I have to admit that while I understand, appreciate, and believe in the New Concept system, when I built my first few spinning rods, I cheated, and cut corners when determining the size and placement of guides. Coming to grips with the procedure just seemed too much, considering that I was learning the rudiments of rodbuilding on the fly as well. I did static distribution tests, and a few practice casts, but I didn’t go to the lengths Tom Kirkman described in his Rod-Building Guide book.

I'm in the middle of building a surf plugging rod with a 9 foot, 1/2-2 oz. St. Croix blank, and this time, I told myself, I would do it right. This time I would not cut corners. And this time I would, in Tom's words, achieve spectacular, instead of acceptable, results.

So with tip-top in place, I snapped in my Penn Slammer and aligned the blank on the edge of a table, looking for the point where the imaginary line emanating from the center of the reel spool intersected the blank. This, of course, would be where the choke guide would go. The picture in the book makes it all look so simple.

So imagine how flabbergasted I was when I realized that the point where the spool’s center line met the blank was two feet past the tip top. Yes, that’s right: while the reel spool’s axis is not parallel to the blank, it’s close enough that the point where they intersect is beyond the end of the blank.

So my question is where do I put the choke guide? I eyeballed a spot about two guides down from the tip-top, and put it there, but before I proceed any further I thought I’d check here to see if anyone had experienced the same thing. I’m still going to do the Concept system, with all its required test casting, correctly and thoroughly, but since the choke guide is the one guide that stays stationary during the entire process, I want to make sure I don’t make a mistake in where I place it, as any mistake there is going to lead to problems with where the rest of the guides go.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

No, it really won't lead to problems. Reel spool upsweep has very little to do with casting, because gravity takes the line as if comes off the spool and pulls it downwards. Having more or less spool upsweep doesn't really alter the line path at all. The line is being pulled off the reel, not shot from the barrel of a gun. So again, spool upsweep has little effect.

However, it is a convenient way to help us obtain a starting point for setting up the system. In your case, here's what I'd do. Select a reel with a similar size (diameter) spool but with a bit more upsweep and use that for locating your choke guide. Once set up, move back to your intended reel and you'll find that all will be well.

Another way to do this would be to flex the blank from the tip and continue flexing it until the tip makes a 90 degree bend in the rod. Find that spot that is still straight - not flexed, and mark it. Put your choke/intersect guide there and proceed as usual. This also works well if you don't have another reel on hand.

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

Chris Garrity <[email protected]> - First of all, an Intersect Point that extends out past the rod tip is not as uncommon as we may like it to be. But, technically, the Reel’s Upsweep Angle actually has relatively little, if anything, to do with proper guide placement. This convention for placing the “choke guide” was adopted as a convenient methodology that worked in the majority of cases. … Well, what to do in those “exceptional” cases still confuses many.

You will have to CREATE an Intersect Point, based on a synergistic approach to guide placement that considers several design goals, and guide layout methods. Your unified approach must work together toward the best consensus achievable under your rod-building circumstances, given your rod-design goals.

I have finally gotten it fairly organized, in my own head, but getting it boiled down to 3 paragraphs or 3 sentences still eludes me. I can see now and understand the “how & why I am doing what I am doing” on this subject of guide layouts. Particularly for Spinning Rods using a Concept-style guide selection and placement. But that is also to say that it is no doubt much like anybody & everybody else’s private adaptation / personalization of Fuji’s Concept System or Kirkman’s Intersect Method.

The way I have been thinking about it, and writing about it, so that it can be reviewed by other rod-builders, and criticized for the sake of clarity, refinement, and improvement is as something I am calling the TRIFECTA Method for Guide Placement. Nothing new, just a latest attempt to articulate, to integrate and to consolidate a very broad and slightly complicated subject – Guide Layouts.

BUT, … Enough about my theorems & pontifications for now, Chris. Back to your conundrum, on where to place the choke guide, or your guide layout in general.

You are building a nice 9-ft (108”) Medium-power Surf-Spinning Rod for Plugs.

