Steve,
You said “And found that the rod with smaller running guides and larger stripper/transition guides performed the best even with the extra guide”. Do you mean that they performed (distance) the best IN SPITE of the extra guide? Or, did some of your testing specifically show better results with more guides? I’m not arguing with you, just looking for clarification. The Fuji site you mention does have some factual theories and some rather bogus or ambiguous ones, but marketing techniques often stretch the truth. I’d certainly agree that a rod as shown in one diagram, with one guide, plus a tip would not be optimum. I think we’re all in agreement that “static” rod testing plus test casting should give us the correct number and placement of guides. Assuming you added a guide to better distribute the stress is probably an acceptable trade-off for the slight weight increase and is certainly justifiable, but not likely to increase casting distance.
I agree with you completely when you say that theories should be reevaluated or corrected to match the facts. By definition : Theory; a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Theories are often followed by mathematical calculations, which may not be consistent with reality. Science may be exact, but sometimes elusive. Whoever calculated that Bumblebees couldn’t fly simply needs to go back and find the input he left out of the equation…… (What we used to call “Reverse Engineering” when I worked in the shop).
YOUR theory, based on a statement you made earlier (“You could say I believe more guides that weigh less will cast further then less guides that weigh more”) could be backed up by Emory’s calculations AND field tests. You also said “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”. This statement (theory) is subject to debate assuming the rod with less guides is “properly set up”.

Jim;
Answer one; Yes the results posted are the results with the extra guide and they were better then the results with one less guide.

I believe there are a couple of things that influence casting distance that are not really being discussed here. But have an impact on the results. One being the line will create waves or a flapping action (for lack of better words) and the wave action kind of allows the line to bounce back and forth through the guides during a cast especially on spinning rods. By choking the line down quickly using smaller guides and having guides that are a little closer together it helps to tame the line cutting down on the wave or flapping action. That in it self will allows longer casts.
Another maybe the line I use reacts differently going through guides then the line Emory uses and for that reason he and I have different results. What I am saying is that there are more considerations that effect the results then just the number and weight of guides.


Another point concerning your thoughts-" I think we’re all in agreement that “static” rod testing plus test casting should give us the correct number and placement of guides."

Is that static testing is subjective. What you consider to be an acceptable angle of deflection might be less of an angle then is acceptable to me and what is acceptable to us may not even come close to What Emory considers acceptable.

So who is to say which one of has the "proper setup" To you, yours is proper, to me mine, and to Emory his.

This is part of makes custom rod building so unique between builders. I mean for all we know I'm talking adding one more guide and it still might be 5 less then what Emory has determined what Optimum is for how he wants a rod to perform. I agree that we should use the least amount of guide’s nesacery, but what I and you consider nesacery could be so far apart that we are talking Greek.

A good example is Jim Gamble he doesn’t mind the line touching the blank. On my rods that is unacceptable so that means a different spacing and most like another guide. But I wouldn’t even begin to tell Jim his set up is not “proper” because for Jim it is, and based on the amount of happy clientele he has, He must be doing something right. We just have a different thought process as to what is acceptable. I doubt you would get Jim to say mine is not proper

I have a question;
What tests have you done to decide that some of the info on the Fuji site is “rather bogus or ambiguous ones"? Or that any of it is accurate? I provided that link as a reference point. But until some one has actually performed the test themselves, They are again just taking some ones word for it.
We can assume such either way and many times we do because some one else has said that. But until we run the tests we can’t say that any of it is Bogus or factual. I suggest you don't take my word for the test I've run. But do some yourself. You might find I'm completely off base.
Don't get me wrong there are some people’s word on this site I take as accurate because they have proved themselves to be that way by building credibility.
.But other's even though their word is accurate I have reservations about until I've proven other wise. If I really want an answer to some thing? I will run my own test.

