For lack of something better to do this afternoon and because I find it all too much fun, I tried some flex profile tests, making tracings of both guided and non-guided versions of the same blank. My results taught me something. I present them here for whatever they may be worth to someone else.

St. Croix 5F-70MF 7 feet, 1-piece, medium power, fast action blank.

Supported horizontally at the butt, an eighteen-ounce lead was hung from the tip of the bare blank. The blank flexed deeply and naturally. An outline of the flex profile was traced onto a sheet of plywood placed behind the blank using the blank itself for guiding the pencil.

Next I taped ten guides onto the blank in progressive fashion. The rod was again supported horizontally and the same eight-ounce sinker hung from the rod. But this time the sinker was attached to mono that I had strung through the guides and securely attached to the rod butt. The flex profile of the blank matched that on the original tracing exactly.

Next, I removed two of the guides, re-spaced the remainder progressively and attempted the same process with just eight guides. No change in flex profile was recorded.

Next I removed two more guides, re-spaced the remainder progressively and attempted the same process with just six guides. There was a very slight change in flex profile but only in the last two feet of the rod.

Next I removed two more guides, re-spaced the remainder progressively and attempted the same process with just four guides. At this point the flex profile changed markedly and last two feet were actually folded back a bit to the point where the tip was no longer straight down. It bowed out and back on itself just a wee bit.

My personal conclusions are that when a sufficient number of guides are used there is little to no change in flex profile between a bare rod blank and a completed rod used with the line through the guides in an actual fishing situation. I saw no change in action and any change in flex profile only occurred once I had dropped back to four guides, a number which by anyones count would surely be considered as too few for a blank of this length.

The adage of using one guide per foot of rod length, plus one, seems to adequately support the blank and allow it to flex according to its natural tendencies. I believe that using even just one guide per foot of rod length would be acceptable as well. I plan to try the same experiment on another blank or two to ensure that the results will be the same and that this was not any sort of anomaly.

The largest component change comes due to moving the guide closest to the tip top.
If this guide is left in it's original position and the remaining guides are spaced progressively the blank will support fewer guides.
Likewise if this guide is moved further from the tip top the AA will deviate the greatest even with ample guides through the remainder of the rod.
Try only the guide closest to the tip top and anchor the line to the butt.
One guide plus tip top.
Notice the AA change but back-off the weight to avoid damage to the blank.
Move the guide fore and aft while observing the changes.

I am sure that would result in a radical change to the blank flex profile and that the CCS would easily be able to note any change in AA. I believe there was an article and photos of such in a recent issue of the magazine that depicted such radical and even less so guide numbers and placements.

But I would never build a rod with just one guide and a tip top so for me that is a mute point.

Barry
No offence taken & none given.
my comments have always focussed on the issues at hand not personality.

placing guides in a progressive fashion is non-descriptive to me
the information provided in my 'thesis' is a framework for informing the rationale for the guide train "progression ".

No problem with the 4 guide comment in general
The interesting thing is what the equivalent CCS numbers show up, across your different guide numbers...........they are that sensitive.
People keep thinking I am bashing CCS ...........I am not.
Where you put the guidetrain.............forward' or 'rearward' and why, makes a significant difference.
The numbers generated in the formulae in the 'thesis' applied to the cross section of the blank in the most structurally at risk locations enable qualitative & quantitative decisions on guidetrain location and progression to be made rather than 'black art' guessing.................the thrust of my references to Bill Hannemans opening quote to CCS.
ie
you have some numbers of relevance to base your decisions on about guidetrain design.............if you want to.

If you only have a horizontal testrig you can replicate different angle of attack of the tip load by redirecting the load string with a small pulley ...............not ideal ...........but indicative.

Examining the effect of guidetrains in my testrigs has been interesting in comparing different builds on the same testpiece with the same guide to blank orientation ( to remove any possible spine effects ) with the same guidespacings as conventional on top, underslung spinning and spiral, different guide heights, and different guidetrain designs, on rod deflection.
Along the way I learnt about deflection stresses between fibres & thermoplastic resin & experimental protocols I had to observe to avoid false results...........and had to read NASA reports on the subject to understand why.
Try an ascending series of load tests to maximum and then continue with a descending series of the same loads & note the differences..................simply interesting stuff, but lessons learnt about experimental protocols in repetitive testing to minimise experimental errors when investgating optimisation for improvement.

