, MI)
If I don't want to, I don't have to and nobody can make me (except my wife) cuz I'm RETIRED!!

Emory Harry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ray,
> The main point is that there is no "perfect" way
> to determine the positioning of the guides or no
> "perfect" position for the guides. You are
> trading off several variables or looking for the
> best compromise between the variables.
>
Agreed,
A couple of spacing arraignments I have come up with by static deflection have really looked "weird" as the distance between
guides at certain points of the blank were either not equal or closer than the last then the next couple of guides were clustered
then the next guide was spaced further away instead of the standard spacing progression. Anybody accept a knowable rod
builder looking at that rod would think that I must have been taking drugs when setting up that spacing.
So, for reasons I still argue with myself about, I settled with a more traditional "looking" set-up. After test casting both set-ups it was
very clear that the "weird" set-up worked and felt better but not by much but that was without the wraps and finish. The next blank
that I build that seams to require that "weird" spacing I am just going to do it that way ! Ridicule or not!

Trade offs, you bet



Raymond Adams
Eventually, all things merge, and a river runs through it..

With a grand total of one custom rod under my belt, I am probably inexperienced enough to be barred from commenting on this, but after completing my first custom rod, and having started my second, and having spent a great deal of time using what meager brainpower I have contemplating guide placement, I feel like I have to chime in.

I think that to some exent, there will be some discrepancies in guide placement, even among experts, because no two fishermen's experiences are identical, and this is reflected in the rodbuilding process.

I am primarily a surf fisherman, and I got started building custom rods because the rod I wanted was unavailable commercially. After I realized the time, effort, and money that would go into building my heavy surf rod, I decided that to undertake it with anything less than full committment would be a waste -- it's just too big an undertaking, financially and time-wise, to attack half-heartedly, and then end disappointed with the results. So I got Tom's book, ordered some components, and got started. In the end, I was very pleased with the results.

Consider this, though: what if someone was looking to do the same thing as me, but the way they fished was completely different? What if their surf fishing, instead of being done along the sandy, shallow beaches of South Jersey, was done from the rock piles of Montauk? Or in the Florida Keys? Isn't it logical to assume that the end results would not be identical? It's possible that the finished rods would even look very different. And wouldn't it be true that neither rodbuilder was "right" or "wrong," but that each had constructed a tool that nicely met the needs of the user?

Well, every rodbuilder has different experiences and different techniques. And while the end results might not look the same, I firmly believe that any conscientous rodbuilder, given the right instructions, would end up with a product that would satisfy the most demanding user.

Maybe I'm too influenced by my own clumsiness, and the mistakes I made building my first rod (if I had been paid to build it, my hourly wage would have been about that of a migrant farmworker, or even less), but I believe that the bigger problem is that custom rods are extremely time-consuming to build well, and that anyone building them for sale must be tempted to cut corners in order to produce rods faster and increase the bottom line. And it seems to me that this is where the biggest differences in guide spacing occur -- when shortcuts are taken to speed up the process.

I don't mean to offend any custom rod builders with this post -- I know it's not an easy way to make a buck -- but I do feel that a conscientously built custom rod is FAR superior to any commercially produced rod. The problem is putting in the time to do it right, with guide spacing and with everything else.

Hi Chris,

You said,
"Consider this, though: what if someone was looking to do the same thing as me, but the way they fished was completely different? What if their surf fishing, instead of being done along the sandy, shallow beaches of South Jersey, was done from the rock piles of Montauk? Or in the Florida Keys? Isn't it logical to assume that the end results would not be identical? It's possible that the finished rods would even look very different. And wouldn't it be true that neither rodbuilder was "right" or "wrong," but that each had constructed a tool that nicely met the needs of the user?"

I think you missed the point a bit. Yes, different builders building on the same blank but for different applications should have much different guide spacing arraingements especially if they are using different type guides. ie: single foot, double foot, high framed or low framed etc. and could be building a completely type of rod. ie: casting, spinning, jiging, spiral wrap or standard.
But if the builders in question were building the same rod with the same components, handle configurations, and for the same application
and striving for the best performance, you would think that with equal skill levels the completed rods would be pretty close to identical.
At least that is what I thought. But Emory does make some very good points also. Differnt builders will have different ideas and opinions about the trade offs and what that means and how best to accomplish the results they are after so even if they are all highly skilled their guide placements SHOULD vary somewhat and nobody would be any more or less correct than the other.
I would also say that the builders who have the wrong ideas or the builders who do not really concern themselves with how guide placement effects a rods performance will build a rod that would not be as good as it could be or even worse unless they are just lucky!
A skilled and talented craftsman does not cut corners if he cares about his work and the people who pay him period!! Those that do cut
corners give those that don't a bad name!! A lot of builders myself included are not as talented with thread art, lathe work, marbling, and
other artistic areas of "custom" rod building as a few but we do build a GREAT performing instrument for catching fish without cutting corners!!


Raymond Adams
Eventually, all things merge, and a river runs through it..