I just bend my Batsons a little straighter. Hope that doesn't weaken them.

When the rod with the Batson guides is fully loaded, the guides will have more of a 90 degree orientation, relative to the line, in a spinning, fly, or spiral confgiuration. I wonder if that is the reason for the angle...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2008 10:26PM by George Forster.

Chuck
If you bend the guides then doesn't that weaken the guide itself due to stress on the metal?

George

When casting I would think that the rod would be near straight so the guide angle would make a difference.

Rolly Beenen
Rovic Custom Rods



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2008 10:52PM by Rolly Beenen.

Hopefully, all the stainless steel guide frames were designed by an engineer/metallurgist. All bending of the austenitic stainless frames should conform to standard bending radius to prevent excessive stress levels. Bending of these guide frames should be kept to an absolute minimun to minimize increased cold working stress levels. The cause of failure of such a guide which is subject to excessive bending will be stress cracking. This is well documented and everyone should understand the limitations of the things we use to insure maximum service life.

We all should ask our manufacturers if we should straighten the guides out or just leave them be.

[www.gowelding.com]

Scott,
I assume your native language is English. If so go back and read my post. I was not putting down micros. I think that just like other guide types they have their place. I was simply agreeing with Tom and making the point that the lack of micro tips can be a problem.

Alex,
Sorry, it was just an expression when I said 10 times. Depending mainly upon the amount of added weight, the power of the blank and the blanks action it might be 7 or 8 times or even 10 or 12 times. I was attempting to point out that weight has dramatically more affect on performance when added at the tip of a rod. The increase in the affect of added weight increases roughly exponentally from the butt of the blank to the tip.

Bill,
I do not need to look at your photographs. Your point and where you are coming from is very obvious.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2008 11:03PM by Emory Harry.

Hey guys
Ease up on Emory a bit
I don't think he is as anti-micro as you seem to think.
If memory serves me correctly it was Emory in a thread on rod dynamics many pages back , that said.
" the ideal is to have a rod with no guides at all to dampen the reflex of the rod......... if we could"
I particularly didn't see anything in Emory's post of 8.11 pm that was anti-micro.
Quite the opposite.
Lets put what was said in that post in a slightly different context
We optimally don't want any more weight in our components than we absolutely need for the job at hand.
That's the context of Emory's comment I believe.
It also has thrust in other stuff that Emory has previously said about Polar Moments ..............the largest polar moment is at the tip, multiplying the effect of every unnecessary decimal of a gram.

As Bill S notes.............. just about everyone is saying the same thing..............just in different ways.

Let's not see such a constructive thread lose its way in imagined brickbats.

Next bid please.

DenisB

Emory,,,,yep native English speaker.... I understand what you are saying about the tops, and agree, they could be better....the reason for my comment is that everytime there is a topic on micro's you have only negative things to say about them, when you have admitedly not used them. I do respect the work you do for rodbuilding and the amount of technical information you share, just disagree on this topic.

Scott Sheets
www.smsrods.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2008 11:44PM by Scott Sheets.

Scott,
If you go back through ALL of the posts that I have made on the micros, and there are not really that many, you will find that I have never put them down or been negative about them. However, I have pointed out that they involve compromises just like everything that we do as rod builders and I will stand by the points that I have made about the compromises.

Re guide angles:
Think you will find that the guides are angled to mitigate slack line tangling ..............allows a loop of line caught behind a guide to slip over easier.
Same issue for tips.
Ring braces mitigate this issue where they are used.
Different manufacturers have different approaches to this issue.
The load on the leg of an angled guide between the bottom of the ring and its base bound onto the rod is higher from line pressure and leverage effects than a guide at 90 Deg.
Whist the "work hardening" issues are very real a sensible approach to bending straighter with retention of radius in the bend should not be detrimental to the viability of the modified guide.
I would suggest that the use of a pair of pliers with a sharp 90 Deg nose would not be desirable and would need care in use.
For anyone doing modification of guide angles for production use I would suggest the grinding of a radius on the nose of a pair of pliers for the specific purpose of ensuring that an appropriate radius to the bend in the foot is retained.
Just my 2C as a metallurgist in a previous life.

