Could one of you ole'-knowledgable salts explain the Fuji Concept System to me? I don't think I'm understanding the "full" gist of it. The way I understand it is; to start with a decent size stripper guide and go down in ring size rapidly from there to harness the line. Am I off the mark? Any input would be appreciated....

Paul

Go to the " Anglers Rsrc/Fiji " sit on the sponsor list. Click on the "general information" tab. there is section on how and why the system works

Paul Rotkis – There is likely to be an avalanche of views on this subject of Fuji Concept Theory. Here at the RBO Forum, there must be 1,000 Posts and 100,000 words of explanation on it, and 100 slightly different views of the CONCEPT System.

You will be told that the FUJI Concept System has some serious FLAWS. Since I did not learn the Concept System from FUJI, I never really went back to the original Fuji website and their explanation of it all. I just relied on 2nd-hand comments about it Posted here at RBO. I figured why confuse myself by wading thru that swamp. Exactly what those flaws are, I really couldn't tell you. And I am not sure I care.

I, like 100's, if not 1,000's, of other Fellows here at RBO were referred to and have read (several times), the version of it Archived here at the RBO Library. This Primer is commonly considered the quintessential version of the Concept System, and is sometimes called The Intersect method, so as to distinguish it from FUJI's original version. "Do not confuse the two, ... etc," I was told. TK's version [www.rodbuilding.org]

Personally, I had my own difficulties with the Intersect Method. They were associated with the reel's upsweep angle, and its relevance to guide placement (which is none). I also did not know what to do when the Intersect Point was too far forward up the rod blank for "common sense". I was told that “then you have to create your own Intersect Point”, and since the Intersect Method is an interactive Guide Spacing Method, that I needed to flex the rod and let it tell me where that Intersect Point should be. I have since become a bit of a “Dr. Roolittle” on this subject. Now, I too am able to hear my rod blank talk to me. It’s when I start talking to my rod blank that I have to take a break!

I tried to generate my own "System", or at least my own version of a good System for Guide Selection & Placement based on my own understandings, and my gleanings from the Board. I spent several months, and made several LONG Posts, on this subject last year, between July 2005 and Xmas 2005. This year I have had my own private epiphanies on this, and made some Posts & Replies that address your question. I think…

Mr. Kirkman had offered to show me personally how to do his Concept Layout, if I could make it to Charlotte, NC for the Show. But the 500 mile drive and the inevitable $500 expenditure and the 4-day affair was beyond me again this year. Well, if he could SHOW me in 5 minutes, what might take only 45 minutes to type & explain in writing, then why couldn’t I figure it out myself? …

What I did figure out over the next 5 days, and I what I have Posted & Replied here over the last 15 weeks on this subject is what I call the TRIFECTA Method. What the Trifecta Method is is not half as important as you formulating your own version of it.

And I can’t exactly explain the Intersect Method to you, either. I couldn't explain it very well to myself, so how am I gonna explain it to you?

If you want a BRIEF layout of the Intersect method, it may read like this, from a “One Size Fits All” perspective. For a typical 6’6” Spinning Rod:

Butt Guide = Guide Ring Size is ~50% of Reel Spool Diameter,
placed ~ 22” forward of Reel [CMH: ~10” / 100cm Rod Length]
as determined by your initial Casting Test(s).

Intersect Point = ~ 11” in front of the Butt Guide.
[CMH: That is ~50% of the Butt Guide Distance]

Choker Guide = ~ 50% of the Ring Size of the Butt Guide.

Running Guides: Get down to this size Guide Ring
in as few guides and in as short a distance as possible.
Use the Single-Foot Guides of your choice in a
spacing pattern that is slightly Progressive Intervals
or even Equal Intervals. Use the same size Ring thru-out.

Maybe repeat your Casting Test. Do your Static Load. –DONE!
[How did I do, Bro. Barkley? Have I kept close to the script?]

