This year, it appears that my projects will be on RainShadow blanks. Besides glowing reports I have read, it turns out that fishsticks4u is just down the road from me. I am looking to build a buzz bait baitcasting rod with a spiral wrap. 6'6" will be the length, and I'll be throwing buzz baits typically in the 1/4 oz to 3/8 oz range, but would want the capability of throwing the occasional 1/2 oz lure. Now I would like an unbiased point of reference concerning my pending purchase. How do RX6 and RX7 specifically compare to St. Croix SCII and SCIII, or to Loomis GL2 and GL3? These are reference points I can grasp.

Next, I have promised a friend to help him build his first rod (astigmatic near-sighted leading the blind, sort of deal). He wants to build a fly rod for American shad and smallmouth bass. Again, I imagine we are looking at a 7 or 8 weight rod (to throw an 8 weight line) in either RX6 or RX7. I would really like some feedback on this choice.

Finally, I have recently heard through a third party that the typical guide selection on American fly rods are far too few. That foreign rod builders often use nearly twice the number of guides on their fly rods. Theoretically, the purpose of so many guides is to keep the line straighter, and results in adding 10' to 15' to the average cast. I also heard this construction referenced as a "wind rod", because its advantages are increased in moderate to heavy winds. Can anyone comment on this, and does anyone know of a spacing chart which would reflect this approach?

I know, so many questions, so little time. However, any help would be greatly appreciated. This board has come through so often in the past for me, and has really helped me build better rods. It is a marvelous resource.
Tight lines,
Hunter

From ghoulies and ghosties,
and long leggedy beasties,
and things that go bump in the night,
Good Lord deliver us!

I'm no help on the spin rod question...but for the fly rod, I'd look at a 9'0" 7wt, unless you had a real compelling reason to need an 8wt. I fished shad and smallies for a couple years on the Potomac and Rappahannock with a 5 or 6 wt. No fun just yarding the fish in. The RX7 would be a better blank, as the RX6s tend to get a little sloppy in the upper weights.

A 9'0" fly rod should have something around 10-12 guides, fewer if you can get away with it (see the article in this site's Library to see how to determine placements). Anything more than that and you're just adding weight, which will give you all sorts of nasty casting issues, especially if you are concentrating extra guides near the tip. Yuck.

I'd also be very leery of any concept that promoted a 10-15% gain in casting distance. That's not a small amount...and if it were fact, I think a lot more people would've caught on. Now maybe it is true for a specific spectrum of rods like 12-15 weights where weight near the tip isn't much of an issue...but if anything, it's counterintuitive as more guides would increase the friction on the line, and with a well-planned guide spacing, the line path with 11 guides should be exactly the same as with 22.

Speaking of guides and wind...I've got a 10'0" 9wt that I use out here in Oregon for shooting heads into some pretty fierce winds...and it's got a total of 8 guides on it! Yet it still manages to throw 130'. Go figure :)



Scott Kinney
The Longest Cast Fly Rods
[www.thelongestcast.com]

Not familiar with St. Croix but I have a Rainshadow RX7 and a Loomis GL3 with the same
model numbers and the main difference between the 2 is the loomis price tag. I think
the loomis is a touch lighter and recovers a tiny bit faster. I like both blanks very well.

Raymond Adams
Eventually, all things merge, and a river runs through it..

Hunter,
I would also look at the Rainshadow RX8+ if I were you. I have built several and think that they are outstanding blanks. They use graphite scrim rather than the glass that is used in most blanks so they are very light and responsive. They are somewhat faster action though so if you like a fast action rods you will love the RX8+. If you like a more moderate action then I would stick with the RX7.

As far as using more guides on a fly rod is concerned, there have also been a few here in the US that have promoted this concept, fortunately only a misguided few that either do not really understand the physics of what they are doing or to be very blunt about it are just snake oil salesmen. Guides are on a rod for mainly line control and stress distribution and an adequate number of guides are necessary to accomplish these two tasks. But an excessive number of guides just adds weight and weight is the biggest enemy of rod performance. If you want to turn what would otherwise be a fine rod into a club just add more guides. The weight reduces the rods resonant frequency that lowers the tip velocity so the rod will not cast as far or will require more effort to cast a given distance. The added weight will also reduce the rods sensitivity or feel. The added weight will also reduce the rods damping which means that it will take longer to damp out oscillations introduced during the cast. It will also essentially preload a fly rod so that the rod will not effectively cast as heavy or as wide a range of lines. Adding weight to a rod has almost exactly the same effect as lowering the modulus of elasticity so why would you pay for an expensive high modulus blank and then add weight and make it act like a cheaper lower modulus blank. For any rod that will be used for casting knowledgeable rod builders do everything that they can to reduce weight and improve the performance of their rods not add weight and reduce the performance.
I have actually attempted to debate this face to face with one of those that have promoted this concept and he has been unwilling to debate it with me. I am sorry I am not attacking you personally but maybe you can tell that I think that this concept is completely bogus and that so called knowledgeable rod builders that promote it chap my backside.

