I use it as a way to meet people. You can't imagine how many people will stop and tell you that the top of your 12' surf rod is on upside down.

Most fishermen I know will turn or pivot slightly in order to square the reel when a fish runs off to one side. And this would only be a few degrees needed to get everything back to square. But when you turn or pivot in order to square the reel on a conventionally wrapped rod, the guides are still going to try and go to the bottom. On heavy trolling rods the blank is short and stout enough that the rod won’t actually twist although the fisherman will get the torque placed on him. But on lighter and longer rods where you have the normal wrap with guides along the top of the rod, the upper end of the rod can twist so far that the guides sometimes do approach actually turning over 180 degrees!

No offense intended, but I am afraid the situtation that Emory describes rarely if ever happens. Not saying that it doesn’t, but even in such a situation the spiral wrapped rod is vastly superior in handling qualities. Like others have mentioned, it works as well as a spinning rod when it comes to ease in handling a fish.

I would caution Anthony on the idea that it’s going to improve his casting. I don’t think it will do any better than what he has now. But let’s all remember that most of us never cast to our extreme limits anyway. Most times we are attempting to cast and hit a target or area. That is usually within the all out casting range we have available to us. So for me this thing about casting is a non issue, but my spiral wrapped rods seem to cast as easily and as far as my conventionally wrapped rods. But I rarely cast either to their limit.

I cannot say if there are any real disadvantages to a spiral wrapped rod, but if there are, I have yet to personally experience them.

WOW! I never imagined seeing so many impassioned responses. I think my original question was whether there was anyone out there not hooked on “spiral wraps”. My post may have been misconstrued as a cry for help, but I did appreciate all the points of view. Many of them were educational.

After reading some of the “spiral” proponents convincing arguments, I cannot help but wonder why “spirals” are not more popular. Surely if the advantages were as obvious as many of you say they are, it would catch on like wildfire. Perhaps the way to “spread the word” (and create a market) would be to give them to professional bass fisherman. It is understandable that trying to convince someone to put down hard earned money on some innovative new idea might be difficult, but “seeding” the “spirals” with some “pro’s” would give maximum exposure to the fishing public.

I’ll admit that my passion is fishing, not rodbuilding. I started building my own rods many years ago because I couldn’t buy what I wanted in a rod. Perhaps because my “cast/catch” ratio is such that I’m unable to appreciate how difficult it is for me to handle my poorly designed rods (snicker). I probably place much more emphasis on casting than catching in my rod designs. If I were to see my peers switching over to “spirals”, as stubborn as I am, I’d probably have to ask myself “what am I missing?’

Anyway, the debate has been civilized and I’d have to say lopsided….the “spirals” won if votes count. I’m still going to stick to my “conventionals” for now. Go figure.....

Ken,

The Spiral Wrap Demo Device does a great job of illustrating this. No matter where you apply the load from, the rod turns until the guides face the load.

Now in any real world fishing situation, on a spiral wrapped rod that is always going to be less than 90 degrees. But with a conventionally wrapped rod, it will always be more than 90 degrees.

And as you say, you cannot pivot or turn in any way to square the reel on a conventionally wrapped rod and have the guides facing the load. They'll always oppose it (unless and until they twist the rod around).

Mike,

You say that conventional wrapped rods were a "bad design from the beginning." Perhaps. But they do work, and they are still the norm among casting and conventional type rods. But it is not the best overall design, that's for sure.

I'm probably going a little overboard in saying this, but to me, the debate between conventional and spiral wrapped rods is a lot like debating the merits of pusing a rope versus pulling one. You only have to try it to see for yourself which is easier. Again, a little bit of a stretch, but I haven't built a conventionally wrapped rod in nearly 7 or 8 years (save for the one used in the demo device) and will not ever wrap one that way again.