If I am a little confused or confusing on whether the Intersect Point has the last Choker Guide or the first Running Guide placed there, well I warned you, … Drive over to your local RBO buddy’s house and see how he does it. … Or web-cam / video conference with him and see if that clears up any confusion. …

As far as “my” TRIFECTA Method goes, I can explain it to you, but then I’d have to kill you, ‘cuz it’s TOP-SECRET, and nobody can make me, ‘cuz I ain’t got no wife. It takes too long, and I have written about it here in unmarked vehicles on dozens of occasions. And I have EXPRESSLY used the term “TRIFECTA” or “TRI- ZONE” or “ZONAL” Method in the Text-Body of several Posts / Replies in recent months. You can easily do an RBO Search and find them if you want to. I have been accused of being “self-serving” by proposing it around here, and frankly, there is only so much flak even a frigate (bird) like me can take.

So, in the end, this Trifecta Method is really only my own of the 100 other versions of the Concept Method out there. It is not really anything new. I wouldn't have been able to develop and formulate it without the interaction, criticism and synergism of this Forum. It was born out of my own frustrations and its limitations. That’s a Rite of Passage, Paul, of which I won’t attempt to deprive you. Mine was an intensive insistence on including all the principles I know into one body of reason for all this "Theory" and song & dance. Cliff Hall’s TRIFECTA Method is more like another encyclopedic explanation of Guide Selection & Placement than it is a Primer.

The important thing is what will Paul Rotkis’ version be?
“Here comes the sun, here comes the sun, …
it’s been a long, long, long cold winter, …” [The Beatles]
Good Luck with your Rod-Trek, … -Cliff Hall

P.S. – I’m sure the others will make you snow blind with all their comments, if I have not already. B)-



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2006 07:28AM by Moderator.

Paul,

Just read the article on the online library page here. It's easy to set up and works remarkably well. You'll shave a little weight off the end of your rod and find that it casts a tad bit better and balances a bit better as well.

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

Fuji has written extensively on this concept for many years now. Some of what I have read there seems to me to be a thinnly veiled attempt to sell more guides! Seriously, the concept makes a lot of sense but their pre-charted sizing and spacing flies in the face of that very concept. If you use those you will not end up with the concept that they are promoting in the first place. You'll just have smaller guides in place. And that is only a single part of the larger concept picture.

The article in Rodmaker and the library here makes a lot more sense. I think this is similar but a much more refined version. Tom has done a great job with it. I've used it on all manner of rods including surf spinning sticks and it works very nicely. One thing that I find surprising is that after you do your quick set up with the instructions, you can do a static test and then a casting test and you won't find the need to move anything much if at all. It seems to put you on the perfect path right from the go. So it can also be a great time saver.

Tom, I think the article needs to be updated. Members often tell newbies to go to the library and just read this article. Been there, done that, got frustrated! I've tried this method on three spinning rods - 6', 6.5' & 7.5'. Using various reels in the 1500 to 2500 range the intersect point is bogus - in some cases beyond the tip top. I understand the "concept", but there must be a better procedure for locating the proper intersect point. I am thankful for all the help you give!

Cliff, I really appreciate your highly detailed explanations. Your are always quick to jump in and offer detailed help. You must have a PC on your workbench. However, for those of us without degrees in chemistry, consider pictures (or just dumb it down a bit)? Even after reading about your method many times I still have questions. I understand that this isn't an exact science, but I seek to get the most performance with the fewest guides (less weight for finicky MN walleyes) as possible. For example, you say to put the half spool sized butt guide 22" forward of the reel and the intersect is 11" ahead of that. So do you put your choke guide at that point? If the butt guide is 20mm that would make the choker 10mm? I always thought that the choke was the smallest guide. (New Guide Concept Primer - 2. Note the point where the rod blank intersects with the table edge. Set your smallest and lowest guide...) See how easy it is to get confused?

When I have time I plan to experiment with butt guide sizes and distance to the spool. For my 6 to 7 foot spinning rods I have decided that I can get by with just a few sizes of guides. Finding the real intersect point is where I struggle the most. Well, that's not exactly true. Test casting during a Minnesota winter is my biggest problem. :)

Chuck

Thank you gents for the direction of explainations of this...I think I got it. You guys are walking encylepedia's!!!