Once you have a good position for your Butt Guide (~24” ahead of the Reel Spool), the next (2 to 4) guides will form your Choking Funnel. After that Intersect Point or Choke Guide, the rest of the forward guides will be the Running Guides (moving toward the rod tip). The Runners serve to spread the line load, now that the Funnel-Chokers have tamed the line’s tornado.

Without too much academic geometry, explanation of my rationale, or speculation on your choices or preferences for guide sizes & styles, I am going to suggest that your FUNNEL-CHOKING ZONE should be ~24 inches wide, in front of and including your BUTT Guide.

For a 9 foot rod, with about 5.5 feet of rod forward of the BUTT Guide:

Three Funnel Guides (over the next ~ 24”) + Six Running Guides (over ~3.5 ft).

Something like: 66”, 54”, 44”, 36”, 30”, 24”, 18”, 12”, 6”, [0 = TT]

Funnel Chokers: [40mm, 25mm, 16mm] (66”, 54”, 44”)

Running Guides: [12mm, 10mm, 10mm, 10mm,.10mm, 10mm] ~ every 6”.

We all can discuss or argue about this further. – Or everyone can balk at the audacity of such a suggestion without having a rod in hand, and doing a “Bend it this Way” or “Bend it that Way” kind of Interactive Test.

But this suggestion that the width of the Funnel Zone or Choking Triangle should be ~24” along the rod is a useful starting point. Especially when there are so many variables to consider. Each guide, from butt to tip, is a successively new gathering guide. And the first several guides perform a taming function, until there is no more line tornado of any significant diameter to tame. Therefore, the running guides are all about the same size and relatively evenly spaced (or “equal-angled”).

That’s the 3-Zones (Free-Flight; Funnel; Running) and 3-Functions (Gathering; Choking; Loading) that I’m trying to articulate “perfectly”. Hence the TRIFECTA name.

Chris – Other rod-builders, and I too, will tell you to LOOK at the rod while bending it, and “SEE” where the flexion starts to deviate significantly from the vertical angle. Discover where the rod “really” seems to move into the more flexible forward casting section of the rod taper. And demarcate that as your Intersect Point. But we still have an arbitrary aspect to that designation as well, which is very difficult to communicate via a non-visual format such as this RBO (or any) Forum.

A Casting Test and ESPECIALLY the Loading Test (Static Deflection) will refine your guide selection and spacing. But this discussion above should offer you enough food for thought. And hopefully generate enough Replies from the Forum to help you wrap this up with confidence in a timely fashion.

Best Wishes, Chris Garrity.
–Cliff Hall+++ <[email protected]>
Gainesville, FL-USA*****

The generosity of people on this board, and the willingness of rodbuilders to help others, never cease to amaze me. While I understand there is some degree of self-interest involved -- thinking through issues like these makes us all better rodbuilders -- I'm still nearly always surprised how willing people are to give assistance to others. It's such a pleasant contrast to what the rest of the world is like. I'm still new at this -- I'm working on Rod #5 -- but I'm going to try to be more diligent about reading the posts here in unlikely event that I can help a novice the way that others have helped me.

Thanks for the suggestions, Tom and Cliff. I sort of knew all along that the way that to end up with the best guide placement is through trial and error (and lots of testing), but I was a bit confused about where to start, and these suggestions have almost certainly saved me from going down a few blind alleys. I'm going to print this page, bring it home, and get to work -- if you can consider throwing a Bomber in the back yard and having a cold one "work."

This thread came at a nice time since I am having the same issue with a 3000 series reel for a 7 1/2 ' spinning rod. The "concept" of choking down the line tornado is very interesting. I am going to try this system on this rod, but I have a question. I am planning on using 8# Fireline (3 # diam.) and I was wondering if I needed a size 30 butt guide or if I could go with a 25. I'm planning on using 8 for my choke. This is all new to me and I know I will need to test cast but I wanted to save some time. The rod is a medium action with a moderate fast tip. I plan to throw 3/8 to 1/2 oz. cranks.

