I am wondering what most of you do when it comes to a heavy saltwater rods, say 50-130 lb, or 80-130?

I do under wraps, and I have been doing a double guide wrap, but wondering if I should do a triple?

I am wraping a 80-130 super seeker and I am using Trimar Goldtone twist thread the size of "C" thread, will this fine for guide wraps?

Thanks,

A single 1/2" long wrap of size A without finish is so strong that if you try to pull the guide out, the guide frame distorts before the thread fails. Double wraps are a historical artifact dating back to the days of varish. They were used to increase abrasion resistance. Given today's epoxy finishes this is not necessary. I would however still do the underwrap, even though with proper guide foot prep it shouldn't be necessary.

But if doing the triple makes you fell better go for it. It won't hurt anything and on the type of rods you're talking about nobody will ever notice the increase in weight (what would it be like 0.1 oz?).

Dave

John,
The thread your talking about has a tensile strength of about 4.5 lbs per revolution in the wrap. Like Dave said thread strength isn't an issue.

These gentleman are quite correct. Still, I would recommend a double overwrap just to sort of "idiot" proof the rods to some degree. That little extra weight won't ever be noticed on such heavy duty rods and it might keep a guy on the water instead of having to come back to you to fix the spot where he drug a rod against something and tore out some thread or something.

I see no reason to triple wrap anything.


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

Tom and everyone else, with this class rod which type of thread would you recommend, A or D?

~Mark

On a 50# and up class rod? Heck, I use B under and D over as soon as I think I'm contemplating a 30# class rod or more. Lots of past argument concerning overkill on thread strengths. Sure smaller seems to be strong enough, but where is it bad on such rods to be over built. The slight increase in weight on such rods matters little % wise. Action may be dampened somewhat, but as you are likely talking double foot guides I suspect you get more dampening from that frame than the thread.

So far as the original blank query getting into really heavy rods,,, yeah, I've be very prone to underwrap once and double overwrap. A or B under, then perhaps D and B or C over. Mix up the layers in thread size a bit, to make it easier to keep the thread in a layer from following the 'forrows' of the layer beneath.

I would underwrap in A and overwrap with two layers of either C or D. A thin coat of epoxy over the underwrap will allow you to easily make the overwraps. Although, I normally only used CP on the underwrap and then made my overwraps in opposing directions. Either way will work.

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

I may be missing something here.

I may have things backwards, but I thought I was clear on the 'physics' of this....

My understanding is that when using 'wraps' of thread to hold guides to a rod, it's the number of 'wraps' on the guide foot that makes it 'stronger'.

Therefore, for 'strength', more wraps of size 'A' would always be 'stronger' than fewer of C or D. I've always thought that using C or D for rods with those unneeded (but cosmetically pleasing) underwraps was so that it wouldn't dig in to the underwrap.

Even though the thicker stuff is 'weaker' for this application, it's still stronger than the blank, guide frame, or any conceivable force that a human could exert against it without resorting to tools.

Is there some other factor besides abuse I'm missing here? I'm pretty certain I can show mathmatically that size A is actually stronger than C or D for this application, and I thought that was why we used it....

Thanks,

Buddy Sanders

Stronger in some respects, weaker in others. The issue has never been about the strength needed to hold the guide to the rod blank - size A is more than strong enough to do that and everything you said is dead on the money. But what you often end up with on these heavier duty rods is the bumps, bangs and general heavy duty handling and possible abuse that they tend to experience. From that standpoing, it's tougher to abrade or tear through C or D than it would be to get through size A in the same situation.

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

Almost,,,,, do this comparison tho. Compare the strength of A and D and then the diameters. What you will find is that D is stronger than A by a higher amount than the increase of mere diameter. So yes, fewer wraps of D than A, but the aggregate strength is more with the D.
D has more abrasion capability before wear through as well.

With strong the epoxies used however, you probably have a tough time getting something to fail. But what the heck, it costs you nothing meaningful to overbuild and might bring some added piece of mind.

