I was wondering why the first guide from the tip is just placed at 4"-5" back from the tip and "we know that is where it is supposed to go". Based on what? Convention, that's the way it is always done? Manufacturers testing? Not trying to be smart about it, but I am asking why. I was doing a static placement on an IST1085F with the guides on the bottom as a spinner or an acid wrap. I have printed the Static Guide Placement article and have it to refer to so I can follow along. I have the rod in a holder on the floor that holds the butt section up at 45 degrees. I have the tip top attached to a line on a seperate reel which is attached to something heavy on the floor. This allows me to simply adjust the load on the rod tip as needed to progress through the static guide placement. I am careful to have this load rather straight below the rod tip to keep the rod from bending side ways, towards the butt, or outward. I also have maybe a one ounce weight attached to the line going up through the guides just to keep it under a light tension. And I have the various guides in place with small surgical tubing rubber bands to allow moving them as needed. (Although I do like the idea of using the rubber bands as guides, maybe next time.) All the top couple of guides are all single foot 6's to keep everything the same.

So, it bugs me as to why I should ignore the load from the first guide to the tip. Why to start out by adjusting the second guide back to get a nice load distribution. We want the line to follow the natural curve of the blank, all the way to the tip, no?

The line between any pair of guides forms a straight line while the rod is in an arc. So it follows that we should be able to measure the gap from line to blank in between the guides at about the point of greatest arc with a small steel ruler. Adjusting guide position to equalize this distance from line to blank in between the various guides will have the line following the natural curve of the blank. However, if I do not assume I already know where the first guide back goes and I move it to a point where the measured distance from line to blank between the tip top and first guide is about equal to the distance from line to blank between the first guide and second guide, I find it is a bit further back than 4". Maybe 5 1/2" to 6 1/2". Then I have to reduce the space from the first guide to the second relative to from the tip to the first guide to maintain a similar distance from line to blank between those two guides. From the second guide on down the guide interval steps up as you would expect with the rod blank getting progressively thicker / stiffer.
Have I totally lost everyone yet? It sounds awful wordy. Are some of you other builders getting similar results? Or do you just put the first guide at ~4" and move on to the second guide?
Are we concerned about breaking the tip area of the rod? If so, I would like to ask this . . . Based on your experiences: Where is the most common place for a rod break to occur relative to the tip? Is it between the tip and the first guide? Or more often in the area from the first guide to the third guide?

Ummm.....I think I follow.

Personally, I use the Static Guide placement system as a STARTING point. I put the guides on the rod, load it and adjust from there. I don't feel that the distance of the first guide back is set in stone. If it needs to be moved....move it and test cast.....Don't get caught up in feeling that you have to meet the requirements of some standardized system....Afterall...it is Custom Rod building.

Scott Sheets
www.smsrods.com

Andy

you are right on. I think that we sometimes get so concerned about the opinions and impressions put upon us by those that are "considered" experts, whether it be because they have written a book, build rods professionally, or have 1000 posts on a website, that we lose sight of the whole point of building custom fishing rods : To take full advantage of the unique properties of the chosen blank and components and build them into a superior product.

It always gets me when I see a supposed authority state "well that's incorrect....." or "thats just bad technique" ect....
Says who? just becuase they have built XXX number of rods doesn't mean they know the properties of the blank in my hand. If the static test tells me that I should use 6 guides and the first one should be back 6 1/2 inches from the tip, how can anyone tell me "well the rule is one guide per foot plus one and the first guide should be back no more than 5 inches so your not using proper technique".

You have the blank and components in your hand. Use the practices we employ to build that rod to best it can, based on your experience and judgment, not what someone projects onto you.

Do what the static test tells you and don't ever doubt yourself.

R

Andy-
That placement of the 1st guide back is a starting place. I think that suggestion puts you in a spot that will not be too far from the tip. If your testing reveals that it can be farther back that works out well-you may wind up with fewer guides. Fewer guides will result in less weight on the end of the rod where it counts most. The spiral wrap itself may well indicate a need for fewer guides as line touching the blank is not possible . When the load increases you will see more of the tip end of the rod becoming straight-with no bend at all-pointing directly at the load source. The testing results will determine guide placement for the particular blank you have chosen.

Guide placement is probably not nearly the factor in rod breakage as what position the rod is held while loaded. High sticking is responsible for tips breaking in fishing situations, not guide placement.

Robert, well said !!!!