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

Tom,
I do not think that I am being inconsistent. I only pointed out the torque when a fish swims to one side or the other in response to the statement that there is less torque with a spiral wrapped rod. Counter acting torque is after all the primary advantage of the spiral wrap but in this case the torque can actually be higher with a spiral wrapped rod. In fact, I completely agree with you that the torque is usually, in most fishing situations, very small. It is very small in most normal fishing situations with either a spiral wrapped or conventionally wrapped rod.
But I will certainly agree that in some situations where there is a heavy load on the rod the torque can be significant and in those situations the spiral wrap makes a lot of sense.
You are fond of demonstrating how a rod will rotate in a spine finder so that the guides are on the bottom which it no doubt will if the load is not directly over the center of the rod and keeping the load directly over the center line of the rod is virtually impossible. I would suggest that this does not really prove anything because the torque required to rotate the rod is insignificant, parts of an ounce. I would suggest that the next time you perform this test you do the following two things that will demonstrate how small the torque actually is in most fishing situations.
First, put the rod in the spine finder but then just leave it alone and do not put a load on the rod. If the weight of the reel is just ever so slightly off center the rod will rotate whether it is spiral wrapped or conventionally wrapped. Certainly you would agree that the amount of torque that it took to rotate the rod is insignificant.
Second, now hold the reel on the conventionally wrapped rod upright, close to centered on the rod but just hold it with your thumb and index finger. Now let someone put all of the load on the rod that they want and you will be able to easily hold the rod upright as long as you hold the reel close to the centerline of the rod.
The point of all this is that in most situations the torque on a fishing rod is very small, really insignificant. If that is the case then the primary advantage of a spiral wrapped rod, eliminating most of the torque, is a solution for a problem that does not exist in many if not most fishing situations..

Emory,

Those are exactly the tests we do and a thumb and forefinger held on the rod blank itself requires a pretty good effort to keep it upright. Way more than most would have imagined. If you let the rod spin on over, trying to right it with just a thumb and forefinger on the blank is surprisingly more difficult than most would have ever thought. Sure you can do it, and most do, but they all have an odd look on the face the first time the see how much effort it does require. By the way, our tests in the demo device are done with just 13 ounces on the rods. I could have rigged things up with heavy 30lb stand up rods, but I wanted people to see that there is a difference you can actually see and feel with the bare human senses, even on the lightest of casting rods.

Unloaded, both rods will flip over when reels are installed. But, as soon as you put as little as that 13 ounces on the spiral wrapped rod, the reel will pop back to the top and stay put. This really opens a lot of eyes.

What the demo device really makes apparent, is that even with light rods and with only ounces of load, the difference in effort required between the two types of wrapping styles is easily apparent and more than enough to notice. Obviously as the load increases into many pounds, the difference is even more stark.

Fish swimming far off to one side while in close, doesn't really challenge the spiral wrapped rod. As Ken pointed out, and as I should have, most decent fishermen will turn or pivot a bit to keep the reel square to the fish. With a spiral wrapped rod this is going to take very little to again put the load somewhere near 180 degrees to the reel - in fact, if you relax your palm grip just a bit, the rod will automatically turn to the load and square the reel for you. But on the conventionally wrapped rod, even once you turn and square the reel 180 degrees to the load, now the rod wants to twist again. So I guess an even better way to put it is that any torque on a spiral wrapped rod will naturally square the rod and reel to the fish. But that same torque on a conventionally wrapped rod will always work against squaring the rod and reel to the fish.

Going back to what Mike said earlier about conventional, guides on top casting rods being a bad design to begin with... I believe he's correct in saying that. The only reason the guides were put up on top is that the casting reels required it. Not because it was somehow advantageous. In the 1930s and 1940's, the disadvantage of such a design was already well enough known that companies tried to overcome it by raising the rod blank above the reel seat, and passing the line through an open frame and out along and through guides which were mounted on the bottom of the rod. And, in 1909 or thereabouts, a patent was granted for the spiral wrapped rod. So there has always been a problem with conventional casting rods that has sought a solution.


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

Jim,

Getting the most votes doesn't necessarily prove that something is correct, but I'd say that the spiral wrap is just a better overall design that any conventional guides on top design is. The trouble for most commercial rod companies is that their rods have to sell themselves - they can't put a company representative in every sporting goods store to point out why the guides have been put on the bottom. So they just keep on doing things the way they've always been done, and they keep on selling tods.

