Fireline and most braids fish best after they have worn in a little. This is getting very interesting. Wondering if the weight savings made by going smaller with the butt and intermediate guides will be better than more conventional sizes in titanium.

I am making this post to clear up some confusion that seems to be floating around. These newer micro guides set-ups, utilizing smaller butt guides, along with smaller micro running guides, is "True To Form - Custom Rod Building At WorK." As I have stated many time, over and over, these are my findings and have worked for the rod, reel, size line and lures to be used. All the variables have been tested, tested and tweaked around just what I am doing with this entire "Truly Custom Rod Set-Up". Nothing else is set is stone for what someone else may be doing. These are still works in progess and we should all experiment, test and tweak. As more rods are built, more information will come out and be of great help down the road, making future builds easier. I think that I know some of the reasons that this newer system is working, but I still don't have all the answers. One thing that I can assure you of, I am having a great deal of fun with these newer rod building set-ups and techniques, as I test, tweak and learn somthing new with each and every rod in progress. Just don't try to assmble a rod. Try building a "Unique Custom Rod", that is truly dialed in for the blank, reel, line and various lures that will be used. Afterall, I thought that was what custom rod building is all about?

Bob McKamey -- Custom Tackle Supply

My take on this subject (FWIW), is that we’re looking at the possibility that by drastically changing the traditional “choke guide” or “transition guide” location and simply “taming” or controlling the line and moving it quickly to the blank where it can be efficiently carried in the direction of travel. In effect, the “choke guide”, would be moved much closer to the reel than the system used in the library or as outlined in Vol 10-issue 4. There might be a lesser degree of energy loss by “choking” the line down more quickly than the “27 x spool dia.” normally used in the NGC. Perhaps by quickly damping the flaring (coiling) effect as the line leaves the spool and preventing the line from flailing around in larger guides, there is a net gain in efficiency as compared to a slower transition from the cone of flight to a straight line.
Bob’s results are too intriguing to be ignored and I’m certainly motivated to explore the possibilities. I’d like to hear any others thoughts or theories….or even skepticism, while I’m waiting on some of the “M” guides from Bob. I have a feeling that this system would be more difficult to “tune” for monos, as opposed to braids since the braids are more “fluid”, but as Bob pointed out, some mono’s are more flexible than others. Obviously, setting up and subsequent testing should be done with the type of line that would be fished on the rod…..more “technique specificity”, so-to-speak. Anyway, we can only speculate until we do our own testing to prove or disprove our theories. I’m glad that Bob and others are willing to share their results. Good wintertime projects!

Bob, I am very interested in your findings, and I'm sure many others are too. I also agree with your statements about designing a rod from the blank up for a specific line, reel & lure weight. I read more than a few posts here about people finding success using mono and smaller strippers. Maybe I need to pack my stuff in the truck and go down to the Metro Dome and do some test casting there. Maybe I can score...the Vikings sure didn't! I am very hopeful that I can learn some things about the way the line comes off the spool and through the guides. It will have to wait until spring to test, but I have some ideas for video taping this by mounting the rod in a holder with the camera on a tripod and using a launcher to "cast" the weight.

Maybe someone should call the guys that do the Time Warp show on Discovery. They shoot some very cool slo mo! Bill, Scott, Bobby, Steve.....want to be on TV?

Chuck

No TV for me Chuck. Not enough hair.

This thread is exactly what I have needed to get myself motivated to learn how to build a good spinning rod. I just love learning new things and maybe inventing something new on the way. Which is of course the enjoyment that many of us get from this hobby/business.

I have always had a closed mind about spinning rods and usually have not liked building them. It think it may be because of that ugly noise you hear as the line travels thru the guides. That in itself has always seemed to say "hey - there's something wrong here."

I hope you experts keep this thread going a little longer inspite of the holidays.

One basic question; "what criteria do you use to space the running guides?"

It's easy for me to do guide spacing on a conventional setup because I have a rule: "Under full static load, I space the guides where my line just barely touches the top of the blank between each guide." This means that different blanks require different spacings.

This of course doesn't work on spinning rods. If we space them at equal intervals as previously taught, then it seems to me we are just taking the easy way out. Seems to me there has got to be a more logical way that might give a better result. Something like making the line angle equal at all guides while under full static load.

Just thinking out loud.

