I am setting up a 13'2" rod for heavy surf fishing using 20-25lb mono. It will mostly throw 5 and 6 oz plus bait. I have decided to use the NCG spacing with Fuji BMNAG's.

With the relatively large Thunnus 12000 spinning reel the size 40 stripper needs to be a fair way from the reel, around 45 inches. A 40HH would bring it closer to the 21-30 inches that most folks recommend but I would prefer to use all alconite rings if possible. I did some test casts and it doesn’t seem to be slapping or out of control.

My questions are:
1) How important is it to have the stripper within the specified range and what do you do if you can't practically get in there?

2) What other guides can I use in this application with a high frame (HVSG too much $$)? Does anyone know if Fuji is eventually going to make a higher framed Alconite?

3) Am I even going to get the benefits of the NGC with this heavy surf rod or should I just stick with old COF theory?


PS. Just a note, there is also a big difference between the reel intersect point and the x27 point (72 inches vs 100). If I place the choke guide at x27 point the BMNAG40 ends up around 32 inches from the spool. But this also means that the choker would be more than 60 inches from the tip.

I used 40MM BSVLG's in Hardaloy for the two Allstar 1418's (11' 6") . the 40 falls 35" from the middle of the Seat. I use Shimano 6500 Baitrunners same size as the Thunnus

Set it up exactly as the article suggests. It'll work and you'll enjoy the benefits. If the size of the spool and lack of availability of a higher butt guide means that the butt guide has to be that far out, you'll just have to play with it a bit and see how that aspect works out for you. I think I'd try pulling the butt guide back towards the reel a little at a time until I see a drop in distance or casting smoothness. When you first see that, stop and back it off just a tad and locate it there. Set the rest of your intermediate guides based on that location.

The choker guide doesn't care where the tip is.


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

Not long ago I set up a rod that with the exception of length (it was 10'), wasn't that much different than your rod. For what it's worth, I tried many different setups -- I got very frustrated at one point, because I was trying so many different things, and none of them seemed to be working -- but I kept going back to the NGC. In the end I managed to get it to work, and when I did so I realized everything I needed was in the article. I has just missed some relevent info the first few times I read it.

Also, I agree with Tom that the reel and the choker guide don't care where the tip top is. If I were building two rods that were absolutely identical except for length, I'd configure them the exact same way, and just add more running guides on the longer rod. Let's say you're building a 10-foot surf spinning rod with your Thunnus. You configure the guides, and your choker is at Point X. Do you think if you put the reel on a 13-foot rod, that it's going to perform any differently? No, it's going to cast the same way, and between the reel and the choker, you can use the same guide array you used on the shorter rod. The only difference will be more running guides between the choker and the tip.

Chris,

That's a really good point and one that many people miss. For the same reel, the guide set up will be the same from the butt guide to the choker guide, regardless of overall rod length. The only change is more running guides on longer rods and fewer on shorter rods.

Thanks for bringing it up. You said it better than I did.

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

Thanks I see what you're all saying. The article also suggests putting a running guide every 6 or 7 inches for a heavy rod. In my case that would mean 9 or 10 running guides plus the 3 or 4 from the reel to the choker. I feel that’s way too many guides for this rod. With the choker just over half way the first few running guides would still be in a very heavy section of the blank, a section where I feel that much support is not needed. So I assume it is ok to bend the rules again to suit specific rods and put the first few running guides 10 or 12 inches apart, or whatever distance is required to support the blank and keep the line flowing with the bend of the blank?

The article also mentions that it's perfectly acceptable to use a progressive spacing on the running guides. In your case that might be the best way to go.

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

Yes, Pat, I'd probably do just what you're suggesting. There's no reason to place guides every four or five inches on a section of the blank that doesn't bend much.

I've posted this here before, but maybe it will help you: the NGC is not a rigid system; it will not tell you exactly where to place every guide on every rod you'll ever build. I think that a lot of time builders (myself included) want a Magic System that will take all the brain work out of guide placement. Such an animal doesn't exist. Think of the NGC as more of a method, a method which will allow you to get a general idea of what good placement looks like, but one that requires you to use common sense and performance (from things like test casting and static distribution) to determine your final guide setup. In cases like yours, where the system seems to defy common sense, you're almost always better following common sense.