But the commercial makers also know which style rod is the better one. In 1983 or '84, the first year G. Loomis added finished rods to their line, all their casting rods were spiral wrapped. They didn't sell. Gary told me that he never found any disadvantage to a spiral wrapped rod other than the fact that they were a hard sell to an uneducated fishing public (uneducated as in regards to fishing rods, not general intelligence). He pulled them all the following year and went back to wrapping the guides on the top.

Tournament pros, the good ones who are in demand, fish with what their sponsors give them which is usually a conventionally wrapped rod. Although, Rich Forhan is highly thought of among many top pros and they do often fish his spiral wrapped revolver rods.

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




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2006 12:02PM by Tom Kirkman.

Tom,
No not with two fingers on the blank, two fingers on the reel. With two fingers on the blank there is an extremely small lever arm.

Tom,

Both you and Emory make very compelling arguments and although I’m inclined to agree with Emory, I think you make some very valid points. It still seems strange to me that the “spiral” hasn’t caught on if the advantages were that obvious. Fisherman can be very competitive and any small advantage is usually quickly seized on. I know this subject has been beat to death, but I’m sure all concerned have benefited from the discussions.

To all other proponents of the “spiral”,

Undoubtedly, some of you “spiral” proponents have older (spiral wrapped) rods you keep around to loan to guests (or whatever). Would it not make sense to consider sending them out as “demo’s” to people in the rodbuilding (or fishing) community who have heard of all the obvious advantages but are too skeptical to expend the time or money to build there own. These “demo’s” would not have to be top of the line examples of the rodbuilders craft as they would only be used to allow the potential “convert” the opportunity to experience “on the water” (as opposed to a “lab” test) how this system performs. I know some of you have already loaned out some of your rods for trial to friends or acquaintances locally.

I personally would be willing to pay the postage (and pay a deposit) for such a trial and I’m sure there would be others that would as well. Perhaps this idea is ridiculous, but since some of you were so passionate about your views, I thought I’d throw this out there.

P.S. I’m not admitting that I’m convinced of any significant advantages of the “spiral”, but some of your arguments nearly convinced me.

Maybe all those spirals g-loomis pulled because they werent selling in 1983-84 are still kicking around for general distribution. I just saw that TV add for the rediculous "rocket fishing rod"...too bad those "energies" werent spent on educating people on spirals, instead.

Jim,

The advantages are so terribly obvious, that I'm surprised you don't see them.

Try this, build the same rod both ways. Take both fishing. With the conventional wrapped rod, hook up a fish and then relax your grip - just let the foregrip sit in your open palm. What happens? The outfit flips upside down. Now do the same with the spiral wrapped rod. It will sit upright for you, never causing you any undue problem. And the harder the fish pulls, the more stable it will be. Remember, all conventionally wrapped rods are inherently unstable. All spiral wrapped rods are inherently stable.

Now if you should get Emory's fish that swims way out to the side while in close, just relax your grip on the spiral wrapped rod and it will turn a few degrees until the guides face the load. Any torque suddenly disappears. Now do the same with the conventional wrapped rod. It will also turn until the guides face the load and the torque will also disappear. But you won't be able to do much with the reel because it'll be under the rod at this point. It will flip on you.

I have loaned spiral rods to many customers over the years. Nearly all bought spiral wrapped rods after using them. One guy had me make him about 8 live bait rods and wanted them wrapped conventionally. I wrapped one in spiral fashion and told him if he didn't like it I'd rewrap it for free. But if he decided he wanted the others spiral wrapped, he'd have to pay me to do those over. ($150 per rod for the rewrapping) He scoffed and left laughing, but came back two weeks later and paid me to spiral wrap all the other rods.

