I'll throw a variable in there...

D Brown - I know you said less that a 1% consideration for the friction aspect of line touching blank... but anyway... wouldn't the water on the line help mitigate the heat generated?

-----------------
AD

Interesting thread!

Bill - It was a pleasure chatting with you in NC. Thanks for everything!

Alex...this is the funniest thing I've read here in a long while - "By the end of the day, he was using my rods and I was using his orange bunny sticks."

Bobby - I like your mythbuster test with the blank section in the lathe.

As some others have done, I too recently built 2 8' crankbait rods with all on top. Rod 1 had a double 8 and 9 single foot 6s plus tip. Rod 2 had a double 6, 5, 4 and 8 3.5s plus tip. I took the rods to Lake Fork and spent some time on the water with a few people I like to let try new things and give their input. They both make their living on the water, one as a full time guide and the other as a guide and on the FLW circuit. The consensus was the micro guide rod had better action and "felt" better. One guy said the action was more "crisp and lively". We didn't do any formal distance testing per say, but the rod with the micros could cast further than anyone else in the boat, regardless of which of the three of us was using it.

To the post at hand, I added a micro to keep the line off the blank. The line path was very similar on both rods and did not touch the blank under heavy load. I like it as a matter of aesthetics. It just looks better to me for the line path to follow the rod path and not touch the blank. It also more efficiently utilizes the action of the rod, but this benefit is probably minimal and difficult to even quantify.

I'll continue to build with the guides positioned to keep the line off the blank under load. The weight added is minimal when using micro guides as nearly all my builds do and as I stated, I like the look. That's why Baskin Robbins makes 32 flavors, we can all get what we like :).

One of the worst OTC rods for dropping below the blank that I have seen recently was one of the Daiwa rods, maybe the L&T. It was $130 and had 7 guides plus the tip on a 7' rod. My buddy had it and when he loaded up the rod, the line dropped below the blank between almost every guide.

Bobby
Your engineered truth test tells it all (almost ).
My comments were all in the vein of major issues that are considerations of contra indications of line touching blank. in a bass fishing situation.
Bill's summation is appropriate.
The wet line bit is correct up to a point ( & was one of the "other" unstated considerations not detailed in my post )
i) its a lubricant
ii) its a coolant
BUT
the situation is relative.
even fully under water a nylon line or braid will melt a PP or PE anchor rope & cut it neater than you can with a knife. The issue is what item is static & what item is moving in the friction equation. Some impact on the line, but the water is able to cool the line as it is the moving part of the friction elements, however the heat buildup occurs in the static element subject to the friction.
Speed of the moving element & duration time determine the heat buildup.
The problem for the line arises with residence time against the heated static element ...............especially where it is dry line from the bottom of a spool after a long sustained run from a fast hefty fish.
Line failure from heat rarely occurs from the line disintegrating mid run................it occurs when the run stops & dry line is in contact with an element heated by the friction of the run ( guide/blank) in a fairly static situation under pressure when a stalemate is reached & residence time of the line on the heated element is sufficient for enough heat transfer.
Definitely not a Bass fishing scenario......................but its real.
a) its why rollers were invented for game rods
b) been there done that with conventional guides.
c) its just me but I will not pick up a rod to use fishing without putting some water on the spool & allowing it to drain off.

Back to (b) above ; somewhere I have a photo ( ex fishing mag ) of a young Denis ( who was casting rebel minnows off an ABU 7000 with 15# mono , off the rocks ) with a Spanish Mackerel on ........(40#)......... with a 'water boy' in close attendance with a drink can full of water pouring it over the fast emptying spool. There is some video of this same stuff floating around too ( very old video............very young Denis ).
Line failure had been experienced on stopping the first run on previous encounters , prior to adding the 'waterboy' to the team & the fish were then landed ................Oh! the issue is real enough.
The issue with PE braid is even worse.
Again, none of this is relevant to Bass fishing scenarios.

SteveG
The grit thing is not really relevant .............I said >1% to avoid a debate ensuing .....................I would be tempted in a bass fishing scenario ( no salt crystals ) to say >0,.001% consideration as an issue.
Guide numbers ?...............yes there are reasons for them & you point out some of them as far as performance outcomes in issues other than line contact.....................My "why would you" was in the context of line contact in bass fishing rods where a guide train spacing was proving safe in a stress 'in use' scenario.

I forget who raised the issue of line angle & guide contact................ its a more general guidetrain design issue as to the angles generated & what stress on the blank you are talking about ...................not a subject for this thread..............or even at this time.
as a friction issue..............the amount of wrap-around of contact is self correcting .............more contact area lower force per unit area.................lower friction per unit area ....................same total friction........................its a potential issue if the guide is not functioning as a heatsink. ( ie guides with an insert between ceramic ring & frame )..................besides............... its a guide issue not an issue on-topic......... of line / blank contact.

