My rod consists of a St. Croix 2S60MLF with alconite guides (25, 16, 10, 8, 6, 6). I am now trying to determine if my guide placement is optimal.

The guides are placed from tip top 4.5", 4.5", 5", 5", 8", and 12" with 21.5" to the reel spool. I came up with this by using the Concept Guide Primer in the library. The second #6 fly guide is placed so that the top of the guide touches the line drawn from the reel center shaft just behind the intersection point. This is at 9" from the tip top. The first #6 fly was then placed half way between the second guide and the tip top. All of the remaining guides were placed past this intersection guide so that their outer edge touches the line drawn from the spool.

I know it is not advisable to use charts. I did compare my results with that provided by Fuji though as a sanity check. I was surprised with home much closer my guides are to the tip of the rod than their recommendation. I am a little concerned with the additional weight I am applying to the tip. Their spacing would be 4.7", 5.3", 5.9", 6.6", 7.4", and 8.6".

I am trying to check the static distribution of the load on the guides. To me, it looks like guides 2, 3, and 4 should be moved back a bit so that the guide is placed closer to the bending radius of the blank and not so close to the tip where the blank straightens out. To facilitate this, a new intersection point could be drawn from the spool that was slightly shallow of straight (~10" from tip) and then place the guides back on this new line as described above. I have no experience though and don't know exactly what I'm looking at.

1) Does my spacing look reasonable?

2) Could some of you look over my pictures of the static dist and comment please? I have posted them at [rossiter.home.insightbb.com]

3) Is my read of the static dist close or am I off on my interpretation?

4) How important is it to keep the edge of the guides on this line drawn from the reel spool? If I was to move them, they would deviate from that line. My intention is to test cast by moving the butt guide forward and back and adjust its location from that testing.

Ryan

I can't help you Ryan because I have the same problem understanding what good line angles are compared to bad angles in the static test. And how do you load 1/4 of the blank, then 1/2 of the blank, without it being 1/3 or 3/8 of the blank? You do point out a similar obervation I see - the tip gets straighten out and the bend of the rod blank is further back - as in the fish fighting position - duh!

I have a 1 piece spinning blank that I've tried 5-6 different spacings on and my test casts only vary about 5-6 feet between the shortest and the longest. And I don't know if the difference was in the guide spacings, my casting, or the just wind! For my LAST setup, I may try to simulate the "fighting the fish rod angle" and put more emphasis on locating the guides better in the "bend of the blank" as you pointed out. Even Emory Harry says when casting or fighting a fish, the tip section is rather straight - so why put guides close to the tip as you point out?

I'm starting to think the static test is more of a conspiracy theory. Ryan, do a search on my recent post on - "If 20 rod makers static tested the same blank". I just can't put a lot of faith into a method that is subjective and not repeatable. Good luck.

"If 20 rodmakers all static tested the same blank....."
Tim Collins 12-12-05 [www.rodbuilding.org]

"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 that anything that involves human input surely will have a dispersion of variations as well." - Tim Collins

HI RYAN,
I took a look at your photo, it looked to me that your line going through the guides is limp .
Are you pulling the rod down with a seperate line ? I put the reel on put the lines through the guides, tie it to a weight, or something solid , just like you had a fish on, walk forwad and backward see how the rod reacts.
Even the photo you have , I see you need some more guides, and they need some moving around.
NOW GO BACK take more photos how I said , e-mail me if you want or just post them, then you will get a better answer, or even yet you will see yourself how they need improvement. One more thing I also do some casting with the set-up too just to be sure about the first few guides.

Dave von Doehren
PRRODS......If man built it , man can fix it.and if man built it man can break it !

St. Croix Model #: PS-60-ML-Fast // M-H Catalog #: 2S-60-ML-Fast
SC-II Graphite Spinning Rod (Satin Black Finish)
6'0” 1-pc Medium-Lite Fast 4-10# 1/8 - 1/2 oz
0.495” 5.5 / 64ths 1.35oz (~$45 -MH)

After looking at the two Photos at your website, it looks like the two loads (0.5# and 1.0#) have two slightly different guide spacings, in the 25-16-10 mm “funnel” zone. How does your layout look if your Intersect Point is at 13” from the rod tip?

