Tom,
Actually any amount of mass added to any rod will lower the rods resonance and reduce its casting distance. Adding mass so that the rod is optimally loaded will not make it cast farther. A rod that is less than optimally loaded with lower mass will still cast farther. However, the casting time constant required may get too fast for the person casting.
The rod referred to above will not cast the lighter line farther. If he removed a number of the guides the rod could potentially cast farther but the person casting it may not be able to achieve the potential distance due to the speed of the casting motion that would be required.
Again it is question of inertia. What really loads the rod is not the weight or even the mass it is actually the inertia that is a result of the mass. The faster that you attempt to accelerate the rod and terminal tackle, the line in the case of a fly rod, the more inertia and the more the rod will be loaded.

I too have read through this post (and may have missed it) and have a question? Are we not actually saying "adding More weight" to the rod will degrade the performance, I thought that was a given? It seems to me from looking at the small guides at the show we are really talking about replacing all or most of the larger, heavier guides with those smaller, LIGHTER guides and that even adding one or two of the smaller guides will still result in a substational overall weight savings. I think I remember that 5 of the small guides (sorry I do not remember the size) weight less than a number 6 Alconite. So it seems the point is not adding one more guide but replacing most or all the guides with lighter guides will simply work better? Also in a bass rod we seem to be splitting hairs since most will cast well enough to perform most of the tasks we ask them to do either way. That said I am convinced that the smaller guides will work well enough that I have ordered 60 or so to do the "testing" for myself! Not really sure where this post went from line touching blank to mini guides but interesting stuff.

Emory,

Not exactly true in this case - I have the test results from a mechanical casting machine to prove it. I'm not saying I would do it, but you can load a rod so slightly that casting the lure is almost impossible no matter how much effort or speed you add to it. Then you add enough extra guides to preload it and send the lure on its way by the means you mention. In fact the fellow that did this used that same argument for doing it, creating added inertia. But I still don't think it was a good idea.

I think the better way to state what you guys are talking about here, is what happens when you have a rod that is already casting the designated weight and you begin adding more guides. Then everything you say here is true and is also exactly what I've been saying about adding too many guides for many, many years.

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

Bill,

You're right. It's the overall weight that really matters here, not how many guides you use. The friction between line and guide rings is only of minimal importance. It's the weight that plays the major role. If your 10 guide set up weighs less (particularly on and near the tip) than your 5 guide set up, then the 10 guide set up is going to cast farther.

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

I am a firm believer in what Emory is stating. Like Bill stated how did we get here? When the question was about line touching the blank. I may not stating this correctly, but I believe that any time the line leave the curvature or ark of the blank be it spinning or casting you are putting undo pressure on the blank. and looking for failure at some point in time.I also believe that adding one or 2 extra guides well not effect any ones casabillity or any one well notice any extra weight has been add to the rod (guides and Finish). With that said you may have to reposition the reelseat to balance the rod. Also this well change any time you have to change reels. Just my 2 cents from a back woods builder not a engineer. Please correct me if I am wrong
Good Wraps Bob

If you take a heavy action surf rod and add enough guides to it you are able to cast a BB with it. Some tried and did it!!

So Tom what your saying is instead of the lure having the weight and loading the rod, The rod is actually loading itself in a way! Right or am I way off? This Post is good, For a beginner it shows me how you guys think about the craft, and in a cival manor!

That's right, you certainly can. But you'll also end up with perhaps the most awful fishing rod anyone could imagine.


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

Tom,
In theory if you could move the rod in zero time you would have infinite inertia. In other words you could cast nearly zero weight with even a very powerful rod if you could create a fast enough casting motion, assuming the rod did not break. If you could speed up the casting time constant of your casting machine it could cast very light weights with very powerful rods. How much the rod is loaded is not only a function of the mass but also the accelereation of the mass. I can look up the math if you want. The practical problem is a human being cannot generate a fast enough casting time constant or casting motion.
But I would wholeheartedly agree with you that adding additional guides to slow the rod down, pre-load the rod, so it will easily cast a lighter weight or line is a fools errand.

Bill;
You are correct! That is what I posted in my second post of this thread.
I'm glad at least someone picked up on that.

To be technical about it I could use thirty 3mm guides on a rod and have the same approximate weight as using only six 6mm guides. (Not taking into account for thread and epoxy) I'm sure that would reduce the number some but I don't know by how much, even the thread and epoxy needed is a fraction of what’s needed on 6mm guides, but I have not weighed those differences

So if I removed or didn't use six 6mm guides and used instead seven or eight 3mm guides, I would have a substantially lighter rod. This is exactly what I do, that way I can also take advantage of the other aspects of performance improvement as I said in another of my replies. Casting distance is only part of the performance improvement I'm looking for. To some it's all about casting distance and that fine. But on the rods I build it's only part of the equation.

So back to line touching blank;
If building a conventional wrapped bait caster by using smaller guides closer together, a person could keep the line of the blank and still have a rod that is lighter and casts further then using less 6mm guides.

