Using seven or eight guides plus a tip top on a 7 foot rod, you will find that there is only so much room within which to put those guides and therefore only so much you can do with the spacing. I would find it very hard to believe that anyone can do anything based on this ballyhoo that would result in any sort of spacing that is in any way practically better than what the average builder is already using. I have to wonder if you fellows have really taken the time to stand back, carefully consider what this is all about, and realize you are trying to do something which does not need to be done.

I would really like to see the fishing rods you fellows are building in order to see how vastly superior they must be to what the rest of us are building. But I have my doubts that such superiority exists. I would even bet that they might have a hard time matching the rods that many others here build with nothing more than common sense.

"My problem is I've no first hand knowledge of rod breakage" - so why in the world are you trying to create a problem which you are not having? Science great, but all those terms and tools you are using to complicate everythign is a major waste of time...since you are not having a problem to begin with.

You're trying to avoid a minefield in Missouri, when all the minefields are in Iraq.

If you have a 7' rod blank and are building a casting rod and want good stress distribution, just do this, Use 7 guides plus a tip. Put the first guide 4" behind the tip. Then the second guide 5" past that one, the next 6" behind that one, the next 7" behind that one, the next 8" behind that one, the next 9" behind that one, and the last one 10" behind that one. Now go stress test it. It will be about as good as anything else you can do with the guides and it will NOT break from any high stress areas.

You can run the CCS numbers on the bare blank and then run them again on the finished rod with the line run through the guides and tip. It will easily note any differences but you are not likely to find any other than a slight drop in the power rating due to the weight of the guides.

Denis,
The blank which you mentioned in an earlier post. Is it available ? If so is a new blank of the same specs still in production and available. Actually the break you described is in an area I would have expected.
If a new blank is available measure the outside dia in 2 inch increments for 12 inches above and below the point where the break occurred in the original blank. Caliper measurements are close enough with tape measure locations.


Record the blank diameters at the locations from butt end to tip end.
Subtract dia 1 from dia 2 and divide by the 2 inch increment. This is the average rate of change in this sector. Record
Subtract dia 2 from dia 3 and divide by the 2 inch increment. This is the average rate of change in this sector. Record
Continue through the remainder of your measurements.
This describes the velocity statement of the blank taper.

Subtract rate of change 1 from rate of change 2. This is the rate of change of the rate of change.
Record the value keeping track of plus or minus.
Subtract rate of change 2 from rate of change 3. This is the rate of change of the rate of change.
Record the vaue keeping track of plus or minus.
Continue through remainder of rate of change.
This describes the acceleration statement of the blank taper.

After all values have been recorded analyze the final values.
Acceleration values that are rapidly changing denote the location of stress risers. Record location.
This should locate the break on the blank within 2 inches if the theory is practical.
Had a guide been placed closer to or on this stress riser the blank would have broken at a higher load or maybe not at all.

The following values were obtained in 10 minutes from the mid section of a 3 piece blank.
Increment value 3 inches
dia1 .370; dia2 .364; dia3 .357; dia 4 .351; dia5 .338; dia6 .330; .322; .313; .305; .295; .279; .300
review of the numbers indicated a rapid change of acceleration at 9 inches and another at 27 inches.
This was a store bought rod and had a guide at 13 inches and another at 27. (coincidence ?)

If 10 minutes can build a better rod, I for one can spare the time.
On the other hand if you feel adding more guides is your insurance, whatever makes you feel good.
You have to feel good about the service you provide your customer.
I'll never build a perfect rod but will not stop attempting to build a better one.

Wonder how blank manufacturers feel about warranty charges on a blank that was built by someone other then themselves on an execution that they wouldn't have done. Maybe Shimano is just the latest of the people to opt out of the blank market. Should we expect more to leave and commit us only to the third tier supplier ??????

Companies leave the blank market when it ceases to be profitable for them to be in it.

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

Did you happen to run teh standard deviation on the exponential derivative of the inverse of thatparticular rod? It would be useful to have that info as well, lol.

I'm waiting for teh law of diminishing returns to come into play here. If you're having to justify how muchbetter your rod is due to some mathmatical equations and theories, you've officially split hairs to teh nth degree

What? Denis had a rod break? I have not had that happen. I would be happy to share my guide number and layout program with him in order to prevent future stress failures. Obviously, I must be on to something!

Eugene,
My questioning as the whether blank manufacturers used computer aided engineering processes like FEA was not in any way a meant as a derogatory comment.
Far from it!
As I said, I have some exposure to the process through having to examine the extent and rate of compression of motor vehicle chassis and accessories attached to them.
The variables and data required to create even a vaguely realistic model was far beyond the benefits when compared to more traditional destructive tests.
Blank manufacturers would have a massive database of results for many thousands of combinations of materials and sizes.
They could go from concept to finished and a battery of non-destructive and destructive tests far more cost effectively in my opinion.
Your comments seem to confirm the limitations I have described.
PLUS
The experienced rod builder can envision a fishing situation and say "wouldn't it be cool to have a blank with just a bit more power down low and a little more flex in the tip"
The problem with going down the wholly computerised path is finding programmers and technicians with the same passion and understanding as the old timers.
I don't believe a rod blank can be built by maths alone. EVERY blank is a compromise and the success of the blank is often a matter of a variable that a computer CAN'T do..... FEEL
Long live the likes of the Batsons, The St Croix's and all the other guys that build the things from the heart I say!

