The 27X method actually enables you to use smaller guides and have the choker guide closer than most of the sets up done with the old cone of flight system or using the NGC with the spool upsweep method. And it works better all around than either.

If you look at the spool upsweep on most reels you will find that most fall in the two degree range, but many have little to NO upsweep. This puts the choker guide way, way out there and with no upsweep puts it out past the tip of the rod even on longer rods. That was the main failing I ran into with the spool upsweep method.

The cone of flight method is just silly in this day and age. It works like a lot of things but not nearly as well as the other systems. It results in very large guides running all the way out to the tip. I wonder how it lasted so long.

I have never seen Tom or anyone else say you MUST use the 27X factor for locating the choker guide. I believe what he said here and has said in the past is that after taking a review of all the best performing NGC outfits he has done over a couple decades, the choker has ended up about 27 times the spool distance from the reel face. So this is just a very good place to start for anyone that wants to leapfrog a lot of trial and error work of their own. It certainly speeds up the process and gives the builder with no guide spacing experience a simple and effective way to get a rod set up in good fashion.

"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."

Tom:

According to Dale Harrington, he did it when he was a reel engineer with the Shakespeare Company in Kalamazoo in the 1950's. They used the enclosed environment of the Kalamazoo College field house to compare casting distances of the then new spinning reels. Interestingly, the enclosed reels (i.e. Zebco style) consistently made longer casts than the open faced reels from their mechanical casting machine.

Richard Kuhne Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> If you look at the spool upsweep on most reels you
> will find that most fall in the two degree range,
> but many have little to NO upsweep. This puts the
> choker guide way, way out there and with no
> upsweep puts it out past the tip of the rod even
> on longer rods. That was the main failing I ran
> into with the spool upsweep method.



I have Shimano, Okuma, and several Daiwa reels and everyone is dead nuts 4 degree upsweep - so my choker should be half the distance of your 2 degree models. And in setting the choker the way I described earlier, I'm happy with the way my rods cast and fight fish - and I'm the only one I have to please. If 27x works for others, I see no need for them to change. If there's some that don't like, they shouldn't have to change either. I think the Constituion still supports this value - so far.

Who said that anyone had to change the way they do things? I certainly did not. Several times here in fact it has been said that if you like what you are doing, then keep doing it. Nowhere has anyone here or in the article said that absolutely MUST use the 27X factor. All that was done was to explain where that factor came from and why.

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.



But you did state the 27x put the choker "just about right" and "what matters is it's the right distance from the spool face" - just about right is a bit subjective. Based on Tom's response to my thread below, the position of the choker (the 4th guide from the spool) would seem to have no function other than support the load of the blank - it doesn't help tame the line so it shouldn't have an affect on casting distance. The spool diameter given earlier in this thread was 41mm I believe. I'd like to hear from someone that used 27x on a spool over 60mm and how their spacings came out and the number and guide sizes they had from the choke to the butt.

[rodbuilding.org]

Richard,

Thanks very much for that information. I had not heard about it previously. I still have some contacts at Shakespeare, although the company is quite a bit different today than it was during that time period. I'd love to talk to someone there that has some recollection of their machine and how they went about solving certain problems with timing the line release from the spool on spinning reels.

I'm not surprised that the closed faced reels outcast everything else - with specific regard to casting distance, they're tough to beat. A shame they fall a bit short in other areas like drag and line control.

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

Tim,

The choker guide does have an effect on line taming. Not as much as the first 2 guides of course, but it has an effect nevertheless. The choker guide doesn't have to be the 4th guide from the spool, it may wind up being the 3rd, 4th or even 5th or 6th depending on the size of the reel and the distance involved between the two. Heavier rods can have guides spaced farther apart so it's rare that even with large reels it winds up being more than the 4th or perhaps 5th, but on longer more limber rods more transition guides may be required. This is one of the advantages I've found with the Minima guides due to so many different frame heights being available.

My goal in going back over some 15 years worth of work and compiling the measurements of the various choker guide locations per the reel spool diameters was to offer builders a quick and easy means for setting up a rod with the New Concept System. It had to be simple (or no one would bother with it) and it had to work with a wide variety of reels and line sizes and types (a system with a separate factor for each line size or type would be equally complicated and doomed to the dustbin). As it turns out, the factor of 27X accomplishes all this very, very well and unlike using the spool upsweep method, it will almost never put the choker guide location past the tiptop unless you have a very, very short rod coupled with a very, very large reel. Do a search on this very forum and see how many dozens of times the spool upsweep method resulted in somebody asking what to do since the location it provided for the choker was out beyond his rod's tiptop. (In fact, having to answer that question several times each week for several years is what prompted me to find a better method for locating the choker.)

