Thanks to those who have respoonded to my earler question, Mr. White, Mike and Cliff.

However I know there are those out there who advocate using large guides, like Lefty Kreh in one of his books I read. And again my question is why? I truly would like to understand this Question. The guide must be large enough to alow the size of line and its knots through, that is some what of a given but is there an advantage or disadvantage to using larger or smaller guides from there and if so why? And why are we not concerned about steping the guides down in size? Is there some way of showing this advantage with some kind of test other then casting? If casting is the test the only accurte way would be to have two exactly the same rods with exactly the same setups except for the guide sizes. Has any one ever doon that? I would like to hear the results of that test.

Cliff mabe today is the day.

Thank You

Lefty is a great fisherman and caster, but he is not a rod builder of any regard. Once you make the guides any larger than they need to be, you are only adding more weight which must then be carried by the rod, started and stopped, which requires some of your input energy. In almost all cases, unnecessary weight is the great enemy of a fishing rod, particularly when it's located out towards the mid and especially the tip area.

The reason that guides do not have to be reduced through every size that the manufacturers offer is that it is just not necessary. The line between a #16 and say, a #8 is not going to be any different than the line between a #16 and a #12. Thankfully, the guide makers don't make even more sizes than they do or we'd see rods with 10 different sizes on them.

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

Jim,
The size of the guides is basically a trade off between the higher weight of larger guides that will lower the rods resonant frequency, slow the rod down, and smaller guides which will increase the friction between the line and the guides, the friction will reduce the lines momentum or slow it down. Usually the first couple of guides are the most important. After the first couple of guides, if they are positioned well, the line should be pretty well tamed, or moving in a straight enough line that there is not much friction between the line and subsequent guides and so the size of the subsequent guides does not have as much effect. It is not necessary to have two identical rods with different size guides. You can accomplish the same thing by test casting with guides that are temporarily mounted on the rod and watching for a standing wave in the line particularly in front of the first couple of guides. The larger the standing wave the more friction there is and the larger the loss in line momentum.

Tom,
We must have been typing at the same time.

There are several purposes for guides:
1) Provide a path for the line from reel through - not to - the tip on the cast. This allows the line to follow a parabolic path that eventually converges with the parabola formed by the rod when it's deflected during the folloow-through on the forward cast. The two parabolas meet, somewhere ahead of the tip.
2) Gather the line coming off the reel and reduce the waveform (either spiral for spinning or side-to-side conventional) to a straight line through the tip, and minimize friction in the process.
3) Support the line along the length of the rod, from the tip to the reel, during the fight or retrieve. This will also be a parabola, complimentary to the rod's bend or "action". The whole thing acts like a "spring", minimizing the effort it takes to fight a fish and the need for drag, but maximizing the effort the fish has to put into pulling against the rod. In this case, the guides must be big enough to prevent the line from touching the rod at any point along the length from the reel to the tip, when the line goes slack. The guides should also be placed and spaced in such a way as to prevent them from "rolling under" when the rod is pulled off-line by the fish. If it works correctly, the rod "follows" the fish from side to side or up and down, rather than the fisherman having to force the rod toward the fish. Better than that, the rod and line can be used to "guide" the fish, such as, turning him from a run or bringing him up by laying the rod along a horizontal angle and working with the foregrip to keep him up high; in this position the rod works through it's strongest axis (vertical to the reel) and it's that much harder for the fish to dive against the resistance of the rod to turn sideways.