By the way, Emory is right about having to grab the reel instead of the rod to keep a conventional outfit upright. You can't overcome the force with just your fingers on the blank - it's too great. You need a longer lever arm and thus why you must hold the reel. Of course, on the spiral wrapped rod, you don't need either - the load on the rod keeps the reel upright without you having to do anything.

Again, I'm still waiting for someone to list a practical or functional disadvantage to a spiral wrapped rod.


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




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2006 03:14PM by Tom Kirkman.

Look, all this stuff about what happens if a fish gets in close and swims off to one side. So what? When you fight a fish you just move the rod and point it in the direction of the fish. Your feet aren't nailed to the deck and even if they were you can still turn at the hip. We're talking about moving a foot. Then the fish is once again off the end of the rod tip. It's called fighting a fish. You can do this with any rod but with the conventional wrapped rod the rod is still going to want to twist on you. With the spiral wrapped rod it is not going to want to twist on you.

Because spiral wrapped rods are no harder to build, don't twist or spin on you and because they reduce the amount of effort needed on the part of the fishermen in order to whip the fish, I make all my casting rods that way. I make the bass casting rods that way and I make the stand up trolling rods that way. It just makes good sense and the proof is easily seen and felt out on the water.

Jim you start paying more attention to the photos in the fishing magazines. It's pretty common to see a guy with a conventional rod holding it upright but the top half of the rod is twisted unmercifully. Keep your eyes peeled, this is very common even with bass rods.

Emory,

I would be very interested if you would describe the circumstances where a conventionally wrapped rod will perform better than a properly executed Bumper Wrapped rod. The slight difference in maximum casting distance is of little consequence. Up to this point I have only heard opinions but not any real world factual evidence of any disadvantages of spiral wrapped rods. In fact, my guess is you may have rushed into opposition to the benefits of spiral wraps that will not withstand closer scrutiny. Please show us the beef to your argument or admit that spiral wrapping is superior and put this baby to rest.

I can see one disadvantage on the spiral side, however it , like many others mentioned, is so minimal that the angler will not be able to detect it. It would take a rather sophisticated scale to measure it, but there will be extra friction on the first three guides, out from the reel, because of the lines directional change resulting in more line to ring contact area. This is probably far less detectable than the longer moment arms that Emory pointed out. I agree with Emory, that every design change incorporates trade offs.
I remember Bill Dance once saying that if an angler had a particular lure that was his favorite, he would probably catch more fish with it. Most likely, only because he would use it more. Probably also applies to rods.

I was a long time hold out, but finally made a spiral to give it a try. I've caught a few snook and redfish on it and it seemed to work well. On that size tackle, the difference certainly isn't overwhelming though. There is one situation that I definately prefer the conventional in. I often find myselt casting from under overhanging Brazialian Pepper or Mangrove limbs, and having to make underhand casts. It just feels like I can accomplish this better with the conventional. And maybe, being a creature of habit, I haven't used the spiral enough yet.

Tom,
So what it the rod turns when held in the palm of your hand. No one I know fishes with the rod laying in the palm of their hand. If they do I will argue that it only takes a few ounces of torque to turn the rod but this also means that it only takes a few ounces of effort to hold it upright.

C. Royce,
I agree with you. Anyone that thinks that they can lay out spiral wrapped guides so that the line path is as straight as it can be with a conventionally wrapped rod is in my judgment just not thinking. The line must make a transition from the top of the rod to the bottom of the rod going around the rod in the process which will have two results. Because the line must move in an arc there will be a loss in momentum. And because the guides must force or direct the line around the rod there will be some additional friction between the line and the guides. This will result in the loss of forward momentum and also result in some of the energy in the line being reflected back toward the reel. This discussion has taken place several times here before and the only answer anyone has ever had to this is " the losses will be small". I think that how small is going to be a function of how the spiral guides are layed out and the lay out of spiral guides to minimize the losses is not as simple and straight forward as some believe.

Dave,
I think that your guess that I have rushed to judgment is wrong. This argument has been going on for several years and I have stated my case several times and do not see any point in doing it again. If you believe that spiral wrapped rods are always better than conventionally wrapped rods and that there are no trade offs then I suggest that you build all of your rods spirally wrapped.

