Mr. Balcomb (world famous speller),
Yes, you are right the fewer guides that are used the higher the stresses will be. The number of guides used is a trade off like many other things in rod building. Nothing is for free, there is always a price to pay.
Are you going to be in Woodland?

E the picture is decieving with distance - seven foot rod - nine guides - it is a spiral and the spacing that you are looking at is 3.75 - 4 - I just flipped it upside down for an example of what the line does when the blank is slightly loaded.

I agree with you. In a perfect world, you are 100% correct. But, how many of the fishermen out there understand a fraction of what is being discussed here on this board. These fishermen don't always follow proper fishing technique like we create in our perfect forum world. It is also hard for even an experienced, knowlegeable fishermen to exert perfect rod angle with a large king 200' down off a rigger, being pulled by a boat at 3 mph. Why not add a little security to our rods, who are we trying to impress by leaving out a couple of guides? We don't impress anyone when the line or worse the blank breaks. Many on here simply sound like they are just trying to impress the rest of the board with their extensive knowedge of physics.

Emory;
If you are correct about 7% equaling 7 ft lose of distance?

Then why did get results showing just the opposite?
I spent over an hour of casting for each test, taking the averages of many cast to calculate my results, if that makes a difference

Bobby,

I don't need a lathe, everything cannot and isn't duplicated in a laboritory setting. I saw braided line cut a blank like butter with spiral rod minus a transition guide to keep the line off the blank. Believe what you want, it will cut the blank in the nicest, cleanest, pretty arc before the rest shatters. The blank was an RDR, the line was Suffix 30# braid, the fish was, well, we will never know-a largeish salmon. Try adding a little water on your line to your test on the lathe.

Tony,
I completely agree with you on the type of rod you are describing. An extra couple of guides is typically not going to be a problem on most boat rods or rods that are not going to be used for casting. The earlier discussion was about rods that will be used for casting.
But I do not agree with you on your statement about attempting to impress you. That is certainly not my intent. If you have a limited understanding of the trade offs that you are making when you build a rod and do not care well I guess that is your choice. If this discussion bothers you then I would suggest that you just ignore it. There are lots of other threads that probably will interest you.

Steve,
I have no idea why you got the results that you did but my testing did not have the variable of a human being in the physical part of the test. To measure the resonant frequency I deflected the tip of the rod through a light source that was focused on a photo detector and the output of the photo detector went to an oscilloscope. Plus if you are really interested I can show you the theory and the math to support what I have said.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2008 09:58PM by Emory Harry.

No offense taken, this discussion doesn't bother me, I find most of it interesting. I just don't believe that this stuff is even close to relevant to our customers in the field. Leave out two #6 guides, see if an average blindfolded fishermen (not a rod builder) can feel the weight difference of a few ounces? I consider myself to be a decent caster, but I myself cannot consistently get the release and perfection that your tests are implying. So, 3-7 feet of casting distance derived by theroritical math means what to the average or even accomplished caster on the water? You can't have many rods to build if you have time to do this type of elaborate testing often. That may be presumptious on my part, I apologize if it is. I just think we can get carried away beating ourselves up over these minute details, I have enough trouble sleeping with finish turning, let alone thinking about this stuff. LOL Carry on, just my 1/2 cents worth.

Emory;
I am one of these people that always like to learn! I would like to see the mathematical equations and theory. But I don't understand that if all you have done is to deflect the rod tip through a light source to determine resonant frequency how do you know that equates to 7 ft less in casting distance over a hundred ft?

I understand theory! I work with structural engineers on almost a weekly basis. But many times what is designed in theory does not work or has different results in application and the physical world.

The perfect example of this would be the bumble bee. That according to physics can not fly (to much body mass to be supported by its limited wing span), but we all know they fly. Theories are good, but do not always work out in practice or real world applications.

I really believe that’s what is happening here
In theory I should not be able to cast a rod with more guides further then one with less guides (I truly understand this) but in application, I do it every time I go fishing. My clients do it and comment on it enough to know it happens regardless of the theories.

