I was reading Tom Kirkman's fine article on guide placement and came up on the phrase "Now set the guides between the intersect guide and the tiptop" Being a newby, I checked the Rodbuilding Glossary and found that the "Intersect" and "choke" guide are the same thing and this location is the point where a line drawn from the "reel spool centerline" will intersect the rod blank.. Seems to me there would be an infinity of such lines. Obviously, I don't know what the centerline of a reel spool is, as I cannot envision how one would do this measurement with my current concept of centerline. Help or reference would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Dave Burley

The article in the LIBRARY at the top explains it well and has a pic of the layout [www.rodbuilding.org] An even easier way is to measure the diameter of the spool in mm and multiply it by 27 and that will give you a good spot for your choke guide

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!!

Dave, maybe I can help. What you've read will indeed get you to a good starting point for locating the position of the choker guide. However, that method depended on the upsweep of the reel. Another, easier, way has subplanted that method. All you need to do is determine the outside diameter of the reel, where the line leaves the spool, a recent reel I've measured was 41mm so I'll use that as an example. Now multiply 41 x 27 and you get 1107mm. This converts to roughly 43". The choker guide would be placed 43" from the top of the reel. This method is referred to as 27x. If you perform a search on "27x" you'll find a ton of information.

Keep in mind that both methods are dependent on the reel that will be used with the rod being crafted.

Thanks,
Chad Huderle

Huderle Custom Rods
Prior Lake, MN

sorry, duplicate post...

Thanks,
Chad Huderle

Huderle Custom Rods
Prior Lake, MN



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2009 12:26PM by Chad Huderle.

Just for reference, the spool centerline is on the spool spindle shaft.

I would recommend using 27X for locating the choker guide, but if you want to draw a line to the rod from the spool centerline, along the reel upsweep, just take the spool off the reel and set the spool spindle in line with the table edge.

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

The 27X method often results in having the choke guide very near the tip. Sometimes it's so near the tip that I find it hard to use this method and I definately wouldn't consider it applicable to the new guide concept. What I often do is figure out where the choke guide would be using the 27X method, then figure out where it would be using the "upsweep" method, and then locate the choke half way between the two. This way I'm incorporating the use of optimum casting performance in conjunction with a reduction in size of the running guides (or at least some of them) in order to reduce some rod weight.

The 27X method seems to me, to locate the choker guide "just about right." It does not matter how close or far from the tip it is. What matters is that it is the right distance from the reel spool face. With the spool upsweep method the amount of upsweep is so arbitrary as to be totally meaningless those times I have tried it. Two reels of the same identical size and using the same line can have widely different choker guide locations. That cannot be right.

I have fudged an inch forward or backward from the 27X location and with mono it seems on the money. Braid can come back closer but I would hesitate to do so with mono. For starting out try 27X and see what you think. I think you will be surprised at how "just about right" it turns out to be the majority of the time.

Richard Kuhne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 27X method seems to me, to locate the choker
> guide "just about right." It does not matter how
> close or far from the tip it is. What matters is
> that it is the right distance from the reel spool
> face. With the spool upsweep method the amount of
> upsweep is so arbitrary as to be totally
> meaningless those times I have tried it. Two reels
> of the same identical size and using the same line
> can have widely different choker guide locations.
> That cannot be right.
>
> I have fudged an inch forward or backward from the
> 27X location and with mono it seems on the money.


> Braid can come back closer but I would hesitate to
> do so with mono. For starting out try 27X and see
> what you think. I think you will be surprised at
> how "just about right" it turns out to be the
> majority of the time.


Richard, I cannot argue against the fact that the 27X method is apparently the best setup for casting distance. The problem I have with it is that it often requires more "larger guides" to set up correctly. Part of what many of us are trying to do when we build a CUSTOM rod is reduce the unnecessary weight. If we can do this while preserving MOST of the optimum casting characteristics, then we have created a tool that is less fatiguing and thus more efficient. In addition, we tend to build spinning rods around the actual reel that is to be used. Even with the 27X method, if you change the reel with one of different geometrical properties - i.e. - greater or lesser upsweep angle, different bail to spool distance, etc. - then you've changed the rods performance. It is no longer performing optimally around the original design criteria - which is heavily influenced by the (original) reel.