Hope that helps clear up the queries from my earlier post.

Dennis;
In reference to your statement
“Guide numbers ?...............yes there are reasons for them & you point out some of them as far as performance outcomes in issues other than line contact.....................My "why would you" was in the context of line contact in bass fishing rods where a guide train spacing was proving safe in a stress 'in use' scenario.”

Thank you for clarifying that. Sometimes you provide so much good info in a post that I miss some of the details.

Thank you again, taking the time to answer my questions

MIcro guides don't cause a rod to cast further. Weight reduction does. "Micro" guides do reduce weight over larger more conventional guides, so they're indirectly responsible. But it is the weight reduction that's important.

I'm afraid too many consumers are going to miss this point about getting weight off the blank and simply think there is something magic about the guides themselves. There isn't. It follows our decades old statement about using the smallest and lightest guides that will still perform the required task.

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

Tom,
I know I am in waaaaay over my head when thinking that I could disagree with you, but I do.
I believe there is some thinking, based on the water or real life testing to suggest that the smaller guides force a tighter line path.
This tighter path, or straightness of the line, removes some or most of the oscillatory motion of the line. That motion is energy lost.
The energy expended to move the line in a path is more focused on the forward movement and less is wasted on the side to side movement.
Simply put, it is a more efficacious path. This is a big reason why baitcasters outcast spinning reels; line path and efficiency. Isn't it?
I believe it is more than just weight.

Life is pretty simple: You do some stuff. Most fails. Some works. You do more of what works. If it works big, others quickly copy it. Then you do something else. The trick is the doing something else.
Leonardo da Vinci

The amount of energy you're talking about; the amount of oscillatory line movement between say, a #6 and #2 guide is so small as to be far outside the bounds of anything you would or could ever notice or measure. Anyone that pushes that notion is selling snake oil. I know you don't mean it that way so please don't take offense to that statement, but that's about what it amounts to in a real world practical situation. It just doesn't add up to anything that would create enough difference to be noticed. This is the sort of thing I fear that many commercial manufacturers will start pushing and in the long term, will do damage to the credibility of using smaller guides.

Spinning outfits typically always outcast older baitcasting outfits due to the spool not being required to turn. As baitcasters have gotten better in that regard, the difference has narrowed.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2009 05:11PM by Tom Kirkman.

Please see my new thread on the front page about spinning vs baitcasting casting distance. Opinions are welcome!

Darn !! For the past year or so, I've had all these folks thinking that the Micro guides were "Magical". Now Tom K. has went and spoiled the mystery of the "Magical Micro" guides. But, on the other hand, I still preach when using them, set-up, test, test ,set-up test, test. Especially when down-sizing the spinning set-ups all the way thru.

Bob McKamey -- Custom Tackle Supply

The comparisons of guide sizes and the effect on line flow can easily get side tracked quite easily. The primary improvement on bass rods is attributed to things that are affected by overall weight reduction. The micro guides being discussed on the M&M threads go past conventionl thought on line management as it moves through guides. If you observe the wave form between the pawl guide on a reel and the butt guide on a conventional casting rod using a 12 ring you will easily note a significant difference in the line lateral motion by using a 3.5 guide ring at the butt guide position. This work is just getting started and time will tell concerning the viability of the rods.

I do think Tom is correct on one point - they are coming - if you think Helium was tough no telling where all of this will take rods of the future. I suspect someone will introduce rods with Sub Atomic Guides at ICAST in Orlando.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2009 06:20PM by Bill Stevens.

Yesterday, a long time fishing partner caught two 7 lb+ bass on a spiral wrapped rod I built for him. He has had concerns from the day I put it in his hand that when the time came that he had a big fish on that the line would contact the blank during transition. He reported that it did just fine-to which I replied "Well how about that!" Told him it was built using some of the best components available-by a competent custom builder-using cutting edge techniques. (No, I did not farm the job out) I've fished with this guy for 30 yrs-refused to believe me- would not believe it until he saw it for himself.

Where is "M&M Volume 6 Line Touch Casting Rod"? I already have Vol. 1-2-3-4-5-7. 6 is missing?

AF



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2010 07:49AM by Angelo Fucci.

Post Script:

Three years later -

Al Jackson has been behind seilling over 2 million micro rods - e21 Carrot Sticks, Duckett Fishing and others.

Even the words are used - How About The Success of the Micro MaGIC Rods!

In the future You Can Always Say - YOU WERE THERE AT THE BEGINNING!

We build better rods - that was the goal of the M&Ms stated in Volume 1 -

We have made a contribution to building better fishing rods.

US