After a long hiatus from rodbuilding I finally have enough time to warap a few rods. As I've been catching up the past few days I recognize many of the names I've learned so much from in the past--Tom Kirkman, Emory Harry, Mo Yang, Billy Vivona--and many others. I can't describe how grateful I am for this forum, and how much I appreciate the wealth of information it offers and the manner in which it's shared.

My new project will be a 7-foot ultralight spinning rod, and so I've been greedily reading everything posted about guide selection and placement, and also have ordered several back issues of Rodmaker that cover these topics. As I digest these posts I've come to realize I have some unorthodox ideas, and I thought I'd share them with the idea that they might stimulate a discussion in which I'd learn something:

(1) I think test casting is a vastly overrated tool for locating guides--at least for me. The problem, in a nutshell, is that I typically get more variation WITHIN casts of a given setup than I get BETWEEN different setups (due to different launch angle, different power, guides rotating slightly between casts, wind, fatigue, etc.) Now I fully concede that I'm not the best caster, and I am not questioning whether other rod builders find test casting worthwhile, but I have to admit that the exercise is usually a waste of time for me. And I'm probably not alone. For example, Fuji has a table on their website espousing the virtues of their "New concept Guide System". The table shows the results of 10 casts of a rod set up with the traditional cone-of-flight guide arrangement and 10 casts with the New Concept system, and even for those data--produced by "professional fishermn Noro Tanabe"--the within-group variation is larger than the between-group variation! Puzzled, I ran some statistics and was surprised to find that there was only a 60% confidence that the MEANS WERE EVEN DIFFERENT! (Surely Fuji has better testing data to support their claim that the NCG system casts better).

(2) I think there are other factors far more important than guide selection and placement that determine how far a rod can cast. The choice of reel and line, obviously, is critical--try switching from 10-pound mono to 8 pound PowerPro and see the difference. But even in the construction of the rod itself I'm not sure guides make that much difference (to casting). Indulge me a little anecdote that led me to this conclusion:

Back when I first got into rod building my son and I decided to make 7' popping rods. We built them on identical blanks, using Tom Kirkman's interpretation of the New concept guide system (in his book) to choose and position guides. Being selfish, I built mine with Ti-frame Fuji guides (TLSG, TYLG) and made my son work with the cheaper but otherwise identical alconites (BLAG, BYAG); I also built mine with a nice cork grip from St. Croix while I made him use cheaper EVA. Other than the choice of guide and grip components, the rods were identical: same number and sizes of guides, same reel, same line, same lure, etc. Imagine my consternation, then, when the first time out I noticed my son's lures flying farther than mine. Not happy being out-cast by an 11-year-old, I demanded we switch rods--and this time I was out-casting him. The difference, it seemed, was the RODS, not the caster--and the cheap rod was casting farther. How could that be?

After a little thought I realized the answer: my fancy cork grip was a good 5" longer than my son's cheap one, and the extra 5" of effective casting radius on his rod was more important to distance than the slick SiC surface or extra-light Ti frame of my TLSGs ad TYLGs! Right then I learned an important lesson: if casting distance is your primary objective, longer is better.

I have no doubt that by fine-tuning the placement and selection of guides one can optimize casting distance--for that rod. But I'm not convinced that the difference between a adequately tuned rod and a perfectly tuned one makes a significant difference, or at least a difference that I'm capable of measuring.

(3) So if not casting distance, why is the placement and type of guides important? I believe it's mostly to protect the rod, and secondarily to optimize senstivity. In my view this is a comprimise, since additional guides distribute the load along the blank, thus protecting it, but also add weight and resistance, which decreases sensitivity. This is why I think the static load test is the most important tool in positioning guides.

(4) This may be heretical, but I'm suspicious of the L+1 formula for figuring the number of guides (L = rod length in feet). I'm only a novice rod builder, but I've built several rods with L or fewer guides and have't had one yet break because of too few guides (and my now 15-year-old son certainly exposes them to the kind of abuse that would test this). I've always taken Tom Kirkman's advice to heart: the fewest number of guides that will do the job. In my experience that often turns out to be L (i.e., 7 guides for a 7-foot rod).

Didn't most rods have fewer guides before the introduction of the New Concept system? Maybe this is cynical, but it seems to me Fuji had to consider the effect of a shift to the NCGS on their bottom line--and smaller guides cost less and are likely less profitable. The solution? (a) Jack up the cost of the smallest fly guides and (b) encourage everyone to use MORE guides. Again, I realize this flies in the face of nearly all the advice I've been reading, including advice from some of the best rodbuilders in the business, but I've yet to convince myself that L+1 (or more!) guides actually protects the blank any better than L guides, at leat for the rods I've built--with the criterion being breakage. I acknowledge this might not be true for fly rods, with which I don't have as much experience.

Anyway, I apologize for this being so long . . . I guess brevity just isn't in my nature! I look forward to participating again in this forum as I get into rodbuilding again.

The only apology needed is for staying away from the board so long! Well written and presently being cogitated while sitting upon the throne.

You might want to read the more recent article on the New Guide Concept in the Volume 10 #4 issue of RodMaker. It brings the NGC up to the very latest in terms of ease of set up, use and performance. As always, any increase in casting distance will depend on what you're using now. I've long said that the best NGC (more guides but less overall weight) against the best Cone of Flight system (fewer guides but more overall weight) is not going to exceed about 5%. In most cases, the difference will be closer to 3% and these results were obtained by a mechanical casting machine so verbatim casts should be made.

