Please correct me where I'm wrong on this, this is only second rod build and first casting rod build. From everything I've read about static guide placement, you weight or flex from the tip of the rod and place guides in relation to where the blank wants to flex. The line used to find proper placement has only enough weight or tension to be able to see where the guides should be placed for the line to run through the guides at the least harsh angles. So the argument in my mind, is that once you place the guides on the blank where the blank wants to flex you are then flexing it against the line after it's all said and done. Wouldn't there be some conflicting forces at work, placing the guides where the rod wants to flex versus where the line forces it to flex? I don't imagine that the differences between guide placement methods would differ greatly.

If you tie the load line to the tiptop, only, and then load it, the rod blank will flex in the manner that it was designed to. This offers the maximum possible deadlift capability.

If you then space your guides accordingly and assuming you do a good job of it, loading the line running through the guides will not appreciably change the way the rod flexes. In fact, that's the whole point of doing things in this particular manner - so you don't create any inherently bad stress areas due to poor guide placement.

If you begin by loading the line that runs through the guides, you have no idea how close to the designed flex pattern you are. It is possible, if you don't have enough guides or have done a very poor initial job of placement, to have changed the flex profile of the rod to an extent that may reduce its maximum deadlift capability.

There is an article in the online library here that spells out the procedure.

..........

Maximum deadlift, that's what I was looking for, I knew there must have been a reason I just didn't catch that in the article you wrote in the library. I'm one of those folks who aren't happy doing things without knowing why I'm doing it in a particular fashion. Thanks!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2009 10:45AM by Andrew Metzger.

“I don't imagine that the differences between guide placement methods would differ greatly.”

Maybe not.
But the effects of those differences can be quite substantial. In casting performance, in fish fighting performance, in blank stresses, rod balance, and all around handling!

If you want to build superior performing rods.
Do yourself a favor and take Mr. Kirkman’s advice on this!

Thanks Steve, I am not thinking this morning, or my hands aren't typing what I'm really thinking, in differences, I meant measurment of guide placement. I'm only on rod number 2 and 3 and I'm soo fully enveloped in rod building.

I understand,
But both the number of guides and the differences in measurement can have substantial effects on performance.

By loading the rod from the tip, the blank itself will show you where to locate the guides.

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

Get a Morton chart, I think that's what it is called. I use 1 and I feel it really helps with placement, especially when using atypical set ups.

story pole

Phil Brenner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> story pole


??

A story pole is a stick or pole often used by carpenters to record full scale measurements for items that must be produced in duplicates. Rod builders have adopted it for use in guide spacing.

If you mark the pole in equidistant spaces, and then flex the rod to a specified amount, you can slide the pole along the rod and locate a guide at each mark. It works remarkably well in many cases precisely because it automatically takes into account the action of the rod - the same spacing on the pole results in different spacing based on the action and flex of each individual blank. It's a great interactive method for guide placement and quite easy to do.

Bill Colby wrote an article on the method which I published in a recent issue of RodMaker.

...........

Yes, sorry, i accidentally on purpose didn't explain any further. I got distracted and clicked the submit button without explaining last night. However, i knew i probably wouldn't be able to explain it all that well. Tom took care of that. After i read the story pole article i have been setting all of my fly and casting rods up using this method. Once i mark the rod from the pole i find that I typically only need to do minor (if any at all) adjustments to get a nice line path. It is just plain quick easy and effective.

Here's another tip - Take any rod you have of a specific length and set it up manually with static stress testing and test casting. Really tweak it until you have it just right. Make this your pattern rod. Then flex it as specified and run the story pole along the rod making a mark on the pole each time it intersects with a guide on your rod. Label that pole for that length rod and any time you build a rod in that length with a similar handle butt length, you can run the pole down the blank and automatically have good spacing for your guides on the new rod. No, the marks won't fall in the same place even though the new blank may be the same length - the action and flex of the blank, if different, will cause the story pole marks to intersect at different locations but these will be correct for that particular blank, provided you did a good job on the original pattern rod.

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

Interesting, i will try that. I have a 9' 5wt that i really like, and will be putting another 9 footer together this week, i will try what you suggest and see how things end up.
Tom, i have a couple of questions. I am curious as to what you do in this situation. I have found that sometimes i get a pretty good distance between the butt guide and the second guide when using the storypole method especially on very fast action rods. The last fly rod i built, i simply adjusted guides 2,3,4 a bit to get a more even looking spacing. Is this the proper way to handle this. It seemed to cast fine, but just looked awfully funny before i did. I had something like 19 or 20 inches between the butt guide and guide 2 before the adjustment. Now, in all honesty, im not the best fly caster in the world, so i probably couldn't tell you the "exact" best set up. But so far if I was happy with the perforance, the customers have been also. The last 2 casting rods i built using the method ended up the same way, but because i wanted to do a simple spiral, i "simply" put a guide 10 inches in front of the butt guide at the 180 degree position and called it good. It adds 1 extra guide that way, but it is near the back of the rod so i didn't really mind the addition.

As far as casting distance when setting up a guide system, what is the most important factor. i am assuming the size and postion of the butt and maybe 2nd guide. My thought is that once the line is under control do the subsequent guides really play that much of a roll during casting? Sorry for the long ramble.

I don't use the story pole method for guide placement.

However, if I did, I would do exactly what I outlined in my earlier post - set up a fly rod of that length by trial and error, static test and cast until you have exactly what you want. Then flex the rod, run the story pole along it and mark the pole at each point where it intersects with a guide. This will result in spacing on the pole that is not equidistant, but it will carry over and mimic that same type spacing on each fly rod of that same length that you build. No the guides won't fall in the same places owing to the intersections being different due to the differences in blank flex, but the overall pattern or progression will be the same. This would rid you of any long space between your 1st and 2nd guides.

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