Remember test casting - in itself - can be arbitrary. Can you be absolutely sure that each and every cast is performed with the exact same control measures?! Do you execute each and every cast with the same power input? Release at the exact same location? Target the same exact lure trajectory on each cast? Have the same wind-speed during each and every test cast?

Good point about the line type. I guess to produce the ultimate CUSTOM spinning rod, the guide spacing should take into account the type of line the end user plans on using most.

Upsweep angle plays almost zero role in casting - the line isn't shot off the reel, it's pulled off. This is why spool diameter is the more important factor to work with when going for best casting performance.

There are some newer guides on the market as of late that are very high, with small rings, and these allow you to maintain the best distance between the reel spool face and choker guide without adding much in the way of additional weight in the transition guide set.

If I knew for sure that braid wouldn't groove the new Pacific Bay Minima guides, I'd have them on every spinning rod I own. The same frames and rings are available in 3 different heights making it easy to conform to almost any desired line path.

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

Mike, Chad ,Tom,Torin, Richard,

OK thank you very much for your replies. I will now need to digest this after prrinting it out and studying it.

Dave Burley

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Upsweep angle plays almost zero role in casting -
> the line isn't shot off the reel, it's pulled off.
> This is why spool diameter is the more important
> factor to work with when going for best casting
> performance.
> > .............

Tom, I understand that line is "pulled off" of the spool during a cast, however there is some frictional resistance imparted by the front of the spool face, which is greater on the top of the spool (upward section closest to the rod) than the section on the bottom of the spool (furthest away from the rod). This "top of spool" resistance increases ever so slightly with the increase in upsweep. The resistance may not be as apparent with the angle of departure for the line coming off the spool as say - the resistance due to the spool material, but it does have some resistance. Again, without having a perfectly controlled test environment (including devises measuring frictional coefficients) it would ALL seem so arbitrary, so that leaves me in self conflict with two more readily identifiable variables, weight and esthetics.

With the two most recent spinning rods I've built, the 27X method would have left me with choke guides within 10" of their respective rod's tip. This would have "looked" no different than the mass produced multitudes, a "look" that I'm trying desparately to avoid. Even though the newest guides available offer high frames and reduced weight, even they have smaller, lower frame and thus lighter weight guides within their respective line-ups that can be used to further reduce weight.

I guess to summarize, both of these methods have their strengths, and subsequent weaknesses. Sacrificing some of the positive characteristics of one methed in favor of another method will ultimately yield some negative results somewhere in the process - and vise versa.

The distance of the choker guide from the rod tip makes no difference, other than how it may look to you. For instance, if you had 2 rods, one a 6 footer and another a 10 footer, but plan to use the same reel and handle, the location of the choker guide should be the same on both. On one the choker will be closer to the tiptop than the other, but on both the distance from the reel to the choker would be the same. This is as it should be.

The 27X method isn't arbitrary - it was taken from over 100 rods and reels that had been manually tweaked by trial and error to arrive at the optimum casting distance for each. It took some years to do. It proves to be far more accurate than using the arbitrary spool upsweep method.

I'm really not aware of any weakness of the 27X method, other than to say that with very supple braid, you may be able to pull the choker back towards the reel without sacrificing anything. Of course, how you decide to set your rods up is entirely up to you and if you like how they work, and look, then all the better.

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

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .......It proves to be far more accurate than using the arbitrary spool upsweep method..............


Far more accurate? How so? Now the casting ACCURACY improves based on the 27X method? That's a bold statement.

My method will also result in a 10' rod and 6' rod with the same reel seat and same reel having the same distance to choke guide location - as well, it's just that my multiplier became more of a 20X instead of a 27X.

Were you using a completely comprehensively controlled set of inputs for casting to reduce ANY chance of variables during your non-arbitrary testing? If you did not use high tech instrumentation during your test casting, you must have one very well calibrated arm.

