I set up my fly rod to do a static deflection test as described in the library. I guess I am just not quite sure as to what I am looking for. The parts where the line is in between the guides seem pretty flat rather than "follow the rod". Should I be doing this with the guides up or down (I am doing down since that is where guides go on a fly rod). I thought I read a comment by Tom that you will likely find that you have the guides too close, and too many, or something like that. But looking at it, it seems like I would have to add more guides and move them closer to keep the line up at the blank. I am flexing the rod from the tip with a line and a weight, and then have a very small amount of weight on the line after it is through the guides, basically just to take out the slack. This is a 7 wt. rod, 9 foot. Are there any pics of rods as to how this is supposed to look? Thanks in advance.

HI Jason,
Your line should follow the curve of the blank. If not you must move guides,or add some ,or take guides away. hope this helps Marcel

Just stand back from the rod under tension with the guides spaced in a generic fashion. What you are looking for is creating a proper arc/chord relation between each guide space. The blank curve is parabolic or perhaps even more a spiral, but each spacing will approximate a circular curve. The angle from each end of the chord to the tangent at the end of the arc should be near equal. We all have inherent the aesthetic sence to see the harmony in this very simple geometry. It either looks right or it looks wrong. Your eyeball, your brain and your DNA are all constructed via the very same simple geometric ratios, which is why, without mathematics, harmony can be seen and felt intuatively. Good form equals good function. Mathematics is a redundant method for proving why something "looks" right, then can be used to create things with proper proportions to look right before you ever complete the construction. But no math and trial and error will achieve the same final result, a harmony of curve, arcs and lines that both look and work right.

It is the difference between doing what others say, or demonstrating before your very eyes what looks best. I just did a casting rod and started with the manufactures guide spacing. Did not look right at all. Went to a big sports show and saw one of these blanks as finished by the manufacturer. Guess what, they used a very different spacing than what they publish and confirmed what I saw in the shop. The published spacing in this case was nothing like correct. Trust your eye to recognize harmony, as this is the definition of aesthetics, and stated in modern parlence, form = function.

Jason,
I would only like to add one caveate to what has been said above. The number of guides and guide positioning is basically a trade off between stress distribution and line control on the one hand and rod performance on the other hand. The more guides you use the better the stress distribution will be and to a lesser degree the better the line control but each guide adds weight and weight is the biggest enemy of rod performance, the more guides the less efficient the rod will be and the lower its resonant frequency which determines ease of casting and also affects the rods sensitivity and feel. It is my feeling that most people tend to make this trade off on the side of too many guides.
Another way of saying what Tim has said is: the positioning of the guides should basically follow the blanks deflection.