I personally build all spiral wrapped rods, so I add the extra guides for other reasons which were also stated earlier.

Emory,

I already have the math right here in my head, no need to look it up. That's exactly what I said earlier - If you could move the rod fast enough.... which a human can't do in that situation.

Preloading the rod with additional weight, in this case extra guides and lots of them, might accomplish the ability to cast lure weights the rod was never designed for but that seems a terrible waste of time in my opinion. If I want to cast very light lures, I'll buy a blank that is rated to do that without having to overload it with guides. I think you'd agree with me that doing such a thing is really pretty silly, unless you're just doing it to prove that you can do it. It certainly doesn't improve a fishing rod and isn't exactly any sort of miracle break-through in rod building technology. In fact, I'd consider it just the opposite. Casting a BB with a heavy surf rod might be an interesting experiment, but I can't see it doing much for the fishing end of things.


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

I still haven't had time to read all the posts in this thread, but I'd like to think that everyone understands that you can add more guides and still end up with less weight than if you used fewer and heavier guides. So it's not just the numbers of guides involved, but how much each one weighs that counts as well (and where they're located). I'd still stick with my own personal rule of thumb about using the fewest and smallest guides that will still perform the required task. I think that's what Steve is doing and having cast his rods I can say that no one would ever cast one of them and make any comment about lack of casting ability. They cast smoothly and are capable of surprising distance, if you need it.

..........

I'm up this morning and have caught up. Looks like the energy is about shot with this thread but I'm going to re-ask Tom Kirkman a question that was posted earlier. Please forgive if we need to wait for another day.


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? (Besides the torque and line rubbing.)

Not that I am proposing to let mine do that of course.

Thanks

I always find these threads interesting from the perspective of Systems Thinking - a framework that is based on the belief that the component parts of a system will act differently when the systems relationships are removed and it is viewed in isolation.. As I've learned more about rods the more I'm convinced that this simple "pole and string" is in fact a very complex system when in use on the water. Specifically I've found the Principle of Suboptimization to be a useful framework which states: "Optimizing each subsystem independently will not in general lead to a system optimum, or more strongly, improvement of a particular subsystem may actually worsen the overall system." The converse is also applicable - if the system performance is optimized, one or more component subsytem will be suboptimized.

What this means for me in rod building is the critical importance of establishing the performance optimum for the "rod/angler system" based on the intended fishing application - as also stated by Steve G and others. By doing this I can use the variety of lessons learned on this board to intentionally decide what "subsystem(s)" I will suboptimize and by how much in order to achieve the overall performance required to be the best possible "holistic" fishing tool for the customer's intended use. for example, "suboptimization" of casting distance, durability, sensitivity, etc maybe neccessary in order for the rod to meet its ultimate performance optimum. That is, what are the trade-offs I'm including in the design - and most importantly why.

Dropping the jargon, I've found this framework very helpful in dealing with customers' one-size-fits-all rule of thumb myths, eg, "oversized guides make a better fly rod" or "spiral wrapped rods lose casting distance" or "I want the lightest possible rod you can build".

As to the the original "line touching the blank" question my view is that one long-held view is this is always suboptimal. In my view it is not "always". The deciding factor is its role in the intended overall performance of the "rod system". Depending on the sought after performance optimum for the fishing application, touching the blank (suboptimization) may be neccessary or at least not a significant negative. And as stated, the same can be said for suboptimizing casting distance by adding more guide weight. Or any of the many trade-offs that get discussed in both theory and practice.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2008 11:03AM by Steve Rushing.

Emory said: “Yes, you (Bob Balcombe)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.” He also said: “With smaller lighter weight guides the reduction in resonant frequency will be less.”

Bill said: “So it seems the point is not adding one more guide but replacing most or all the guides with lighter guides will simply work better?”

Steve said: “So if I removed or didn't use six 6mm guides and used instead seven or eight 3mm guides, I would have a substantially lighter rod.”

Tom said: “I'd still stick with my own personal rule of thumb about using the fewest and smallest guides that will still perform the required task””.

Steve Rushing said: (see his post above)

I’m not a religious person, but AMEN to the above!


Bobby,
I’d start a new thread with your question. This one is about wore out.

Steve Rushing;
I may not have understood all of what you said, but I loved the way you said it!
Thanks for the input.

Technique, rod loading, lure weight - One of the favorite techniques used by bass fishermen is pitching with finesse worms using extremely light weights. The light weight lures used do not load some of the heavier blanks used when fishing in heavy cover. These guys generate terrific tip velocity with a quick wrist flip to propel the bait with accuracy. Size, position and number of guides are critical for these rods to function properly. Under these conditions a builder should do everything he can to reduce weight, friction and line drag. Conventional engineering and mathematics could be very complex when all of these user factors are considered. Build it - use it - refine it - and when it works count the numer of guides so you will know how many to order for the next 50 rods.

Amen!!