You are also right that I am the human equation in my testing. But I have yet to watch machines fishing. It is the one equation that must be included in real world experiments

Yes, Emory I well be at the April show in Woodland. I well be giving a class on spelling short cuts. So everything I post is confusing to those who use their left side of their brain LOL. If any one can read this you must be using your right side Seriously Emory are you going to give a class on rod vibration or deflection

Tony,
You make a good point that the average fisherman probably does not realize all of the potential in a rod but it seems to me that is not a good reason for we custom rod builders not to understand what we are doing and not try to get the best performance out of the rods we build. And I think what we have been discussing is very relevant. If we just want a rod or to supply a rod to customers and do not care about the performance or how it suits the customer and the application why not just tell the customer to go to Walmart. Actually I feel differently than most custom rod builders. I do not think that the major rod manufacturers are idiots. I think that for the most part they build very good rods, some even excellent rods. They have been at it for quite awhile and they know what they are doing. To me this means that the custom rod builder has got to know what the heck he is doing and why and really be on his toes if he is going to give the customer good value for his dollar. And I think that if he or she does not care about giving the customer good value then he or she ought to be doing something else.
As far as the testing is concerned I do it mainly for fun and because it interests me and because I have a background in instrumentation. And as far as the number of rods that I build is concerned, I do not build fly rods and have quit building Bass rods so the number that I will build will be down this year but I suspect that I will build and sell about 200 to 250 rods this year. Like the last few years I will probably still build more than I really want to build. How about you?

Bob,
I am glad that you will be there and I look forward to seeing you again. No, I asked not to do any presentation this year. I wanted to make sure that I had the free time to go to your spelling presentation.

Pretty close to the same number of rods. I don't build fly rods myself either. I also believe that the rod manufacturers are not to be taken lightly. Man thats three things we agree on already. If a customer only wants to spend $50, I think a trip to Walmart is perfect for him, no problem with that. I think most good builders understand the concepts being discussed, we just don't need a machine or an instrument to demonstrate theory for us to feel good about our rods. Static testing and real world fishing tells us exactly what we need to know. It is like figuring the devastation ring of an atomic bomb in inches! I don't dispute your theories, or your drive to learn more, I just have a side note comment on wheather it is really applicable or necessary, other than for fun or personal interest. You have built enough rods that I would bet you can look at any given store bought or other rod and determine what is right and wrong with it and how it will perform without any machines or theories. I believe that you will improve your rod design through your research, but I also know that others will do the same through applying what they learn from rods in the field. We will both learn the hard way as well, through failure. I think we are straight?

With all this discussion about casting distance, I think that we’re really using distance as a measure of casting efficiency, or ease of casting. Most of us are not so concerned about extremely long casts, but like a rod that casts accurately with less effort. (Not to mention other desirable attributes such as sensitivity, hook setting power, fish control, etc, etc.) The distance a rod casts would be more likely to correlate into that. The few feet of casting difference (or casting efficiency…..for lack of a better term) that some consider negligible may add up over a long day of fishing.
There are so many variables in fishing that necessitate making some trade-offs, as we’re all aware. I think we all benefit from these debates to some degree. There are times when I doubt my own theories, but can be convinced I'm right by hearing an opposing argument. LOL

Bobby Feasel,

I was just wondering if you still have all of your fingers? I hope that many people don't hold a loop of fireline in their hand while trying to saw a blank in half on an 800 RPM lathe. If fireline or any other superbraid will saw thru hardened ceramic inserts regularly, they will surely saw thru a blank like butter. Again, add a little water to the line as it is turning, be careful don't saw your hand off.

Mae sre u gt on hte lit I undrstand I hav a paked room.LOL
Good Wraps Bob

Tony

Thanks for your concern.

There have been many requests on this board for someone to post a picture of a hardened ceramic ring damaged by braid. Since you see this on a regular basis, is it possible that you could post a couple of pictures? The ones that were sawn thru would be of particular interest.

I would certainly appreciate it.

Bobby Feazel

[www.shockwaverods.com]

Conventional wisdom will not open the box.

Like Bobby, I have never actually seen or known anyone that has actually seen a ceramic guide RING (even Al. Oxide) grooved/damaged by braided line. Not saying that it's impossible, just that everyone I know talks about it but they have never personally seen it

Mike (Southgate, MI)
If I don't want to, I don't have to and nobody can make me (except my wife) cuz I'm RETIRED!!

