I set out tonight to do my first Concept guide placement on a 8 1/2 foot med power steelhead spinning rod (1024). I was intending to use an older (I'm guessing 10 yrs), barely used Abu Garcia model 1305F reel. The angle of the spool spindle relative to horizontal looks to be 10 to 15 degrees...seems to me I read somewhere that the industry standard now is 4 degrees, about what my recently purchased--but much smaller-- Shimano Sedona spinning reel appears to be. The intercept of the blank to table edge is a whopping 22 inches from the front of the spool spindle. Has spinning reel manufacturing changed that much in the last decade? I don't see any way to apply the concept system with this reel. I can obviously use static guide placement if I decide to go ahead and use the reel...but should I retire it?

In fact, the reel upsweep angle is just a convenience. (Almost any reel will do.) There are many citations to back this up. My favorite has to be this thread. I Replied next and Posted ~ a dozen citations on this subject. That should round out all the views and concerns that are inevitable when the reel & rod don't seem to match, or the Intersect Point is out in La-La land somewhere. That's when it's time to extract the principles of the Intersect Method - which are quite sound - and apply them in a way that overrides the reel-rod-method inconsistencies.

Re: Uplifted / angled reels Tom Kirkman (Moderator) 12-03-05 04:58PM [www.rodbuilding.org] Yes, many of us have experimented with creating artificial choke points closer to the reel by shimming the seats so that the reel had more upsweep. You will find that it makes almost no difference as reel spool upsweep makes little to no difference anyway. It's a convenient means for locating the choke or intersect guide, ... etc." -TK

Re: Uplifted / angled reels Cliff Hall 12-03-0505 05:21PM
[www.rodbuilding.org] To Rob Heaton - the reel's upsweep angle has very little effect on all this. This is a bit of a can of worms. See for yourself. -Cliff Hall+++

To Patrick Heintz - Bend the rod off the table, and see where the rod bends a lot. On such a long rod, and a steelhead taper, that may be hard to localize. You may just need to try a butt guide location (~27"?) and then string the guides in a funnel fashion over the next ~24". This will take you down from a ~30mm ring guide to a ~ 10 mm ring. And then run a very moderately progressive spacing from there forward to the rod tip. Whatever weight-conserving guide styles & ring sizes suites your fancy.

Just think in three zone, three functions. Butt guide catches the line. Middle section funnels it down. Tip section distributes the load over the limber section, nearly equal spacing. Cast test. Static loading. Tweak. Repeat once. Quench your thirst. Record your ring positions and go for it.

IMO, -Cliff Hall++++

There is no industry standard for spool upsweep angle.

Do this - take another reel with roughly the same spool size (diameter) and height and use that for setting the guide system up. Then juse use your other reel once the rod is finished. It'll cast and fish nicely.

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

Also depending on the type of guide you are going to use. There are three basic types, Fuji concept, all purpose, and " M " guides.

One of the 1st old school books I read on rod building indicated that to find the 1st guide size and placement you placed the reel in the seat with the spool lined. Oriented the roller guide up at a point it is farthestest away from the blank, then using the natural upsweep of the reel, mimic the downward angle down towards the blank eventually intersecting the blank and locating the choke point/guide, just using the line as a guide as it comes off the line roller, this strung line also located the 1st guide placement and the size the 1st guide will need to be, as the line should just touch the highest point inside the ceramic guide ring. This seemed to allow for the pillowing effect as the line comes off the spool but I imagine it required larger guide rings than common today and in the least high frame guides

Chris,

The old cone of flight concept has pretty much gone by the wayside in the past decade. It certainly worked, but never was much good at controlling the line. The better idea is not to let the line come off the spool in large coils, but to quickly bring it under control and get it moving out instead of allowing it to continue on in coils.

In addition, the cone of flight method usually required larger guides and as we know, weight is the great enemy of rod efficiency and casting ability. Removing weight from the tip of the rod, such as in the New Guide Concept, allows the imparted energy to go into casting the lure instead of being used in large part, to start and stop the rod.

..........