The CCS does not tell one where to put the guides. At least I do not use it for that. I do not believe it was intended to do that.

I wanted to see if a rod with a normal or sensible number of line guides loaded by means of a line strung through the guides and loaded that way, would flex differently than a bare blank with the load applied directly to the tip. It did not. The flex profile remained exactly the same. I believe that Rohit stated the same results when he tried a similar experiment.

Only when I reduced the number of guides to a ridiculously small number, four, did I notice any radical change in the flex profile.

From my observations I concluded that the issues being raised in these type discussions are much ado about nothing and that most rod builders need not worry about radical changes in flex profile, action or stress as long as they use a reasonable number of guides for the length rod they are building. For me, that would be about one per foot of rod length, which would also seem to carry just a bit of overkill or safety measure.

funny that a number of rodbuilders I correspond with around the world are using this info to refine guidetrains and even make blank choices that they find significantly optimises
their fishing experience.
your choice .............I'm just sharing what i know.
This discussion is proceeding on other threads.

My observations indicate to me that much of what is being discussed along these lines does not have any real impact on what we do with a fishing rod. The bare blank and how it flexes in its natural state does not appear to be changed radically unless you use a very radical and improper number and placement of guides. I would hope that most custom builders are versed well enough in the basics of guide number and placement that they would never experience any of the problems you suggest. I certainly have not.

It would be interesting to meet in person and take rods which I and others have built and compare them to yours in order to find if there is truly any sort of noticeable difference in rod performance. I doubt we would find such a difference. But if you are having fun that is really all that matters!

Barry,
Repeat the test, except leave the tip and the front 3 guides unchanged.
I would guess that the blank would flex pretty normally, if the tip guides were left alone and there was only one guide back near the butt of the rod. Most rods have the power in the first 1/2 of the rod to flex in their designed fashion without any added support.

Take care
Roger

I have no doubt that you are correct. That point was hammered home in the photos that ran alongside the article in Rodmaker Magazine.

I don't want to make any incorrect assumptions, but those photos weren't intended to show that you didn't need guides on the butt area, only that problems with the blank going beyond a 90 degree flex in a normal situation are only likely to occur with insufficient guide number or poor placement on the upper 1/2 to 1/3rd of the rod.

Your earlier statement about there being no real change in blank flex characteristics when a sufficient number of guides have been employed is correct.

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

Denis
Could I please request that you state your approach in a neat manner without contaminating it with critique and debate on any other methods and setups. I am trying to follow all these posts in the recent period but I am finding it difficult to follow as there is too much going on. If you have a process that will educate your peers to a better way and wish to share it, then please start a new thread with what your process is as well as what it achives. Your current writting technique is rather difficult to follow

It is what it is Rohit
The last post mentions no other methods and setups it focuses on the issues involved and examples of where & why it makes a difference.
The only references to anyone other than myself is of relevance to the significance of numbers and testing.
The discussion was on blank tapers & guide train design............... my response was on-topic.............. no point in starting another thread on the same topic............. that loses the thrust of the discussion.

The photos were not about aesthetics. They depicted what actually does happen, and to what degree, when you use differing numbers of guides on a rod blank and then load the rod as in a real fishing situation. There was nothing to interpret - the article contained the information needed to explain what the viewer was seeing.

This discussion was not about blank tapers nor guide train design. It was about the flex profile of a rod and how that profile would change, if any, with varying numbers of guides. As Barry and Rohit found out for themselves by practical experiment, that profile will not change significantly as long as a reasonable number of guides are employed.


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

Denis
Please re read my request. I find a lot of whats been posted by you in the recent topics of blank flex and CCS topics to contain a lot of words without it actually clearly making sense if you are debating, protesting or promoting a particular point or a number of points. Maybe a bit more detailed question is required on my part

Static tests
You have recently posted that CCS is a perfect tool for what it is designed to do and you have also posted that its not good enough for what is outside the tests scope. I dont know about others but it appears that Barry and I have done similar tests and seen for ourselves that a decent guide layout matchs the blanks natural flex

Questions
1 - Is CCS in your opinion flawed for what it is designed to do?

2 - Why should CCS be even considered for a purpose that is outside its scope?

3 - Do you have a system that can be used to test that which is outside the scope of CCS and do you wish to share that?

4 - Can a guide layout result in a curve that is better then the blanks natural curve?

5 - Why would that curve be better?