Emory,
As I said, I am trying to learn more about this notion of increased guides. The subject was broached on DR's site by someone who is being taught by an elderly rod builder from Wales. The person being taught has been casting rods built by this gentleman, and they out perform rods with fewer guides, especially in wind. Naturally, there are questions concerning other differences which might exist between the rods being compared, but I like to think I have an open mind when it comes to questioning conventional wisdom. (Through the years, there have been too many instances where someone has out fished me by using his tackle the "wrong" way.) If, during the cast, the line was always pulled in a straight line through the guides, I would agree with you. Guide placement has more to do with distributing force along the blank when fighting a fish. If, however, fly line develops a wave pattern during the cast, it would inhibit said line's ability to move through the guides efficiently. If additional guides suppress any wave action, the length of the cast would theoretically be increased. Myself, I don't know. I am hoping to hear from as many people on this topic as I can. (And, yes, the RX8+ would be the better choice, but it is my friend's first attempt at rodbuilding, and he has concerns about using a premium blank to begin his instruction. I don't blame him.)
Thank you very much for your response, and I certainly didn't think I was being attacked.
Tight lines,
Hunter

From ghoulies and ghosties,
and long leggedy beasties,
and things that go bump in the night,
Good Lord deliver us!

Hunter

The wave pattern you sometimes see in a cast fly line is due to the tip oscillating up and down, not due something that happens to the line going through the guides. Other things being equal, that oscillation has a larger amplitude and takes longer to damp the more weight you add to rod. This is because moving weight has kinetic energy, To make a cast of a given distance, you have to get the line up to a certain speed. Now the line doesn't care whether it's gotten up to that speed with a heavy rod or a light rod, but that heavy rod is going to have a lot more energy to dissipate. If you are used to light graphite rods and you try casting a heavy old fiberglass or bamboo rod, you'll find you have to modify your technique to get adequate distance because of the tip oscillation.

Mike

Mike;
I think hunter is referring to wave action between the line coming off the reel and the guides through the length of the rod to the tip. Not after it has past that point.

Hunter;
One thing to consider in buying a blank for fishing buzz baits or other surface lures. Is that you do not necessarily need a blank that is supper sensitive or a higher end blank. Because it is a technique were you see the bite happening as opposed to feel it happening. Of more importance in this case is a rod that has the action and response time you are looking for. Whether fast or slow.
I use a lot of high end blanks , but on my top water rods, I choose to save the money to invest in blanks for rods were techniques needing feel and touch are more important. (Flipping, worming dropshoting and so on.)

I'd go with Scott on the number of guides needed on a fly rod of that length. Anything from about 8 to 11 guides, perhaps 12 at the most, is all you'd need to provide adequate stress distribution.

Adding more will do nothing but undermine performance, and that includes casting distance. You can prove this to yourself easy enough. Work out your best guide placement with about 10 or so guides and go cast it a bit. Quite a bit. Then strap on 15 to 20 guides and go cast it again. You will lose performance and distance. Guaranteed.

Now if you don't have enough line out, or a heavy enough line, to load the rod properly, then hanging extra guides on the rod will tend to preload it and perhaps make casting easier at shorter distances. But that's a very poor way to correct an otherwise easily corrected problem. Instead of permanently tacking on all that extra weight, just move up a line size. That will effectively accomplish the same thing as having far too many guides on the rod but without undermining the reaction and recovery ability of the rod itself.

Mike brings up an excellent point as well - more weight hanging on the rod undermines the rod's ability to deflect once and then quickly return to straight. It will vibrate, or oscillate a few times which will put those "waves" into the line. This won't help casting distance at all.

Few modern fly lines today are so terribly supple that line sag between the guides during a cast is any issue. The line is being pulled out by the foward area that has been propelled upon the cast and any sag between the guides is so minimal that it is of no major concern.

You can certainly use too few guides, but you can also use too many. A wise custom rod builder is able to determine the proper number so as to preserve as much of the blank's naked performance charateristics as possible.

........

Well, a conventional guide placement seems likely for the fly rod until I see compelling evidence as to why I should add more. Thank you very much for the feedback. Now, can anyone address the comparisons of RX6 and RX7 to SCII, SCIII, GL2, and GL3? I have inferred a great deal from posts of the past, but would like to hear something a tad more concrete. Steve, I agree wholeheartedly with you about the requirements for a rod to fish surface baits. However, I disagree with setting the hook on sight. I still like to feel the weight of the fish before setting. In addition, I typically use Power Pro, and do not use an eye-crossing set. I rely on very sharp hooks, and a simple snap of the rod tip. It still requires a fast action, and a lighter rod is easier on the arms and shoulders when "walking-the-dog" for extended periods. (Working surface plugs will be a secondary use of the rod.) Or, at least, that is how I do it.
Again, thanks for all the replies.
Tight lines,
Hunter

From ghoulies and ghosties,
and long leggedy beasties,
and things that go bump in the night,
Good Lord deliver us!

From a graphite standpoint the lower numbers in each blank series are in the ballpark. Same with the uppers. The don't fish much alike though, the G Loomis to me fishes a little heavier and slowier, the Rainshadows fish well and are easy to get along with. All the brands mentioned usually can be depended on to CC very close to the lines they are rated for. Action angles in the 63 to 65 degree range I'd guess.

Hunter;
I to wait to set the hook. But I know he's there before I feel him. It’s not the stealth bite like you get some times when fishing a drop shot or jig.
If you spend the time looking at the stats. There are some pretty good mid range blanks that are close to being as light as the upper end models with out the cost