Bobby

Chuck,
Since I’ve found this thread to be so interesting, I’ve been re-reading some of the posts. You mentioned on page 2, using Fireline (braid) and asked what others prefer. I had a lot of trouble finding a braid that worked well for me with spinning reels (any braid works well with casting, but I prefer Power Pro). I finally discovered that the Spiderwire Fusion worked great. Unfortunately, it was discontinued and replaced with Stealth which I didn’t like nearly as well. I tried Sufix a few years ago when they came out with braid and I love it. It’s much smaller diameter than the Stealth and “wind knots” are rare. I use the 10 lb test (4lb mono equiv) on most of my bass (spinning) rods and 6lb (2lb equiv) for my panfish rods. I rarely use mono at all. (In regards to visibility……the fish can see it, but I don’t believe they care.) Btw, before I switched to braid for panfish, I used Stren Magna Thin, which worked better for me than the “XL”….more supple and smaller dia.

Bobby,
You said “It's easy for me to do guide spacing on a conventional setup because I have a rule: "Under full static load, I space the guides where my line just barely touches the top of the blank between each guide." That’ll work fine for spinning. Just load the rod in the opposite direction or load normally and then rotate the guides 180 deg.

Bobby, this may keep you up late tonight -

Set up a spinning rod with a seat and reel - install only a tip top - no guides - string a line throught the tip top and hang a load to deflect blank to a chosen point - mark it.

Go out on the pier by the lake and have a couple of adult beverages -

Come back and install a few guides on bottom - somewhere

Restring and add same lure weight - does it go to the same mark?

Move the guides around by sliding the little tie straps you use and see if it make any difference in the blank deflection -

Return to lake and the hidden main supply of beverage - bottoms up - contemplate what is next!

Now what!

Yea Bill

I understand all that, and I understand Steve Gardner's and Fuji's logic for more guides, BUT with that method, there are different stresses between each running guide. Shouldn't there be an "engineering method" for equalizing the stresses which may theoretically mean less guides?

It's Christmas travel tomorrow and the hidden supply is low.

Bobby

Bobby,
YES, just use the "progressive spacing", dictated by rod loading, that you would normally use with your casting rod set-ups.

Btw, there are different stresses by using the “equal spacing”, but they are all well within acceptable limits. By optimizing the spacing (progressive), you should be able to eliminate a guide (or 2).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2008 08:03PM by jim spooner.

I AM MAKING THIS POST AS A MESSENGER ONLY - EMAIL FROM DENIS BROWN IN OZ

HE IS HAVING COMPUTER PROBLEMS AND ASKED THAT I MAKE THIS POST FOR HIM

From Denis -

Optimising Threadline/Spinning Rigs

The issues involved in optimising threadline/spinning rod guide trains is far more complex than with casting rods.

The objectives of optimised rod sensitivity and blank performance from reduced guide sizes & weight is a desirable performance outcome.

However, as often stated in previous posts rod dynamics involve a significant number of parameters & EVERYTHING in rod building is a compromise. System optimisation can be compromised by optimisation of individual parameters.

This is particularly an issue with threadlines where in addition to individual components affecting the dynamic of the rod blank there is an additional dynamic involved, which is the spiral wave form of the line dynamic.

Firstly, we need to evaluate the image I posted a while back ( courtesy of Ian Miller & an Oz Magazine & not indicative of one of Ian's builds.......... just an image in one ofhis articles)
[www.rodbuilding.org]

We need to realise that this is a photo of moving line and that the “blurred”line is only an image of part of the wave form trapped within the shutter speed of the camera. The blurred curved sections are actually a full circle spiral cone in the real life full wave form.

A couple of tech issues we need to deal with in discussing this wave form are:

The points which are not blurred are nodes, where the line is rotating around its own axis with no amplitude

If we draw a line between two nodes the maximum displacement of the spiral wave form is the amplitude of the wave form at that section of the line path.

The distance between nodes is ( for the purpose of this discussion ) the wavelength of the line wave form.

The amplitude and wavelength naturally change under the influence of the lure pulling the line in the cast & air resistance...........the line will straighten its own path with distance from the spool.

( try a simple handcaster & a sinker without any rod or guides & observe the wave form ).

On a windless day the central line path will be a direct line from spool to stripper & thence guide to guide...............on a windy day the central line path will be a curved line from spool to stripper & guide to guide under the influence of side wind.

The extremes of spiral wave forms are found with very large diameter spools like Alvey reels ( to 7.5” spool diameter.......so concepts of microguides are relative.

A #25 guide on a 12' rod with a 6.5” dia spool is a relative microguide & have been in use in Oz for decades ( prev posted ). With a typical stripper distance onthose rods of 4' 6” - 5' you can play the mindgame of downsizing that image to a smaller spinning rod or upsizing the mental image of your spinning rod to a 12' rod................get the picture.

