Having just finished what I believe is correct static placement on my last 10 or so builds (I only build fly rods), I am somewhat unsatified with the whole system. It seems that guide sizing and placement should be governed by two competing factors; even districution of stress along a blank while casting or fighting a fish and minimizing the friction between line and guides when shooting line when casting. Reading the last couple of issues of rod maker has given me enough logic (but not a lot of empiric testing results) to convince me that using static placement accomplishes the even stress distribution and using as few guide sizes as possible reduces line/guide friction.

My questions are:

1) It seems that guide placement using static defection is somewhat altered by guide sizing and very much altered by where you place the first guide and also by the lack of flex around ferrules. How do you control these variables, especially the determining first guide placement?

2) I am not satisied anymore with "eyeballing" guide placement. Is there any way of measuring the relationship from line to blank that helps increase the accuracy of this effort?

3) Any way to measure the performance difference while test casting with this effort so that I can justify that spending all this time over and above using a guide spacing chart? I would hate to spend all this extra time and not have it add any tangible value to my rods.

The old rule of not letting the line touch the rod between guides, when you bend the rod in reverse, doesn't work with snake guides, of course, because they don't have a ring to keep the line off the rod at that point. And you're right, the two requirements are at odds with each other.

If you use ceramics, you have to use a lot of them to keep the rule working because for flyrods because they are small and low to the blank. One solution is to use a relatively high ceramic frame, and I've seen a lot of these on the flats. Looks very different, but it works.

However, the problem (I hate the PC for of "issue", because that leads to feel-ood answers rather than solutions) of developing some sort of formula or system in place of eyeballing the progression of the guides has probably generated more stuff on this (and the other) BBS's than any other subject. Unfortunately, I don't have a really good answer, because we build to the specific build to the specific blank and "let the rod tell us" where the guides "should" go to get the best compromise of the action and the casting distance we want, and the fish-fighting ("load") capability we need. But one of the techniques we use is to make sure that the angle of the line at the guide is never less than the angle at the next guide, and NEVER flat under load. We also minimize the angle itself (the delta) as much as possible and yes, we do measure and chart the distance, angle, and guide size and placement so we can use the data on the next rod. It isn't a formula but it is a database that builds empiracle evidence that gets us to a better undersnding of how the various factors work together, and helps to minimize the effort on the next build.

On the other hand, at rest, the line should be as straight as possible from the stripper through the tip. I realize this is heresy to some, but we accomplish this by using larger guides as needed and a progresssion of sizes as well. Yes, we sacrifice a bit of weight in this design but none of our customers has ever commented about it.

If you do choose to use snakes, use a larger size than you normally would. This will get the line off the rod in the forward cast, and also during the haul which forces the line off the rod, although it won't keep it off the rod on the backcast. It will, however, allow easier pass-through of weight-forward or shooting heads.

Uncle Russ
Calico Creek Rods



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2007 11:00AM by Russ Pollack.

William,

The reason you load the blank from the tip, not from the line off the reel, is precisely so that you do not alter the natural flex of the blank during the guide placement process. This is also why you do it in 3 stages. If you do this, you will have what you're after - perfect stress distribution.

If you use the guide sizing recommendations in that series of articles, you'll also be on the money.

Same for the number of guides used.

Play around with it all you want. Try different set ups and record your results. In the end you're going to find that you come up with the same things we did for the articles. But by all means, do it for yourself if you have the time and energy.

Line friction on the the guides during the cast has very little to do with distance because there is very, very friction between them in the unload condition which you have when casting. But the weight of the guides on the blank, which your imparted energy has to start and recover, has a lot to do with casting distance. Too many guides equals less distance, but not because of line to guide friction. It's because some of the energy that previously could have gone into casting is now being used to start and stop the rod.

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

How about the first guide? Do you start with manufacturers reccomendations and alter from there? Do you alter the first guide placement based on something like the AA.....with the first guide closer to the tip top with higher AA rods?

Anyone try measuring the distance from line to blank with defelection? Does mounting the rod with guides down when doing static deflection help with low fly guides?

How do you go about "test casting" a rod? Do you look for subjective things like feel, line slap, etc or do you have some method to the madness?

Doesn't everything also change when using a 4" large arbor reel vs a 3" standard arbor reel? Unless you get a reel from a customer or have the reel you will use and have done things like fitting the placement of the stripper guide by the caster's length of pull, arm size, etc, it seems like your placements will be off once you change reels and casters....

What methods are used to determine that having a same sized guides like some suggest are indeed superior to the more "cone of flight"/"new concept" principle like Russ suggests for a fly rod? Or for that matter any other method intended to improve performance?

Let me be clear - I'm NOT arguing about the principles of guide sizing and static loading placement. Its just that I'm getting the feeling that my method of guide placement has more variability to it than there is between blanks.

If a manufacturer takes a run of 100 blanks, detrermines proper guide placement by static deflection, and then publishes the average of the results, I have a hard time believing my "eyeballing" will end up with any better performance on average. Now do manufacturers do this when reccomending guide spacings? I don't know. Maybe starting by mounting the guides based on their reccomendations and altering the spacing based on eyeballed static deflection is the way to go.....

That's what I do -- (Maybe starting by mounting the guides based on their reccomendations and altering the spacing based on eyeballed static deflection is the way to go.....).