Torin, I believe that he means that it is a more accurate method of locating the optimum location of the choker guide. He never mentioned the term accurate casting

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!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2009 07:08PM by Mike Barkley.

Mike Barkley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Torin, I believe that he means that it is a more
> accurate method of locating the optimum location
> of the choker guide. He never mentioned the term
> accurate casting

Mike, again, "optimum location of the choker guide"?? Optimum for what? If I did everything the way everyone else did, then I would not be building CUSTOM rods. Optimum for you could be a significant hinderance to me or my customers.

There's so much focus put on casting distance. Is it always necessary to cast a mile? Is this really the measure of a well built custom rod. I don't know about you but I can't set the hook on fish with most of my rods when they strike at 200yds away!

Just because Tom claims to have arrived at this method "scientifically", doesn't mean that his execution of the "scientific means" was done properly. It could ultimately account for bad science.

Torin,

If you feel the need to use your own "20x", then by all means use "20x". Some guys like the NGC, some use 27x, and some use a combination of both. To each his own. If your customers want an extemely lightweight rod that doesn't have optimum casting distance, then by all means stick with your "20x".

I have clearly found that the 27x method gives the smoothest casting and the best casting distance of all of the methods for guide placement. Do I always cast as far as I can? No, but I can make more accurate short casts with a rod that cast smoothly and that's why I use 27x.

jeremy

Torin,

You misread my statement. I did not say the casting accuracy improved with the 27X method, I said the location of the choker guide was more accurate with the 27X method than it is with the totally arbitrary spool upsweep method (which often puts the choker guide off the end of even very long rods).

To the best of my knowledge, I am still the only person that has ever built a mechanical casting machine that could make verbatim casts, with no human error involved, over and over and over again. When I test something like this, I neither guess nor assume. That sort of thing won't cut it in RodMaker.

Nor did I say that what you were doing is wrong. What I said was that if you take the time, by trial and error, to hand tweak each rod and reel set up for the optimum casting performance, and then over the course of doing this on some 100+ outfits look back over your choker locations, you will find that most of the time the distance from the reel spool face to the choker guide will be about 27X.

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

Then my apoligies Tom. So often I run into scenarios where the word "feel" (inaccurately) constitutes solid "evidence". Your having a machine with controlled input certainly negates variances of input, since it's a much more controlled and repetetive testing device than say the "feel" of the human hand. It does indeed provide a much more objectively reliable outcome. The data can then be used to "model" for more meaningful interpretive results. Those results in your case yielded the optimum casting DISTANCE.

I like to use the 27x, then play around with the static guide placement. Kind f neat how it can change from 1 blank length to another. It helps me determine where to place the choker, then I add the running guides as dictated by the static placement. I then place the butt guide, and transition guides as needed. Works well for me. Once I have a rod blank kind of specked out, That is where I start the next time. Now if the action is different, adjust as needed. This is where the static method shines. Match the contour. Took me a while to get it figured out, but I love it. Just my 2 cents worth. When I compare our layout to some of the better quality rods, a lot of them are very similar. Some are not.
Kyle Robinson

Torin Koski Wrote:
> The problem I have with it is
> that it often requires more "larger guides" to set
> up correctly. Part of what many of us are trying
> to do when we build a CUSTOM rod is reduce the
> unnecessary weight. If we can do this while
> preserving MOST of the optimum casting
> characteristics, then we have created a tool that
> is less fatiguing and thus more efficient.

The "larger guide" issue is the same reason I don't like 27x method. I build mainly rods for Salmon/Steelhead and my spool diameters run 55.5mm, 57.5mm. and 61.5mm. I'm not putting my choke guide 65+" from the spool and filling the gap with transition guides. I like to do a static test, use the last guide that falls close to the table edge method, set my butt guide around 19" and "frame" two more transition guides in between.

I like to build my rods for the fish fighting position. It doesn't matter if it cast 4' shorter than someone else's, I'm more concerned how my guides support the middle section of the rod when that Salmon heads downstream with the current. Whether it's a NGC or a spiral wrap, my final check is how my guide placement looks with a deep flex in the rod - I see no other issue in rodbuilding that is more important.