This doesn't mean that you must use that factor or that it will provide the absolute best location for all reels and lines. In certain situations I've seen outfits that did a little better with choker guide locations that were a bit closer, or farther, away. If you read the article then you no doubt noticed that I was very careful to mention that individual tweaking of the location for your particular set up was always a good idea.

At the end of the day, what the 27X factor does is put a rod builder squarely in the ballpark for nearly any reel and line size on the first go around. It saves most builders a ton of time and effort. There is certainly nothing wrong with tweaking it and the beauty is that you're starting with something that is awfully darn close right out of the gate so the entire process becomes simple and quick.

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

My only concern is back in December '08 - "the butt and the subsequent guide just after it, are the important ones in that regard. Beyond that the guides have little to do with "taming" the line coils". And then here in August '09 -"The choker guide does have an effect on line taming. Not as much as the first 2 guides of course, but it has an effect nevertheless".

When I started following RBO, the spine had to be oriented a certain way, then it was to be placed on the straight axis, then it was decided it really didn't matter.

Next we did a static test to place the guides on the blank that followed the progressive bend in the blank, then we take the distance from the tip to the choker and space the guides evenly in between.

Fuji came out with a specific guide spacing called the NGC, then here the NGC Primer utilized the table edge/reel upsweep (which I thought was pretty good), now we use 27x the spool diameter to determine choker distance which I find it varies too much from the previous Primer edition.

I'd still like to see a rod set up with a 60+mm spool and what the guide sizes and spacings are. But to me, this goes against the earlier teachings of getting the line under control the quickest and using the lightest and least amount of guides that will do the job - or has this changed as well?

Tim, you're getting so confused and mixing up so much information, you may want to start all over. Spine used to be discussed as being important, and was changed to building on the straightest axis with the belly of the curve of the blank down. No where did anyone say the spine was to be placed on the straightest axis. That would be impossible to move the spine of the rod anywhere. The straightest axis is just that. Sighting down the rod, it will look straighter in one view than in any other and then forget about the spine. It doesn't matter. You will always want to do a static test for guide placement to properly load the rod. It can be progressive, but it doesn't have to be. The NGC instructions say to locate them from tip to choker guide from 4" to 5" between and that will give sufficient support for the rod. Fugi came out with the CONCEPT GUIDES or CONCEPT GUIDE SYSTEM. The NGC is from the rodmaker magazine only. Don't get the two confused again, EVER!.. If you have paid attention to all of the above posts, you will know why the 27X method is better than the reel spindle upsweep, so don't worry about it, just use it. If you want to see a rod set up with an 60+mm spool and the guides, just go ahead and do it and tell us what worked for you. We can't and don't have the time to do all of your work. Rod building, or anything scientifically and mechanically demanding is all about: first- understanding the information. Second- applying the information to your specific needs, and Third- tweaking that information to allow the best results to come from your efforts. You started your last paragraph with, "My only concern" and then proceeded to mention a bunch of concerns. Concern yourself first with understanding the facts.

General note of correction on last paragraph, No where that I could find does Fugi use the term, "system". Some of their guides are called "concept guides" but not all. Again, the NGC is separate and apart from anything that Fugi uses with mention to their guides.

Tom, not sure if this going to get lost with everything else in this excellent thread.

I'm very surprised to hear you say that you're not surprised that closed reel (spin cast) outcast everything else. I thought it would be otherwise - that the small hole in the front cover acts as a very small guide and chokes it down in about an inch from the spool. It seems that this would add a lot of friction and reduce casting distance.

May I ask for a quick explanation why you think the spin cast would actually cast further?

Thanks,
Mo

ps: looking forward to the OCT issue indeed!

The main thing from all this, as far as I can see, you should take all these ideas of setting up a rod as guidelines not like it is written in stone and has to be done this way. In the end, you are going to do what works best for yourself and how you build a rod. There are always going to be exceptions to any system or guidelines for setting up a rod. So take in all you can from all this information so you can build a rod to your liking.

Tim,

There are a lot of people that use this forum and you will not always get a consensus from all the users.

The 2 sentences here are not in contradiction in any way - they both say pretty much the same thing.

"The butt and the subsequent guide just after it, are the important ones in that regard. Beyond that the guides have little to do with "taming" the line coils". And then here in August '09 -"The choker guide does have an effect on line taming. Not as much as the first 2 guides of course, but it has an effect nevertheless"

The first 2 guides are the most important when it comes to taming line coils, but the choker guide still plays a small role particularly since where you locate it has a great deal to do with how that 2nd guide is going to be sized.