The rule of thumb for number of guides in length of feet plus one, is just that - a rule of thumb. It isn't absolute and if you find you can do better with less or with more, then by all means do so. As far as Fuji's NGC, you'll find that it amounts to a lot more than just L+1. In many cases it's more like L+4 or even more. In my nearly 15 years of testing and tweaking the NGC I've found that I never needed that many to do what needed to be done and have been able to best Fuji's implementation of the system with fewer guides than they recommend. It would appear that you've found the same thing.

One more thing to add, the NGC isn't just about casting distance which in and of itself is just a slight improvement. It's a complete package that includes better rod balance, less angler fatigue and a more efficient fishing rod (less weight and all that this would entail).

The slickness of the ring surface has little to do with casting surface. Unless you find yourself using a heavily corroded, pitted, very rough surface of some sort, adding something like super slick SIC or Cermet rings really isn't going to add any additional casting distance over any other reasonable smooth surface. The friction between the line and the ring surfaces on the cast just isn't enough to make the kind of the difference that some people assume it does.

RodMaker Volume 6 has had an ongoing series of guide sizing and placement articles aimed mostly at beginners but does contain some very good background information for a sound place from which anyone can begin.

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

Very interesting Tom,

I also hope there will be many informative and stimulating thoughts added to this thread.

Test casting, I usually don't do it. I don't have enough confidence in my casting ability that I could evaluate guide placement with my results. Static testing is how I place my guides.

On my rods, and the hardcore Guys that I build for, sensativity is most important so I use the fewest number of the smallest guides that will pass a static test. I also do the shortest wraps that will securely hold the guides and just one coat of Threadmaster. On a customer that fishes only occasionally I feel that it is necissary to make the rod look special so a thicker shiney coat of epoxy and longer fancy wraps are required. A bit of flash at the grip end also pleases my customers eye.

Don

Tom;
Some thoughts base on my experience. If you are going to do casting tests on your rods, which I do extensively. Then you need to set up a standard cast that you do with each. Example; I always use an overhand cast, stand in the same place, at the same casting ranges. By staying with one type of cast only, you will get more consistent results.

Make multiple casts under the same weather conditions and use an average of those cast I have seen were repositioning or changing the size of a guide has resulted in as much as a ten yard difference in the average cast.

I also agree with Mr. Kirkman that casting distance is only a part of the NGC system.

I will also say that for me anyway that while using one more guide as opposed to one less may not improve my casting distance. It allows me to better harness the rods power when fighting a fish and on hook sets.
Now I can only speak in terms of bass fishing rods as they are the only type of rod build. So it might be a little different on other types of rods.

Tom, that was a really nice thread.

Tom Juster,

I have to agree with a lot of what you said. I may take a whupping for this, but I think who benefits most from Fuji's Concept Guide System is - Fuji!! I have built identical rods, one NGC, the other with a basic set up I use on all spinning rods, one size 16 or 20 butt guide, one size 8 or 10 transition guide, and #6's the rest of the way, test cast side by side, and can tell no difference. And using fewer guides, my rod is lighter and more sensitive.

Also, I use 5 guides plus tip top on 6' rods, and 6 guides plus tip top on 6'6" and 7'0" rods, and have no problem with rods breaking due to load distribution. Yesterday I tested a 7'0" 4 wt. fly blank built as an UL spinner, and was able to dead lift 2.2 pounds without it breaking ( I do a lot of destructive testing to proove to MYSELF what works ).

This all makes me feel so much better. All along I've been frustrated, figuring I was a massive idiot who couldn't gain any reasonable information from my extensive test casting,

Brian

Tom Juster,
You might want to uncover your e-mail address. Some of us would like to communicate with you without taking up a lot of space on this forum. In a few days this thread will be on the back pages and will be "lost" from view.

Mike Blomme

Hey Brian,

No you are not an idiot. If you really want to see a difference in test casting, try doing something like cast a rod with 8# line, then cast the same rod with 4# line. You will see massive differences. Mess with different guide set ups for days on end, and you will see minimal, if any differences.

Wow guys, thanks for the great replies! This is exactly why I love participating in this forum.

Tom Kirkman: the issue you recommended has been ordered, and is on the way. I can't wait to read it.

I can certainly believe the 3% difference in casting length between different setups--and, without a doubt, the variation in my own casts is greater than 3% (1.5 feet over 50!). Maybe I just need a little more time on the water practicing my cast (at least that's what I'll tell my wife . . .)

In re-reading this thread I'd like to clarify one point that might have been poorly communicated.

I see Fuji's New Concept system as having three components:

(1) higher frames for the same ring size;
(3) funneling the line quickly to the smallest ring size and then using these all the way to the tip; and
(4) using more guides than a traditional cone-of-flight setup.

The ONLY one of these I have an issue with is the third. The other two seem to make perfect sense to me, because they make the rod lighter and lighter is always better.

Again, thanks for the responses.

Are you talking about Fuji's New Guide Concept, the modified New Guide Concept primer listed in the RBO library, or the one illustrated in Rodmaker Volume 10 Issue 4? They are all different from my point of view.

Actually the third point still holds true - smaller guides, even in greater number, can be lighter than fewer albeit heavier guides.

Whatever serves to reduce weight, particularly on the upper half of the rod, will benefit you in terms of rod balance and csating efficiency.

The latest installment of the NGC in RodMaker Volume 10 #4 is the result of some 15 years of experimentation with Fuji's original concept. I go about it a little bit differently than they do but have not changed the name nor claimed it as my own system because for the most part the concept itself remains the same. Fuji's chart is generic and not intended to give you the best results for any specific rod.

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