Building a 10' 8 wt fly rod for roll casting - specifically for roll casting / single hand spey - and wondering if there is a rule of thumb for guide placement that will drive the load deeper into the butt of the blank. I want the rod to load deeply, easily, but I don't want to add unnecessary weight at the tip. Ideas?

naturally I will use a line appropriate for the task, uplining if needed, but now in the building stage is the time to consider guide placement. Thanks in advance for the tips

The blank action should dictate the necessary guide placement and will have the major effect on casting.

Stan Grace
Helena, MT
"Our best is none too good"

You'll want to choose a blank with an action that does this for you Steven; moving the guides around won't change that blank's action much if any.

Moving the guides from their optimum placement will just result in a bit poorer performance, too.

Putter
Williston, ND

the blank has been selected specifically for this purpose, I am now trying to fine-tune the matter.

let me ask the question another way: does a blank have the same flex profile when line is strung only through the tip top versus when line is strung through guides down the length of the blank?

I understand how to perform static distribution tests. Not a problem. However what is the basis for considering this "optimal" under different loads, and when a specific performance goal is desired? Is it truly one-spacing-fits-all for a given blank? It would seem that the placement of guides along the blank would have some (possibly minor) effort on the flex profile of the blank, all other things being equal. Am I overthinking this?

I think you ARE overthinking this. In a static distribution test, the blank itself will show you were it's guides are to be placed to maximize performance. Moving the guides around to other places will only reduce performance and add unwanted stresses. Optimal performance will be acheived by placing the guides in their proper place. You need to find a blank that will flex the way you want. I don't think you can make a blank flex to fit your purposes without compromising what the blank was originally intended to do.

2 cents,

Tim

I think I would agree with Tim, Steve. But I also see what you mean. When a person sets up to do static placement, puts the blank in a 45 degree brace, and loads straight down from the pre-mounted tip top, the blank loads in a way that will not be duplicated once the guides are mounted, no matter how they are mounted. I would also think there are flaws to static guide placement, particularly because in fishing and casting situations the blank is never flexed from a perfect controlled 45 degree angle. But you develop ways to compensate for this. What if the steelhead you're fighting tries to swim through your legs? Now you got your rod straight up, flexed from a 90 degree angle. You keep the tipmost guide within 5 inches of the tip to protect you in a situation like this, even though the test from 45 degrees doesn't tell you to do this.
I believe you COULD place the guides in such a way as to force the blank to flex deeply from the beginning of a progressive load. But in so doing you would create unnatural stress points closer to the tip, as Tim says.
I wish I had enough understanding of physics to get to the definitive bottom of guide placement, but until then, I'm happy enough with the Kirkman method (and grateful to have had it spelled out for me). You compensate for funny angles by keeping the smallest guides more crowded than the test tells you to.
Luckily I've only had one fly rod come back busted at the bottom female ferrule. And this was clearly a situation of abuse, Dan Craft Sig IV 5-weight, swinging I think to Klamath steelhead and hooking a Chinook no less. And actually trying to move the fish with that rod, likely with a high stick. And to think, if the guy would have kept the rod tip low to the water, there's a slim chance he would have actually wrestled a little bit with that fish.
I was not happy and I let the guy know it. It was not some knock-around fly rod but one of those fly rods that happened to take me close to 20 hours working time. I give little anti-high sticking anti-rod abuse tutorials all the time and I refuse not to be disgusted when someone abuses a nice fly rod, I don't care what they spent.

Josh Markvan
www.markvanheirloom.com

I don't know if guide placement will sucesfully drive the load deeper down the blank without other side effects, Deviating less than the 26-28" average from the front of the reel seat to the 1st stripper guide , may hinder the rods ability to shoot line effeciently. External consideration like over lining as you suggested may be your best bet without a noticable reduction in preformance in another area. Fishing and rod building seem to always be about trade offs. I might go with a lesser series of rod blank that is not as stiff and naturally loads farther down the blank. Loading when casting is one thing distributing the load to the lower guides when the fish is on is another. On a 10' rod I like at least 4 guides on the butt section for 8 wt and greater fly rods, 9' and 9'-6" I get away with at least 3 guides. Mfg's who use one or two guides on the butt section I have concerns about. As I often point out back in 04' Loomis produced a 10' 8 wt rod and only put 8 giudes on it....Homey don't play that

The load is going to go into the butt of the blank naturally, as long as you understand how to use the rod. There is no need to ever put more than a 90 degree bend in the rod. Keep the tip straight and the load will naturally be onto the mid and butt areas.

If you do the 3-stage static placement system as outlined in the online library here, you'll have guide placement as good as you can get it. It will mimic the types load you can expect while fishing and fighting the largest fish.
........

Steven - I do not build fly rods, but I do build a lot of 10-50# blanks where I do exactly what you are looking to do - transfer the load from the tip to the butt of the rod. To do this, I add a few more guides on teh tip section, and it definately does change teh ction of the blank when a load is on....it doesn't change teh action, what it does is change teh points where the load touches teh blank, causing the blank to have a slightly different bend.

The easiest way to prove this works, is to build a rod with 5 guides, flex it, and build the same rod with 8 guides & flex it. I did exactly this on a Ron Arra 1321- my friend who has no clue about any Rodbuilding stuff, I had him pull on teh blank with both set ups, and he noticed one blank seemed to have more power than the other. The less guided rod felt like it was struggling when flexed hard, the one with more guides just felt like you could move a truck without a problem.

I cannot answer your question directly sinc eI've never done it with any fly rods, test it out yourself and see if you can figure something out.

I'm glad Tom brought this up. To do a static test properly you have to load the rod INDEPENDENT of the guides. You have to tie the loading line to the tip or tip top and load that way to see the natural flex of the blank. You can't use the same line to load the blank that you have running through the guides. And you have to do this instages because the blank flex changes as you increase the load. The article is very good in this respect.

Steven,
If you want the rod to transfer more of the load toward the butt the only effective way to do this is with a rod with a slower action, lower action angle. More guides toward the tip of the rod may result in a very small amount of additional load toward the butt but the price you will pay for this is too high. This will result in lowering the rods resonant frequency and therefore lowering how far it will cast and the ease of casting and also lower its senitivity or feel.
When guides are positioned on a blank the main objective is for the guides not to result in the rod deflecting unnaturally when loaded. I think that the static method does a pretty good job of this. When the rod deflects unnaturally or deflects in a way that is inconsistant with its action higher localized stresses result. That is not to say that it will necessarily break under a heavy load but it does increase the stress at some point on the rod and also lowers the rods performance. You will get the highest performance and the best loading from the rod by using as few guides as possible consistant with the rod deflecting naturally.
If you do use too many guides, particularly toward the tip, it may feel to you as if it is loading more toward the butt however what is really happening is that the additional weight is resulting in a higher load on the rod and you will have to slow down the time constant of your cast to load the rod properly because you have lowered the rods resonant frequency with the added weight of the extra guides.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2006 11:12AM by Emory Harry.