Andy,
My top guide placement strategy is based on the observations Chis noted above.
The tip is the weakest section of the blank and deflects first. Being the weakest it can only handle a proportionally low load. As it deflects it places more load on the next guide which is stiffer and so on through the length of the rod. By the time the third or fourth guide is under stress the tip has fully deflected and is facing in the direction of the load. At this time the guide load at the tip has reached the maximum allowable by the deflection of the rod.
My first guide is placed based on the strength of the rod tip.
A rod with a tip dia of 4/64 will have it's first guide from 3-3/4 to 4-1/2 inches from the tip top.
A rod with a tip dia of 4.5/64 will have it's first guide from 4-1/4 to 5 inches from the tip top.
A rod with a tip dia of 5/64 will have it's first guide from 4-3/4 to 5-1/2 inches from the tip top.
The tip dia determines the first guide placement. So larger dia tips have more material to absorb the stress of deflection and will have the first guide farther away.
An added plus is the rod tip reacts faster and is more sensitive. Number of guides should more fairly be based on rod length and strength of the fishing line used. A 9 foot rod used with light line 4# or less doesn't need 10 guides plus a tip top. The job can be done better with fewer guides making a rod quicker, lighter, more sensitive and less tiring to use.

I am trying to follow where my measurements are taking me, not "this is where it goes". I don't think of any of these tools as hard rules, but you have to start somewhere. All the stuff about so many guides for so many feet of rod are just a starting point. I very much agree about trying to equal out the load from line to blank, but what may be good for load may not be so good for casting. So casting too is a tool to help determine what we think is "the" best place for some guides on the rod at hand.
I haven't seen the guidelines Eugene has put down, but they also look like a good sensible place to start, along with the other guides of how many and where. Then we try to balance it all. The point about the rod tip area loading up at first and then straightening out is also well taken.
Thanks for all the feedback so far! Having the ability to talk with others in the field about ideas/questions is a real plus!
Andy K

It's done this way for good reason, not a whim or just "because that's the way it's always been done." You will be making a huge mistake if you place that first guide much farther back than specified. Here's what you're overlooking - there is nothing beyond the tiptop to influence the flex of the upper most area of the rod blank. So the curve you see and wish to use to determine the spacing for that first guide is somewhat misleading. Put that first guide too far back, which you're inclined to do if you simply go by what the curve on that section of blank looks like, and failure is the very likely result.

I think Eugene's guidelines are pretty good, but I'd halt about where he did. If you follow a continued progression of that same type, a larger blank with say, a size 12/64's top would have the first guide much too far back. Even on heavier surf sticks, 10 inches, 12 inches, etc., is pushing the safe limit of what you need to do on that section of rod blank.

If you want to experiment on your own, go for it. After you've broken several blanks you'll wind up settling for the spacing guidelines that are routinely given for that first guide behind the tiptop. But at least you'll know why they were arrived at.

...........

Ok, well the blank at hand has a tip of 5.5. During adjusting of the first guide and measuring the distance from line to blank along the way I notice the section of blank from tip to first guide starts to curve more when the guide is at ~5 1/2" from the tip. I got the first guide all the way back to 6 1/2" when I got the distance from line to blank finally up to 14/32's, or about what I had for the line to blank distance between the next three or four guides. While I am not a fan of just do it this way, that seemed like a lot of distance to me.
The distance of 5 1/2" back from the tip is where I started seeing increased flex, and is close to what Eugene has for his guidelines, so perhaps that would be a good place to stop.

Your point about not having anything past the tip top to influence the curve of the blank from tip to first guide is a good one. Something else to think about.

Can one of the factory reps weigh in on this area of discussion? I know several read this board at times. Surely they have a basis for the spacings they use. Although when I see different blanks that use the same spacing, I have to wonder.

Just to stir the pot a little, wouldn't it be more accurate to measure from the line to the centerline of the blank rather than to the nearest surface of the blank? See what difference that makes.

Personally, I don't think it makes much difference where, within reason, you put the guides. If you were blindfolded I rather doubt if you could ever make any distinction. I do, however, think that it has everything to do with confidence and that is no small matter. If you don't have confidence in it, it will never seem quite right, no matter how "right" it is.

This may seam hard noise but I onced ask a rod warranty guy for measurement, this was what he said . I thought you were a custom rod builder not a copy cat builder. I do not believe a rep. well chime in. A excellat resource for blank information is Todd Vivian a Mud Hole. Todd was Lamiglas's Rod designer and developer for 20 plus years. He is Now at Mud Hole, near family

Good Wraps Bob

John; Since all the guides are surface mounted it seems measuring from that surface would be consistent. That is part of why I was using all 6's on the top several guides, to help eliminate at least one variable. The blank diameter does vary, which accounts for the increasing stiffness/load bearing ability. Besides the stiffness I don't see a connection between blank diameter and line flow. If the blank was say 50 % thicker yet had the same stiffness it would still deflect the same amount under the same applied load. IMO
Bob; Thanks for that info. Perhaps the factory reps may not want any of this, too bad.
Andy K

I think that you can see my point better if you greatly exaggerate the rod's actual shape. Imagine if the rod's diameter changed by 2" every foot of its length, but was constant in diameter between these stair-step changes in diameter. The centerline bend of the rod would be smooth, but would you want the string to follow the shape of the outside surface? Or here is another weird example: imagine if the tip is 5/64" diameter, but the butt is 2 feet in diameter. Again, the centerline bend of the rod would be smooth, but would the surface of the blank be representative of the bend of the blank? I don't think so.

