Good afternoon,
Maybe Tom will weight -in on this.

I build saltwater, 9' rods that handle lines from 7wt-11wt.

I would love to use my Fuji TiSiC single foot guides - and I have accumulated a lot of them. But every time I install them on a blank they make the rod softer. So I only have them on the rods I use 10-11wt lines.

My favorite blank is the Dan Craft FT 9' 4pc 7wt with a 9wt inter line or a 10wt float. I used REC s/f recoils as running guides and a REC recoil tip-top. So very little of the rods power is used-up "moving" guide weight.

Hypothetical question:
Two identical blanks (assuming no manufacturing deviation):

One blank dressed with REC s/f recoils and recoil tip-top.
The other is dressed with Fuji TiSiC guides Ti SiC and tip top.

Recoil blank needs a 9wt line to load it.
TiSiC blank will load with a 7wt line.

If the recoil blank loads at "X" value with 30ft of 9wt line out of the tip and the TiSiC blank loads also at "X" value with 30ft of 7wt line out of the tip - will the TiSiC blank develop the same amount of line speed -OR - since the TiSiC guides are permanently attached to the blank, cause a different type of physics to take place after the rod unloads?

In other words, after the Recoil guide blank unloads, the rod is unencumbered. But, the TiSiC blank is still encumbered by the weight of the guides that "tricked" the rod into thinking it was being loaded by a 9wt line when in fact it was being loaded by the heavier guides and a 7wt line.
I think there has to be some residual vibration or movement of the blank with the TiSiC guides that disturbs line flow after release.
Maybe the way I should say it is that the thing utilized inertia to load the blank in the Recoil blank (the 9wt line) is no longer a factor after unloading. But part of the 2 things using inertia in the TiSiC blank is still attached (the guides).

So, am I giving up line speed by using TiSiC's.
Herb

Good question Herb... I will say you give up a some small amount of line speed due to the slower action blank caused by the heavier guides.

Over on sexyloops.com, there have been discussions w/ engineers who have done studies stating that the action (not the type of action) of the rod is responsible for about 20% of the line speed.

I have a 9' 5wt Z-Axis I had built for me w/ fuji cermet giudes, and it has slowed the rod down considerably. However, I can get high line speeds when I want to. I also built a Batson RX8 9wt - I taped it w/ single foot cermaic guides and top, but stripped them off cuz they were so heavy, and used snakes. Bottom line, you may loose a little line speed, but line speed is ultimately up to you. Persoannly, I think it's more personal preference - how the guides affect the blank action, and how the line slides through the guides. There's trade-off's any way you go. mpp

The action will not change one single bit. The rod will still flex identically to the way it did before you added any guides, or a lot of guides. That won't change.

But... the response and recovery of the rod will change as you add more and more weight. The more weight, the more mass you have to set in motion and that means the rod will react more slowly and take longer to recover.

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

Herb,

AMEN SIR!!! I agree with you 100% in that the ceramic guides, regardless of type and material, WILL dampen the rods action to the point where it is very noticeable. At least for this builder, I will ONLY put single or double foot Recoils or like.

Paul

I've used the Fuji solid titianium SiC ring guides and the Recoils. I love the dampened feel of the ceramics and can guarantee my line speed is far greater than with the Recoils. They also make no noise and load and cast effortlessly. If you can't tell, I'm a big fan. But, everybody has a different "feel" they're looking for.
Todd

Herb
What are the Common Cents (ERN) values of the two rods in question?
What is the Weight (ELN) of the two lines?
I have made similar comparsions between Gold Cermets & REC snakes & do not agree with your conclusions when all factors are equal.
Lines in particular are very seldom within specifications for the marked line weight.
Gil

Todd,
I understand that some people believe that ceramics create a more "SLIPPERY" surface for the line to travel over and thereby shoot line more effectively.
What I was concerned about is line speed which is another thing. Line speed, unless I misunderstand the concept, is a function of how fast a blank recovers to the neutral position after loading - the time it takes for a fully loaded rod to unload. The faster this happens, the faster the line will travel. I think the consensus above is that the ceramics slow the recovery process by their added weight and inhibit line speed.

Gil,
My thread was based on a hypothetical situation
It is not important what the ERN is.
The givens were:
1. The two blanks were identical in all respects.
2. They both were loaded to the same value of "X".
One blank was dressed with recoils and the other with TiSiC's.

The question is which rod would have a faster recovery speed thereby delivering faster line speed.

I was not asking about line shooting ability or differences of coefficient of friction between recoils and ceramics which, I guess, would bring the performance back towards the ceramics. How much is debatable. A decent caster can squeeze performance out of any rod. It's tough to be consistant regarding effort expended.
My test of a rod is how tight the loop, how short the stroke, how far I can cast without a haul.

Herb

It comes down to component weight. The line isn't putting much pressure on the guide surfaces when casting so the SIC rings (of which I'm a big fan) isn't going to really give you any added distance from the slickness of the ring surface. I think you could bend and shape paper clips, wind them on the rod, and casting distance wouldn't suffer, at least not due to the surface the line is traveling across.

The heavier the guides, particularly near the tip, the more energy you lose due to starting and stopping the rod. Assuming the rod is optimumly loaded, the rod with the lighter components should cast farther for the same effort.

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

All I know is that is a much more effortless cast with the ceramics. That may just be how it feels to me. But, I don't see how I would get that feel if the line isn't moving with more ease through the guides. It's very pronounced. I don't think it necessarily gives me any more added distance, per se. Just a much easier, quicker, more fluid lift, back cast, load and forward cast.

