Spent a nice clear windless day actually doing some manual test casting. It is amazing what you can learn if you are willing to put in some time taping up different sets of guides and just going out and trying them repeatedly and recording your results. Not as accurate as a mechanical device for sure, but if you make enough casts and average the results you do get a good idea of what works best.

I have been sold on the NGC for a long, long time. I was surprised in two aspects though. First, my best trial and error NGC system only outcast my best COF (cone of flight system) by a few feet. But on the same rod with the same reel and lure, the NGC system did beat it by a few feet each time.

Second, my best NGC system put the choke guide at a location that by careful trial and error located the choke guide at a position that was almost perfectly at the 27X factor that Tom used in his last article on the upgraded NGC. Interesting how that came to be. I would love to hear how that distance was arrived at mathematically.

The real result is that you can learn one heck of a lot in an afternoon of test casting and observation. You will learn stuff that will last you a lifetime and make you a better custom rod builder. All it takes is a little time and some careful record keeping. I found it to be very enjoyable actually.

rob, thanks for the post,
I just finished my first spiral rod, (long story) but I knew the guide placement was wrong almost from the get go, so I figured I would atleast see what it would do.
then I put the quides where or close to where I have read you put them. I beat the original test cast by 8-10 ft.
diawa reel 17# line with thunder stick.
got a shimano curado reel for christmas, cost almost double the diawa. figured I would test it out, I only got 4 more ft. than the diawa.

now i need to take the time to do some testing the way you did.

What you have done will certainly make you a better custom rod builder. In fact, any person that desires to become a better rod builder for the long haul, needs to put in some hours doing exactly what you have done. It pays great dividends in terms of broadening your practical experience in terms of casting and what does and doesn’t make any practical difference. Granted, human casting tests may not represent the most scientific nor controlled testing you can do, but if you make enough casts and average the results, you will get a fair idea of what works best for you and what you’re attempting to do.

Here’s some interesting tidbits acquired from use of a mechanical testing device. I won’t attempt to explain them, but have accepted them as fact, which is what they proved to be. When we were actively working with the mechanical casting device, we used high speed photography to capture the line movement through the guides on each cast. The interesting thing, was that the video/photos that looked the best, were not necessarily linked to the casts that went the furthest or that were the most accurate. We always thought this odd. And yet, the furthest and most accurate casts documented did not appear as the smoothest on film.

Another odd discovery was the sound of the casts made with different guide systems. At the time we were doing all this, a #6 guide was about the smallest guide that was readily available. We swapped back and forth between a set of #6’s and a set of #8’s for the choke and running guides of the then new, New Guide Concept System. The #’8s provided the smoother line flow but did not cast as far. The #6’s were not only less smooth, but created a much “louder” cast - awful sounding, really. But, the set up with the #6 choke and running guides provided greater distance.

This solidified my belief that what counts isn’t what the line through a particular guide set up looks or sounds like, but how far and how accurate the cast is - the proof is in the pudding, not what it looks or sounds like. The set up that provides the best distance and the most accuracy is not necessarily the one that appears smoothest or quietest. This is where testing such as you mention is worth its weight in gold. Results are what counts - not pictures or sound levels.

As far as the 27X factor for choke guide location, there was no mathematical process behind it. Instead, it was arrived at from casting tests of over 100 spinning rods which were optimized by trial and error for the best possible results. These included everything from ultra-light to very heavy surf spinning outfits. In nearly all cases, the choke guide location that provided the best distance was at a distance that was between 26 and 28 times the diameter of the reel spool. This will vary in certain situations with certain oddball set ups (extremely heavy line, large reels on short or light rods, etc.) but in most cases, a distance that is equal to 27X the spool diameter will put you on the money as far as obtaining your best overall casting distance with the least amount of effort. By all means tweak it a bit if you have the time, but in the end you will likely find that it’s just about right for 95% of reasonable spinning rod/reel outfits out there.

An optimum New Guide Concept System against an optimum Cone of Flight System will provide a casting distance increase of about 3% to 5%. We need to be realistic in these things - the distance increase is but a few feet. But any time you can increase your distance by a few feet, reduce weight on the rod and improve balance and sensitivity all at the same time, why not do it? This is, after all, what custom rod building is all about.

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

I really do find this interesting. How would you explain that the line flow that looks the smoothest and quietest isn't the same one that provides the greatest distance.

I can't explain it.

The point is, as you perform these tests, don't get carried away with how the cast looks or sounds. Pay attention to where the casting plug/lure lands. That's what counts.


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

Cast distance is decreased when the sight and sound of the line between the reel spool and the butt guide is "slapping" the blank and getting tangled on the hook keeper - this can be observed on many large box store combinations of rod, reel, line and lure combinations sold - I wonder what would happen if fishermen decided they needed to test cast a "combo special" before puchase at Bass Pro - This point should be stressed when a custom builder is working with a customer - there is no one cookie cutter for all spinning rod set ups. There are special cases were small changes in casting distance become secondary to other more important issues.