That is the reason I brought the five rods the expo, so that those interested could take the rods themselves and cast them around to determine if I was providing accurate info. Many of these guys do not know me. So I gave them the opportunity to try things and make their own decisions. Any one of those people that took advantage of them whether they agreed or disagreed with the way I build things can now draw there own conclusions.
I have yet to hear one of them say that I am an idiot and they didn’t work, but that could be that they are just kind hearted.

I may not have answered all your questions? But based on you continuing asking and trying to understand what is being said you are obviously a builder that wants to build better performing rods. So I encourage you to do some testing. I am also gad to answer any more questions I can.
Here another thought;
I know from testing and use that the rods perform better then what I used to do. Maybe I’m totally confused as to why, and it could be for totally different reasons that I don’t understand of haven’t considered.
But the facts are still the facts and no amount of theories will change that.

I greatly appreciate our post back and forth and your interest! Yours too Emory!

Steve tried calling you. I left a message did you get it?
Good Wraps Bob

Bob;
No I did not, my phone is not showing were any one tried to call today either. I will email you my number just incase you have it wrong

Steve,
We were not discussing someones opinion or what is acceptable to one rod builder versus another or what some advertising person put on the Fuji website in an attempt to sell guides. We were also not talking about some theory. We were talking about basic physical laws. This seems so straight forward to me that I an obviously not doing a very good job of explaining it.
Let me come at it from a different direction. Adding guides to a rod is adding mass. Mass has a property called inertia. An objects inertia results in it resisting any change in position or change in velocity. By the way, that is Newton's second LAW of motion not some theory. It takes energy to overcome inertia. So when you add guides you are increasing the rods inertia which takes incrementally more energy to overcome. In other words the rod with more guides will require more energy to cast a given distance or with an equal amount of input energy as the rod with less guides the one with more guides will not cast as far. You are right there are a number of other variables like incresed air resistance with increased velocity and increased friction between the line and the guides with increased velocity but these are second order variables that do not have a major affect on casting distance. I hope that makes more sense to you.

Emory,
I understand what you are saying, it is perfectly clear. I have no doubt that you are correct in regards to less mass results in less energy required to cast. But, you have not taken into account the line factor as steve mentioned. In the post on micro guides I described a problem with old line that was severely coiled. If mass was the only factor at play I should have been able to cast the same lure farther with the lighter guides than I could with the larger guides. The problem was that the micro guides could not handle the old coiled line (note: the rod did indeed cast better with smaller guides once I put fresh line on the reel).

Emory;
It all makes sense to me! The Theories, the Laws, the Concepts; you have done an exceptional job of explaining things.
But none of that changes the actual, experiential, physical, facts that I have obtained through testing and fishing.

I can’t just say that because there is a law saying different. I have to throw out the facts.

Maybe those “second order variables” have more of an accumulative effect then are being given credit for.
I don’t know.
I don’t dismiss what you are saying, but neither can I dismiss the facts.

Steve,
I agree that “static testing” is subjective.
I also agree that the “wave effect” you refer to may affect casting efficiency to some degree. When I used mono, I was able to better control it with the first guide placement, as opposed to more guides. Since I now use primarily braids, it seems to be a much lesser issue.
In answer to your question as to the testing I’ve done, I’ve been building and testing my own rods since the early 70’s. I’ll admit that in some instances, I’m guilty of the malady of doing some things “wrong” long enough (or often enough) that they’ve felt “right”. I suppose that’s why I find this forum invaluable to be kept abreast of new ideas and techniques. I sometimes disagree with some of the posts, but I respect the opinions. I don’t usually feel compelled to take part in the debates since they often evolve into “posturing”, if you know what I mean. I also know that this can be a tough audience when posting about certain issues. The old saying “No good deed goes unpunished” comes to mind…..LOL. I too have fished competitively (many years ago) and did quite well. However, fishing was not my “claim to fame”, so I didn’t quit my day job (where I made considerably more money…. snicker). Fishing is still my passion (more so than rod building), but since I build my own rods, I still strive for optimum performance for the type of fishing that I do.
Perhaps “bogus” was not the right word regarding info on the Fuji site. I too have referenced it to other people but was quick to point out that although it does demonstrate the “system”, it tends to exaggerate some of the claims, such as hooking power, which I think is more influenced by things other than the number of guides. And, “landing time”…35% better! Give me a break. I believe the “new concept guide system” is better than the old “cone of flight”, but more because of the rapid transition to the smaller guides and the subsequent weight savings toward the end of the rod and NOT so much in the number of guides. The info shown could lead one to believe that more guides (than may be necessary) would be beneficial.
Stress distribution has always been a consideration in guide placement and as you’ve pointed out, we may not all agree as to where we’re willing to give up one attribute to gain another.