Fuji's NGC chart is a generic chart. It does not take into account the reel used, the length of your handle, etc., The spool upsweep method for locating the choker was arbitrary and did not always work well for many set ups. Thus the system has evolved by careful work and record keeping into something that is now much better, easier to set up and which requires less individual tweaking after the fact.

I have never placed any major importance on rod spine. Cam Clark used to edit my articles (or refuse to run them) whenever I included comments concerning the lack of importance of rod spine. But I'm not the only one using this forum and you may read differing comments from others as to how important they feel the spine is. Again, if you're looking for an ironclad consensus, you aren't likely to find it and that's going to hold true whether you're reading about rod building or candle making.

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

Mo,

Casting reels have parts that move on the cast. Spool, level wind (sometimes) etc. This is why early spinning reels outcast them. However in later years with the advent of the newer level wind mechanisms that don't move on the cast and better and lighter spools that wind up, and down, more quickly, casting reels nearly always outcast spinning reels with heavier lures and have narrowed the gap, or surpassed it, with the lighter stuff as well. The large coils of line that come off a spinning reel are just not very efficient if your goal is to send the lure downfield.

Spincast reels have no moving parts on the cast. Line is flexible and the friction between the spool and line cover is slight. Until you get up into the heavier and stiffer lines a spincast reel is really a very good casting instrument. I know they may seem crude by comparison but if you've ever used one you know they cast very well. That little opening doesn't "choke" the line, it gently controls it.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2009 10:13AM by Tom Kirkman.

Greg Weaver Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tim, you're getting so confused and mixing up so
> much information, you may want to start all over.
> Spine used to be discussed as being important, and
> was changed to building on the straightest axis
> with the belly of the curve of the blank down. No
> where did anyone say the spine was to be placed on
> the straightest axis. That would be impossible to
> move the spine of the rod anywhere. The
> straightest axis is just that. Sighting down the
> rod, it will look straighter in one view than in
> any other and then forget about the spine. It
> doesn't matter. You will always want to do a
> static test for guide placement to properly load
> the rod. It can be progressive, but it doesn't
> have to be. The NGC instructions say to locate
> them from tip to choker guide from 4" to 5"
> between and that will give sufficient support for
> the rod. Fugi came out with the CONCEPT GUIDES
> or CONCEPT GUIDE SYSTEM. The NGC is from the
> rodmaker magazine only. Don't get the two
> confused again, EVER!.. If you have paid
> attention to all of the above posts, you will know
> why the 27X method is better than the reel spindle
> upsweep, so don't worry about it, just use it.
> If you want to see a rod set up with an 60+mm
> spool and the guides, just go ahead and do it and
> tell us what worked for you. We can't and don't
> have the time to do all of your work. Rod
> building, or anything scientifically and
> mechanically demanding is all about: first-
> understanding the information. Second- applying
> the information to your specific needs, and Third-
> tweaking that information to allow the best
> results to come from your efforts. You started
> your last paragraph with, "My only concern" and
> then proceeded to mention a bunch of concerns.
> Concern yourself first with understanding the
> facts.


"If you have paid attention to all of the above posts, you will know why the 27X method is better than the reel spindle upsweep, so don't worry about it, just use it".

That's really nice Greg - but I have tried it and that's why I don't like it. You do it and tell us if you'd fish with it.

I wonder what you did not like about it? Your first post on the subject seems to indicate that you found no fault with how it performed, but that you just did not like the way it looked.

I care more about how things work than how they look. It is all too easy to get trapped into a mode where you fail to try new things or find a better way just because those methods do not look the way you like or are used to. I have tried the 27X method on everything from ultra light rods to Hatteras Heaver type surf sticks and it has worked very nicely for me in all cases. I have used it with dainty ultra light reels and large Penn surf reels and have no complaints.

I think everyone here has answered your questions and told you more than once that you are free to do whatever pleases you. No one has tried to force you to accept or do anything different. Do what you want and stop worrying about it. If you like the way your rods perform and look so be it.

I suspect that Tim is simply trying to understand and learn more about rod building. No one can be faulted for that.

The thing is, any system that is designed to work with a broad array of reels, lines, blanks, etc., is never going to be absolutely optimum for every conceivable set up. Basic systems and methods are a means of doing something well but will always require tweaking if you want the best possible performance for each specific set up.

In determining a good factor for reel spool to choker guide location, I averaged over 100+ optimum set ups, threw out the high and the low, and averaged the remainder. The interesting thing was that there was a very narrow factor range to begin with - I don't think I had anything that was closer than 26X and nothing farther than 29X. Thus the 27X factor gives you a location that is "just about right." But not necessarily absolutely right. That's why those words were chosen for the article.