After all, if it were to be reduced to simple maths, I'm pretty confident the the most efficient tool would be so far removed from what we call a fishing rod that I for one would not want to use it.
I'm thinking a solid launching device mate to a microprocessor controlled hydraulically driven reel that adjusts drag tension in microseconds to maintain constant drag pressure at optimum levels.
No thanks... I'll read a book.

Looking forward to seeing your work.

cheers,
Owen

Owen, Thanks for being a voice of reason in this. It's refreshing to see a post without formulas. etc

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!!

I doubt you will see their work.

This topic started a few days ago when others were discussing the CCS. A few jumped in and began raising objections about it due to the fact that, as they claimed, the CCS would not tell you everything you might want to know about a blank or rod. But these same people have never bothered to make the same statements about length or weight measurements, which also fail to tell you everything you want to know about a rod blank. In fact, they do not even tell you what the length and weight of your finished rod will be. Why no outcry? Everybody has been okay with those systems. It is only the CCS that raises the ire of some. It is being held to a different standard. Why?

My life has been spent studying people. In that, This is where my expertise and degrees are! And I can read between the lines. The fact is that the CCS is so very good at what it is intended to do that it stands an excellent chance of becoming the ipso facto system used by most blank and rod companies to measure and record the power, action and feel of their products. Because it is fairly new and the person who developed it very much alive, there are egos at work and fellows who though they might not admit it to themselves, are upset that another person is going to be the one who developed a system that will ultimately be the face of future blank and rod specifications. It will not be their system, if they even have one, that got the attention of the blank and rod making industry. The industry is not looking for measurements taken to the nth degree, only good relative measurements for length, weight, power, action and speed of the products they offer. These are the only measurements they have ever given and the CCS now allows the power and action figures to be as comparative between manufacturers as length and weight are. It would be unreasonable to assume that any blank or rod manufacturer would ever go beyond this amount of information. For 99.9 of the builders and fishermen out there, it is not required.

I see no ego nor wish for fame in anything Dr. Bill has written of in any of the responses he has given. I see a good bit of it in things others are writing. Too bad, fellows. Get used to the fact that the CCS numbers are going to start appearing next to the length and weight measurements already given in the catalogs! Where we will find your systems other than on obscure rod building message boards? Check your egos and move on with your lives.

For the record
The blank failure was not mine and not in Oz , It was a jigging rod broken in the US.

Eugene
Thank you...............it is indeed the quest to build a better rod and the quest to understand what is actually happening in our rods and why. Billy misses the point completely.
you have to know where you are, where you might go, the pathway there and why .............to effectively optimise your rod...........without stumbling around guessing.............or alternatively just being defeatest and staying where you were a decade or two ago.
Its just that the humble fishing rod is a lot more complex in its dynamic than we might have thought a decade or two ago.
You points are well made and appreciated.

As above, the blank is not in my hands.............further data availability is not known .

Your rate of change of the rate of change is indeed a guide spacing concept I adopted a decade ago relative to the blank OD taper as a 'black art' guestimate..............before I had a better understanding of the forces involved and I'm still trying to improve my understanding.
Your observation about guide location on obvious stress concentration points is completely correct and is identified clearly as an outcome in the torque/bending moment formulae bend I provide for 'bowstring' forces for any that seek proof of Eugene's observation.
BUT
First, know your blank and what it was made from
then you can optimise the build on it............ begs the question..............what should we know about our blanks ??????..............some of the why is emerging in this and associated threads.

Billy addresses the issue cheekily ( thats OK ), Owen is correct..................there is a law of diminishing returns...............you only know where the effort exceeds the outcome when you get there
Along the way, we find useful information about the nature of forces on our rods that enables us to identify build protocols for structurally better rods.

I find the philosophical thrust of some of this discussion bemusing.
On the one hand a miriad of posts allege that custom rodbuilders are leading the commercial builders .
On the otherhand its the commercial builders who are utilising Finite Element Analysis ( FEA ) etc to design their rods.
so what are we doing to understand the finite elements in our custom builds that we might use to our advantage.
You can't have it both ways
We are either at the cutting edge...................or we are not.

Still waiting for any critique of the underlying physics of the formulae I have posted.................. Eugene's observations accepted.............anybody else up to the task...........

Barry .............your last post taken on the shoulder with appropriate comradeship from a fellow rodbuilder................it would have hit the mark ..............iF... it was one of my rods. He He.

