In Steve Gardner’s thread regarding Micro Guides & casting distance, Bobby Feazel’s question at the top of page three brings up a very important point IMO. So much so, that I think it warrants a new thread.

I don’t think it makes any difference whether a rod is casting or spinning when static testing (or actual use) as to the line distance from the blank. The line angle relative to the blank is the issue. Obviously the shallower (and more equal) the angles, the better. And of course, shallower angles mean more guides, which means more weight, which in turn compromises rod performance.

I agree with Bobby’s statement “I don't adhere to the old myth that one should "never let the line touch the blank". I believe that the line touching the blank has very little, if any, significant effect on any aspect of rod performance nor causes any undue torsional stress on the blank. The friction incurred when the rod is loaded is minimal because of the shallow vector angle of contact.

Although that I’m not a proponent of Spiral Wraps, I don’t think a bumper guide is all that beneficial either, except for peace of mind that the line MUST NOT touch the blank.

My Casting rods, being conventionally wrapped (guides on top), have no more guides than an “equivalent”
Spiral wrapped (or a comparable spinning rod, for that matter). The line touches AND sometimes drops below the blank when the rod is fully loaded. Doesn’t bother me (or the rod). I understand that there are some setups and fishing styles where this may be more of an issue. I fish primarily for Bass and use braided lines. I use small/low guides so torsion is minimized (with rod loaded @ 90 degrees, no discernable blank twist even with the rod/guides rotated 90 degrees to the applied load)

If one can get past the “myth”, fewer guides are required, reducing weight, resulting in better performance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2008 03:24PM by jim spooner.

While I’m not in disagreement with your thoughts entirely.
The concept that
“Fewer guides are required, reducing weight, resulting in better performance”

Is as much of, if not more of a myth then going the other direction.

If you are referring to lightness of the rod being the only criteria to performance then you are correct.
What seems to be overlooked more then anything in rod performance is what it was created to do. Hook and land fish.

A rod with one or two more as opposed to one or two fewer guides will harness the rods energy better when setting the hook and fighting the fish to the bank or boat.

So there is a trade off in performance one direction or the other depending on what you want to accomplish.

If casting is all you want to do by, all means use fewer guides (if you believe it will get you more distance) I personally don’t.
Same with lightness.

But if you want to improve your hook to land ratio and do better job of controlling the fish during the fight?
Then I would suggest the extra guide or guides will increase the rods performance, or at least the performance part that most important me.

Don’t miss understand me there is a point where you can put too many and decrease performance.
The reasons I went to using Micro guides when I can, was so that I can add an extra guide or two and still have a rod that weighs substantially less at the tip.

For me personally using the spiral wrap system has never been so I could use less guides, but to improve other aspects of performance.

Here is a simple test to show how more guides aid in harnessing the rods energy. (Using a light or medium light rod will exaggerate the results some and help to see better what I am talking about)

Take the rod and thread the line so you miss every other guide but include the tip.

Example: thread through the tip—miss first guide—through second—miss third—through fourth ECT. Spool out about 50 ft. of line and attach about a two lb. weight of some sort that will pull along the ground but not roll. Lay the rod on the ground against a vertical wall. Stretch the line out so that it is tight and mark the point were the weight is. Then go back and stand the rod straight up against the wall go back and mark the location of the weight again.

Rethread the line trough all guides and redo exercise. What you will find is that because the more guides have done a better job of keeping the line parallel to the blank, you have better used the rods energy to move the weight further. Same happens when you set the hook on a fish you have moved the hook further getting better penetration, and by default a better hook up.

Over time, I have found that the same principle works when fighting fish, I am better able to control a fish on a rod with more guides, because the fish is fighting against more of the rods energy that has been harnessed with the more guides.

Back to casting I have found that rods I’ve built with more guides cast further then those that don’t.
I believe this is because the guides tame the line and keeps it from flapping as much improving casting distance

If you don’t want to test this yourself?
Here is a link to Fuji’s web site that also has some diagrams that help explain it.
[www.anglersresource.net]

The purpose of the bumper guide is only to keep the line from rubbing a raw spot on the blank finish. If you read the article then you know that this is the only purpose for it, nothing more. Many Simple Spiral wraps do not use a Bumper Guide at all - most of mine do not. It doesn't transition the line, only keeps it from rubbing a spot on the side of the blank. Not at all the same thing that folks talk about when setting up a conventional casting rod and trying to keep the line off the blank. Two entirely different reasons.