6 - Are you able select a blank and demostrate this?

I would also be interested to read Denis\'s system, presented concisely and logically here on this page. Please present it and how to use along with the improvements we should see in our present rods once we have implemented the system.

Barry
I would not be so presumptuous as to tell anyone how to do anything.
None of my posts on rod dynamics have ever taken such a ridiculous position.
I just put forward issues I see that should be considered and the basis for that consideration.
What individuals make of that is up to them. the compromises in rod dynamics that an individual is prepared to make to achieve specific outcomes of "tuning" is up to the individual............its not the place of any other individual to tell them what that compromise should be.
My posts on rod dynamics merely share what I know about those dynamics...............for others to use or not use as is their whim.
Critique of the physics involved welcome.................
facilitating worldwide discussion and critique of technical issues was what the internet was designed for and public forums on particular issues best utilised for.
The first step in "new" ideas is the presentation of the principles involved...............for critique of the principles
I have done that in detail.
Following critique and acceptance ( or otherwise ) or modification, of the principles to be utilsed, walk through examples of the application of the principles follows.
I await critique of the principles presented..................the silence is deafening. thus far.
Lets follow the accepted protocols on technical forums before we rush into specific applications.
A general discussion on applications is found in Eugene Moore's thread.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2009 09:55PM by Denis Brown.

You began by raising issues with the CCS which you said was not sufficient to provide you with information that you thought critical to locating guides prior to building the rod. You did not provide any system that would provide that information and the issues you raise have proven over many years not to be issues, really. The problems you suggest are not taking place and you have no proof that any of your principles are allowing anyone to build a better rod that what any of us are currently building.

I have had some fun in these discussions and played along to some extent in the interest of camaraderie among builders, but I also recognize goobledegook when I run into it.

Now now Barry
lets not get personal and distract from the discussion...................an unfortunate trend in discussion on this board that I have raised before.
Lets look at "Gobbledegook "
There are two directions to considering an allegation of 'gobbledegook'
1.
the person making the allegation has the ability to assess the relevant facts and make a correct determination that the 'facts' put forward are not really facts and the person raising the issue does not understand what they are talking about.
2.
the person making the allegation does not have the ability to assess the relevant facts and make a correct determination of what is fact and what is not and the person making the allegation of "gobbledegook" doesn't know what they are talking about.

There are two absolutely clear options here....................its up to the individual to make their own assessment of the relative situation.

Now.................if something is 'gobbledegook' sound and identifiable reasons for the assessment can be made................... reasons, relevant to the proposition have not been provided.

A physical rational for the 'facts originally provided has been given.
- are the physical parameters identified wrong
- are the formulae provided wrong
- if so where ??????????????
the silence is deafening.
I refer to my earlier reference to such approaches .................. it is demeaning of genuine interest in rodbuilding issues to inject a tone of mischievousness by the use of words such as:-
" someone having a bit of fun at the expense of the board users"
or
" I recognise goobledegook (sic ) when I run into it"

If someone believes an issue is gobbledegook they should at least have the decency to submit why that is................. to make the allegation begs the suggestion of being mischievous itself.
Why also would someone post a series of diagrams and formulae as a mischievous exercise and request critique ...............if its a joke.

Over to you Barry ,.................provide a critique of the underlying physics of what has been presented.............. if its gobbledegook.

The point of looking at blank flex is that it entails a clear and concise protocol to be meaningful...................otherwise its just "Black Art" stuff............... just visually looking is the realm of intuitive expertise and its also the realm in which gobbledegook and myth resides alongside real fact.

I have repeatedly expressed my admiration and respect for Bill Hanneman's work for the purpose it was intended to be used, within the limitation of the methodology.
I have repeatedly expressed that there is no better tool available for blank selection as a starting point to replicate a successful build .
I have identified parameters in dynamic assessment of a rod in use that Bill Hanneman's work cannot validly be used for.
Bill H has confirmed that view.

What are some of you arguing about................ this seems to be an issue of erroneous perception or mischievous diversion.

I identify that my work goes beyond CCS /URRS and looks at things that CCS and URRS cannot.
I posted a detailed explanation of the basis of looking at stress and its relationship with deflection .