This whole topic is beginning to resemble all the discussions I encountered when trying to update my Home Theater sound system. I couldn't believe the esoteric endless talk in magazines and web sites about sound reproduction differences in high priced speakers, analog vs. digital, distribution curves on frequency responses, etc., etc. Of course, then when I went to actually hear the speakers in a room, I did discover that my ears preferred one set of speakers over another, but I certainly couldn't hear the types of distinctions they were talking about. In this case, it's most likely because of my hearing ability decreases over the years -- but, in the case of fly rods, it is likely that I just don't have the casting skills to distinguish fine differences of guide placement -- and having the static distribution under load "look right" gives me fine casting rods, so I'm happy.

Tony M

Many manufacturers just use generic guide spacing that was developed 30 years ago based on rod length along. If you use enough guides, minor variations in spacing aren't going to make a world of difference. But that's often the problem - you end up with too many guides when you could have done the same job with less, and then obtained a little more performance from the savings in weight.

I assume you're talking mostly about fly rods. If so, the butt guide really doesn't need to be moved due to changes in reel size - you shoot line from off the reel, so the size of the reel doesn't matter. What you may have to do based on overall reel diameter, is adust the ring size or height of the frame on your butt guide.

On reel arbor size - - that whole thing about quicker line take up was a scam designed to sell more reels. It's the outside of the spool that determines line take up, not the arbor size. Nobody goes fishing with an empty reel. Take two fully loaded reels with identical outside diameters and widths, but one having a small and the other a large arbor, and pull off, say, all the line and 100 yards of backing. Now wind them back and count the revolutions required to do so for each one. The number of revolutions between the two reels will be indentical. Imagine that. There are other reasons for choosing a reel with a larger arbor, but line take up isn't one of them.

Almost always, you want the first guide back from the tip in the 4 inch range. Because there is no leverage point beyond the tiptop, that section doesn't flex much and you can easily put the first guide back too far when doing static testing because it appears that no flex takes place there. In most cases, 4 or maybe 5 inches would be the max you'd want that first guide past the tiptop.

Test casting is difficult because your results will be somewhat subjective. The human element can't be removed if you're the one doing the casting. So what you want to do is just make a ton of casts, using measured markers for reference, and compare things like distance, sound, perceived smoothness, etc. If you use the number of guides recommended in the articles and have them spaced even reasonably well, the blank will be in no danger and you'll wind up only having to determine which feels or seems best to you. Sort of like Tony said. When you hit on what seems to suit you, stop. You've got it.

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

After reading the posts here I got the idea to turn the rod I'm building 180 so the guides are on top of the blank instead of underneath and tried a static test. The line comes very close to touching the blank in a couple of places but dosen't actually touch. This is a long, 9.5', rod and I'm trying to find a way to reduce the number of guides currently on it. All total, minus tip top, is 14. From what I've read in the different posts is it should be 11. The rod is currently set up the way it was said to in the mag. First choke guide set from face of reel then the remaining distance divided evenly not less than 4" nor more than 5". I've done this and when loaded and using another string to check how it follows the blank it follows very nice. (Guides on underside of blank and when blank is rotated 180 the string dosen't touch the loaded blank.)

I've tried increasing the distance between the guides and the result was the string was making sharp angles at the guides rather than following the curve of the blank.

Any thoughts as to reducing the number of guides?

darby

If you're building a spinning rod, then you can employ progressive spacing on the running guides (as mentioned in the article). You should be able to drop at least one if not two guides doing this, but you'll have to do a static distribution test to get them nicely spaced. With the equidistant running guide spacing, you're going to have a nice line flow and really don't need to do the static testing, but as mentioned in the article, you can drop a guide or two if you want to go further and use progressive spacing on those running guides. On a rod of the length you're working with, you might see a little benefit from doing this.

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

Thanks for the continues thoughtful answers, Tom. Its helping me clarify how I will do things.

Part of the problem with static deflection in fly rods is that you have a big X factor on how the fisherman is using the line hand. This in effect acts as variably placed guide while hauling, stripping, and sometime when fighting fish. And the reel sometimes is an chorpoint as well as the line is sometimes anchorless when the line is shooting of the ground. I guess you can't control for this.

What I've decide so far:

1) Start with as small single foot guides as possible for a given line size. Use that size all the way to the stripping guide.
2) Determine the stripping guide placement by the length of pull of the caster.....three or four inches beyond his/her natural length of pull.
3) Start with the first guide around 4 inches from the tip top, maybe a little more for fuller flexing rods, a little less for fast action rods.
4) Set the guides up using a resonable estimation from a chart or formula.
5) Adjust the guides using static deflection working the way back from the tip-top. Use as few guides as possible to get a good curve. I may try to move the first guide back up to five inches or so and try respacing with the goal of getting rid of a guide while still having a good curve. Sometimes, I'll have to add an extra guide if the curve is poor.
5) Adjust the size of the stripping guide to make it line up with the reel and the "intersect guide", for me, this will be the second guide from the butt.
6) Test cast for smooth operation, feel, and absence of line slap.

Here are some additional thoughts you might find helpful.

2) Put the stripping guide roughly 30 to 32 inches from the butt, on any length fly rod. You'll find this to be about right for anybody, even when using the "arm reach" method I outlined in the book I did for Amato.

4) Skip the guide charts. Put a guide at every 5 inches and then perform the static test as outlined in the magazine, moving guides back and removing them as one bumps into the next one. This way, you never have to move anything forward - you only need to slide the guides back towards the butt. And, you'll never have to add any guides because you're starting with a few too many to begin with. This can cut your time to space the guides in half.

5) Fly rods don't really have an "intersect" guide. But there's nothing wrong with doing this if you want.

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