I built a SW1087 earlier in the year using the New Guide Concept from the library on this site. The guides are BHVLG 30H, 20M, 16L, followed by BSVLG 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 and a 12 top. Last night I was using it to bait fish from a pier and noticed something about the line going thru the guides. With the bail line roller directly accross from the reel seat, the line touched the bottom of all the guides except the two closest to the top. It was 3/4 of the way down the second to last and 1/2 way down the last to the top. Why is that and what, if any, effect that has on casting, sensitivity and fish fighting. Could/should I have used a different size top, or maybe smaller guides for the last two? Or is that normal? Hope my explanation of what the line is doing makes sense and thanks for the help.

When you're casting the line isn't in the bail roller, so it doesn't really matter.

The size 12 ring tip tops frame has a lower profile than the 12 guide before it (something thats always bugged me). Beause of this, on surf rods I generally use the next size up for the tip ring, in your case I would've used a 16 ring based on your set up and an SW1087. Like Clyde says, it shouldn't really matter, but if your line is sitting as it is, while in a rod holder, wouldn't the line coming off the reel and shooting down all those 12's, find some kind of resistance with that slight misalignment at the top?

Makes sense to me, and might make for a good thread.

Mike



NERB that types with a bar of Ivory soap in his mouth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2006 09:46PM by Michael Joyce.

You know, Mike, I always noticed the same thing on my surf rods, and it kind of bugged me too, though I pretty much ignored it. You look down the shaft of a well-constructed custom surf stick, and the guides form a perfect line -- until you got to the tip-top, where the line diverts because the ring in the top, while the same size as the ring in the tip-most guide, is significantly closer to the blank.

I don't know if it affects performance one way or another, but it is an interesting subject, and going up one ring size is an intriguing concept. I'm going to think about this over the weekend, see what is posted here, and start a new thread if need be.

Chris, when people have noticed and ask why the larger tip, I've always answered "picture line heading in a cone of flight, or firing straight down a rod...then all of a sudden it has to take a Left Hand Turn at the end, it has to scrub something off a cast". Downside of using the next size up on the tip ring, is any added weight at the worse spot you could add weight...the top of a rod. For most surf rods, that shouldn't matter. (IMHO)

Only when the rod has NO-LOAD on it (rod is "perfectly" straight) will the fishing line follow the path you describe. Once you put a load on the rod blank, (retrieve your bait or lure, or better yet have a fish on), the line WILL touch the bottom of ALL the guide rings.

CASTING is just one function of the rod.
LOAD DISTRIBUTION is another function.
FISHING is the PRIMARY function of the fishing rod, and at least you are getting out there to wet a line, Luis.

For the first two line guides, you could try a layout that uses a lower profile FRAME, like the BNLG. You don't have to build another rod. Just lay it out over the back of your SW-1087 and check out how you like the line path. Just for fun.

It may just be splitting hairs, IMO. Lower profile is less weight, but maybe some line slap. If FLY guides suit some surf-fishermen for their Running Guides, then almost anything will work, depending on what your priorities are: Weight? Ruggedness?? Ring Size???

Hopefully you will nail a bruiser soon
to get your mind off such things. ...
And mine, ... B)- ... -Cliff Hall

............or remove the 12 ring tip, and replace it with a 16. At least your fishing and notice these things.

For what it's worth, guys, I let a lot of the discussions on weight drift by on the outgoing tide. I build primarily surf rods, which are heavy, as are the reels that get mated to them. My go-to bottom bait rig, for example, is a 10-foot 3-8 oz. heaver matched with an Alvey side-cast reel (650 BCXL) that weighs 1 3/4 lbs. I did everything I could to keep rod weight to a minimum, and the rig is well balanced (so it fishes well), but by the time you put a 6 oz. sinker on the end of your line, the rig probably weighs something like 3 or 3 1/2 pounds. I'm not going to worry about a half an ounce in this rig. So I agree with you, Mike, that the weight difference is probably inconsequential.

I also agree with Cliff, that there is probably no difference in performance because the top's ring rests closer to the blank, at least on surf rods. It may be a violation of aesthetics - with all the work we put into a custom rod, everything should line up perfect, dammit - but I don't think it would result in any noticeable difference in when you're actually fishing with it.

But it is an interesting subject. Particularly intriguing is the suggestion to use a lower-profile guide or two next to the top. The way I see it in my head, this would certainly correct, or at least minimize, the directional change. But before I get too involved in testing these ideas, I want to make sure that we're not discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin -- that we're not dissecting a topic that doesn't affect rod performance in any real measurable way.

Chris - we may not be angels, but there are too many of us dancing on the head of this pin right now, IMO, that's for sure, ... and my phat bass is about to fall off this slippery rock, as the tide rises. ... I'm not wearing my felt-bottom jetty boots. B)-

About the only reason I ever feel I have a need to save an extra gram or two in the tip section of a rod blank near the rod tip is when that rod is used to fish a nearly slack line / barely taut line. So the tip does not wiggle too much or have too much inertia, both of which are weight-related. Like lite-weight jigging or bass worming, to transmit a subtle hit. That is NOT the surf fishing we are talking about here, as far as I can see.

As I have cried before, the kinetic energy of the lure is so much greater than the friction generated from any imperfect line path during casting, that it is a wonder to me how the science of kinetic-energy / dynamics has been unable to de-bunk the over-exaggerations and hype (if not myth) about how "ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL" guide ring FRICTION, guide ring DIAMETER, guide ring HEIGHT and guide PLACEMENT. ...

All this is RARELY as critical as we seem to make it out to be. It took me the last year to realize that, but I make no apology for that blanket statement.

I am NOT saying that ring friction or ring diameter or ring height or guide placement is NOT important. What I AM trying to point out is that this entire subject of striving for PERFECTION is a matter of DEGREE, ... and that in many, if not most, cases, we can hardly go wrong in the first place if we stick to the norms generally recognized as workable and based on sound design principles.

A human's consistency in casting distance tests is probably ~2% for the better casters, and the frictional line path losses are also ~2%. Therefore it is all within the realm of undetectable or insignificant or inconsequential. ...

Better to remember the BIG PICTURE in Rod-Building Design / Function and Performance than get lost in the details, IMO. ... I should know, I have done my share of electron microscope investigation of a number of rod-building issues, and the point of diminishing returns is soon reached as we strive for near-perfection.

C'est la vie, ... IMO, Time for lunch, ... B)- ... -Cliff Hall, FL-USA.