I have my bullet-proof vest on so I'll ask the question - does any of the old time rodbuilder's still use this method for guide spacing? I stumbled across the article from the Angler's Workshop website and found it very interesting. Since I still struggle with flexing a blank 1/4, then 1/2, then 3/4 and knowing the difference between a good line angle versus a bad line angle in the static distribution test, this sounds like a reasonable alternative for me.

I've been criticized in the past for maybe spending too much time on guide spacing but I believe if you're going to do something, then you should do it right or not at all. And the static deflection test still poses too many variables for me especially since my old posting of "If 20 different rod builders static tested the same blank". If there could be considerable differences between various rodbuilders using the same test on the same blank, then it would appear the static deflection test is subjective and not a repeatable process. But the story pole method appears to have some merit and at least is somewhat repeatable. Just wondering if anyone uses this method or not? Thanks.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. A similar method was designed by a local rod builder and in fact was the first of its type that I had seen when building some of my first rods back in the 1970's. I covered his method in one of the volume 4 issues of RodMaker.

I don't know that it would give everyone the same results - that would depend on each person selecting the same number of guides, as well as all locating the butt guide in the same place (what's the chance of that?). But I would say that it's a great starting point and on casting and fly rods should get you really close to a nice set up.

For spinning rods, however, I don't like it. The New Guide Concept is superior in a number of ways.


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

I know of the technique, but the problem is your putting the guides on in the same spot for that type of rod and length. The one reason for using the static guide placement is that you can take lets say 5 of the same blanks and when finished going through the static placement, the guides would not be in the same locations for all 5 blanks. Even blanks that are suppose to be the same, they will flex differently from each other and need the guides placed accordingly. To me the static guide placement will always get the proper placement and the number of guides needed for any particular blank.

Alright, Mr. TIm Collins - Maybe now it's your turn to educate us (me).

What exactly is the "STORY POLE" Method of Line Guide Placement? Could you at least provide a web-link to a reference, so I can educate myself on this. Thanks, Tim.

I recently followed an RBO Thread on a 9-ft 5-wt 6-pc FLY rod, and noticed that two independent rod-builders (our Steve Kartalia, and Bob Widgren of FFMag) BOTH used TEN guides, and EVERY SINGLE Guide Position was within 2 inches or LESS of each other, WITHOUT EVEN USING the SAME GUIDES. (But it is true that snake guides and ring guides are similar enough as to be interchangable SIZE-wise.) That sounds to me like what I would call within the range of EQUIVALENCY.

The more i learn about guide selection & placement, the more the BIG PICTURE keeps coming into view. Maximizing the greatest number of all of your OVER-ALL priority design goals is much more important than maximizing any one design feature or perfomance criteria, especially if the other goals have to be unduly compromised.

IMO, -Cliff Hall+++, Gainesville, FL-USA*****

P.S. - Thanks, Tim Collins, for bringing another interesting twist into the discussion of Guide Placement. -CMH+++

Here it is Cliff. It's also on the top right hand side of Angler's Workshop website. If the one I list below doesn't work, try their's.

[www.anglersworkshop.com]

As far as the story pole not catching the differences in different blanks, I think it does. The instructions are while the blank is horizontal, deflect the tip down until the "bend" reaches the butt guide. Seems to me that regardless whether you use the static test or the story pole, a fast action blank will have a "sharp bend" in the upper section and a moderate action blank would have a more even rounded bend to it. The verticle lines from the story pole spaced out per the article would place guides closer together in the upper section of the fast action and further apart for the moderate action blank - isn't that how it's suppose to work anyway?

I think I might have to set up something on my garage wall for my next project just so I can see exactly how it works for myself.

Not exactly - even a fast action blank is progressive. The more you flex it or the greater the load you place on it, the more the tip will straighten out and the load will transfer to a more deeply flexed butt area.

.........

Hello Tim,

Jim Mick made a presentation of the Story Pole Method at the Northwest Rodbuilding Meeting in April. He can probably answer many of your questions. His materials did not include his e-mail address, but Todd Vivian at Lamiglas undoubtedly has it and could help you. We also heard a presentation by Don Morton about guide spacing as well. You might want to contact him as well.
I hope this helps.

Mike Blomme

Thanks Michael, I'm very familiar with Don Morton's Equal Angle/Increasing Angle guide placement. I even made my own template with his help. I have a 13' 3 piece Lamiglas Certified Pro blank on order and I'll contact Todd as well for additional input. Thanks again.

Tim, how 'bout sharing your info ? I read the story pole article and felt it left something to be desired in explanation. Can you explain Don Morton's method ?

Hi Richard, Don's article on Equal-Angle guide placement appeared in Rodmaker Volume 4, Issue #6. I'm packing and leaving for a trip right now as I'm typing this and the info is a bit lengthy to explain properly. Your email address is hidden so if you shoot me an email, I'll send you the majority of the article when I get back.

Reference: Applications for Static Deflection Guide Spacing, as practiced by Jim Mick
URL Citation: [www.anglersworkshop.com]

What Australians call a Story Pole is a very long version of what we US-Americans call a Carpenter’s Square.

Reader’s Digest Version (CMH+++): The Story Pole Method for Static Guide Spacing projects an EQUAL INTERVALS condition from a straight line standard ruler onto the curved arc of the statically flexed rod blank. Like a flawed 2-D map of the 3-D globe, the Story Pole Method exaggerates distances between the parallel lines as it projects them from the straight ruler onto the curved arc surface of the rod blank. This distortion is greatest in the tip-section, lesser in the mid-section, and least near the butt guide.

Note that the Equal Intervals Method itself is intended to generate equal spacing intervals as ARCS along the rod blank itself. It was never intended to project equal intervals, like a shadow does, from a straight line (the ruler) onto a curved rod. Doing so introduces distortion, because the Story Pole Method is a LINEAR PROJECTION along PARALLEL LINES, originating from the ruler, projected onto the bent rod; rather than being a CURVI-LINEAR INTERVAL of UNIFORM DISTANCE that is replicated around the curved arc of the bent rod. Two completely different geometries.

The Equal Angles Method is a RADIAL PROJECTION of EQUAL ARCS emanating from a common center or converging onto that common point.

Any form of the Equal Intervals Method assumes the use of similar size guides, and a fairly uniform rod taper over the section spaced by the Equal Intervals Method. Also, the Equal Intervals Method would use too many guides toward the butt guide.

The Story Pole Method may be decently suited for rod blanks with a slow to moderate action-taper and a lower power rating, such as FLY rods. However, IMO, the suitability of the Story Pole Method would be thus limited to such rods; suspect in other styles of rods with faster taper-actions & higher power ratings; and superceded by other Guide Spacing Methods (especially for Spinning Rods).

Namely, Don Morton’s Equal Angles Method or Tom Kirkman’s Intersect Method, or any variations thereon (like the Trifecta Zonal Method). As with any tool or principle, know its applications and its limits, and use accordingly. If they are ignored, your results may be less than satisfactory compared to other methodologies.

Caveat emptor, –Cliff Hall+++, Gainesville, FL-USA***** cmkmhall@ufl.edu



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2006 05:05PM by Cliff Hall.

Tim, your email is hidden also. Maybe a glitch. Email me at Rich@ErieReelWorks.com
Thanks