Your "guides on top" rod does try to twist - you just don't know it because, I assume, you're holding the butt and preventing it from doing so. Put it in a free turning device and I promise you that with even just a half pound of load it will flip until the guides are on the bottom. If you do build rods with the guides on top, then you are certainly correct in trying to use lower framed guides to reduce the lever arm effect to the greatest extent possible. Whether or not the line touches the blank really isn't an issue in this scenario. I hope no one thinks that it is. Whether or not the line touches the blank has nothing to do with rod twist.

For many years most who spoke of using a static distribution test advocated not allowing the line to touch the blank under load. This was simply a benchmark for making sure you had enough guides on the rod - that's the only reason it was stated. With very low frame and very small ring guides, you'll almost certainly have the line just touch the blank at times, even if you were to use an unusually large number of them. In recent years we've run articles that mentioned that if the line just touched the blank between guides, it really wasn't much of an issue - the real benchmark was to make sure the line didn't fall below the blank between guides. When that happens you almost surely don't have enough guides on the rod.

Using lower framed guides usually means using a few more guides to ensure that this doesn't happen, but lower framed (and smaller) guides are also lighter so you don't pay any penalty if you have to use a few more. Jim's point is well taken that using the fewest guides necessary will result in less weight and better performance.



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

I just got home from going to our yearly fishing tackle show. I was disappointed with the fact that there were no custom rod builders there this year. There used to be three that made every show. One I know has passed away. The other two were getting kind of old. There are a few companies in the Houston area that manufacture rods. What I did notice were that most are using very low frame guides. One company uses REC guides on there lower priced rods. A few I saw had AMTAK guides and one company had their rods spiral wrapped the old way, not using a bumper guide. There were a lot of rods with split grips. But all in all there wasn't much difference between the products from company to company. I take it back, I did see one fellow selling "custom made rods." Nothing fancy, just some rods that he had made and had them for sale.

Tom you said: "- the real benchmark was to make sure the line didn't fall below the blank between guides."

Help me a little with a question I have had in my mind for some time.

On a spinning rod the line definately passes well below the bottom of the blank. So, what is the difference if the line gets below the centerline on a rod with guides on top? Not that I am proposing to let mine do that of course.

Thanks

Bobby Feazel

[www.shockwaverods.com]

Conventional wisdom will not open the box.

The arical by Fuji gave an excellant explination. As for adding one or two extra guids well add extra weight to a rod, I beleive is none deceriable in the over all construction of a rod.
Good Wraps Bob

Steve,
I have no idea what you mean by "the rods energy". There are two main purposes for guides, line control and stress distribution. The more guides the better the stress distribution and usually line control. However, guides add mass. The more guides the higher the mass and higher mass will reduce the rods performance by lowering the resonant frequency and tip velocity which will REDUCE the casting distance. More mass will also reduce the rods sensitivity. I have made numerous measurements on how much added guides will reduce the resonant frequency and reduce the sensitivity.

Preventing friction between the line and the rod is usually the argument used for using enough guides so as to prevent the line from touching the blank. However, for most rods this is a bogus argument because when a rod is typically at a high deflection, for example when loaded during casting, the line is not moving. The line does not start to move until the rod starts to straighten. If the line is not moving there cannot be any friction between the line and the rod.

Steve, I’m not advocating using too few of the guides. Static testing is still a valid exercise, but I think many rodbuilders are overly concerned about line/blank contact. Many allude to the belief that casting rods with conventional (guides on top) require more guides because of this. As I said previously, I have no more guides than an “equivalent” Spiral wrapped (or a comparable spinning rod, for that matter). I also said that I understand that there are some setups and fishing styles where this may be more of an issue. I agree with you that there is a trade off in performance depending on what you are trying to accomplish. And, casting is not all I want to do, nor is distance that much of a criteria, but unfortunately the cast to catch ratio for most of us leans heavily toward the former rather than the latter. Of course, I want to control and land the fish but the rod must also be an efficient “lure delivery (and retrieval and bite detection)system”. BTW, I think that rods were probably created to better enable us to cast lures or bait.
As Tom said, “using the fewest guides necessary will result in less weight and better performance”.
I also agree with you about the “micro guides”, but not necessarily so that I can add one or two more guides. It’s unfortunate that they are only now becoming available to the rodbuilder.
Incidentally, the “Fuji hooking power test” you refer to would certainly be applicable if 2 or 3 guides were used as apposed to 8 or 10. Not so much with a 1 or 2 guide difference.

