Hi all

Sometimes, when I`m in a rush to build a fly rod think if I can really trust actual Sage guides alignment dots at all.

If you have some comments about this subject I will appreciate it.

Thanks in advance

I don't utilize them on factory/custom (Burkheimer) rods and I do not install them on my rods. When I used to use them I checked alignment with the guides anyway.
Herb

They indicate the straightest axis, not the spine. Most commercial rods and most rod builders ignore the spine and build on the straightest axis.

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

Why would someone ignore the spine? Especially on a fly rod?

Because the spine plays no viable role in rod building. Building on the straightest axis is the preferred method for nearly all the commercial rod makers and many if not most custom rod builders as well.

Do you have a reason why you would orient the spine in a particular manner? We know it doesn't stop rod twist nor have anything to do with casting accuracy, so what's left?


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

Does casting distance or fighting ability play into the spine orientation? I have heard it does.

Matt White

It does not. And you won't find anyone who claims that it does that can offer any evidence to support that position. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that the spine plays no role in these things.

Someone once flexed a blank by hand and found that it favored a particular axis. They wrote about it and the myth became "fact." But they failed to consider what happens when you add guides to a rod. They overlooked the lever arm affect that makes the blank turn towards the direction the load is coming from regardless of where you orient the spine. The guides will always attempt to turn towards the load.

If you want to use the stiffest axis for fish fighting (which is a good idea because your blank will exhibit its best reaction "speed" in that orientation) then you'll have to ignore the spine completely. Remember that the spine is neither on nor opposite the blank's most powerful axis, which is generally the straightest axis.

Casting distance depends on how well the load and the angler's effort corresponds to the blank's power on the casting axis. It that happens to be the softest axis (effective spine) that's all well and good, but it can just as easily be any other axis as well. The idea that building on the spine automatically increases casting distance is false.


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

So if you have a rod without the straightest axis marked, how do you find it. I know how to get the spine by weighting the rod in the middle, but how would I arrive at the straightest axis?

Sight down it. Nearly all blanks will have a natural curve or warp - you want the blank positioned so that it is in a concave position while fishing. This puts the butt and tip "up" and the belly "down."

Or, set the blank in your rod lathe or wrapper, support the end with two rod supports about a foot apart. Level the blank. Rotate it and you will notice the tip traveling in a circle at the other end. When the tip reaches the top of the circle, you have the straightest axis.

Actually, weighting the blank in the middle is more apt to get you the straightest axis, than the spine. The spine is best located by standing the blank on end, on a marble, and pressing straight down on the tip. The outside of the bend is the effective spine.


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

Tom,
I am reading page 18 of your book, Rod-Building Guide: "So the spine does make a difference, often a huge difference in terms of the castability of a rod." Have you changed your position since writing the book? Or am I just missing something here? I am terribly confused, probably my own fault, maybe I am misreading the overall context, but I could use some clarification.
Regards,
George

I didn't write that - the book was written for Amato and they had the last rewrite and edit. It's their book, not mine. There are several things in there that I wish I could have removed or kept, but I didn't have last edit power.

That chapter was intended to show that spine doesn't really matter - that there is no right nor wrong way to orient the spine. The photos there show that spine can't stop rod twist. Earlier issues of RodMaker delve into why it doesn't affect casting distance nor accuracy either.



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

AHHHH! That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. I use that book as a reference all the time, and was always puzzzled when I read Chapter 4. Now I understand--Thank you!

Agree completely with what Tom has said .
the only advantage perceived with building (soft ) spine down was a perception of stability in conventional rods with guides & reel on top of the rod when fighting a fish.
In reality the torque generated by the line on the guides , as soon as the rod is not perfectly upright, overpowers any inherent stability provided by the spine by many orders of magnitude . So building the rod on the straightest alignment is a better approach.
DenisB

Just because the guide effect is greater than that of the spine does not in itself make the spine irrelevant, or unimportant. The effect and usefullness of spine is just an underlying, but important one which was well pointed out in Tom’s book, Rich Forhan’s Rodmaker article on the subject and even Tom’s post here on the BFHP:

(http://www.wmi.org/multi_boards/doc.asp?message_number=22812&ini=d:\asp_ini\m28_rod_building.ini)

There are a few different effects of the spine. The so called stiff side is often referred to as the “jumping spine”. Tom related the importance of this particular spine in this post and its effect on rod performance. It is often very informational to test the spine of a blank or rod just to get a feel for the quality and consistency. A given blank might not have much if any spine, pointing to its consistency, a signifcant relaxed spine might realted to a defect such as s flat spot or eccentric, or it might have a useful jumping spine or hard side. Regardless of the degree rod/blank spine, it is certainly worth study and understanding.