Well, that's a lot of pseudoscience and semi-physics gobbledegook to explain something relatively simple. Much more simply put, bigger guides do two things: they keep the line higher off the rod, and they reduce friction on the cast. If the stripper guide is bigger, the angle from the reel to the ring is reduced, reducing friction. But so does proper spacing from the face of the reel. If the guides are properly sized (and spaced) and you have a slow-motion camera you'll see that after the line hits the stipper guide on the cast, it slows into a straight line even before it gets to the second guide. Basically, the only thing it touches after that is the tip guide. Yeah, I know about the phugoid action of the tip during the cast that disturbs this shape and introduces vibration into the line after it gets past the tip, but that's minimized too. How big? Well, for a 4000-series spinning reel I like to start the layout with a 40mm ring about 18" from the face of the spool. For a C3 type casting reel I like a 20-25mm stripper between 17-21" off the face of the spool. Then I mess with a progression (for spinning) from 30-25-20-16-12-10-8mm rings, with the tip rarely less that an 8mm ring; for casting, it goes through the same numbers but starts smaller. It forms a "tunnel" in a funnel shape. How quickly do I reduce the sizes or, do I skip sizes? Well, as I said above, the initial sizing I mentioned is the starting point. It never quite ends up on those numbers but that depends on taking the rod out in the yard or to the beach and throwing with it. Two things should happen if I get it right - there should be no noise of the line through the guides, and the distance with a weight to match the average for the blank's range should max out with very little effort regardless of the user's casting style. Also, I should be able to grab that line anywhere along it's length after the cast and have the rod react to my "strike" so thatr the drag, when set up to a "strike" setting, either barely holds or gives a bit without any extrea adjustment. Yup, it's trial and error. I have to ask my customer how he likes to work a strike - does he want no give in the drag, or some; does he want the fish to hook itself or does he want to "honk" back on the rod to ensure a hookup, etc. BTW, this stuff is for spinning and casting. It's a bit different for flyrod designs. And, I always test with a reel as close to what the customer will use as I can get - I'll borrow the customer's actual reel, if possible. That way, I can figure in thye effect of the line he usually uses, too.

Using the starting points above, I often end up with somewhere from 9 to 11 or 12 guides (including the tip) on a typical 7' rod. I have a saying - "I let the rod tell me where to place the guides". No two will match. But what about weight? Well, most of my customers say their rod "feels light" when they first pick it up, and then they realize it's balanced rather than truly light. But they also find that they work less during the cast and the fight with my designs so the true weight isn't a factor. Besides, if I use something like REC guides weight isn't a factor anyway. What about the current discussions around resonance and vibration? Well, with larger and more guides, most of my customers say they can "feel" the fish better than any other rods they've used.

Tom is right. Emory is right. After 35 years of doing this I'm just starting to learn what Tom and some others forgot a long time ago, but I hope the information above helps a little, anyway. BTW, most of my current rods are made for striper or saltwater trout fishing in rivers (two very different designs), and in the sounds (bays to you northerners) round here, and they include live-bait rods for redfish, flounder, and such in inshore waters.

I have the utmost respect for Lefty, and for Mark Sosin and the top of the competitors in the various tournament games. But as Tom said, they don't build rods - they might endorse them, but they don't build them. Of necessity, the rods with their names on them have to be made to a certain "average" capability and to meet a certain price point in order to satisfy the maximum number of potential buyers. Hence, less guides, "average" actions, "average" layup close (but not spot-on) to the spine,

Thanks for letting me run on. Didn't mean to do that, really.
Uncle Russ

Jim,

I don't want to interrupt your thread - please forgive me - but when I read discussion like this I have t say it once more: this forum is just awesome !!! Wow...

I would like to add to Jim's question 'a little question of mine' reffering to striper guide size/placement ( I hope you don't mind Jim) - how should the line go through the stripper (casting rod situation) - should it go through the center of the guide or touch the "upper" hemisphere of the ring? With the rod I am currently working on, I have to move the low profile reel 22" - 23" from the #12 stripper guide so that the line goes through the center. Should I leave it as it is, or rather use #16 stripper guide and get the reel closer?

Best regards,
Pavel



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2006 03:19AM by Pawel Tymendorf.

I like this site. It is really helping me build better rods from the start. Mistake #1 I didn't learn to use the Search engine here well. But I'm gettting better at it now... Mistake #2 I really oversized the guides on a 9' 9 wt fly rod I just built. I'm not ashamed to post it. I used American tackle Titans- 20, 16, 12,(double foot) Nic, 10 & 7- 8 nif and 8 tip top. Well how I know I oversized guides thru test casting.. First I use a 9 wt weight forward floating line for testing. Which work fine, I was able to make 45' to 55' foot casts.. Then I tried a sink tip line on it. Boy, was it very noticeable the rod was very over loaded.. Like Tom said too much weight in mid and near tip.
Back to the drawer board now guide selection.. I plan to use Titans again but I'm going to try this set up. 16,10 niv (double foot high frame) 8, and 7-7 nifs and a 7 tip top.( I plan to test with a 12 niv in place of a 10 niv too.) Any one see anything wrong this the 16 10 set up? Plus I'm able to use 7 nif for running guides my loop system can handle it. The rod blank was a Dancraft ft...