Mike,
I think that you missed the point. Sure you should turn toward the fish when the fish moves to one side or the other. The point was that neither spirally wrapped or conventionally wrapped rods are without torque. However, in both configurations the torque is small and the main benefit, maybe the only benefit, of spirally wrapped rods is that they reduce torque. In many fishing situations, not all but many, I will repeat they are a solution for a problem that does not exist.

Just for fun lets conduct a little thought experiment. Instead of spiraling the line half of the way around the rod lets spiral the line completely around the rod a couple of times. Now do you think that configuration will result in any additional friction, loss in line velocity and reflection of energy in the line back toward the reel ? The principal is the same just the magnitude of the losses will be different.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2006 09:08PM by Emory Harry.

Emory,

Actually the line does not have to transition from top to bottom - it goes there naturally, if you'll let it. Having the guides up on top of the rod requires a somewhat unnatural arrangement - the line does not want to be there and you'll have to use some extra effort to keep it there.

Sure, on a lightweight casting rod it only takes a few ounces of effort to keep the rod upright. But that doesn't make it better, it only points out that additional effort is required to keep it in that state and that effort increases in direct relationship with the load involved.

If any small losses on casting distance are to be called a disadvantage for the spiral wrapped rod, than the few ounces of effort required to keep the conventional rod upright must also be considered a disadvantage for the conventional style set up. You can't write off one without also writing off the other, nor claim one to be a disadvantage without also calling the other a disadvantage.

As far as the "thinking test" goes, If we're going to engage in that sort of test, let's also hang 1000 pounds off the end of the line of the conventional rod (just as valid as spiraling a line around a rod a few times). Now do you think it would only take a few ounces of effort to keep that conventional rod upright? Again the principle is the same, only the magnitude of the increase in effort will be different.

Bottom line, is that you can come up with all sorts of impractical and otherworldly scenarios to show that either type has some sort of deficiency. But in the real world where we fish, and under actual fishing conditions, the spiral rod has no practical disadvantages while the conventionally wrapped version has many.

...........

Tom,
In response to your points.
1. I am not sure what is natural and what is unnatural but I do agree that any rod, spiral of spinning, with the guides on the bottom is under many stuations inherently more stable.
2. I only partially agree, it is not just the load but the load times the moment arm. If the load is on the center line of the rod and therefore there is no moment arm then it makes no difference how large the load is. There is an additional complication to this and that is as the rod is rotated and the load is then off center or off of the center line of the rod resulting in a moment arm then the torque increases very slowly. It increases with the sine of the angle not directly with the angle of rotation.
3. I agree. Both are disadvantages and both are small in most practical situations.
4. I agree that hanging 1000 pounds off of the tip of the rod is also a valid and interesting thought experiment but go back to #2 for the results of your thought experiment.
5. Now we are at the crux of the issue. I think that I partially agree with your statement "in the real world where we fish, and under actual fishing conditions, the spiral wrap rod has no practical disadvantages". But I would also suggest that in the real world where we fish, and under actual fishing conditions, the conventionally wrapped rod also has no PRACTICAL disadvantages either. I absolutely do not agree that the spiral wraped rod has no practical disadvantages and the conventionally wrapped rod has many disadvantages. That is just a plain exaggeration.
I have said a number of times before, that I think that both approaches have advantages and disadvantages that can be either large or small depending on the circumstances. I also think that for some reason that is incomprehensible to me the advocates for spiral wraps defend it with an almost religious zeal that prevents a rational and balanced view of the both the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

I will attempt to defend the spiral wrap on the only basis I have, which is how my customers who have bought and used them feel. About half of the rods I build are bass casting rods. I do not build many saltwater rods. The spiral wrap is always a hard sell to first time users but most of the time when I can get them to take one of my spirals out and try it, they come back and decide to order their rod or rods, with the spiral wrap. I have a lot of return customers and those who buy spiral wrapped rods never end up returning to ask for conventionally wrapped rods. They want more spiral wrapped rods. Always. Some even bring other old favorite rods in with them and ask me to rewrap them in spiral fashion.