Ever the skilled salesman Tom, getting the Mag here in Oz has distance and time issues you are well aware of, and for which there are no easy cost effective solutions ( no criticism intended ).
But now I have interest in what has been published.
Could you identify the volumes and pages you refer to .............so I make sure I get the right ones.

what happens with our rods, is they bend, and why is because a fish is hopefully pulling on the other end. YOu dont' need to be a statistical engineer to see that a blank has a fast action, and you dont' need ot be a rocket scientist to know that the "hinge" point of the blank is where the most stress will be when a fish is on. IT's not hard to static deflect and adjust guides so that the area with the greatest amount of bend has guides closer together, and the spot on teh blank which is straightest allows to to space the guides further apart. YOu might end up with guides not progressively spaced from teh tip - most of the rods I build for myself are like that. I rather not build a rod for someoen else like that, because they will end up taking out a ruler and measuring the guides and thinking I screwed up, then I would have to explain to them the reason why I did what I did.

Billy V

Interesting post.

Question? If you truly feel that you can build yourself a better rod, why not build your customer a better rod? If the only reason is because you don't want to explain it, would not it be of benefit if we could all find good explainations for the reasons it's better? Sure, we don't want to have to use formulas to accomplish this, but wouldn't it be good if we all had a sound understanding of why?

As you move down the rod, just as the load will do, you do not need guides as close together as you do on areas further up the rod with less substantial structure. Good rod blanks, provided they do not go beyond a 90 degree bend, are not in danger of failing from stress related issues, unless and until they simply reach the limit of their design capability.

In an earlier post, Richard made made a statement concerning a very simplistic means of guide distribution. While it may not address the best spacing where casting and other issues are involved, it most likely does provide more than adequate stress distribution for the rod blank. It would be rare that such a spacing would undermine the capability of the naked rod blank and cause it to fail prematurely.

In recent years all rod builders have benefitted from the advent of lighter guides. This reduces problems from the compromise between providing adequate stress distribution and attempting to keep additional weight to a bare minimum. My own recent experiments with the Pac Bay Minima guides have resulted in a rod that casts further and balances better even though I am using more guides than previously. Which certainly provides for more than adequate stress distribution for the rod blank.

Denis says he is waiting on a critique of the underlying physics he has invoked . Here's mine - it's not necessarily incorrect but it is unnecessary. As others have noted, provided you use a reasonable number of guides on your rod, you will not change the flex profile from that of the naked blank nor have any stress related failures due to issues regarding guide placement. The best of all worlds is to run the line through the center of the blank and eliminate all the guides. But that's not easily implemented for many reasons. If Denis or anyone else wishes to continue this conversation for whatever reason, even simple entertainment, that's fine. Just don't get ugly.

Finally, RodMaker Magazine is available from Ian Miller in Australia. I do not know if he stocks any back issues.

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

It's disappointing that these threads can't be posted without all the silliness. If you don't like the math or don't care for the idea, then move along and don't bother posting your snide remarks. It's obvious that this thread is beyond nearly everyone that's posted here, including me, yet here you all are giving your "expert" opinions. How disappointing we aren't mature enough to have actual technical discussions.

To Eugene's question and premise, I have a few blanks that I've noticed would break in relatively the same spot (within .5"). The one I originally noticed was a 7' mh bass rod rated for 12-20 pound line. I had 4 break in about the same spot. I broke one myself with 10 pound line and had 3 different clients break theirs over about a year. It's interesting in that all 3 client's rods had different guide configurations, one spiral, one micro on top and one traditional on top. All 3 broke about 20" from the top and close to a guide, under an inch. I've switched to a different blank because of the breakage, but obviously there was a weak spot in that blank. I wonder now in light of Eugene's question if I centered this area between 2 guides if I could have eliminated the breakage.

Bobby, it's a different ball game when you make rods for people who fish on private boats of for the most part by themselves, than for a person who might go on a boat with 50 or 60 people 5 times a month. THe biggest disadvantage to a spiral wrapped rod is dealing with teh barrage of questions and skeptics EVERY SINGLE TIME you go fishing. NOw you're gonna jump up and say how great that is as it's an opportunity for me to have center stage and promote my business. However, for a fishermen who wants to go out and fish and not be a salesman and trying to regurgitate info which I shared with them that they really don't understand, then to have one doubting Thomas grilling the guy over and over and telling everyone what a hack the guy who built the rod is, and everyone agreeing because your customer wasn't able to educate everyone on why it's better than what they are using.

While some might want to conquer the world and teach everyone why theirs are the best, I rather sell them rods they actually want to fish, and if by chance someone is willing to allow me to build the rod the "right" way, I'm more than capable of doing it. HAving said that, rods built either way work just as well once you stop analyzing them in a shop or basement, and ake them fishing.

Owen, I had a unique chance to tour the St. Croix factory. I know that they had a computer program that they ran to test the blanks before they were constructed. I only wish now that I had paid more attention to what was being said at the time. I know that they could adjust the materials and look at the data before they ever built the blank, after they built a prototype they would put it through a battery of tests to see how the blank performed. They also used a machine to test blanks with loads and repetative flexing, different angles and such, but they started off with a design that was computer generated. I now that they said this program was one that they had designed themselves and to there specs, I need to learn to start paying attention when people are talking (lol).

Robert,

If you locate that area between a pair of guides, the problem will not go away, in fact, it will likely be worse.

But it is equally unlikely that you can make the problem go away by locating a guide directly on it - there's a lot more to it than that and a bad design can't be corrected by guide location.

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

Billy V

Understood. Thanks.