Steve,
I think that the second order affects are just that, second order affects if the rod is properly built. It seems to me that there are only two possibilities. 1. We are over looking something very basic, and I doubt that is the case. 2. The testing that you have done and the experience that you have from that testing is somehow fundamentally flawed.

Scott,
I agree that there is going to be more friction between the line and the guides with smaller guides and also naturally less mass with smaller guides. There are also a number of other issues as you point out like the stiffness of the line but in the previous discussions we were discussing the effect of more guides and that only the number of guides was a variable, that the guide sizes were a constant. If we start changing more than one variable then I think that the discussion will get impossibly complicated and no resolution will be possible.

Mike, Bobby,

I'll bite. You put me in an impossible position. If I just say fine have it your way, the world is flat, you guys gloat and go on believing that it is. If I post pictures, you already have at least 10 ways to immediately discredit the photos and go on believing the world is flat. Bottom line is this, you are there, and I am here, it really doesn't matter to me what you belive or theorize. If you are really interested in seeing the photos, email me and I will send them to you. All I am saying, and others are as well is this-your theories and math are more than likely correct, however, what happens in the field in reality is often different. You can't explain it all with physics and math, Einstien couldn't and neither can you. Thats all. No insult intended.

Emory;
You may have hit the nail on the head!
In theory we are; "were discussing the effect of more guides and that only the number of guides was a variable, that the guide sizes were a constant."

But in my testing; "There are also a number of other issues as you point out like the stiffness of the line"

With that being the case
You may have also hit the nail on the head in your conclusion; "If we start changing more than one variable then I think that the discussion will get impossibly complicated and no resolution will be possible.

Unfortunately for our discussion, in real world testing and fishing all these variables come into play, and therefore may be the reason for my results.

As I said eelier in our discussion, there are more factors to consider then theory when actual casting was being done.

Steve,Back to the original question.  More guides will add mass and added mass means shorter casting distance, all other things being equal.    If we cloud the issue with additional uncontrolled variables so that all other things are not equal then we prove nothing. If as you suggest you did not attempt, to the degree possilbe, to hold the other variables constant then your testing is as I suggested fundamentally flawed and you have proven nothing and accomplished nothing and all you are left with is opinion.
I guess at this point I am going to leave you with your opinions because It does not seem that we are accomplishing anything.

Emory;
I was very clear in my test and in further explaining them exactly what my controls were when doing the testing and the two uncontrollable variables.
(My casting and cutting of small piece of line when retying)

The test I have done have been controlled to the best of my ability. That is that I can do, if they are flawed because of that?

Then I will clarify that all the comments above this reply and including this reply with; "IT IS MY OPINION that based on the results I obtained from testing. The rods tested perform in the manor stated".

I have a request of you.
If it is not too hard to set up the test you are referring to with the light scope?
And I send you two guides to test for me?
Would you do the test by setting up the rod your normally do the testing on then add in the extra guide as the first guide behind the tip, adjusting the spacing of the remaining guides to allow for the addition of the extra guide. Then post the results?

I occurred to me this morning that the 7% you are referring to, is based on the guides you normally use and that the results would be different then with the sizes I use (maybe just slight but different) This way I would have accurate info to work with.