I would also agree with the smaller/lighter is better when it comes to guides and have demonstrated the difference to myself with side by side builds of the same blank with different guides. Jim, to answer your first question, I have two 3 wt rods, one with Fuji alconites (size 6) and the other with Amtak size 5, and there is a noticeable difference - the smaller/lighter guide rod is more responsive and casts smoother. Right now I'm in the process of building a 5 wt with REC recoil single foot guides for the first time, and am looking forward to the results - probably will wish I had tried them on the 3 wt...
One piece of conventional wisdom I would take exception to is the idea that a bigger stripping guide (on a fly rod) reduces the angle that the line has to turn from the fisherman's hand to the path to the rod tip. If you think about it , the fly line is only going to be moved towards the hand by the difference in the radius of the two ring sizes (when comparing a 10 vs 16 or 20 size stripper). I think you would have to have a ridiculously huge stripper guide to have any affect at all. Plus the "angle" that the fly line is presented to the stripper guide is a function of where the caster places his hand - in fact, the hand is really the first guide in the system anyway. When it comes to stripping guides I prefer smaller ring sizes and a frame that gets the ring up off the blank a little ways - the Fuji BYAG guides work well with BLAG for running guides, as an example.

I think that this discussion about the size and positioning of guides is an interesting one. There are a number of ways to determine the positioning of guides but there has been almost nothing written, that I am aware of, that tells us how to determine the size of guides, other than attempting to minimize the weight. There is an article in RodMaker, Volume 8-Issue 3, titled Guide Weight and Rod Performance that shows the effect of guide weight on rod performance but almost nothing has been written about positioning and size of the first guide and its effect on casting performance and I think that the positioning and size of the first guide is probably the most important in terms the rods casting performance.
David makes an excellent point about your hand actually acting as the first guide with a fly rod and this is no doubt one of the reasons why technique is more important with a fly rod than other types of rods. Here are a couple of additional thoughts for discussion about the positioning and size of the of the guides on other than fly rods.
If you watch the line when you cast you will notice a standing wave in the line, especially between the reel and the first guide. This is the result of friction between the line and the guide that results in a loss in the energy and forward velocity of the line. Most of this reduction in the energy in the line is being reflected back toward the reel and this results in the standing wave in the line. The bigger the standing wave the more energy that is being reflected back toward the reel and the larger the losses. It seems to me that there are several things that effect the size of this standing wave including the lines velocity the angle of the line as it contacts the guides, the stiffness of the line and the coefficient of friction between the line and the guide. I have not attempted to work out the math but intuitively it seems to me that the most important is probably the line velocity followed by the stiffness of the line followed by the angle and the least important is probably the coefficient of friction.
What can we rod builders do about it? The only thing that I can think of is to test cast and attempt to change the size and positioning of the guides, especially the first couple of guides, so as to minimize the size of this standing wave and therefore minimize the losses.

This exchange has been Great! There has been a lot of meat comming out here and not just do it this way but the thought and reasoning behind it. And hopefully it's not over yet.
OK
So what I hear is the added wight of a guide has a detrimental affect on the rod and its performance, so keep the guides as small as possible ( large enough to let line and knots through). Makes total sence. However the other side of the coin being that the smaller the guide the grater the line and guide contact, decreasing the casting efficiency of the rod. So the magic guide size is some where in between these factors, Right?

Lets entertain a new factor. If we could use a single foot guide (only one leg to rap) that is made of a stronger material but much lighter then guides used in the past. In fact so much lighter that a large guide of the new stuff weighs less then one of the old ones in a smaller size. It would seem logical then to use a larger size guide made of the new stuff? But again how large should you go? Hipotheticly, If this where the case say on a 9' 6" 8wt would it be logical to match the ID of a large (or x large ?) loop tip top and use that size for the running guides ? and how about the stripers they to are this light wight stuff what would you use there and why.

Thank You Gentalman
Jim Gerst

Jim,
The effect of the guides weight on the rods resonant frequency, performance, increases approximately exponentially as it is added closer and closer to the tip. In other words a small amount of increased weight will have a much larger effect near the tip than it will have toward the butt of the rod on the rods performance. So the stripping guides are not normally the problem. It is the weight of the guides toward the tip that are normally the problem. They should be as light weight as possible. The article that I mentioned above also shows the difference in the weight of the wraps and epoxy have and also shows the difference between single footed and double footed guides.