You can still tweak the location to suit your particular set up and in some cases with some reels and some lines, you can certainly improve upon it. But I doubt you'll come up with a different factor that will work as well across a truly broad range of applications, which was the intent of the factor to begin with - to provide a really good starting place for the widest variety of reels and lines possible.

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

Greg Weaver Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...... If you have paid attention to all of the above posts, you will know why the 27X method is better than the reel spindle upsweep, so don't worry about it, just use it.....



Wow! I'm sold! That's really sound advice Greg! The ONLY thing that we can conclude with regard to the 27X method being "better" is that it has proven repeatedly to provide for a LONGER CASTING setup. If you paid attention to Tim's earlier post, before you slammed him, you would have noticed that he sets his rods up knowing that they may not cast as long as the 27X method, but they are lighter than the 27X method (by use of fewer and/or smaller and lighter guides), and geared primarily towards stress distribution and fish fighting capabilities. In that, he has produced a truly CUSTOM rod that was for a specific task at hand - which in his case was not to launch "hero" casts - and in that he was successful in NOT using the 27X method.

The 27X method really does not seem to save time in the long run because you still have to measure the reel you intend to use for the rod and as Tom stated, you will likely need to make some final "tweaking" anyway.

Well looky here - thanks Torin. I went out and put my reel on my recent GLoomis 1143 G3 project and found that my choke guide is 49 3/8" from the spool face. Using 27x, that would have put the choke a full 16" further out at 65.4". As stated before, I static tested the front section and used whatever spacing came closest to the table edge choke method. I wound up with a 7mm CLAG choke, and Y frames in 8, 16, and 25 - because of the large coils coming off the spool, I pushed the butt guide out to 21 1/4". With 49 5/8" from the tip to the choke, I have (6) 6mm CLAGS progressively spaced there. Even with a split grip and a reversed IPSM handle kit, the rod balances at a perfect 45 degrees. And I purposely placed the reelseat at this specific spot before gluing to ensure it would balance this way. It is light, fights fish very well, and I can cast whereever I need to. I may have not built it correctly, but I like it.

Here's what it looks like built wrong and my version of a Michigan handle - [www.rodbuilding.org] [www.rodbuilding.org]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2009 01:05PM by Tim Collins.

You guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. Measuring the diameter of a reel spool surely can't be that big of a deal. What does it take? Ten seconds? How is that going to take you any longer than plotting the intersect point by putting your rod on a table edge or finding the best choker guide location by trial and error? It sure saves time for me.

I did not see Tom or anyone else say that it would NEED tweaking. He/they said you could tweak it if you wanted and in some cases you might do a little better depending on the set up. Overall 27X puts you "just about right" in the majority of cases.

The set up that casts the longest distance is also likely to be the smoothest and most efficient set up. But like several of us have said here over and over, just do whatever you want. Nobody has tried to get you to do anything you do not want to do and nobody has said you are doing it wrong. I do not know why you continue in that vein.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2009 01:08PM by Richard Kuhne.

Richard Kuhne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You guys are making a mountain out of a molehill.
> Measuring the diameter of a reel spool surely
> can't be that big of a deal. What does it take?
> Ten seconds? How is that going to take you any
> longer than plotting the intersect point by
> putting your rod on a table edge or finding the
> best choker guide location by trial and error? It
> sure saves time for me.
>
> I did not see Tom or anyone else say that it would
> NEED tweaking. He/they said you could tweak it if
> you wanted and in some cases you might do a little
> better depending on the set up. Overall 27X puts
> you "just about right" in the majority of cases.
>
> The set up that casts the longest distance is also
> likely to be the smoothest and most efficient set
> up. But like several of us have said here over and
> over, just do whatever you want. Nobody has tried
> to get you to do anything you do not want to do
> and nobody has said you are doing it wrong. I do
> not know why you continue in that vein.

And conversely, how does laying a rod on a table edge take longer than measuring a reel spool, calculating the choke guide placement, then stretching a measuring tape to locate the choke guide's location? I've done it both ways and the 27X method DOES take longer.

"just about right" for what? That's pretty vague. Again, no one is arguing that the 27X method doesn't provide for a better casting DISTANCE setup. But that does not mean that It's better for EVERY feature you can attribute to for a rods performance characteristics.

Your statement about "the set up that casts the longest distance is also likely to be the smoothest and most efficient set up" is dead wrong! A rod set up to perform as the ultimate distance casting machine does not automatically constitute that it excels in every other area as well! That's just vanity!

If you insist on building all of your rods just like Tom builds his, then are you actually a CUSTOM rod builder? Maybe you should just start using decals that state "Custom Designed by Tom Kirkman - assembled by Richard Kuhne"

If you saw how I modify the Simple Spiral wrap . . . . some of you would fall on your sword !!