Tom, I don’t disagree that the rod is trying to twist with the “conventional wrap”. Its just not discernable to me and therefore not a problem requiring a fix. Perhaps if I were more like Steve and spent more time fighting fish instead of casting I’d tire of the constant torque (LOL). I’m certainly not arguing against the “spiral” for those where torque is an issue.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2008 06:31PM by jim spooner.

Emory;
I totally agree with you!
Those are the two main purposes of guides. But they are not the only two effects of guides.

I also agree with you as I said in my post that more mass (may) reduce the casting distance. That is why I have gone to the little guides.

It gives me more guides with less weight. Effectively addressing both of your concerns, also when I add the extra weight of a micro guide the added weight is so infinitesimal that I don't think it could create a measurable difference. I mean if you are talking loosing and inch or two or even six inches over a hundred foot cast? That’s a difference that doesn’t even concern me. If I were in long distance casting competition it might, but not in bass fishing

You could say I believe more guides that weigh less will cast further then less guides that weigh more? But the truth is? I believe if I had two rods that weighed the same the one having more guides if properly set up would out cast the rod with less guides.

In fact as I have said; the rods I have made with more guides cast further then the rods I used to make with less guides. The reason for this may be that the weight of a 3mm guide is a fraction of a 6 mm guide.

I have weighed 6-3mm guides together (only because the Jewelers scale would not weigh one by itself) they collectively weighed 0.3 grams or about 0.05 grams each which is about 1/6 of a 6mm guide.

I can now build the rod with 6-3mm guides and have reduced the weight by the total of what 5-6mm guides weighed. So if I add an extra 3mm guide
I am still at least lighter by 4.1/2 - 6mm guides. And that is on the rods were I use 3mm guides when using 1.5 through 2.5mm guides the weight differences are even greater. The same with the differences in epoxy and thread which are by themselves at least 1/2 of what it takes to secure a 6mm guide.

The word energy is a word I chose to describe that I was saying, there may be a better word that you wish to apply. But when you bend a blank it wants to bend back. I call that force (energy) because that is how I best can describe it and the fact that it takes energy to move anything. By using guides to pretty much keep the line parallel to the blank I can harness that energy and use it to my advantage. You may know the scientific word for it I don't.

What I do know and understand is; Applied practical application and what it takes to make the rod perform as I choose.

I do have to disagree with one thing you said however. The comment about the line not moving until the rod straightens. The line moves when I release the pressure from the line with my thumb or finger regardless of the bend in the rod, and I have years of screwed up casts to prove that one.

It is good to see you posting again, although I don’t always agree with you. I have learn much from our conversations back and forth I hpoe all is well.

One point I never see mentioned...

In some cases, if the line is touching the blank during the hook-set or when fighting a fish, it can change the effective drag setting; friction on the blank can make the drag jerky or inoperable at a given setting.

This makes the case for spinning or spiral wrapped baitcasting rods.

Also could have problems were a fish is pulling out a few ft of drag from the line becoming hot from the friction on the blank

Steve,
OK, now I understand what you mean but I am afraid that you are in error. When a rod deflects energy is momentarily stored up in the rod and then the rod releases that energy. How much force you apply and how rapidly you apply the force determines how much energy is stored in the rod. But then the rod determines how rapidly the energy is released. The more mass that is added to the rod the slower the release of the energy will be and naturally the slower the release of the energy stored in the rod the shorter the cast will be. More mass equals lower tip velocity and lower tip velocity means shorter casts and more guides result in more mass. I wrote an article in RodMaker a couple of years ago that showed this affect and the result of measurements that I made. One additional #6 guide on a 9 foot 8 to 12 lb. Steelhead rod resulted in about a 7% reduction in resonant frequency or tip velocity.
You are right that the line starts to move when you release your thumb pressure but that is not when the rod is at its maximum deflection during the cast. You should be releasing the pressure with your thumb when the rods tip velocity is near maximum but that is much later in the cast when the rod is virtually straight.. At the point in the cast when the rod is at the maximum deflection the tip velocity is zero therefore the line is not moving and if you release your thumb pressure at that point you will not be able to cast any distance at all.

