Guess it is all relative. If the line is hitting the 180 at 9:00, I'd say that pretty much none of the load is going to that guide. It begins fully contributing at 6:00. So the question is how much load you must get on the rod gefore that happens. And before hitting that point, the load is not being evenly distributed over that section. It is a concern. How much depends on the magnitude.

Think about a hypothetical rod with 1/2 the guides missing, and why it isn't done that way. Or one with just a tip and stripper. Or why high sticking breaks rods more easily. All shades of the same problem to be minimized and averted when you can. Low stripper, low and small ringed first 180, and keeping spacing tight are the params usable to minimize the effect with spiral wraps. I guess a slower action blank might help as well, since the 180 should be pushed to contribute earlier.

Are my thoughts way off base?

What I am saying is that any flexible medium such as string, rope, wire, etc. when it is subjected to a force that is pulling on it, it attempts to form a straight line from the anchored end (reel) to, and inline with, the force. The guides on any rod, regardless if convential, spiral, or spinning will prohibit this from happening. As a result, any guides that the line is contacting will have a force or load applied to them. It doesen't matter at what clock position it is being applied it will be transfered to the rod either directly through the feet or via the thread wrap.

As I mentioned, the psi would be slightly less on the first three because the line is not crossing the guide ring at 90 degrees, but on an angle resulting in a larger contact area. The force will not be reduced, only the psi.

Hi Royce,,, I agree on principle, but not specifics. Yes, the line wants to go in a straight line, but the guides constrain that, The only reason the first 180 guide may have 9:00 contact is the rod radius and additional height of the bumper or rail. Ideally the line would want to go straight thru the center of the rod blank, which would leave the line hanging within the first 180 (and others down to the tip in lessening degrees) hanging free in the air. Until the arc of the rod for each successive guide takes up that air distance, the guide in non-contributory in load distribution. The amount of force for each to contribute increases as the blank taper increases. Towards the tip, it takes very little load to get ehough arc to make a guide load bearing, and towards the butt much more.

Take a hypothetical rod with no load. Forget the guides for a moment and just pencil in the line from the top of the spool to the tip. That is the most direct path Would be lovely, except that the rod would want to torque. Now pencil in the guides as a spiral and connect them with a line. Pretty different and non-linear. Note on the hypothetical that the ring base of the first 180 sets the line transition angles to the stripper and to the tip. Now start adding hypothetical downward load from the tip. Each guide from the tip down kicks in sequentially, but it takes more load to do so. The overall function of loading the blank is quite different than that in a non-spiral case, where all the guides participate from the very start in load distribution.

Now ponder variations on the hypothetical, with the goal to be getting each guide to kick in faster. At least what I am left with are a few variables.
* Spool height sets the max height. Ideal stripper will fit the line angle from the spool to the first 180. I am finding this means a shorter stripper, if the placement from the reel is normal.
* For the 180's, the shorter the maximum distance from the ring surface to the feet, the faster they kick in on bearing load. Lower frames and smaller rings improving that.
* A slower action blank will bring all the guides into contribution earlier. The sequential loading nature of the spiral will make a blank behave faster in loading (my thought).
* The 1st 180 becomes the guide hardest to bring into full bear. The lower its height, like the other 180's, the faster it comes to bear. Consider the transition around the blank though. A nit perhaps, but note that the larger the ring on the tirst 180, while still maintaining the same overall height as a smaller ring, the more toward 6:00 (and away from 9:00) the line will want to bear. Meaning less guide twist. My ideal here would be something like one of the Fuji Power Oval guides made so the oval was horizontal, rather than vertical. In my thinking, a ring size greater or equal to the blank diameter where the line crosses the blank plane (plus the friction avoidance device).
* The lower the object used to prevent friction on the rod in line transition, from stripper to 1st 180, the better. Everything added to the blank radius is additional misdirection. The lower the better, with endurance being a consideration.
* The ring size on the stripper becomes a similar balance between height and open enough to more easily accomodate the line path around the blank. With a level wind reel, it makes little difference, Leveling by hand, however, the larger the ring the more the line will tend toward the side the line goes around the blank. A smaller ring is more self-centering. Something of a dilemma in that manual case. I would think the ring should certainly be at least the width to fit an angle from the side of the spool furthest from the transition side to the device used to avoid blank friction on that same side. As for the 1st 180, I perhaps wish there was a horizontal oval guide available here,,, but less so because the selfcentering nature of the ring can be helpful. So I again lean my thoughts toward a large, low ring.

OK,,,, my thoughts are anything but 'simple". Certainly the simple bumper methodology, by the book, yields a very decent result without much thought required. A multitude of factors and tweaking can be done to try and match hypothetical perfection, however.

Dave, my statements are not in an attempt to maxiimize guide placement or anything else pertaining to the design of a spiral wrapped rod. I was responding to many posts that claim that a bumper guide has no load on it. I am saying that that is impossible when anything is pulling on the line. Simply that if the line is touching it, it is applying a load to the guide ring.

That's what you hope for. But gotta say that I have seen plenty of specifics where the line is hanging in the air in the bumper guide, while loading the rod. That is a pretty ouvert case of unloaded. Until the arc of the rod can take up the slack, and the guides before it load, the bumper has no load. When that happens is specific to all the paramets of ring sizes, blank action, amount of loading, and the differening line angles between the 1st 180 and stripper, and from the 1st 180 to the 2nd (once the 2nd is loaded)..

It does happen. At least my sandbox rod shows it happening. Happens obviously if you set up the rod as a spiral, but with standard decreasing ring sizes as you see on a 'normal' rod. Especially a std boat rod where the difference between ring diameters varies more. Try it and see. The more limber the rod, the less obvious it is, tho.

Not trying to dispute anything, but my understanding of the "bumper" guide is that it's ONLY function is to keep the line from rubbing the finish of fthe blank and possibly damaging it. I understand that there are many builders using either no bumper or everything from toe rings to matallic tape on the blank. Since it's not even added to the rod until AFTER guide configuration and has no bearing on guide placement, what is the difference if there is a load on it or not???

Mike (Southgate, MI)
If I don't want to, I don't have to and nobody can make me (except my wife) cuz I'm RETIRED!!

I think you are right Mike. The bumper is merely a device to avoid the line rubbing on the blank. Ideally it should be as low as possible. Taller it is, the more indirection it lends. It has a bit of side load, which increases with its height.