A bit of a conundrum here which I'm sure is a simple issue for the pros here....:)

Two high modulus blanks. 5'6" UL and 7' 2" L.

Normally, the spacing between the tip guide and the 2nd guide is closer than the rest of the guides. As the guides goes down the blank towards the butt, the spacing gets wider and wider. Normally.

However, when the line 'break angle' over the guides did not look quite right, I decided to test the flex of the blank. It turned out that for these two blanks, the tip 5" of the blank is noticeably stiffer than the next 10" of the blank. Thus measured from the tip, 0"-5" is stiffer than 5" to 15". (Hope I'm making sense)

In the case above, would you actually space the tip to 2nd guide further apart than the 2nd to 3rd guide, and possibly 3rd to 4th guide too?

Any comments gratefully received.

Blessings,
Mo

You could, or you could just continue to space the progressively keeping the tip and first guide closer than perhaps need be in order to preserve some manner of spacing that is not only functional, but pleasing to the eye as well.

...........

If well done the guide spacing, whether purely progressive or not, will provide two things:

1) There will be no "flat spots" in the parabola of the line throught the guides to the tip when the rod is bent, whether right side up or upside down.

2) When the rod is rightside up and flexed, and then you have the person on the line walk sideways while you keep the rod centered, the rod will curve toward the person's new position, all along the action but prgressivley more toward the tip. However, well-spaced guides won't permit the line (or the guides) to "roll under" the rod (on a casting rod) or "flatten" (on a spinning rod). That's one of the neat things to test on less expensive "store-bought" rods, if you can mount a reel on them for a test (we bring our own reels). In other words, the line and guides stay above horizontal (on a casting rod) or below it (on a spinning rod).

Sometimes the progression can be helped in a stiff-tipped rod if you increase the size of the #2 guide, and arrange the progression accordingly. This way the line will "Dive" toward the tip from the #2 guide, even if the distance is more than normal. Heck, I'm not sure what "normal" is any more - the setup is a function of the exact action of the rod and the guides selected.

- hope this helps

Uncle Russ

Mo,
Your blanks are not unusual. The first few inches of the tip of most blanks are a little stiffer and will do what you describe. Guides mainly perform two functions, line control and the distribution of the load or stress distribution.
Stress Distribution: If the blank does not deflect in the first few inches, no deflection means no strain, and if there is no strain there is no stress. If there is no stress in the first few inches there is obviously no need for a guide to distribute this stress.
Also added weight at the tip of the blank has a dramatic effect on performance (resonant frequency) so no more weight in the way of guides should be added near the tip than is absolutely necessary.
Line Control: The recommended tips for most sets of guides sit a little lower than the guides themselves. This results in there not being a straight path for the line from the reel to the tip. The line must change direction slightly from the last guide to the tip and will rub against the tip as a result. When the line rubs against the tip there is friction between the line and the tip resulting in the rod not casting as smoothly or as far as possible. The farther back the first guide is the less the line must change direction from the last guide to the tip and the less friction there will be. In my judgment all of this argues for not putting the last guide too close to the tip in the area where the blank is not deflecting.
But, as your question implies, there is the question of appearance. To most of us it will look odd if the distance between the first and second guides is less than the distance between the tip and the first guide. I think that this is one of the many compromises or trade offs that we must make when building a rod and one of the areas where we can improve our rods over factory rods. Personally I would tend to move the first guide back from the tip to where the blank is just starting to deflect and then space the first and second guide at about the same distance apart as the the tip and the first guide and then start increasing the spacing with the second to third guide.
If this spacing results in the line touching the blank when the rod is at its maximum deflection I would not worry about it. When the rod is at the maximum deflection, either when casting or when fighting a fish, the line should not be moving. The line should only be moving when the rod is straightening. If the line is not moving there cannot be any friction between the line and the blank.
As you can probably tell from this long winded answer to your question I think that most factory rods and many custom rods have at least one more guide than is necessary to control the line and provide adequate stress distribution.

Greetings,

THANKS for the responses.

Emory, your comments is helpful. My priority is always performance and looks is a distant second. Function first. Form falls where it may.

A couple of clarification:
1. I'm building spin rods so the guide is at the bottom.
2. I never use tip tops but wrap a guide for the tip so that the tip is lighter and the exact same height as the guides. Thus, no worrries about the tip sitting lower than the guides.

Any other comments welcome. At this point, I'm planning on moving the 2nd guide (the one after the tip guide) further back.

Thanks!
Mo