I agree with Gardner, line shouldn't be allowed to touch the blank if possible on a casting rod. If you have the line touching the blank on a salmon rod, pulling 10lb of drag at an amazing rate of speed, filled with fireline, you will have a cleanly cut two piece rod. Or three if it was two to begin with. LOL. I think sometimes us builders get into the habit of debating things that all but one fishermen in one hundred can sense or feel. The other guy is probably a liar. Not saying that we shouldn't build the best rods we can with accepted principles, however there are many accepted principles for lots of areas of rod building, do whatever you are successful with and be happy!!

Emory;
If I understand you correctly? The energy is caused by the bending and the straightening caused by the release of that energy. So I would be better to describe what I am saying as “will harness the rods RELEASE of energy better when setting the hook and fighting the fish to the bank or boat”.

I also have another question;
What odes "7% reduction in resonant frequency or tip velocity." equate to in casting distance of a 100 ft. cast? Are we talking inches, or ft or yards or enough to even notice.

One reason I ask is because of the results I obtained from the testing of different size guides posted at these links. In which even with the info you provide about reduction in resonant frequency produced the opposite results in actual field testing
[www.rodbuilding.org]
[www.rodbuilding.org]

Tony,
I live in the Northwest and have a little house on the bay of the Nestucca River where I practically live in the Fall of the year when the Fall Chinook are there and I also do a lot of Spring Chinook Salmon fishing. I have caught many, many Chinook up to 50 pounds. When a Salmon or any other large fish runs the rod should be lowered to a lower angle so as to put the load on the rod farther up the rod toward the butt of the rod. In fact, it is natural to drop the rod when a large fish pulls. So once again the rod is not at its maximum deflection when the line is running through the guides so the line should not be touching the rod resulting in any friction. I will agree with you though that if you did drag a braided line under a lot of pressure accross a rod it is not going to do the rod any good. I just do not see that happening in practical fishing or casting situations with a rod with a minumum number of guides and the guides properly positioned on the rod. And enough guides on a rod so that at maximum deflection the line does not touch the rod is too many guides and the price that is paid in reduced rod performance is too high.

Bobby here are tow pictures that show what we talked about on the phone earlier. To put it in some kind of context the spacing is around 4 inches on a very stiff blank. There is only a slight deflection and a full load drops the line a full 1/4 of an inch below the blank. With braid in silty water after extended use with heavy fish it will score the tip section of a blank quite a lot - the Alconites are really not high enough for normal guide spacing on top.

[www.rodbuilding.org]

[www.rodbuilding.org]

Steve,
No, a 7% reduction in tip velocity will result in roughly a 7% reduction in casting distance. So for a 100 foot cast that is roughly 7 feet. If you do not believe this here is a way to test it by taking the principle to an extreme. Cast one of your bass rods and see about how far you can cast it. Now tape half a dozen guides on the rod near the tip and now cast it again and see how far it will cast. Admittedly half a dozen added guides is not practical but it will clearly demonstrate the principle. I think that you will see my point.

Tony/Steve/Or anyone else

Take any line you care to (including fireline) and make yourself a loop with a good knot about 8-12 inches in diameter. Then find a short piece of blank about 6-8 inches long and chuck it in your lathe. Run the lathe at about 800-1000 RPM, hold the loop in your hand and loop it over the spinning piece of blank. Then be as surprised as I was how much force and time it takes to damage the line.

Tony, sorry, but I believe you will give up long before you ever do any damage to the blank.

Let me say again as I did in the previous post, ".... I am talking about bass fishing only....".

If you do a deflection test. The results should give you the correct amount of guides that should be used. Listen to Emory He knows what he is saying. Just my thoughts if you use less guides than called for and the line is going at angles instead of following the couriture of the rod, are you not putting extra pressue on the rod? Which can cause a failure.
Good Wraps Bob

Bill,
You clearly do not have enough guides on that rod. Plus with the guides on the under side of the rod you will have the same situation on the back cast as you do with the guides on top in your picture.