Yes I thought so, thanks gents.

Tom going back to this then: Quote=TK "I think I'd try pulling the butt guide back towards the reel a little at a time until I see a drop in distance or casting smoothness. When you first see that, stop and back it off just a tad and locate it there. Set the rest of your intermediate guides based on that location."

So in doing this once you have the butt guide located, the spool centre, the butt guide outer edge and the choke guide outer edge will no longer all line up. Do you put a straight line from the outer edge of these 2 guides for the intermediate guides to follow, no longer worrying about the spool centreline? Or do you go from the spool centre to the outer edge of the butt guide continuing to the blank and then relocate the choke guide so its outer edge touches the straight line? I would assume to not move the choke guide once it's set, but I have to ask.

Thanks again.

Set the choker guide per the x27 factor. Set the butt guide per the above. Do not move the choker guide. Now set the remainder of the intermediate guides between the butt and choker guide so that the outside of each intermediate guide touches the straight line.


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

O.K. So now I'm curious! How much distance will this gain you?

Over the very best you can do with a cone of flight type system, you can realize a possible 3% to 5% increase. It will also take a little weight off the tip of the rod and reduce fatigue on the angler by a bit. The rod will balance and feel better.

I should add that you still need to be careful about making sure that your smallest guides will still pass any shock leader knot you plan to have there.

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

Thanks for the response Tom. After reading this post several times, it seems (to me at least) that if you don't get the concept setup exactly right that you will actually lose some distance. I agree with the weight reduction, etc. but we're talking about a 13' heaver. With the cone of flight system wouldn't you use less guides, wraps, and epoxy, therefore balancing out the weight required by the extra guides for the concept system. It just seems like alot of extra work to me. Oh, the shock leader part is probably one of the biggest reasons I haven't tried this yet.....I run a 50lb shock leader, and I can just see one of my knots stripping off a few of the smaller running guides.lol.

Bruce, you can use the NGC for any kind of spinning rod, including one that will be used with a shock leader. The process is exactly the same, but instead of using something like size 8 or 10 as your running guides, you use something large enough to pass your shock leader knot. I usually use a size 16 if I'm going to be using a shock leader (I despise shock leaders, but that's another subject).

For what it's worth, I've actually found the NGC easier to use on rods with larger running guides. The reason for this is that one of the objects of the NGC is to get down to your running guide size as quickly as possible, and if you're using a larger running guide, this is simpler to do. If your running guides are size 10, for example, and your stripper is a size 40, you might have to do something like 40-25-16-12-10. When your running guides are size 16, you can get down to your running guides faster: 40-25 and then as many 16s as you need.

Also, on rods I've configured for shock leaders, I've not found any difference in how the NGC compares to the cone-of-flight method than the two relate on a "regular" rod. In other words, the differences are the same, at least in my experiences, no matter what kind of spinning rod you're dealing with.

One key thing to remember about the NGC is that it's not reinventing the wheel. The difference in casting efficiency between NGC and CoF is at most very small; I don't think that the average fisherman would be able to tell the difference when casting. But I still feel that the NGC is a better method for guide placement, not for casting distance, really, but because it results in a lighter, better performing rod. This is true even on heavy surf rods, though admittedly the weight differences on a big heaver are less than on a lightweight freshwater rod.

Back in my caddying days I learned something about golf bags that has served me well in rodbuilding: when something works right, you don't notice it. To put this another way: if you had to walk 18 holes and carry a golf bag, you probably wouldn't notice the difference between a good bag and a lousy bag on the first, second, or third hole. But I can tell you from experience that you WILL notice the difference on the back nine, and by 18 you'll be cursing the lousy bag that balances poorly and doesn't want to stick to your shoulder. It's the same deal with rods: by hour five or six of surfcasting, a lighter, better balanced rod WILL make a difference, and it will be much more obvious than it was 15 minutes into your session. That's why I struggle to get my rods just right: it's about a lot more than just saving a few ounces; it's about configuring a rod that will allow you to keep fishing without fatigue.

I think Chris summed it all up pretty well so I won't bother to add anything else.


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

Way to go Chris!!! Now I have something else to build. lol.
All kidding aside, that's a very good explanation.