As is appropriate to consideration of application of a protocol..................the protocol is put out in the relevant technical community for critique.
IT IS A POINTLESS WASTE OF TIME TO RUN AROUND LOOKING AT INTERPRETING APPLICATION WITHOUT CRITIQUE OF THE PROTOCOL TO BE USED IN THOSE APPLICATIONS.
I will not be diverted from that course .................it is the accepted protocol in technical discussions on boards discussing technical issues.
I have presented the first part of that protocol ............ie.............torque / bending moment .............in assessment of two situations present in a rod build:-
- Tip load
and
- Bowstring forces generated by line tension across guide pairs.
Critique of the underlying physics welcome
When participants desiring involvement in the discussion have satisfied themselves that the physics is real and the approach is valid we can proceed.
Critique of the underlying physics welcome..................if the physics is not real...............then debunk it..................and the issue will disappear...........as it will be shown in a factual manner to be flawed.


Rohit asks some interesting questions...............some can be answered now, some are application questions that will be dealt with in time & deserving of a thread in their own right
................when the protocol proposed has been critiqued and we are agreed as a community on its physical validity.

Responses to Rohit's questions that can sensibly be answered now:


QUESTION:
1 - Is CCS in your opinion flawed for what it is designed to do?
ANSWER:
No................it has limitations as a static test .............as identified by Bill H himself...................it does have inherent issues of user interpretation of results in multi-modulus blanks and comparison with blanks with significantly different tapers .
These issues are best considered in a thread of their own at the appropriate time when the physics of deflection are agreed as we progress.
QUESTION:
2 -Why should CCS be even considered for a purpose that is outside its scope?
ANSWER:
No.............. it shouldn't.............it has a valid scope ................first understand its scope and the limitations the CCS protocols has and interpretation of CCS based data in any valid consideration outside its scope...................an issue for many who use the system and extrapolate the CCS data outside its valid scope.
This leads back to Question ! and is dealt with at the appropriate time.
QUESTION:
3 - Do you have a system that can be used to test that which is outside the scope of CCS and do you wish to share that?
ANSWER:
Yes................. I have commenced the sharing by posting the principles of deflection generation and the forces involved.
Do you have any critique of the physics invoved or the formulae identified ?????
QUESTION:
4 - Can a guide layout result in a curve that is better then the blanks natural curve?
ANSWER:
What on earth is defined as natural curve................lots of different perceptions of that.................its a dynamic thing....................a static test identifies only one arbitrary deflection.
The real question is does the CCS static deflection test replicate the type of deflection found in different inuse situations of a rod.............the answer to that is NO.
The OD of a tube, its wall thickness,and the modulus of elasticity of the material the tube is made from, determine the maximum deflection of the tube ( tapered or otherwise ) prior to failure.
If the Question is rephrased to ...........'Can a a guide layout layout change the deflection of a blank'......... the answer is Yes.
' Can it make the situation of the blank worse'...............sure does ( assuming the "natural" deflection you refer to is the maxium deflection in a given part of a bare blank.
This question deserves its own thread in the fullness of time................refer back to Question 1 & question 3.
QUESTION:
5 - Why would that curve be better?
ANSWER:
Refer to the answer to Question 4 and thence Questions 1 & 3.................all in the fullness of time Rohit..................answer the question I pose in the answer to Question #3............along with other willing participants and we can proceed .
QUESTION:
6 - Are you able select a blank and demostrate this?
ANSWER:
In the fullness of time we can do exactly that.....................but obviously to do so before we agree on the validity of the physics and an understanding of the assessment critique , would be a waste of time as identified in the body of text above.

Critique of the physics involved and the formulae is an absolutely necessary step before we move further forward without wasted effort.

I am starting to wonder if this is a Board that is interested in and promotes discussion of technical issues involved in rodbuilding??????????

Personally, while I know very little about the validity of the theories being bandied about, it appears to me to have degenerated to the point where it has become pretty much a lot of chest thumping posturing filled with rhetoric and posturing of the "look at me, I'm smarter than the rest of you" nature.

A technical discussion is one thing but this is getting to the point of ridiculous. This Forum is for ALL builders, not just the "Rocket Scientists"

Mike (Southgate, MI)
If I don't want to, I don't have to and nobody can make me (except my wife) cuz I'm RETIRED!!

You are right Mike
There has not been any significant technical discussion on the topic since I made my first post..................its a great disappointment...............I agree.
No chest thumping this end..................I am just trying to keep the discussion on topic .
If putting something out there & sharing , something that you perceive others are not aware of is "chest thumping".............then everyone on this board that posts responses is gultly as charged.