Imagine a rod and its wraps being Slid down a Gunnel or over a rail with 150# of upset Tuna or Shark on the Other end I underwrap with "A" and Epoxy then overwrap with "C" or D then more Epoxy. The epoxy on the under wrap can make it easier if you ever need to replace a Guide

Buddy, even though I haven't built many rods yet, here's my 2 cents. On heavier rods, I always do an underwrap with A, then a coat or two of TM Lite, then a primary overwrap with D, then two more coats of TM Lite, then a second overwrap of A, then two more coats of TM Lite. Lastly I do one (possibly two) coats of high build to level everything out. I like the piece of mind knowing that each layer has a coat of epoxy and that I'm getting FULL penetration onto my heavy guide wraps. Also, you will find that it is MUCH easier to wrap a very large guide foot with D as opposed to A, as sometimes you just can't get the A to "walk" up the guide the way it does on smaller guide feet, even if it has been properly prepped and ground. These intermediate coats of Lite also allow you to mix and match any size of threads that you wish as it fills the thread voids from the previous wrap. I started doing this from the beginning, then after puchasing a back issue of Robuilder on Stand-up rods it turns out that this is a common practice with many builders making the heaviest of setups. I've also found that by placing A on top of D for my overwraps it is much easier to get a smooth finish than it would be on two overwraps of D.

Thanks guys,

I don't mess with such heavy rods, but I guess they do have to take some abuse.

The 'wear through' factor from abrasion is something I didn't consider.

I still think that 'A' is better for the pure 'strength' factor though. There is more to it than just diameter to tensile strength.

In any event, it's pretty clear from a mechanical standpoint that the overwrapping/underwrapping is obviously overkill, but helps with abuse and that all important 'piece of mind'. On such heavy rods, the performance loss isn't an issue.

Thanks again,

Buddy

**I still think that 'A' is better for the pure 'strength' factor though. There is more to it than just diameter to tensile strength.**

I had heard that too, but then when you do the math, it isn't true. Here's a thread I started some time back on the topic, because the lore and the math were different:
[www.rodbuilding.org]

You can pull up the diameter and strenth numbers from the Gudebrod site and calculate the aggregate over, say, 1 inch of wrap using each. The D will win. Makes sense too, as the strength is area related rather than mere diameter, so it increases as a mathematical squaring rather than linearly.

It's one of those things where you wonder where the lore came from and why is stuck in so many heads so well. That's why I posed the question in that old thread.

i do an underwrap (only because i like the way it looks) the i do an overwrap of A and then a second overwrap of E....i do the first overwrap in A for the strength then i do the E over that for abrasion resistance because im hard on my heavy rods and i dont want to have to stop fishing cause of thread

A is stronger than D, D is stronger than A...... Who cares? A, C, and D are all stronger than you need. You can prove it to yourself with a simple experiment. Take a #41 Aftco roller guide and wrap a single layer of A 1/2" long over the center of each foot. Then get out your trusty handheld scale and pull on the guide until it comes out. You wll find that at just over 40# of pull the guide comes free. Why? Well its not becuase the thread failed, its because the guide frame deforms which allows the feet to slip out from under the wraps.

What does matter is that D looks like rope. I never use anything but A.

As for abrasion, a couple of good layers of high build epoxy take care of that.

Aesthetics and "customer expectations" play here. Many customers just expect an 80+ lb rod to look like it will haul in a whale regardless of the fact that the drag on the reel should be set much lower than the fail rating for the rod blank; guide frames (or line rating). For me -- on truely HEAVY rods: A or B under; C on first over then D on the top. Each thoroughly soaked with color preserver & thin epoxy on the under wrap with two final "regular" (thicker) epoxy coatings over the C & D simultaneously (done for ease of repair if ever needed) . The D (final)and two coats of epoxy are there mosly for looks (customer) and abrasion resistance (long term customer appreciation) . Heavy rods can take a pounding on a rail - we know they shouldn't & you never see it on TV tournament shows but a good tuna boatside & less experienced anglers means the rod can go anywhere - on the rail, on the deck against a hatchcover , whacked on rocket launchers & roof rod stancheons. (==it happens).