This really is a mute point. I'm just being nit picky. In reality the centerline of the blank and the outside surface are so similar that the difference is negligible for our purposes and it's much easier to measure. We are not building precision time pieces here. As I said above, the confidence that you have in your method is far more important than the few inches in guide placement that we are talking about.

Like you, I throughly enjoy trying to get everything exactly right and making all of these nitty-gritty determination on the rods that I build. But in my heart I know that my time would be far better spent practicing my cast rather than laboring over such trivia.

In most of the tip repairs I see dew to a broken blank. The point of the break is determined by how far the rod was sticking through when the car door was closed.lol

High STicking will break any rod but it will more quickly break those that have the first guide put to far back past the tip. The line brings the tip and first guide together and the farther apart they are the more severe the flex will in a High Sticking situation. Be very careful not to go to far back for this reason. I think some of you guys are forgetting stuff like this.

Andy,
As many other folks have suggested, guide placement is a personal "custom" thing that can be adjusted based on blank and preference.
Generally, when I place guides on a blank that I haven't used before, I will flex the tip and see where the blank first starts to bend. I mark that point and am sure to put a guide at that exact location.
I sometimes call this spot, the sweet spot or tip deflection spot. Then, I work both directions from that location.
On some blanks which have a slow tip - i.e. there is general blank movement over the top 1/2 of the rod, it might be that the spot where I first have blank movement could be the first guide on the rod.
That location, could be back as far as 5-7 inches on a long rod.

Conversely, if the blank has an extra fast tip, so that most of the initial blank movement is in the upper 1/4 length of blnak, that first location could very well be within a few inches of the tip.

Based on these as well as other measurements, I commonly find that if I am working on a blank with an extra fast tip, I will have guides at 3,6,9 inches down from the tip. i.e. the tip is so fast and is changing so fast, that to get the line to follow the blank, it is necessary to have the first guide at 3 inches from the tip and continue that spacing for the first three or so guides.

Conversely, on a very slow long rod, I might be placeing the first guide at 5, then 12, then, 20 inches. For a long very slow action heavier action rod, this could be the perfect spacing for that particular blank.

Any time that you comment about guide placement, it is imperative that you speak about the particular blank on which you are placing guides.

Light very fast tipped blanks will need a lot of closely spaced guides near the tip to have the line properly load the rod.
Conversely, for heavier action, slower action rods, fewer guides more widely spaced are appropriate.

On the same note as your initial post, I have noticed that for some particular blanks it seems that the blank can have a relative constant diameter and thus stiffness for some length down the blank. Then, the blank diameter begans to build.


Thus, this constant blank diameter causes a bit of an issue. I have come across some blanks where the initial bend of the blank occurs at 10 inches from the tip. As the deflection increases, the blank then bends at about 7 inches from the tip, which would indicate that a guide is needed at 7 inches from the tip, which is only 3 inches in front of the 10 inch spaced guide. Then, due to its relative constant diameter and stiffness for the top 7 inches, there is not much deflection as the rod is loaded further.

However, the rod continues to bend at the other side of the 10 inch distance at 13 inches.

So, if one were to use common sense, it sould seem that the first guide should be at 7 inches, the 2nd guide at 10 inches, the third guide at 13 inches, and then as the blank is deflected further, a more normal spacing occurs.

Although logical from a connon sense and need requirement, the placement isn't very pleasing to the eye. So, for blanks like this - and I have run across a few, I will compromise and split the difference to get a more uniformily eye pleasing appearance, by moving the first guide up a bit and just keeping the spacing a bit more uniform. i.e. I always keep the progression of guide spacing from the tip toward the butt at an equal or increasing distance. So, even though the blank would dictate that I would have a wide, narrow, and wide guide spacing working down from the tip on this paricular blank, I won't actually wrap the blank this way. I will actually keep it even, even, even, and then increasing spacing as I go from the tip to the butt of the rod.