Paul

I've set up a ton of rods both for myself and for others and never yet run into a situation where the intersect point is off the tip of the rod. I probably did a dozen of these for folks at the National Rod Builders Show last year and not a single one put the intersect point anywhere near the tip. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it's overall it would be very rare.

If you happen to be using a reel with almost no upsweep or a very, very short rod, then it could certainly happen. When it does, choose an arbitrary point for the intersect guide. Where it is located is not nearly as important as having those straight line paths. In nearly all cases, an intersect point ranging from 2 and half feet to about 4 feet is going to be fine for the location of the intersect/choke guide on most freshwater and light saltwater spinning rods. On very large reels and heavier rods, for surf and that sort of thing, you might find the intersect point to work out better at from 5 to 6 or so feet. This would be for the extremely large surf spinning reels.


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

Well, as far as the contents of the PRIMER goes, the word CHOKE or CHOKER is not even in that Document, so it is impossible from that reference to decide what the definition of the CHOKER GUIDE is.

Is the CHOKER GUIDE the First Running Guide (like an 8-7-6 mm Single-Foot)? ... Or is it the 2nd or 3rd Guide (or the 4th guide on really long rods), counting from the Reel Spool, where the Butt Guide in this inverted order is being called the 1st Guide?

Is the CHOKER GUIDE the last of the larger “funneling” guides after the Butt Guide? ... of a Ring Size that is larger and a Frame Height that is higher than the Running Guides...?

According to the RBO GLOSSARY:
“Choke Guide: Part of the “New Guide Concept System.” The guide located at that point along the blank where a line drawn from the reel spool centerline will intersect the rod blank.”

Intersect Guide: See “Choke Guide.” ... okay, ... I did, ...

That Glossary definition tells us WHERE to put the Choker Guide. It does not tell us what the Choker Guide's relative Ring Size or Ring Height should be.

If a Spinning Rod’s Guide Layout for Ring Size (mm) was 25Y, 16Y, [10Y or 10V or 10F], 7F, 7F, 7F, 7F, TT, then which one may be considered the Intersect Guide? Here the Y, V and F refer to High-Y, Medium-Vee and Low-Fly Guides, respectively.

The more I think about it, the less significant it seems, UNLESS we are trying to determine the LOCATION of the INTERSECT POINT without a sane Intersect Point, which is the origin of our original confusion.

When this Intersect Method was codified, the Reel's used may have had a uniform 4 degree Upsweep Angle. But that Upsweep Angle is by no means an industry standard among spinning reel manufacturers, and that's where we run into problems.


In the PRIMER, every reference to the Intersect Point or the Intersect Line or the Intersect Guide pre-supposes a knowledge of the original Article, which appeared in Volume 3, Issue #4 of RodMaker Magazine, which contains more detailed information on the System. Unfortunately, Back Issues of RMM Volumes 1-4 are, no longer available. So I have had to connect the dots on my own, as many others have had to do. .

Again, an update to the Primer would be welcome, IMO.

I am inexorably grateful to Mr. Tom Kirkman for his heroic efforts to make Custom Rod-Building a craft which Hobbyists can enjoy and Craftsman can master. To that end, he is like SuperMan, on top of the world. This snag in the tapestry of the woven red cape, and an otherwise unprecedented and peerless contribution to rod-building excellence and the body of knowledge therefore, is borderline trivial taken in the larger context.

But when Newbies hit this bump in the road, it usually feels like a tire blow-out, and they are forced to ask themselves what on earth is going on here anyway. And that's when all the hot air around here starts all over again.

IMO, … -Cliff Hall, FL-USA.


P.S. - If I had to describe the Intersect Method in as few words as possible, I would say that you set up a short-based Cone -of- Flight Method where the Triangle ends right where the Rod Blank starts to deviate from straightness by more than 10-15 degrees, when the rod is flexed by holding the rod tip at a 90 degree angle. That’s the Choker Guide location, the Intersect Point, it seems. Aft is the Butt Guide. Forward are the Running Guides.

To attempt to define this Intersect Point & Intersect Guide more precisely than that seems like trying to describe a cloud to a blind man. You’ll get the idea, but a simple picture would cover 1,000 words. Tom’s photo in the Primer is our only common reference. … “It 'Looks Good to Me'” is usually the last word on the subject anyway. ... And this Reply is now "LGTM", too. … -Cliff Hall



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2006 02:02PM by Moderator.