Tom,

On page 18 of your Rod-Building Guide you also described in a lengthy paragraph, specific test casting tests you designed and make the claim that the spine placement will cause very obvious differences in both distance and accuracy. So now we are supposed to believe that the editor, likely someone with little to no knowledge of rod building or engineering, decided that you were out of your league on the subject of spine and overwrote your whole chapter for technical content?

Consistent with your chapter on understanding, measuring and Using spine in your book are your comments on the Editors Page 5, Rodmaker Volume 6 Issue#1. Here you recount the several past Rodmaker articles on spine and how spine can be used to enhance performance aspects of a fishing rod. Let me guess…. editors overwrite again? And how about Rich Forhan's article that includes your comments in that same issue which details the significance of measuring and defining spine, as well as the importance in using ISCAR on different rod applications?

Mark,

Yes. If you have been a subscriber to RodMaker Magazine going back to the beginning, which predates the book I wrote for Amato, you will see exactly where I have always stood on rod spine. By the second issue I had stated this position very clearly.

The point of the book chapter on rod spine was to spell out that there is no correct nor incorrect orientation for rod spine. It deals with rod twist and why the lever arm effect trumps it every time. I've been promoting this thinking for almost 30 years now and even the now defunt group, RodCrafters, who originally refused to print my article on this subject, changed their view and agreed with me in articles they published in the late 1990's and early 2000's.

You will notice that I do not sell Rod Building Guide. Had I edited and published it, it would be considerably different than it is now. Still a very good book in most regards, but I would have done it a bit differently had I had that option.

Rich Forhan's thoughts on spine do not exactly mirror my own. ISCAR and OSCAR are his terms, not mine. I disagree with him on several things relating to rod spine.

I have never referrered to anything as the "jumping spine." The stiffest and softest axis of most any rod or blank are rarely 180 degrees opposite each other. If you are referring to the stiffest axis, I would agree that it is important, but it has nothing to do with the "spine."

Otherwise, don't put too much stock in anything you see on the bass fishing home page, my name appears above several posts which I never penned. That is why I stopped posting there.

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

I've known Tom since about 1977 or something and in all that time and in all our conversations on rod spine his position has never changed.

Like Tom, I do NOT believe that you SHOULDN'T build on the spine, just that the idea that you MUST build on or opposite the spine is folly. Not building on the spine is not going to result in your rod blowing up or the cast failing to land where you wanted it to. You can make the rod feel a little differently on each axis, but building on the spine is not required and the books that tell newcomers that they MUST build on or opposite the spine are doing more harm than good. They are pushing something which just isn't true.

You can go back six or seven years and read Tom's post here on THIS site about rod spine and see that he's pretty much always said the same thing when it comes to spine. But you can also inject your own thoughts into what somebody else has said in order to pick a bone if that is your intent.

I doubt Mark has actually read that chapter nor undertands that Amato has edited and published over a half dozen books on rod building. I have no doubt that my statements on rod spine ran contrary to what their other rod building book authors had written on the subject for many years.

But even with a little editing, the chapter in the book I did for Amato does not state that the spine is terribly important. In fact, I was the first modern author to state that rod spine was very much overrated in terms of what it supposedly did, or didn't do, on a fishing rod. I remember Todd Vivian posting on the old Rodcrafter forum shortly after the book first appeared - he asked builders what they thought about an author who would write a book stating that the spine is not very important. There was quite a bit of uproar over it.

So the idea that the chapter makes spine out to be important, and that I somehow changed course since then, is simply untrue. I have always maintained that spine was not as important as others had made it out to be and that there is no corrent nor incorrect orientation for the spine. The chapter in the book plainly states that as have dozens of magazine articles and posts made on this forum in the ensuing years.

As far as what other authors have written in RodMaker articles, those are their opinions on rod spine, not mine. As long as they do not emphatically state that there is a correct orientation for rod spine, I let them have their say.

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

Been watching this board for a lotta years and know that Tom has always thought spine was overrated. After trying it his way I now tend to agree. It just doesn't seem to make much difference one way or the other.