I have never been a fan of reducing the number of guides on a threadline as the number of guides is an engineering consideration of the strength of the blank determined by its material & its diameter & wall thickness........reducing guide numbers exposes a rod to highsticking stresses more than conventional rods & flickcasting styles often utilised with threadline rigs generates highstick type forces........sure, you can reduce guide numbers ,but it comes with increased risk factors.

Nor am I a fan of using high offset guides in the top half of a threadline rod as this introduces complex leverage forces under load ......I restrict the use of high offset guides to the stripper & nearby guides & mix guide types to achieve the progressive offset path I desire.

Now, back to the parameters of the dynamic of the line wave form on a threadline/spinning rig.

Cast velocity affects both wavelength an amplitude...... and varies from angler to angler.

Lure type affects velocity ( a metal slug is a lot different to a worm. )

spool size affects the wavelength and amplitude

line size & type affects the wavelength & amplitude.

ptimising threadline guidetrains is truly BESPOKE CUSTOM rodbuilding specific to the angler, his activity and prefered lure, far more than with a casting rig..................the price of optimising threadlines is narrowing the range of variables of line size & type, spoolsize, and lure that the optimisation will be effective at.

What is an optimised rig for one configuration can be the worst possible setup for another angler or reel,line,lure,technique.

Why will become apparent from the following:-

Stripper distance from the spool should be the maximum that the rod can handle. It should be located at approx ¾ wave amplitude where the wave form is rising in amplitude not declining..............this is because locating the stripper where the wave form amplitude is declining will exacerbate damming of the line at that guide .

Locating a guide at a node will do nothing to tame the wave form ..............the wave form energy will pass thru that guide and the wave will continue past it unchanged. Guide size is determined by the amount of damming that becomes excessive and varies dramatically with line size & type........thin, supple lines are highly desirable to optimise threadline performance.The larger the size of the line & the stiffer the line.....the more energy is lost in taming the wave form.

The next guide should be placed at maximum wave amplitude.

The 3rd guide from the reel should again be placed at maximum remaining wave amplitude.

With very light & supple line, this 3rd guide can be your running guide size, with heavier stiffer lines a further transition guide is typically required. If you have successfully tamed the line wave form these running guides can be small diameter to achieve the benefits of improved casting dynamic and sensitivity.

No Angler is totally consistent with every cast , the location of the guides at the above points enables the guidetrain to cope with line being presented at slightly different parts of the wave form as a result of casting inconsistency without significant penalty.

There is not much to be gained in being obsessive about minimising guide sizes in the stripper & second guide. The blank can carry larger guides in these areas without significant penalty to the blank dynamic or sensitivity. On lighter class rods minimising the weight of these guides by using titanium framed guides is desirable ( its what I have done since Ti guides became available on my lighter class rods). On longer, heavier class rods the blanks can carry conventional framed guides without noticeable difference.

The take home message here is that the only time a guidetrain configuration is transferrable from one rod to the next with high success is where its the same angler, same line, same spool diameter & same range of lure.

Optimising threadline guidetrains is very specific and BESPOKE CUSTOM rodbuilding for a fairly narrow range of gear specific use.

We need to think carefully about what we are trying to achieve here, if the likely range of use is going to be modestly wide the guide train optimisation in the stripper & next couple of guides should be modest too, so the line is not excessively choked in some of those applications. Running guides can be minimised in diameter where the line has been adequately tamed, where it has not been tamed the guides should be located at maxium remaining wave amplitude to effect further taming to enable smaller guides further down the guidetrain.

There is a strong case for retaining flexibility in on-water use in threadline/spinning rigs by not over-optimising the taming of the line in the first few guides and optimising running guide sizes where the line is tamed enough for their effective use. The relationship between velocity and the amplitude & wavelength of the cast line wave form is significant so flexibility in lure sizes is desirable......otherwise our rod lockers will need to be a lot bigger.

On the otherhand, for some of us, optimising our threadline rigs for specific activities is doable.

The posts of Bob of CTS are close to the money, if you cannot see the waveform to know where to place your guides it comes down to testing,testing,testing and it is bespoke custom rodbuilding in its finest form..............rodbuilding by numbers it is NOT.

Hope this helps.

OK lets now go back to that wave form image I posted that Bill Stevens refers to:-
1.
The stripper is located at a declining amplitude site on the waveform & the damming is excessive.
2.
The next two guides are located at or near nodes and are doing nothing to tame the line.
3.
Taming is being achieved at the stripper & #4

Get the picture.