Either way, it is the 10 mm guide which seems to be positioned where the greatest rate of blank flexion is occurring. For that 10 mm guide, your current spacing is 8 inches before it and 5 inches after it. IMO, you may be able to improve the distribution under the 1.0# load if you try 7 inches and 6 inches, respectively. Your current spacing certainly is not bad. It may indeed be as good as it gets. It's just something to consider, since you asked, and seemed to be considering it yourself. Moving the first two guides after the tip-top won’t change things much overall.

That 10 mm guide is about 19 inches from your rod tip; ~26% of the overall rod length from your rod tip. For a fast action blank, that is precisely where your greatest bending angle is (will start) occurring. Frankly, you may not be able to get that angle at that position of the 10 mm guide (~20”) any straighter than that, under heavier loads. Regardless of what size or style guide you select. IMO, that current angle at the 10 mm guide is still fairly moderate and by no means excessive.

That SC-II PS-60-ML-F is a relatively light blank, and that area is that blank's “hinge” or “waist” or “shut-down” area, or whatever else you want to call it. This would be the case for most rod blanks with a “fast taper” / “fast action” designation. The rod's curvature, when loaded, starts changing the most rapidly at about 1/4 to 1/3 of the overall rod length FROM the rod tip. That is inevitable. That is also part of the designation of a rod blank’s action-taper. Any guide layout system has to recognize & accept that. That simply is the region in the rod where the greatest deviation from the design model's ideal in guide spacing may occur. Because the greatest bending occurs here as load increases, this non-ideal behavior is more obvious there.

... (I think that below this point is where the rod is said to “shut down”, as some rod-builders like to describe it. The rod just does not seem to bend any more into the backbone. But the upper half of the rod will start forming an arc of greater than a 90 degree bend. And this hinge spot is where this “shut down” occurs. Above this shut down or hinge segment, the rod keeps bending into a semi-circle, when increasingly loaded. Below this hinge, less curvature is achieved, unless the rod has a particularly moderate or slow action to begin with.)

Ryan, if you do change that guide size or position much, then re-visit your line-edge (or funnel) from the spool thru the guides. Look at an Intersect Point at 9” or 13” from the rod-tip. A 12 mm guide may “look” or “fit” better. But don't make this line edge or intersect point too stringent a determining factor in your guide sizing or placement. The geometry here is INCAPABLE of considering other criteria: like guide weight; or rod “feel”; or your static loading curvature. So, keep that in mind.

... This can obviously end up in what feels like an endless loop of permutations and experimental iterations. That is definitely NOT what I am suggesting. But double-checking is worth the extra effort to verify that your spacing & guide choices are still good for both your casting and loading considerations.

... IMO, it looks like you are at 90-95% perfection as is. It may not get any better than that, because changing one thing always changes something else. Going to a 12 mm guide may put too much weight too far forward, and you definitely do not want to turn that sweet, responsive rod into a pre-loaded / over-loaded dull noodle.

... And, if YOU like it, Ryan, then it really doesn't matter much what I, or others, think. That makes it 100% A-OKAY. If it's not a problem for you, then don't let a critic create a problem for you. The wise do seek counsel and confirmation, but “let every man be persuaded in his own mind.” That is also a useful principle to keep in mind as you review your process and rod design priorities. Ryan, you obviously are careful in your study & work – it is just a matter of finishing some more rod-building projects to re-inforce in your own mind & eyes and experience the soundness of your understanding & design & craftsmanship.

I hope that helps, Ryan. Best Wishes, ... Cliff Hall+++, Gainesville, FL*****

P.S. – Sorry for the long delay – busy weekend & PC crashes.
Ryan – Even if this Reply is too late to affect this rod project, let it build your confidence and background for the next rod you build. Every fast-action rod has a hinge area, and the guide in that segment often has the least obtuse angle of bending. An angle of 150 degrees is not terrible – but 120 degrees would be much too acute, and cause for adding at least one more guide. –CMH+++