Does that mean the CCS rating would not match up to the performance of this blank if it was built with the TiCH guides? ie. If CCS comes in at 9.5 it would take a 9wt line, since the TiCH guides add weight the blank can only now handle a 7wt line. Doesnt that mean that the CCS measurement of the blank is useless in regards to the way this blank with fish and cast as built?

I've used both Recoils and Ti/SIC Fugi's on numerous rods and have often taped a set of each on the same exact blank(this is the only way to truly find out the differences between the various guides on a blank),gone to the local park with various lines,and done some serious test casting while taking notes.I'm no expert distance caster by any means,but I know one thing for sure,switching from Recoils to the Ti/SIC Fugi's doesn't make any of my rods load with a flyline 2 line weights lighter,or 1 line weight lighter for that matter.

The Fugi's are definitely a bit heavier granted,but not too much more(if sized correctly),in fact they are probably pretty close in weight to a set of standard coated wire snake guides once you figure in the wraps and finish.I've tested the Recoils and Ti/SIC Fugi Concepts,along with various brands of zirconia ringed guides and found that while the zirconia ringed guides with plated steel frames weighed enough to make a significant difference to the way the rod feels and it's recovery speed,the Ti/SIC Fugi's only changed the rod slightly.I use the Recoils on all rods 5wt and under where I feel I can notice the weight difference the most,and try to use the Ti/SIC Fugi's on most rods 6wt and up where it is less noticable and where the extra benefits of ceramics may come in to play.On heavier rods I can notice differences between the rods with each type of guide(Recoil and Ti/SIC Fugi Concept) on while casting,but the differences are small and both definitely load with the exact same line weight.

Just curious but did you measure each of the identical blanks with the CCS?

I would be willing to bet that the 2 identical rods being tested were not quite as identical as you might have thought.If one is loading best with a 9wt line at 30ft and the other loading best with a 7wt line at 30ft,and the only difference between them is one has Recoils and the other Ti/SIC Fugi's,I would be willing to bet that one of these blanks had a higher ERN than the other.This certainly isn't unusual,especially among some of the really powerful,fast action blanks like the Dan Craft FT(check the CCS data base for examples) and it would definitely explain the considerable difference between the amount of weight required to load each rod at 30ft.

The difference in guide weight alone between these 2 lightweight guides really shouldn't be enough to have that much of an effect on the rod,especially on heavier,more powerful blanks.

Depending on how you wrap and finish, you may be able to save the difference in weight between the Ti SIC and Recoils by going with threadless Permagloss wrap. Best of both world. But of course, you could really go all out with threadless and Recoils....:)

Mo

Tony,
My question was a hypothetical one. I did not build one rod with recoils and then another rod with ceramics. My Dan CraftFT 907-4 loads perfectly (for me) with a 9wt inter line. I did not attempt to load a twin blank (with ceramics) with a 7wt line - it was only a hyothetical question - IF the blanks loaded as my orig thread stated - would the rod's recovery, and therefore line speed, suffer,

By experiance I know that the blank with the ceramics will be affected more by the guide weight than the blank with the recoils, and "feel softer", and will probably be able to be loaded with a lighter line. I just used a 7wt line as a hypothetical example. And, my concern was only for line speed.

Mo,
I only use s/f guides for running guides and for the "third stripper). I make my wraps as short as possible and use only 2 coats of PermaGloss. So I think I am as light as possible. PermaGloss W/O thread is probably heavier.

Thanks for all the input.

Herb

Scott,

No, it doesn't mean anything at all like that. The CCS will measure the blank OR the rod. Adding components will not change the action, but will change the power because the blank is now having to carry that weight. Typically, the ERN will drop by a little. How much depends on the weight of the components you add.

Most people want to know what they're starting with - if you're building a house that requires 93" studs you'll want to know that what you're starting with is at least that long. Thus, the studs are measured and the length noted. You wouldn't want to say that the original measurement is worthless because you plan to cut them. You need to know what you're starting with and how long somebody else cuts them isn't going to do you any good.

The CCS was designed to measure the inherent properies of any blank, or even a completed rod. Use it prior, use it after. That's up to you. But by all means know what you're starting with, or you may wind up with something that isn't even remotely suitable for what you want to do. Certainly you can use the CCS to measure the finished rod as others have built it, if you want, but keep in mind that they may not have built the rod the same way you plan to (different handle length, different components, etc), so their measurements may not be what your rod ends up with.

In fact, you could tape up a set of both guides and run the CCS measurements to see exactly what the difference between them in terms of power and response would be. Either way, the CCS is the one tool that can do it all.


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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2007 11:53AM by Tom Kirkman.

Herb, that's what I thought too. Wasn't the case. I use silk and 2 coats of permagloss in the past.

Mo

Mo,
When you used thread and PG were you able to feel the individual threads, or was the wrap smooth like epoxy? I apply PG heavy for first coat, allow to penetrate and dry-brush the excess off. The subsequent coat is applied thin. Don't know if this is preferred way or not.
Herb

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>The line isn't putting much pressure on the guide surfaces when
> casting so the SIC rings (of which I'm a big fan)
> isn't going to really give you any added distance
> from the slickness of the ring surface.

That statement just blows me away. I've never heard anyone claim that friction between the guides and line isn't an issue. If that is the case, then why does a clean, lubricated line shoot better? Why does the new sharkskin line allow people to shoot an additional 10-20 feet? Why are you a big fan of SIC rings, if they don't give you added distance?