DenisB



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2008 08:54PM by Bill Stevens.

Bill/Dennis

What if you had two cameras filming at the same time, each at 90 degrees to
each other. Would the "nodes" as they are called actually be "nodes"?

Could it be possible that there is really no coincidence at that point if
viewed from another angle?

Would it be possible that there is really a spread at the point that looks like a node from the other angle? And is it not possible that the large spread seen from one camera would show a "node" on the
other?

I'm just a dumb out of the box ole' enginer here. Stew on that while you
are making your sauce.

Bobby

When I observe the line leaving the spool when I cast, it may be deceptive, but what I see is similar to what you’d see if you stretched out a spring….except of course the line has linear movement. I’d compare it to a wood screws thread, with the spiral (or pitch diameter) narrowing as it enters the butt guide. High speed photography may show a node, that perhaps is not visible to the naked eye. The line seems to be skimming the inside periphery of the butt guide. With a more aggressive cast or a heavier, higher velocity lure, the "ballooning” (amplitude?) is considerably less....presumedly because the centrifical force of the line spiraling off the spool is being overcome by the velocity of the lure.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2008 01:23PM by jim spooner.

Don Morton has some high speed photos of EXACTLY what the line does as it leaves a spinning reel spool, enters a butt guide AND transitions into the guides further up the rod. Viewing these photos, earlier this year, was a real eye opener.

After returning from that experience, I started doing quite a bit of testing on my own. In addition, I have had a substantial number of discussions with some very hard working colleagues. Recently, I have been reading all these M&M threads. At this point, I have come to a definite conclusion for everyone involved.

Take some money out of your pocket, buy some components AND spend a few days building, casting and rebuilding. Unless you do ... you aren't going to ever understand what can REALLY be done regarding guide sizes, guide quantities and guide locations.


NOTE: Thanks to Don for sharing the information AND to Bob McKamey for holding the Duck River Gathering in May.

Bobby,
The wave form viewed from any angle will be the same, barring side wind effects.
the highspeed imagery I was involved in a couple of decades ago was from a range of angles initially as we did not know what to expect.

With luck this short post will make it out of my PC without crashing

Beware of what you interpret from imagery of line wave forms.
the wave form of a stiff nylon is very, very different to the wave form of a fine supple braid.
You need to know what the line was in the image to appreciate what you are seeing & you CANNOT extrapolate what you see with one type & size of line into a dissimilar line type/size.
The image I posted & Bill refers to is indicative of a fine supple line.
A heavier stiff line typically has a much longer wavelength .
You need to do your testing & any imagery on the line & lure range combination you intend to use on the rig out on the water.

Jim,
I agree with your conclusion and I have components ordered, but I’d like to have a better understanding about the mechanics (or physics) of what’s happening to the line and what we’re trying to solve for. I’d kill to see some of Don Morton’s photo’s right now. My hope is that by hearing the theories of others, that I can garnish enough info to give me some ideas as to what I want to experiment with or test for. I’m probably not alone in looking for a place to start. While I don’t intend to make it my life’s work, this issue has piqued my curiosity. My spinning rod set-ups have evolved over many years….more rapidly over the last five years, but there may be more progress to be made. Admittedly, the rods I fished with 20 years ago “worked” just fine, but at some point I became cursed with the need for better performance.

Denis,
You said
“The points which are not blurred are nodes, where the line is rotating around its own axis with no amplitude. “
I think I know what you are saying, but I’m having a hard time believing it. Without having access to high speed imagery, it seems to me that the line is simply coming off the spool in coils (not withstanding line twist or other abnormality) and we’re attempting to harness these spirals into a straight path with a minimum of energy loss. It’s probably an oversimplication, but I’m guessing we’re trying to solve for the centrifugal force of the line leaving the spool vs. the forward momentum of the line pulled by the lure. It may be a far more complex issue and as Jim pointed out, testing a combination of components may solve for the “unknowns”.

Boy am I glad this is off the main page and will not be view by most - it infuriates most when our craft is in any way connected to "rocket science". Science is in play here - there are linear forces involved in propelling the lures forward and angular forces detracting from the total applied.

At the point of release of any lure the total kinetic energy generated will be spent in one of two ways - it will either propel the lure forward or will be lost in some manner. We are really talking about those losses that occur and how to minimize them. If by hook or crook we can build a rods with smaller losses the lure will go furthur - all this is also thrumped by the simple fact the if we deliver a lighter rod it will be more SENSITIVE!!!!