I guess it time to start receiving Rod Maker.... and maybe get a few back issues...... Emory Harry I have been all ears, OK here in most archives the first stripper should be located about 1-2" pass arm reach. For easy of line pick-up is that right??? Most generic guide spacing charts first stipper is farther on rod than mine.
Mistake # 3 was listening to neighbor about rod. He's a great caster & fisherman.. He hepled me test cast rod.. His casts were farther than mine... I still going to use his as a test caster. Watch the way the line goes thru first 2 guides.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2006 02:48PM by Art Jessup.

Art,
That sounds about right to me. But I was talking about generic rods, any rods that will be used to cast. But I am not a fly fisherman though so you want to take what I say about fly rods with a big grain of salt.
You will not be sorry if you start getting RodMaker. In my opinion every serious rod builder should subscribe. Plus I would buy all of the back issues that Tom still has available. They are a wealth of information. I hate to sound like a shill for RodMaker but most of the new things to rod building in the last few years have been introduced in RodMaker.

I guess a lot more test casting is going here to answer Questions. But moving first stripper maybe farther out? What can I see happen? My thought is you make the rod cast worst . I'm sure???? Tom mentioned line passing thru 16 to 8, 16 to 12 wouldn't be critical. WHY?? Well the way my rod is set up now is first stripper is 25 1/2" form center of reel seat.. About 12" more between first 2 guides.... 50" by the time I get to my running guides. ( actually not is my set up now) But it will be soon..
That is why I was able to figure out rod was mid & tip heavy. Ok one thing I want Tom hear.... To many Questions are answered with a reference to a back issue of rodmaker....... Why not just answer the question if you know the answer..... But My case I probably have will have many of back issues soon. I just caught rid of a hobby I would do in the winter time. If I was to spend time & resouces I have as I did in my last hobby. Tom would want to take pics of my shop.... Bold post, But he who has the most toys , when they die wins .... That is the way I live.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2006 03:52PM by Art Jessup.

Jim, I think the current state of the art) lightweight guide that would fit what you described would be the REC guides.

Pawel, the idea is to minimize the agle from the face of the spool to the first (stripper) guide. The angle changes in a casting rod if the line comes off a full spool /vs/ a half-full spool, and of course from side-to-side in a level-wind setup. It also changes in a spinning rod if the line is coming off the top of the spool /vs/ the bottom, or the sides. But in both cases we try to minimize the angle by using either (a) a larger stipper guide, within reason and (b) by changing the distance to the face of the spool. The distance ultimately is determined by the way the line follows the rod when we bend it - I'll explain that in a minute (this applies to casting and spinning rods). The simple answer is that we'd like to have the line not touch the guide ring but in practical terms, as the line comes off the reel, it will, and that's why it's called a stripper guide - so we try to have it touch the top of the ring, which is to say the highest point away from the rod's surface.

We assemble the handles/grip, reel seat, foregrip, and the tip, all on spine. This gives us the "true" action of the rod from the foregrip to the tip. Now we mount the reel with a full spool, and run the line through the tip. We bend the rod two ways - right-side up, and upside-down. Now we have an idea of where the line meets the rod without any guides installed. Remember, the idea is to have the arc of the line through the guides match (not parallel) the arc of the rod (there's a technical name for working with two or more parabolas that, if extended far enough, will meet somewhere in space but I don't know what the term is). And you still want to keep the line from touching the rod - it's called "no flat spots".

Now we insert the stripper guide starting about 18" from the face of the reel. We do the two opposite bends again. We're looking for the start of the arc (from the reel to the stripper) to be the leading section of the overall arc we're gonna end up with, through the tip. Now, we insert the second guide - notice that we're working from the reel toward the tip, not the other way round. We repeat the bends and now we start to get a good idea of how the arc will go. We mess with either moving the stripper or using a different size, or both. We continue to add guides until we're done but we always look at the whole parabola as we add each new guide in order to maintain the smooth arc we're after. If that meanns messing with sizes and placement we'll do it till it's the way we want it. If we get it right, the line will touch the stipper and tip, but pretty much cut the other guides in the center, or at least the upper half of the opening. The strripper might end up being 14" from the reel, or 22-23" from the reel - it all depends on the overall layup and we don't know that till we're done.

Our final test is to test cast the thing. If we can't hear the line going through the guides - and that includes the stripper guide - then we did it right.

- hope that helps.
Uncle Russ

Another session of test casting with current set up on rod. I paid more attention how line went thru first couple of guides. I'm now more inclined now to use a single foot stripper. Because of height of current guides & the way line is casted with fly rod.. Seems single foot guides are the taller than a high frame double footer..