Thanks for that latest info Tom! Mom always said I was a "late bloomer". (Nice way of saying I'm slow) I agree with the post above that pointed out Fuji's contradicion. I noted that as well. I've looked at $300 plus St Croix rods ( a very fine rod by the way) that employed the New Guide Concept and they are not done the way I would do it. It may be because the conditioned consumer would think; "That looks too weird to buy".

I just did three rods. I tried four different reels. A Shimano, two Gander Mtn Guide Series and a Daiwa. Intersect points ranged from within 2' of the tip to way past the tip. All had #16 reel seats. Blanks were St. Croix 6.5' ML, Tiger Eye 6' M and Tiger Eye ML 7' extended. Maybe I just got unlucky?

Picking an arbitrary intersect works for me. I want to experiment. I'm trying to see how close to the reel I can start running the smaller guides, so that is why I was concerned about this magic intersect place. Perhaps it's not so magic. I think, for a 6.6M spinning rod using 8 lb. test, that I should be able to get good lightweight performance using a 20, 12, 8 and then #6 running guides. Perhaps I can even get away with 16, 10, & all 6's - especially on a vertical jig rod or a lindy rig rod when no casting is involved. This is the area I want to explore. Whats bugging me is that the major commercial rod makers are still using a size 30 butt guide about 22" from the reel on almost all the high-dollar rods I looked at in Cabela's. Some traditions should just go away.

Chuck





Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2006 12:27PM by Chuck Mills.

The particular guide ring sizes will be determined by your line... not you. Just be careful not to pre-select the guides you think will work best. Let the line path tell you which ones will work best.

The intersect or choke guide is always the very first of the very smallest and lowest guide you can use. The first of your running guides, in effect.

The reason you see the odd set ups on many factory rods touting the supposed New Concept System is because the factories just use whatever comes in a guide set. If Fuji offers 5 sizes, then they use 5 sizes. Many custom builders do the same and it is darn near impossible to achieve a straight line path with so many sizes employed. Sight down through the guides on one of those rods and notice the roller coaster path the line must travel. It will work, but you can do better.

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

I subtly mutate the Concept guiding system for many reasons, one being; the upsweep on Shimano reels is so steep, requiring that the 1st guide and on the other end of the funnel; the intersecting/choke guide (the 1st smallest running guide) be located to close to the spool face. (for my liking) I just make sure I have a straight line-of-sight, one ring inside the next, ceramic ring FUNNEL EFFECT from the 1st guide down to the interseting/choke guide. I don't mind if the line eases back to the blank over one or two more guides than would otherwise occur, but have never had a intersecting/choke guide not fall within the length of the rod. Moreover if one came close, thus making for an ackward arrangement, I'd tweek it using common sense but keeping a intacted straight line funnel

The Fuji Concept guide method, as stated on the Fuji site is indeed designed to sell more guides and is skewed int that directions whereas the version depicted on RBO is an objective rationalizing of the Concept which allow the reel, line, line knots, rod, rod flex under three varing loads to dictate guide placement and numbers

Hi Chuck - I often use the 20, 12, 8 and 6's set up for verticle jig rods and for lindy rig rods - it seems to work great for this application since casting is a none issue either way. The Alconite 8 I seem to get a lot of use out of is the 8L. It seems to fit best - but I buy a variety of them in the different styles to be sure I can follow Toms perscription for a smooth transition. I am playing with the new titanium fly guides for a couple rods I am making next in the size 5.5 and 5.0 as well. I believe they may take the cake for those guys wanting the ultimate in lightweight ceramic ringed guides. These are for fireline so the REC's are out of the question for them in my mind - but I will be using them in a concept layout for mono some time soon. Most of my rods are built to catch your marble eyed friends!!!

I am intrigued by the smaller butt guides as well, but the 20 seems to fit most of the many spinning rods I have set up with these guides in my version of this system, and exceedingly well too... I will be experimenting with them soon too!

Chuck Ungs

Thanks for the info Chuck. I sent you an e-mail.