Does anyone know where I can find a 14mm guide.
Alox or ceramic. Titanium frame preferred.
The transition from a 20 to a 10 would be better served with a 14 as opposed to a 12 or 16.
I'm also in need of a solid titanium fly tip top std size, not a coated steel.
The answer by recoil is not very pleasing.

Thanks,
Gene



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2009 02:07PM by Eugene Moore.

Not sure anyone makes such a size. Not these days anyway.

Keep in mind, that the transition you speak of is only to the eye - the lines doesn't go through any such transition. The difference in going from a 20 to a 14, versus going from a 20 to a 6, is next to nothing. It only alters the line path a millimeter or two. The line doesn't use the entire ring opening so ring size isn't that important.

tape up a set of guides, say, 20 - 16 - 12 - 10 - 8 - 8 - 8 and then tape up a set, say 20 - 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 and then run a line though both. The first one may appeal more to your eye, but the latter one will provide the smoother and straighter line path.

.........

Its getting tougher and tougher just to find size 7 much less a 14. I have never found anyone who offers a 14. Good luck and let us know if you find one.

Gene,
I assume you’re primarily interested in the height that a 14 guide would give you. You might consider bending the foot of a 12 to get additional height. I’ve been modifying the feet of Fuji TYSG (titanium) and BYAG’s (Alconite) by flattening the existing bend at the foot and re-bending to get another .15 to .20” of height. The foot ends up slightly shorter (about the same as a standard TATSG 12). No problems with stress cracks or strength.
If you’ll unhide your email address or send me an email me, I’ll send you some pictures.

Gentlemen,
Actually I'm looking for a 14mm for dynamic concerns about line flow and inertial mass.
The 12 mm being too restrictive to line flow while the 16mm posesses too much mass.
I was hoping you're distributers on the left would "chime in" and drop a wish to the manufacturers.
I've had very little success after contacting the manufacturers directly and hoped this approach would work better.
The bad news is that the distributers haven't come forth to find the particulars.

Should we buy "what others wish to sell" or "what we want to purchase" ?

Thanks,
Gene

I'd say they already offer far too many sizes and think most builders use them all, simply because they offer them.

I wonder why you say 12mm is "too restrictive" to line flow. What are you experiencing? The line only uses a very, very small amount of the total ring opening.

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

Tom,
Just doing some analysis on spinning rods to achieve more casting distance.
Increase tip speed of rod.
Reduction of number of guides and weight of guides increases rod tip speed.
Rotational effects of increased tip speed increases barrel effect caused by line rotation paying off of spool.
Low profile guides mean at some velocity the line will slap the blank due to the barrel decreasing distance.
If the guide diameter is decreased to stop line slap increased friction is observed by the guide reducing the foot print of the barrel too much decreasing distance.
Use a marker and mark the id of the guide all the way around.
Make several casts and observe the pattern on the guide. As footprint of the barrel is reduced the guide contact patch increases showing increased friction.
To cast further rod tip speed must be increased but the increase in tip speed causes more rotational force increasing the barrel dia. This must be brought in by the next guide without allowing the barrel to slap the blank but not so severely that extra rubbing friction is taken on the guide. Guide reduction should be based on distance between guides and their dia reduction. If too large a guide is used the extra inetrial mass will reduce the tip speed. If too small a guide is utilized the rubbing friction will decrease casting distance. If too many guides are used tip speed is diminished and friction is increased causing loss of distance.
Hence the search for the optimum spacing and guide diameter sizing. Casting distance is a function of velocity and friction. I believe increases in the order of 20 to 30% are obtainable and can be repeated if the proportions are maintained.

Yes, most of what you state we covered in the NGC articles several years ago. Weight is certainly important, friction however, plays almost zero role here.

In our tests with a mechanical casting device many years ago, we found that reducing weight, particularly on the upper half of the rod, nearly always resulted in some gain in distance. Changing ring materials, to alter the friction between line and guide, had zero effect. Remember that friction has to do with the amount of pressure that is forcing the surfaces into contact with each other. There is very little pressure forcing the line against the guide rings. "Rubbing Friction" is not really a factor in what we do on a fishing rod." If it was, then the use of the newer and smaller (micro guides) would be a major problem. But we know that it's not.

And you certainly aren't going to "choke" or inhibit normal fishing lines with common guide ring sizes. A fishing line of normal proportions will slip through a size 6 guide as easily as it will slip through a size 20.

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

The insignificant rubbing speed is a direct function of the rotational speed of the line paying off the spool. Double the tip speed means double the line rotation speed. This rotation is perpendicular to the guide. How fast do you need to go for the penny to overcome the friction due to gravity and fly off the turntable ?
The world must be flat I can see the edge.

There is still very little pressure forcing the line against the guide ring and even this scenario only takes place on the butt guide (if you've spaced things correctly). We've proven this. You will gain more distance by getting the line under control and down to a much smaller cone, sooner, than any distance you might lose due to an infinitesimal amount of such friction.

If you want to really spin your head with supposition, think about the air resistance of the line moving in a larger cone versus a smaller one.

In the end, theory and supposition are wonderful things, but practical results are what counts.

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

With a modest 10 MPH cast velocity the line will come off the spool at 1800 RPM.
With a real heave say 70 MPH (very obtainable) that rotational speed is almost 13,000 RPM.
This is roughly a weed whip worth of inertia. Not theory fact.
I suppose that insignificant rubbing friction is why you cast further with lighter line.
The biggest resistance is your opinion not air.

I am not offering opinion here. I am offering proven data.

LIghter line generally allows you to cast further because the cast lure is pulling less weight behind it, not anything having to do with friction.

There are another dozen variables that you have not mentioned yet, but like "rubbing friction," they do not amount to anything that makes any practical difference here.

Stay with this long enough and do enough actual testing and you will discover what many of us "old timers" already know.

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

By the way, earlier in my first post on this subject, I made the incorrect assumption that you were working with a casting rod. For spinning, I'd set it up as outlined in the NGC in the Volume 10 #4 issue of RodMaker. Try it that way and record your best averages made over perhaps 100 casts.

Then set it up any other way and see if you can best that. You'll find that "rubbing friction" as you call it, is a non-factor.

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