Bill,

I'd agree, but what I'm talking about here isn't line slap between the reel and butt guide. If you have ever filmed a rod being cast, or have a good ear, you can see and often hear guide set ups that would seem to doing a poor job in casting. And yet, they're often the ones that cast the furthest. Above I mentioned the difference in our tests long ago with #6 versus #8 choke and running guides. The #6 set up sounded horrible compared, and didn't look as good on film, but it easily outcast the set up with the #8's.


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

Tom
I am with you on this one. I build a lot of high speed spin rods (casting metal slices of 20 - 100g for pelagics) using Fuji lowrider guides and I have found that the best guide layout I have come up with is damn noisy. I think this is because the guides are actually doing the job of straightening the coils of line coming of the reel quick as leading to the 'sound'. I believe this allows the line to pass through the remaining guides pretty straight and the sum of heavy initial resistance and bugger all latter resistance is working better then where coiled up line is being passed smoothly through more guides in which prolly slows things much more when the passage of the coils through all the guides is added up. The reels being used are Daiwa Emblem Pro 5500 with one of the biggest spool ever on a spin reel and the stripper guide I am using is a size 20. I am easily achieving 150m+ in distance measured

You may well be correct.


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

Tom, Where is original discussion of your 27x methodology? I think I missed it along the way. Thanks, E...

Volume 10 #4.

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

Tom, when I built a Salmon rod awhile back I used an Okuma with a spool diameter of 54.6mm that when multiplied by 27, pushed the intersect guide 58 3/4" away from the reel. With the table edge method, my intersect was only 51" from the reel and this allowed me to use 3 guides before the intersect. With the 27x method. I was toying with using 4 guides or really spacing out my 3. I chickened out and went with the 3 guide table edge method as the 27x 4 guide placement seemed a bit overkill with a tall matching Fuji CYAG guide ahead of the ferrule on the the tip section.

Are there instances when 4 guides are used or should I have tried to space mine out further with just a 3 guide placement? Thanks.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2009 10:46AM by Tim Collins.

The 27X method is generally better. The spool upsweep angle was a convenient means for locating the choke guide, but it really wasn't based on anything more than conveinence. Spool upsweep angle is really immaterial as gravity takes over the instant the line leaves the spool The reel doesn't "shoot" line up at an angle - the line is pulled off by the cast lure.

However, that's not to say you have to locate the choker guide by that method. It's simply a means of putting you right in the ballpark off the bat. Something which the spool upsweep angle couldn't always do very well, due to the wide variety of reel spool angles even among similar sized reels. But if what you have is working, you're fine. You could always have tried it both ways and chosen the one that gave you the best results.

Generally, if you can get 1 or 2 transition guides, perhaps 3 at the most, between the butt guide and the choker guide, you've done all you need to do. Many of my freshwater spinning rods only have a butt guide, 1 transition guide, then the choker and running guides. They cast even a light lure like a bullet. In fact, if you do enough testing you'll find that where casting distance is concerned, it's the butt guide, and the guide just after it, that make the most difference. After those 2, about all you can do is remove weight (also important). But as far as "taming" the line, that should be done by the time the line passes the butt and subsequent guide.

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

I would think the one that is quieter and flows smoother is becaus ethe line is travelling slower.

That might also be a big part of it.

...........

Tom
Were the quiet and noisy ones shot out with the same force

Identical. I should say the level in decibels was not measured - the sound was more of something that several of us just noticed. One was different, louder and less smooth sounding, than the other. But it cast further.

This is why I say that all the photos, videos and sounds in the world aren't the measure of a good guide system. The only thing that counts is where the lure lands.

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

First the math/trig on guide placement: I think that someone asked?

The calculation is: the cotangent of the reel upsweep angle times the heigth of the reel spindle; equals the distance(A) from the intersect point to the reel stem. A=cot(angle) x a.

For example; a 4 degree upswept reel would have an intersect point of the cotangent (14.25) times whatever height of the reel spindle from the blank.

Tom Kirkman's 27X Method is based on actual casting experimentation.

Changing gears a bit:

Billy 40 is more appropriate. Steve Gardner and I have been corresponding about the hollow handle and a rod that' feels different'.. I build musical instruments, mainly banjos, and the tones are produced by a vibrating string(line) against a hollow medium(handle). If a string passes through guides easier, they would move faster. Those impeded or slowed would produce a different frequency. I do believe that rods have different frequencies and feel different; Just my humble opinion. C2

I'm coming to this discussion very late. Sigh...just lots of work.

Anyways if anyone is still following this, especially Tom, do you think:

1. This 27X applies to micro guides also?

2. My subscription lapsed a few copies and I miised the Vol 10 #4 even though I'm now back on a 2 year subscription. May I ask (politely....:) if the 27 times the diameter of the spool is the distance from the choke guide to the FRONT FACE of the spinning spool?

Thanks,
Mo