I recently picked up a couple 6' medium action casting blanks from a now former board sponsor. They have an extremely fast tip. My experience so far has been with spinning rods and musky rods. This is being built for a bass guy - as hard as I tried, I cannot get him to go for the spiral wrap. Anyways, due to the ultra fast action, to simply keep the line off the blank, I end up with the first guide (sz6 SF fly) at 3" from the tip, then 3.5", 4", 5", then on out to a more conventional spacing. My concern is that these first few guides are spaced so closely together - I know that 4" is very typical for the first guide or two - am I going to run into any problems I haven't already forseen with this close spacing? My guide choices are 12,10 double foot, then 8,6,6,6,6, SF fly, Batson zirconia rings.

Thanks in advance for any insight!

I would think you should be ok with that spacing. It has been so long since I have done a conventional wrapped rod, but with that fast of a tip, you will need them to be close. And the fly guides are about as light and small as you can get for up on the tip.

I just finished a match pair of casting and spinning rods with a conventional setup on the casting rod. I used SF fly guides on the casting rod, and due to the low ring to blank distance, I had to add an additional guide. When I was done and ready to hand over the rods, I noticed that the spinning guides were higher off the blank. If the number of guides is a concern, try using spinning guides with the same size rings. You may be able to eliminate a guide with the additional ring height.

Chris Richer
Iroquois ON

I think your are on target. I build med action popping rods with guides on top and the spacing you mention is almost on top of mine which may be a little closer out on the tip. I end up with size seven ring fly for the last two. Sixes may be a little bit better but they are just too small for me to fool with.

Rich; If after doing a static test, that is what it takes for the rod to handle correctly. Then that is what it takes, shouldn't be a problem

Rich Handrick - Like Bill Stevens, your choice of a SF FLY guide could, IMO, also include the 7mm Ring Size among the 10mm, 8mm and the 6mm Ring Sizes in the Batson ForeCast FL-Series of "high-heel" Fly Guides. The 7mm FL Guides are a happier median for me, too, than the tiny 6mm guide. ... Just think about that for FUTURE rod projects. This one sounds right on the money for this lite-tip, xtra-fast bait-caster. -Cliff Hall+++

Drop the 8 and move on to 6's. If you want to use 7's, that's fine too. But you don't need all those different sizes in there.

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

Thanks guys for the input - I think I have it right, just wanted to hear some more expert opinions! Those #6's are small, but they will pass any line used easily, and I love the light weight. Most commercial bass rods seem to use #8's as the running guides - they just seem too big to me. The 7mm might be the ticket for the next one...

Rich, I know this might sound sacreligeous to some, but I wouldn't worry about keeping the line off the blank. The number of guides you'd need to do that would only add unneeded weight to the rod. I've been building rods for over thirty years and I've never had an instance where the line contact has caused a problem. The trade-off for lighter weight is well worth it.

Another thought - a higher frame spinning guide will increase the torque (already present in a conventionally wrapped baitcaster) over a lower fly guide.

==dave==

Yoyr right Jim, Sounds sacrelieous

Tom, I wish I would have seen your post last night before I wrapped the rod! Oh well. I test cast it and it all looks good, casts very well even with my limited baitcaster ability.