I would strongly disagree that a few ounces of torque make no difference. They do. My customers tell me that their spiral wrapped rods are easier to fish with and just plain feel better. Some tell me they are more sensitive, but I think the reason for that is that they find them less tiring to fish. An alert fisherman will feel more strikes than one who is tired.

When you move up just a little to species like striped bass or catfish, then the spiral wrap shines even more. I have personally watched fishermen of all ages trying to reel in a decent fish while their rod and reel rocks from side to side with each turn of the reel handle. Some of them are downright struggling. But with a spiral wrapped rod, that struggle goes away. They reel smoothly and it's easy to see that far less effort on their part is required to land the fish. Anyone who is willing to watch a little closer can see that trying to land a fish on a conventional rod takes more effort.

But it has really been my work with kids and women who like to fish that made me seek an answer to the inherent disadvantages of the conventional rod. I got tired of seeing all the struggle and the rod and reel rocking from side to side as they bought in fish. I started using the spiral wrap for them! But in many years I never got ahold of one that I really liked. Then I visited with Tom a few years ago and he showed me what he was doing. I took that design back and started building and selling rods with it. About two years ago I asked him if I could write up that style in an article for his magazine. The result was the Simple Spiral wrap. IMO it is the very best of all the spiral wrapped styles. But it does not spiral the line and doesn't require any weird transition guides. It lets the line do what it wants to do in the first place.

It's not hard for me to see the difference when my own wife reels in a fish now. Even with crappies, no more wobbling or rocking of the reel back and forth. Just smooth winding all the way in to the boat. She won't fish with anything but a spinner or a spiral now. That's good enough for me.

When fishing with a conventional without a levelwind, the rod is just in the palm of my hand while my thumb lays the line evenly on the spool. It's just this type of situation where my opposable thumb is otherwise occupied, that I can't effectively grip the rod. The other hand is busy cranking the reel handle around and because this hand is moving above and below the rod, it is useless to combat any torque applied to the rod. Believe me, in this situation, the torque is noticiable on my wrist (having small girly wrists!).

Ultimately, we can speculate all we want on percieved benefits/disadvantages of different designs, but science is based on what we can demonstrate. Spirals may not be for everyone, but if feels better for you, go with it.

Emory,
I am fully convinced in the superiority of Spiral rods to conventional and I will indeed only use that system on all rods with revolving spool reels. I take issue with your emphasis on the fact that if the load is directly on the 0 axis the issue of torque is negated. That makes sense on paper but not in real world fishing conditions. The natural motions which are always occuring whether from body motion or a rocking boat make it almost impossible to keep the mass of the reel centered on that tiny axis line. I am building three spin cast rods and the particular reels for these rods are extremely difficult to balance on the 0 axis. They're heavy and sit fairly high off the rod.. and without a spiral wrap these rigs would be very uncomfortable to fish. In addition these are gifts for three young brothers and the discomfort would be a serious problem for them.

The baitcaster I use for Striper fishing in the surf is a high end lightweight model but even with that reel the handle side is markedly heavier than the opposte side. If you can balance a 12.3 oz reel loaded with 300 yards of 30# braid on the 0 axis without any expended energy you're a better man than me. Most reels of that class weigh 18 ounces and up.. without line. If you rotate the reel to offset the imbalance of the handle what happens when you start reeling in line? Do you reel in that awkwarkd position or do you right the rod and incur the torque of the reel?

I have read your arguments and still cannot find anything in them that counters the superiority of the spiral wrap over the conventional wrap.

Bill Colby,

"I got tired of seeing all the struggle and the rod and reel rocking from side to side as they bought in fish"

That post above makes the most common sense to me of them all.

Tom,

The only disadvantage of the Simple or any Spiral to me that I can find is the boat rod locker issue. That one guide(s) off to the side does grab other rods when trying to remove the rod from the locker more than conventional styles.

The Simple Spiral is my choice.

DR