DenisB

I will attempt to tie a lot of stuff together on this post - hopefully it will be understood totally when I post pictures after daylight.

1. Everyone who builds a micro rod is forced to evaluate methods of dealing with all the issues pesented and nearly all of them involve a compromise. Emory you are correct in more ways than you think -

2. The things, micro guides and tops, we are using were not specifically designed to meet the rigorous demands that we are placing on them when building a bass fishing micro rod. It is kind of like going to the shoe store and reversing the order of the day - we are trying to make the foot fit the shoe. Some can make it happen successfully and others will never try.

3. Everyone involved utilizes the currently available products to build a rod with lighter overall weight that will accomplish the task.

4. This thread on Rodbuilding.org is being utilized for those who are trying to improve the builds or gain the skills necessary to start the micro builds for the first time.

5. There are present issues on the table which include guide weight - design features and the tools currently being used.

6. In an effort to reduce the overall weight of his personal builds I suggested to Bobby Feazel that he consider the use of Perm Gloss. Bobby very politely explained to me that he was intentionally applying a miniscule mini ramp of two part epoxy on the short riser from the guide foot to the ring - Why I asked? - he had previously noted improved line flow through the guide when the ramp was present. (I have one of his rods and I will post pictures of the mini ramp)

7. After looking at the photograph [www.rodbuilding.org] we may also be gaining an element of reinforcement of the guide frame to minimize the bending moment when a finish ramp is used.

8. After reading Denis Brown's comment pertaining to reduced line hang up on guides, which is in support of Bobby Feazels experiences, it may prove to be beneficial to leave the guides at the angle of manufacture and use the guide foot mini ramping, with finish, to furthur enhance line flow and increase guide riser frame stability at the same time.

As soon as I get some sunlight I will take some pictures to illustrate the above.

Emory I hope you choose to look at the these photographs when I get them posted.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2008 08:30AM by Bill Stevens.

If we use the epoxy as a mini ramp and leave the guides as is (batson) would there be a requirement to use the forhan wrap? This in turn would also reduce weight would it not?

Rolly Beenen
Rovic Custom Rods

Emory has always pushed the idea that lighter is better - when you can successfully employ a lighter weight component, you should do so. Many of us have long said this same thing.

In years pasts, micro guides were size 6s and 5s. Now we have even smaller guides and suddenly micros are down to size 4, 3, 2 and even smaller. There can never be any complaint about keeping the rod as light as possible, only the possbility that in some cases the lighter components, due to their smaller and therefore possibly less substantial structure, may not always be able to perform the required task.

I have found that what we're now calling micro guides are generally able to perform nicely in situations where many, at first glance, would not think they could be successfully employed. They won't fill every need, but they just may make much deeper inroads than anyone thought they could when they were first introduced.

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

Photo just posted - sorry best I can do! - cold and wind blowing!

Fuji Micro 4.5 tube Top Split to 5.0 Sitting on Tip Of Round Needle Nose Pliars (Sears)

Batson 5.5 Tube that requires No Splitting

Test Rod - Fuji tip top and SIC Micro Guides With Mini Ramps. In view 50 # Braid. Rod has been on water 42 days and used by 13 fishermen. Largest bass 6# 8oz. No Problems To Date - Thanks Bobby - will not tell you how many other "brothers and related Kin (spirals)" it has sold. When the picture loads on the site click on it to get a larger view and take a close look at the intentional excess finish the climbs the riser on the micro frame.

Fuji Micro Guide strapped to blank with plastic tie wrap.

Locktite

Exacto Knife to Split Tubes

[www.rodbuilding.org]

Do What You Gotta Do!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2008 09:43AM by Bill Stevens.

