After doing a repair on a 6'6" Medium Power walleye spinning rod this spring (ring popped) that only had 5 guides and was used hard for 10+ years, I started playing with less guides.

After building Bass/Walleye spinning rods up to 6'9" with 5 guides plus tip, properly spaced, the rods fish great. With all the use of micro-guides to reduce weight, I have to say dropping a few guides REALLY reduces weight, and has not hampered performance at all!! I think it is a great alternative to the micro guides, and if combined with micros would be really light.

Just keeping an open mind.

Have fun,
Marc

The only problem is that at some point you don't have enough guides to provide adequate stress distribution. A 7 footer with only 5 guides is likely flirting with that point. On some blanks it won't be a problem, on others it could be.

The advantage to the micro guides is that you can easily use enough to ensure more than adequate stress distribution without paying much in the way of a weight penalty.

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

I love seeing 10' surf rods with 3 or 4 guides.

I also like seeing them, but not using them. I have several made in Florida in the 1940's with just 2 guides plus tiptop. And these are 10 and 11 footers. They caught plenty of fish, but they're not my choice for something to use these days. But I'll never part with them.

As we move forward, technology improves so that the compromises we make with every fishing rod are not nearly so drastic. The guides we add to our rods now in order to provide adequate stress distribution and line control no longer exact the same kind of penalty that they did 50 years ago. Or, 15 years ago for that matter.


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

I guess as we look at pushing things further, the idea of pushing the limit of how few guides you can use and still build a good rod is worth considering. I bet the weight loss from dropping 2 guides is more than that of using threadless wraps, and a great option for those that don't want to mess with micro guides.

I just think the idea of fewer guides is one that has really been overlooked, and even frowned on, but worth consideration on a lot of rods.

Marc -

IMO, threadless wraps are an aesthetic concept only. You can build a rod lighter if normally wrapped and conservatively finished with a traditional epoxy. Finish weighs MUCH more than thread - especially with the amount required to hold a guide in place.

Jim -


marc morrone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I bet the weight loss from dropping
> 2 guides is more than that of using threadless
> wraps, and a great option for those that don't
> want to mess with micro guides.

I don't think that idea has been overlooked at all. I have long pushed the idea of using the smallest and fewest guides necessary. The magazine, the book I did for Amato and this website are filled with that idea, both from myself and several others.

You don't want to use more, or fewer guides - you want to use the proper number of guides. And that will generally be the fewest guides that will still perform the required task in the manner required.


.........

For very light/thin walled blanks, I'm guessing this approach will see lots of broken rods when under stress. I'm thinking UL and light fly blanks.

What is the power of your blank?

Mo

Blank powers of UL to Medium spinning. I have done 6'6" UL spinning with no problems this way. I did try to do a 6'6" 2 WT fly blank as a spinning rod, and yes it did snap!! But that blank only weighed .7 oz. and I am not sure of the reason for breakage.

Marc