I bought Tom's book and subscribed to Rod Maker - I've been trying to do my homework on this. :) There just isn't a lot of info out there that I can find that gives specifics.

Chuck

My suggestion, Chuck -- and I'll admit that I don't have a whole lot of experience with this -- is to use the smaller (25) guide during test casting, and then once you decide where you want the butt guide to be, pull off the 25 and replace it with the 30. If you notice an increase in casting distance, go with the 30; if you don't, go back to the 25. In my limited experience, I've found that we custom rodbuilders tend to overplay the "gathering" effect, and to use butt guides that are too big. Per Cliff's advice, I'm going to try a 40mm butt guide for my rod, but I am virtually certain that I'll end up using something smaller -- probably a 30.

You wouldn't likely need anything close to a size 30, a size 20 would actually be more appropriate.

Keep in mind that on spincasting reels, which actually cast very well, you bring the line down from the spool to an opening about the size of a #10 ring in less than 1/2 inch distance. So don't get carried away with ring diameter - frame height is more important.

Read the article on the online library page here. It has most of the specifics and how to plot the proper line path.

..........

Thanks Tom. I almost included the spincast example in my first post. While shore casting for fall walleyes I was standing beside a guy one night in October. I was using a good 6 1/2' medium rod with 8# mono. An old timer next to me had a Zebco 33 with stock line (Stren 10#) on a 7' rod. He could cast every bit as far as I could into a moderate breeze. Go figure. All I can assume is that the line has less drag when it chokes down faster. I'll start testing with a 20 butt guide. I printed out that page from the library.

About frame height - I'm going with some "normal" height guides that my dealer got from Sevier so that may affect the outcome.

Thanks everyone, and sorry for hijacking this thread for a moment.

Chuck

Chuck Mills wrote: "... An old timer next to me had a Zebco 33 with stock line (Stren 10#) on a 7' rod. He could cast every bit as far as I could into a moderate breeze. Go figure. All I can assume is that the line has less drag when it chokes down faster ...."

"Go figure" - I had done some preliminary calculations to estimate the energy losses due to line guide friction, compared to the kinetic energy of the flying lure.. Basically, it was on the order of magnitude of less than 2% of the lure's kinetic energy.

So, how much variation in casting distance could there possibly be, due strIctly to the line guides & layout alone, in the "worst case" verse "best case" scenario? About 2%, maybe 5%, allowing for a wider "engineering error". ... Much ado about ... a little?

It does beg the question of the level of significance of some of our design issues, regarding guide selection and placement. ... There is a fairly wide range of choices that will provide similar and satisfatory results. And that revelation and low-bias fact should not be overlooked. ... IMO, ... -Cliff Hall+++, Gainesville, FL-USA*****

I've built only two spinning rods and I've used the Concept guide Method for both. But, I can't help wondering if it makes that much difference in casting distance, etc.? I cast a similar rod with the normal graduated progression of guides to the tip and it seemed to cast just as well. I don't know because I'm very new at this. I only say this because I cast both styles. Any opinions or instructions?

"So, how much variation in casting distance could there possibly be, due strIctly to the line guides & layout alone, in the "worst case" verse "best case" scenario? About 2%, maybe 5%, allowing for a wider "engineering error". ... "

that little? so a basic, off-the-shelf, wally world rod would be at worst only 5% less effective than a rod i've spent many hours (and beers) moving guides and test casting?

sigh.

Absoltue best and worst case? Could be a full 30% difference, or more!

But, if we're talking about a reasonably good standard spinning guide set up versus a reasonably well done Concept System, then I'd fall back and saw we'd be looking at a difference of 3% to 5%.

So it all comes down to how much time and effort do you want to spend to eek out that last little bit of difference. Still, if you follow the guidelines in the online article, I think you'll find the concept system easier and quicker to set up than almost anything else.

........

Yea Russell,
After a few Coronas I cant tell if my rods cast better either! LOL!
I sure like them better though!

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