Please consider the following when the word centrifugal force is in play. The queston may be asked that is holding a rock out at the end of a string when you twirl it around your head - many will reply centrifugal force - the truth of the matter is also that the string is holding the rock in - the force vector is toward the center -

Now the reason that the lines are so much in play - that big twirling mass of line - the losses for this mess is created by the angular velocity of the line mass. It this was not bad enough anyone attempting to use real numbers will have to contend with all the losses asscoicated - grvitty, wind etc --

The kinetic energy possesed by that system is calculated by the equation 1/2 mv squared. Different lines have differenct mass therefore the shape of the wave form will be different for each line - the nature of the line and its containmet devices, the guides - also the wave form is affected by the tension in the horizontal component of the line movement.

One thing for sure - the ones I am building with 10s for a butt throw furthur with the same line and lure wt that the ones with a 30 - what I really like about all this is that there are no fixed rules and the production guys will never never be able to build one rod tha will knock us off the map.

Jim S
I had the good fortune to have been involved in highspeed imagery examination of rod casting with threadline/spinning reels & conventional overhead reels quite a while ago.
different reels & different lines from real fishing lines , mono soft & hard, old technology braids and exotic competition casting lines down to 40D nylon spidersweb stuff.
The equipment used was from the local university & was used for examination of human movement .
The primary objective was analysis of the human casting technique and loading of the rods with different casting techniques.
The images could & were examined frame by frame showing the wave form of the line as it spiraled around 360 Deg with the spinning reels.
This unintended analysis quickly led to modification of the guidetrains we were using from the equivalent of a #75 - #100 stripper down to #25 and spacing the guides totally differently than before.
I can assure you my comments are not theory they are the result of actual examination.
The best analogous description of the waveform is that of two people twirling a skipping rope between them. Extend that mental image to 20 people in a line with a skipping rope in each hand twirling them between each other and you have the best mental picture of the cast line wave form from a threadline / spinning reel.
The cast line image I scanned from a local Mag & posted a while back is best interpreted in the following way.
Imagine a circular NASCAR track with a vehicle racing around it and a photo of that vehicle will not show the whole track of the vehicle , just a primary image of the vehicle and a blurred image of that vehicle behind it caught by the camera within the shutter speed of the lens.
That represents any point on the cast line wave form and you can mentally reconstruct the whole wave form from the curvature of the track of that point anywhere on the image.
The points that are not blurred are where the line is rotating on its own axis.....................ie the nodes of the waveform.

To move on to what a mono line with a 'spool-set' in it looks like in the cast .................replace the skipping rope in the first analogy with a coarse pitch wound coil spring.......................you are getting close to what it looks like .

Its not just centrifugal force we are dealing with..............................if that was the case the wave form would essentially have a wave length equal to the distance between the spool & the stripper.
We are introducing a pitch to the line by the wraps around the spool as they unravel and the velocity of the cast.
All of the factors listed in my earlier post affect the wavelength and amplitude of the cast line waveform.

As for testing components & their spacings "solving" the unknowns................
Not really..................you are adapting to the unknowns by trial & error till you get an acceptable outcome in cast distance.
The unknowns of the waveform are solved by seeing them and making conscious actions to mitigate .
Few are going to have the equipment to do that.
A high quality digital SLR with high shutter speed might just do it , with a bit of interpretation of the images available from it.

Otherwise it will be trial and error stumbling around in the dark till you get an acceptable cast distance outcome. A quick assessment of the posted cast line waveform image clearly identifies that small changes in individual guide locations & size will have their own individual effects.
Quite a few variables to play with in real life stumbling in the dark..

This is the wrong thread to start talking about guide forces and blank loadings, but there has been reference to that issue in this thread.
Let me just say:
I have a force resolution model that is accurate to 2% . I am not ready to publish ( in association with others ) & am adding more parameters to the model.
90 + % of the deflection forces in a rod are generated by the line load at the tip.
guides and lineload at the guides generates about an additional deflection of about 1 degree in static testing.
guide loads introduce two primary forces - one of which is deflected rearwards in the same manner as tip load...............the other is locked between the guides. These ARE IN ADDITION TO THE LINE LOAD AT THE TIP.
No further discussion will be entered into by me on that subject until the testwork is fully complete, and in another thread at another time.
BUT
Any amongst us who think that a blank is primarily loaded by the line forces on the guides of a rod need to rethink their approach.
Guide loads are hugely affected by the dynamic load in casting & tugging and this is where the engineering approach to guide placement is most difficult to analyse and have the most impact on the integrity of the blank.

Boy Oh Boy - as the old gospel song says - "This Train Is Bound For Glory"

Thanks Dennis B