Most blanks don't exhibit this behavior and thus have no issue. However, especially in certain lighter action very fast tipped rods can have this issue and this is the way that I address those issues.

Take care
Roger

Andy,
Thanks for the time to do some real life testing and confirmation that my math model may be correct.
Sometimes I get lucky.
My strategy is based on a strict mathematical approach verified by Finite Element Analysis on my static analysis software. It is nice to see the math can be confirmed with actual testing.
I've not seen any documented proof that guide placement can affect where a rod will break or at what stress level this will occur. My models show that the guides act as bearings allowing the rod to deflect according to the design of the blank taper. This taper design establishes the point that maxium stress will occur and failure will take place. The taper is also beyond our control and is based on production of the individual blank. Variables in construction technique determine how much stress can be handled prior to break and rate of taper change determines where the break will be located. None of these can be substantially changed by the location of the guide bearing surface.
The concept of the line following the bend of the rod is a joke. The line always forms a series of straight lines from guide to guide and any curve is only in the eyes of the beholder. How closely this series of staright lines matches a curve is purely subjective.
My rods aren't built they're designed for a purpose and my build follows my design. But I'm only a hobbyist. What do I know about the real world ?

Roger; I like your method of flexing the blank some to look for where it starts to bend. That would be a useful insight during this whole placement process. It made me think of something I read in the Commom Cents system. A piece of un-cooked pasta or a straight piece of wire was attached at the tip of the rod to more easily observe the action angle of the rod during deflection testing without in-correctly following the slight curve of the rod just below the tip. It seems a similar arrangement could be used easy enough to help point out where the blank starts to flex, perhaps in a more easily observed way. I think I will have to check that out.

The blank is an IST1085F, Batson. I was initially trying to see what the spacing would be if I placed all the guides such that the line to blank measurement at about the midpoint between two guides was at 16/32's. NOT that it was to be a final spacing! I wanted to write this spacing down, then repeat the process at 15/32's, then maybe 14/32's. Writing each spacing results down I would then be able to compare how many guides it took at each set-up and what the spacing was. Then I could use that info to pick out what looked good, place the guides with some tape, and go do some test casting. Here is my initial result:

tip to 1st guide 6 1/2", deflection 14/32's; 1st to 2nd guide 5 1/2", deflection 16/32's; 2nd to 3rd guide 5 3/4", deflection 16/32's; 3rd to 4th guide 6 1/2", deflection 16/32's; 4th to 5th guide 8 1/2", deflection 16/32's

As you see I did not get the tip to first guide at 16/32. I stopped because 6 1/2" seemed pretty far. It also bothered me that distance from 1st to 2nd was only 5 1/2" with 16/32's deflection. Obviously it was carrying more of the load/bending further in a shorter space. It looks as if the tip area was not distributing the load, rather acting more like a lever and the load was being moved back to between the 1st and 2nd guide. That is why I asked the second question -

Based on your experiences: Where is the most common place for a rod break to occur relative to the tip? Is it between the tip and the first guide? Or more often in the area from the first guide to the third guide?
It seems the most likely place for a failure on this rod due to overloading would be right behind the 1st guide, not the tip top.

Roger describes a very similar experience with some blanks he has used. While Eugene is correct about a series of straight lines I believe we can use those as I have described to see how a blank loads / flexes. Sadly I have not yet gotten my measurements at 15/32's and 14/32's deflection as I had to go do other things. I need to finish it up.

Thanks for the lively discussion! I don't think this is all done just yet. If anyone else wishes to contribute, please, by all means do so.
Andy K

Take a 6' rod blank and affix the butt solidly. Now tie a lie to the tip and load the rod with it until it breaks.

Now take that same 6' rod blank (if you still could) put 1 or 2 guides on it around the mid point and then install a tiptop. Now begin loading the line which is now passed through the guides. The rod will now break under less load and in an entirely different location.

..........

Eugene; I am going to have to somewhat disagree with some of what you said in your last post. While we can't alter the blank design the placement of guides along the blank certainly affects how much load is applied and where it is applied to the blank. Tom is very right in that his second example rod will fail in an entirely different location than the first one with no guides. I need to chew a bit on the part about failing under less load, but that is a different issue.
Seperately, you are saying "My models show that the guides act as bearings allowing the rod to deflect according to the design of the blank taper."
Hmmm, that should be easy enough to check. Do a static test as described in Tom's article with the load being applied to the tip and only a slight weight on the line through the guides, now locate all the guides. Then re-do with the load being applied from the line running through the guides and compare the two. If the guides allow the blank to flex along it's designed taper there should be no difference. My guess is there will be some difference since the guides apply lateral loading to the blank at the point where they are mounted. I would be eager to hear the results!