Tony Childs

Thanks for the offer to send the photos. It is appreciated.

Email has been sent.

Bobby

Bobby Feazel

[www.shockwaverods.com]

Conventional wisdom will not open the box.

There is one aspect of all this that no one has brought up - at least I don't think they have. I haven't had time to read it all and may have missed something. If so, I apologize.

For any blank and any given casting input there will be an optimum load that will allow the blank to cast the farthest. If you do not have that optimum load on the blank, then adding another guide or two may put you closer to that optimum load (the blank has to carry the weight of the guides just like the weight of the lure being cast) by pre-weighting the blank (tip). In this case, adding more guides may result in an increase in distance, but at some manner of penalty.

However, adding more guides (adding any guides) will still result in some loss of efficiency and result in a slower reaction and recovery times.

For whatever it might be worth, I have cast Steve's rods and they're fantastic. Nobody would ever pick up one of them, cast it and then say that it seems to be lacking in distance or doesn't seem to cast smoothly. They are whisper quiet and cast farther than most of us would ever need to. But I haven't compared them to the same rod with fewer or different guides so I certainly can't say that they haven't lost some distance due to the guides. But if they have, it's not of much practical concern for those who would be using the rods for the intended purpose.

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

Steve,
Yes, I will test your rod. I would be happy to but I can tell you what the result will be especially if it will put this discussion to rest. I have conducted this test many times on many rods. More guides will result in lower resonant frequency. With smaller lighter weight guides the reduction in resonant frequency will be less. If you would like I can also give you the math that will show you what the affect of added mass will be. Send me an e-mail and I will give you my address.

Tom,
The question was does using more guides reduce the casting distance and I think that you know the answer to that.

Emory;

"With smaller lighter weight guides the reduction in resonant frequency will be less."

Is the info I am interested in, just want to know what the percentage is.
Thank you for offering to do it!
I will email you.

Emory,

I do know the answer to that - if the rod is optimumly loaded, then yes, having more guides than necessary does nothing but reduce casting distance. You can't add additional mass to a rod and expect its performance to improve in any aspect.

On the other hand, if you don't have enough load on the rod to begin with, then preloading it with guides to make up the difference will indeed improve the distance, but at a price - a terrible price in my opinion.

I know some guys who purposely put extra guides on their rods for the very reason that it allows them to cast lighter lures than the blank was intended for and cast them further than they could if they had used fewer guides. In my opinion this is a poor way to get what they're after as they have to pay a penalty for hanging that extra weight on the rod, but in this case having more guides will increase distance. I wouldn't do it because it degrades other areas of performance, but some don't care.

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

There was a Rodcrafter who put something like twenty guides on his rods and he could cast ultralight lures on heavy action bass rods and lighter fly lines on heavy saltwater fly rods. He said the guides did it.

John,

That's right - those extra guides enabled him to cast lines and lures that were actually too light to be used with the blanks he had. By preloading them with the weight from all those additional guides, the weight of the guides tended to load the rod and allowed him to cast those very light objects - which could not have been done otherwise. But... he paid a huge penalty to do that. Instead of getting a blank that was well suited to do what he wanted to do, he got the job done (sort of) by hanging extra weight on the rod. And that created a situation where the rods were heavy, sloppy and just generally not nearly as fun to fish with as they would have been if he had gone about things differently.

And remember, once all those guides were added, the rods lost the ability to cast lures and lines at the upper rated limits - they became badly overloaded when trying to cast the very lures and lines they were designed for. Adding guides in those numbers doesn't widen the casting lure and line range across the board - you may gain on the lower end but you'll lose on the upper end. And you'll have a rod that reacts and recovers like a guy who's had way too much to drink.

I cast several of the rods you mention. I would not want to fish with them.

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

Tony,

You made a very astute comment above. Knowledge of physical laws, information, etc., is fantastic, but only if you apply them properly to the practical application at hand.


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