Now I know why politics gets some people snippity.
The bass guys seem to think the only use for rod blanks and micros is on a bass rod. Here in the Pacific Northwest, where Emory and I live, you don't see no one on the water bass fishing after hunting season starts till spring. Our all year fishing experience is trout, salmon and steelhead. From that perspective of 7 1/2 to 13 ft rods, I don't think Emory's comments are that far off. You want to worry about sensitivity, try long rods while bait fishing light line/weights, at long distances compared to bass presentations, in fast moving water with 3 to 5 ft leader lengths and a fish that doesn't have a Hoover powered bucket mouth to tell you they have taken your offering. No other fish in the Pacific Northwest I'm aware of is as easy to detect when they have your offering, even the little bass are more obvious, than a big salmon or steelhead.
Everything has it's perspective. After fishing these fish, bass fishing and my connection to them, to me, wasn't a problem I noticed so much, but then I never was a tournament angler. Again perspective.
I'm trying all the new concepts the Steve G. and others have developed on my longer rods, two Lamiglas Certified Pro 10 ft XC120 2MLs, cast and spin, and I have had some decent results, but it's a learning curve just like it was for them I'm sure, and it takes time as you just can't stop building rods, and fishing to spend what limited time there is on these new concepts exclusively.

This post wont be nearly as serious as this thread seems to gone, but........., after learning, testing, fishing with these new micro setups, I had the opportuniy to finally have several rods of these rods on my boat for my guide trip clients. My client yesterday used one all darn day & boated 17 bass, mainly because I'm a great guide (for those of you who don't know, I'm just kidding about that). This guy was certain that the this rod was what put the fish in the boat. He now wants one just exactly & I do mean exactly like the one he used yesterday. There is probably no better way to sell these kind of sticks than on the water. I am now scrambling to find enough of these little eye killing critters
Jeff

Hey Spencer, I understand what you are saying.. but all along we have stated that we are using these for bass rods. I have no idea if they would work for what you guys do.....only Salmon I have ever caugt was by accident on Lake Michigan.

Scott Sheets
www.smsrods.com

Rolly Beenen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am wondering after looking at Steve Cox's
> pictures of the Batson guides if the severe
> forward angle of these guides has any effect. I
> would think by them being bent at aprox 45
> degrees that the effective ring size is even less
> then the 3 mm. They seem to be heavier then the
> Fuji SIC guides and when I compare them to the
> picture that Billy V sent in it looks like the
> Fuji guides are at an angle closer to 90.
>
> Are the Fuji guides more durable? Are they more
> effective due to the angle?
>
> Anyone ever compare the two types of Micros? What
> are your thoughts on both.
Rolly,
I bend the Batsons to close to perpendicular to the blank, 90 degrees. It's a pain and I'm not sure why the come bent like they do, but they wrok great at 90 degrees and don't seemed to have weakened any.

Cheers,
Robert

Spencer, thanks for that info. I hadn't considered that scenario at all. I've been doing some late season walleye fishing and when your hands are so cold that you can't tie a knot you need a very light, sensitive rod. This is one use for micros that I am exploring. Most of the talk is about bass casting rods, and I have a tourney fisherman interested in fishing some of my rods. Spinning rods are a different animal. I hope we can start a dialog on that subject eventually.

After reading some of these posts I put some items on my digital postage scale. Just for fun here are some weights for raw handle material:

7.5" of 1" OD, 3/8" ID EVA - .5oz (16 grams)
15 high quality cork rings - .9oz (26 grams)
15 MH natural burl rings - 2oz (56 grams)

Considering that you need to glue those cork rings together and add even more weight, it looks like EVA considerably is lighter. I don't have any foam handles yet but I'd be curious on the weight of a flocked foam handle.

A few questions: What are you guys using to split and window the tips and how does this look? Also in Mr. Kirkmans book he seems to point out that on a convent. Casting rod the line should not touch the blank, with the micros how do you keep the line off the blank when the rod is loaded up?

Bryan,

With very low frame guides in a conventional set up, the line is going to touch the blank under load. That's just the way it's going to be. What you don't want - is to have the line pass completely under and past the blank between each pair of guides. In such a situation, you either go with a spiral wrap or you add enough guides to prevent it. The nice thing about today's guides is that they are lighter than ever before so using a few extra does not result in the same penalty you would have incurred if you had done the same thing several years ago with larger and heavier guides.

...........