Steve,
I deflect the rod tip through the light source and measure on an oscilloscope how many times the light is interupted per unit of time. This tells me the rods resonant frequency and the resonant frequency will drop with any added mass. The tip velocity correlates directly with the resonant frequency. A 7% drop in resonant frequency will result in a 7% drop in tip velocity. The casting distance correlates with the tip velocity. Therefore the casting distance and the resonant frequency correlate.
As far as you casting farther with added guides, added mass, I do not know why you are getting those results but there are a number of possible reasons.
1. The rod with fewer guides, because it has a higher resonant frequency, will require a faster casting time constant. If you cast the rod with fewer guides using the same casting time constant or speed as you do with the rod with more guides it may well not cast as far as the heavier rod. But that is because of your casting not because the lighter rod cannot potentially cast farther.
2. The actual tip velocity when casting terminal tackle that has some mass is determined by the combined or overall mass, the rod and the terminal tackle. You may not be using the same terminal tackle.
3. If you are using the same terminal tackle both rods are probably not loading the same or storing up equal amounts of energy. The heavier rod with more guides may be loading better with the terminal tackle that you are casting plus the added mass of the additional guides.
4. You may be just fooling yourself or getting the results that you want to get. I do not mean this as a put down. It is the natural thing to do and is difficult to avoid.
I do not know why you are getting the results that you are getting but I do know this, adding the mass of additional guides will reduce the POTENTIAL distance that a rod will cast and I think that if you want to get consistant, proveable results you have to get yourself out of the testing. The human being introduces too many additional uncontrolled variables.

Steve,
I’ve been thinking about your “test results” and what you said (“In theory I should not be able to cast a rod with more guides further then one with less guides, but in application, I do it every time I go fishing”). Going back and reading your posts, I got the impression you were testing for “distance results” using different sized guides….not necessarily more vs. less. (Correct me if I’m wrong). If, for whatever reason you had added an additional guide over your “pre-test” rods would be a moot point.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the reduced weight of the lighter guides would improve casting performance, whether measured in distance or ease of casting. If you did add an extra guide or two compared to your “pre-test” rods, the effect would probably be negligible IF you tested the rod with the “micros” against the rod with the “big” 6’s. Even with an additional guide or two using the “micros” would not be as detrimental to the resonant frequency as doing the same with the larger (heavier) guides. I can’t imagine your reason for adding more guides, unless you had an insufficient number of guides to begin with. I would concede that by changing one of several variables such as line type, might call for more or fewer guides.
It seems to me that going to the “micros” alone would be a dramatic improvement. I build/use relatively short rods (by today’s standards), but weight differential is discernible toward the end of the rod. It would be even more apparent on longer rods.

As far as theories go……..I think you’d agree that they can be proven or disproven in a lab environment as long as the “test” accurately replicates the “actuals”. Field testing should further validate both the theories and the lab results.

Emory
As far as the rods tested?
For each test I used one blank, the same blank, not mutable blanks as that could affect results.
Changed guides only on that blank. I secured them to the blank with 1/8 in. tape and used the same piece when changing guides.
I used the same reel, never adjusted any of the settings for the same reason.
Used the same line and same two weights (1/4 oz lead weight and ½ oz jig) and used both for each test, switching between the two.
There was not much breeze but I tested casting into it and against it anyway.

I did these test at someone else’s request (Bobby Feazel or Jim Gamble don't remember which one), and had no preconceived ideas of how it should or would come out.

There were only two variables;
1- Me the caster
2- The approximately five inches of line I cut off each time I retied. But I also reversed the orders of testing to keep that as close as possible.
Do you have a mechanical devise or blue prints for one I could copy to do tests eliminating me?

I have e?never considered any thing you have shared or commented on as a put down. But your honest input based on your understanding.

Your comment “7% drop in resonant frequency will result in a 7% drop in tip velocity. The casting distance correlates with the tip velocity”. Can you explain that a little further? I understand they correlate, but how?

You indicated earlier that a 7% drop in tip velocity would cause approximant. 7 ft. lose in casting distance
Is that correlation based on actual field tests you have done? Or is that just an assumed equation?

Jim;
Yes and no I tested larger guides against smaller guides, I test larger verses smaller running guides, I tested larger stripper and transition guides (spiral wrap), with each size of running guides, I tested using the same size guides all the way through, I also tested one more verses one less guide.

On the test I posted. You are correct I was testing for casting distance; I did not however post each part of the test as it would have been extremely long. So I choose to post the pertinent results using these combinations. And found that the rod with smaller running guides and larger stripper/transition guides performed the best even with the extra guide (which are the amounts included in the posted results). As far as my reasons over using more guide? Look at the link on Fuji’s site I posted earlier. There results from testing pretty much match mine and that is the reason I use the amount I do.

My comment about my results, opposing what theory states was for the most part just a comment. I never said I agreed with the theory just that the facts proved different then theory. So I would say that based on facts the theory should be reevaluated or corrected to match the facts.
After all the theory about why bumble bees still cant fly, is still the theory, but the fact that 17 of them stung me on the top of my head one day proves the theory should be changed. Because I can promise I did not lie down on the ground so they could climb up and take a shot!