Just finished building a three piece 9'8" 8 wt on IM6 blank. It looks quite sleek without thread wraps anywhere. The finished rod weighs 149 grams with 11 guides including the tip. Guides are single foot except for first two. I did it this way in order to minimize the effects of restricting the blank's modulus. From the FAQs on this site, there is a suggestion that 10 guides, installed with thread wraps could impede a blank's flexibility by about 10 inches total. Even though that adds up to only around 9-10%, it has its greatest effect on the thinnest parts of the blank. Of course, even a glued on guide will effect flexibility somewhat, so I used a flexible two part thickened epoxy to minimize this. There is no worry about how durable a glued-on guide will be because I glued several onto test pieces beforehand just to test tenacity. In fact, this is the downside to gluing the guides on; if you break a tip, the whole section has to be replace because you can't take them off without damaging the blank. How does it cast? Not sure if it is any better than a thread-wrapped version because it's hard to test without actually being on the water with it for a day or two. I'll have to wait for Spring to do that. Anyone else experimenting with glued-on guides? If so, I'd love to hear about it.

I'd like to see that FAQ you mention. I don't believe it appears anywhere on this website. Nor can you "restrict the blank's modulus." Not sure what you mean by that.

The only part of the blank that will be "impeded" by the guide is that area directly directly under the guide foot, and in few cases would all the guide feet lengths add up to anything like 10% of the blank's overall length. The amount of flex even in a deeply loaded blank is minimal, per inch, and the effect of adding guides doesn't stiffen the blank, but rather softens it (slows the speed - reaction and recovery) due to the weight of the guides.

Gluing is not gaining you anything along these lines. If you wanted to continue this route, however, you might follow the article on "Threadless Guide Wraps" that appeared in a past issue of RodMaker. Permagloss is used to build up a binding over the foot. This method is quite secure, but probably no better than standard thread wraps with epoxy. It's just different.

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

Amazing how information moves around in space in the electronic world we live in!!

IMHO the whole notion of a rod's modulus is grossly misunderstood. The actual fly fisherman reads ads by the major rod makers and sees that price and modulus are directly proportional and that creates the mantra for high-end desirability . My question, as a consumer, was "why should I pay big bucks for a high-end 21st century rod and then turn around and hobble its performance with 18th century tied-in guides. I assure you my motivation was strictly curiosity. that's why I joined this site. I learned from it by reading and, incidentally, the FAQ I mentioned is copied below for your convenience. As you can see, the inference is that guides restrict movement whether two footed or single footed.
Thanks, by the way, for your comments. I'll try and find the article you mention.

FAQ from this website.

11. Will using double footed guides make a rod stiffer?

Actually, it will make the act softer overall. All guides, whether single or double footed, will soften a rod to some degree as the weight they add has a greater effect on rod efficiency than does any stiffening that does occur between the guide feet.

Let's put this into perspective. Let's say you're building a simple 6 foot spinning rod. I'd guess you're going to use about 6 guides or so and to make things interesting let's assume they are of ultra-stiff frame construction. What is the total area between the guide feet? Add up that space on each guide and I'll bet you'll come up with a combined total of something less than 3 inches. So on a total rod length of 72 inches you're going to stiffen less than 3 inches! In other words, the total amount of stiffening going on is pretty much immaterial - you'll never notice it.

But you will notice the reduction in rod efficiency caused by the overall weight increase made when you added those guides. The bottom line is that this reduction in efficiency caused by the weight of the guides will have an overall greater effect than any few inches of stiffening will.

I think you mis-interpreted that particular FAQ. Guides make the rod softer, not stiffer and that's exactly what that FAQ attempts to explain.

For the time being, thread wrapped guides are still the best and least obtrusive method for attaching line guides to the rod blank.

..........

Tim,

The FAQ you posted has no relationship to your earlier comments "impede a blanks flexibility by about 10" and with it's "greatest effect on the thinnest parts."

As for wrapped guides "hobbling" performance, that sounds like an opinion not a fact!

For most of us there is more to a fly rod than just it's ability to throw line. There are esthetic and creative values as well.

I think you're also going to find that your epoxied on guides will fail - they'll break loose from the blank. You have so little area to bond to on the guide foot. This is why even with PermaGloss you have to rely upon a total encapsulation of the guide foot to ensure they'll stay put.

If an attachment method other than thread and finish were to be developed, it would most likely require a different type of guide foot. What we have now was developed specifically for wrapping.

By all means keep us informed, but I think you may be in for a large disappointment.

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

Epoxy doesn't really bond to the blank and is less flexible than permagloss. What could and very well may happen is after prolonged use the epoxy could lift away from the blank from the stress of the line on the guide foot. Take an old, cheap fishing rod and bend back a guide just a little and you will see that it will crack, if it wasn't wrapped the guide would snap off. Permagloss is better and less expensive in the grand scheme. Like tom said the guide foot would likely have to be different. Wider and longer to better distribute any stress.

I looked at doing this myself but decided against it for all the reasons posted. I do wonder though how it would work with epoxy over well cured permagloss.

To facilitate my understanding (maybe I still don't have this grasped) if I take an entire rod length, having two footed guides and I measure its flex somehow. Then, I sever all the wraps from one leg only of each guide, the rod will now flex in a 'softer' manner ? I agree with this, if the analogy is correct. Again, referring to the FAQ and, lets say, going with single footers instead of double footers, there will be a weight loss which translates to "softer"; plus there will be slightly less stiffening of the blank which, will again make it "softer". Am I on the right track now?
When I said it 'hobbles' performance, it was in the foregoing context. I wasn't venturing expert opinion on what effect it could have on a sixty-foot Lee Wulff cast across a river flat.
As for the epoxied guides...... It does seem like a stretch for such a low surface area as a guide foot but mine is only an experiment and that's one of the ways that brings the possibility of change to a very old craft. You only have to look at what's happened to golf clubs during the past ten years to see a technological revolution to something that was a hand made craft just a few years ago.

