Tim,

It would definitely have worked fine with your reel. It appears your objection was solely based on how you perceived it to look, not with any functionality problems.

Several of the rods from which the 27X was garnered used the U.S. Spinning reels. The choker guide ended up "just about right" on those as well with regard to the spool diameter and likely line to be used for the broadest possible applications.

No one has tried to force anything down your throat. No one has told you that you must locate your guide with the 27X factor. But you should be fair in mentioning that you found no functional problems with it. You just didn't like how it looked to you personally and that's fine, but some of your posts seemed to indicate that there is a problem in using the 27X factor with larger reels which isn't at all true.

I have no idea why you believe the choker guide needs to be so close on rods utilizing larger reels (it really needs to be the opposite) but that's your decision to make on your rods. But it's important to be fair and if you're going to malign a method that is known to work well based solely on how you think something should look, please say so. I think most of the people in this thread were basing their comments on how things actually worked, not how they thought something should look. This is why the thread got so many hits - folks wanted to know where the 27X method was failing in your case. As it turns out it wasn't failing in function, just in how it looked to your eye. A lot of time and feelings might have been spared by simply saying, "I didn't like the way it looked."

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

Your 100% correct Tom, I didn't like the way it looked, pure and simple. And that "look" was a rod that simulated the older "cone of flight" method, a bit clunky and outdated looking - just my opinion. I'm sure it would have cast great, but my setup uses less larger guides and more smaller lighter guides and this was my priority going into the build . And mine casts far enough for me. If I ever build another rod with a much smaller spool, I'll look at the 27x method, but again, if I don't like the way it looks, I won't use it - whether it casts further or not. I just feel if I spend my money, on my rod, I should be entitled to build it my way - and like I said before, I'm the only one I have to please. In fact, it might even be best to close this thread and dump it into the trash can. But thanks anyway for the input everyone has given - whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant and should have no affect on how I or someone else wants build in the future.

Tim-you were never threatened with a visit from the "27X Police" You sure spent a lot of time and space saying "I'm not building mine like that and you can't make me". I think alot of folks kept coming back to this thread hoping to see something of substance in what you were saying, not "I just don't like the way it looks" You must have participated in some forums where arguing for the sake of arguing was the order of the day.

Tim,

I still don't understand your beef - not one single person here has said that you had to do things their way. No one here has said that you shouldn't do exactly what pleases you. No one has attempted to make you do anything you don't want to do. In fact, several, including myself, have flat out stated that you should do whatever you want with your rods.

You were the one maligning a system (the 27X factor) based solely on your dislike of how you perceive it to look, not how well it works. Everybody else has been trying to discuss the functional merits of various aspects of the NGC.

Please rest assured that no one here cares whether you use the 27X factor or not.

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

Actually my post was #20 in this thread, and all I did was agree with Torin who didn't like it either - then it took off. I could have built it using 27x but that wouldn't have accomplished the task in mind - the lightest and most sensitive rod I could make. Where I Steelhead fish, the bait ticks along the bottom - I want to be able to feel this in my rod and see when my rod tip starts to tap-tap-tap from a strike. I didn't think I could get the sensitivety with more larger guides based on all of the sensitivety articles and threads by both you and Emory have delivered in the magazine and on this forum. Casting distance was never the issue, sensitivety was. I would have liked 2 transition guides and the rest running guides but I didn't think that would work. If I were building a rod to lift tuna out of the Pacific, I'd build it to perform that specific task. I could see by the way the 27x method looked that it would add more weight and be less sensitive as one built with smaller and lighter guides such as I wanted - don't recall saying 27x wouldn't work - it just wasn't going to work for me. EOS

For even more sensitivity try this- move the choker guide back to the butt guide location. Build it with all size 6 guides all the way out. This will get rid of all the larger guides and greatly increase your sensitivity.

Richard Kuhne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For even more sensitivity try this- move the
> choker guide back to the butt guide location.
> Build it with all size 6 guides all the way out.
> This will get rid of all the larger guides and
> greatly increase your sensitivity.

Richard,

If sensitivity was Tim's focus, then he acheived it by focusing on using the products available and known techiniques in such a way that he successfully created a rod for this SPECIFIC task. If you insist on being the "follower" that you are and continue to berate the free-thinkers with all of your spare time, then send all of your customers (if there are any) Tim's way. He at least took the time to explain why he does things the way he does them, and the courage to post pic's of HIS work!!

You are way out of line. At long last he explained what he was wanting and I provided him with a method that will give even more of it to him especially is he uses braided line. If he will do what I suggested he will get even better balance and more sensitivity. He will lose some casting performance but he openly stated that casting distance was not his main priority.

You have openly stated that you incorporate the 27X method in locating your choker guide. So by your own definition that makes you a "follower" too. You still never answered the question of how you located your choker guide PRIOR to the 27X factor being put forth. Surely as a "free thinker" you had own system that did not rely on Fuji's spool upsweep method or Tom's 27X factor. I wish you would share it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2009 03:07PM by Richard Kuhne.

Richard,

Myself, as well as many others - I'm sure - know that you couldn't have possibly been serious with your suggestion of using 6's ALL the way. He still needs SOME casting qualities!! That was nothing short of just a smart allec remark!!

As for my setup, I expained it more than clear enough! I don't need to go into further detail. I stated very clearly that it was a RECENT build!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2009 09:52PM by Tom Kirkman.

No, I am being serious. And if you have followed the posts made by others who use ONLY braided line you will find some of them do exactly what I suggested.

How did you locate the choker guide on your rods prior to the 27X method being made available? That was all I asked. As a "free thinker" you must surely have had your own personal method that did not require following the use of either the spool upsweep or the 27X. That is what I asked and that is what you have avoided answering.

This topic thread is now closed. The next person that posts here, or edits a previous post, or insults anyone in any post elsewhere, will be permanently banned from this forum.

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