To answer Cody V's query. I used a flexible thickened epoxy (GFlex by West System). First, I scraped the paint off each guide foot. Next, a 100 grit light sanding where the pad will sits (About small fingernail size and shape). Find some heat shrink tubing sized to fit over blank and guide foot. Mix epoxy and apply sparingly to surface and top/bottom of foot. Place foot with fingers and slide tubing over. Shrink to hold in place. Leave for eight hours. Remove shrink and sand off any overflow. Leave another 8 hours before putting under load.
I have done dozens of these as tests and the key is surface preparation. If the mating surfaces are dome properly, the bond will fail. If the bonding is done properly, you can't tear off the guide; the ring's weld to the legs will fail before the epoxy.

If you wrapped 2- footed guides, from butt to tip, the blank will then flex (and flop) far easier than before. If you wrapped 1-footed guides, from butt to tip, the blank will also flex (and flop) far easier than before. You aren't going to stiffen a blank by wrapping guides on it. It effectively becomes softer because it's now carrying extra weight. Greater mass that requires more of your imparted energy to start, and stop, the rod.

You'll also note that the foot on most single foot guides is longer than the feet on most 2-footed guides.


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

If I take two, one foot sections of tip-sized blank; On one, I'll tie on two guides at 4" and 8". The other I'll leave with no guides. If I do flex tests on these two pieces, the piece with the guides tied on may not flex as well as the naked piece BUT, you're saying that when taking into account the entire rod with all ten guides installed, it will flex more than the naked blank but only because of the weight added, not from the tying-on of guides.
For a moment I thought we're defying physics but your point is well taken; the added weight of the guides out-muscles the minimal effect of dampening the flex with wraps. Whew.... thanks for seeing that one through!

Wraps and guides don't damp flex - they increase the time required to completely damp rod oscillations.

I'm not sure what you mean by "flex as well." Both sections will flex, but the one with the guides on it will react less quickly, and take longer to recover. This is going to be true whether you wrap the guides on with thread or glue them on. The weight is in the guides, not so much the epoxy or the thread, although that does make some slight difference.

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

I mean that if you take a static flex test... say both sections are subjected to x static loading over their length. One length will sustain a load with less deflection than the other. In a dynamic environment, I wouldn't know the answer, however, how is it that guides don't dampen flex? Don't they create localized zones of higher rigidity and thus lower flex?

If you use the same blank, the one with the guides on it will deflect further with the same amount of weight than the one with no guides on it.

Adding guides to a rod means that when you flex it, you are setting more mass in motion and it will take longer to completely damp the vibrations. A naked rod blank will come return to rest sooner than one that has guides on it.

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

So, in a fly rod application, how is the dampening effect of this weight in motion manifested in a high modulus blank versus the IM6 variety. Put another way, does it level the playing field if you have a lighter set of guides on a lower modulus rod (in terms of vibration dampening)?

No, just the opposite. A rod made with higher modulus material will damp more quickly than one with a lower modulus material (assuming all else in their design parameters is similar).

To get the quickest damping, you want the highest possible stiffness to weight ratio. If you select a high modulus blank, plus one that has a fairly fast action (tip oriented flex) and put the lightest possible set of guides on it, you'll have a rod that reacts and recovers (damps) as quickly as possible.

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

In the subject of the rod flexing more with the tip on than not, I already suspected this, but don't the guides slightly change the ERN of the rod?? I know I rebuilt my favorite rod a couple weeks ago for the fifth time and( oh yeah, it isn't pretty any more but still functions flawlessly) went from epoxy to PG and what was before a med-fast action is now fast. (also it is a 2.4 oz 8' 3WT that will now cast 65 feet with a single haul and my limited but improving abilities :))

If less weight is better, the obvious remedy is fewer guides...., however the books I've read don't give any option. Would it be fair to say that guide spacing could be modified to drop one of the tip guides if the rod is to be used with a specific line, let's say a Lazer WF-8. I'm reasoning that if the line is larger diameter with longer weight forward section, the spacing of tip-section guides could be increased somewhat, thus dropping one guide. I guess the downside to this is if you're playing a heavy fish, the guides may not be able to keep local stresses distributed properly. Still, I'd like to hear what you may have to say about varying guide spacing on a fly rod depending on its end use and beginning material.

Cody,

Yes, the ERN is slightly lowered by addition of guides because the blank is now carrying their weight. Put enough guides or other weight on there and the blank will not longer have enough power to cast a line or lure (but that would require a good deal of weight).

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

Tim,

We can't very well make use of a rod that doesn't have any line guides, unless we're talking cane pole with a string tied to the tip. Obviously, we're talking about a fly rod used to cast a fly line. We need to attach guides and need to use enough of them so that the line pulling between any particular of guides does not force the blank into a bend that is deeper than it would normally take. Put just 3 guides on a 9 foot fly rod and you'll most likely break it with very little load on it. Put 9 guides on the same blank and you'll be much safer.

The idea is to use the smallest and lightest guides required to pass your required connections, and use only enough to provide adequate stress distribution. On most fly rods, using at least 1 guide per foot of rod length (plus the tiptop) is a safe bet for the minimum. The type line won't make any difference in this regard.

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