In an earlier post line path came up. Here's what I have noticed regarding line path. If I am building for straight down fish fighting... I'll spiral as I torque reduction is a primary consideration. If I'm building a rod that will be fighting fish on multiple planes such as bass fishing, I will build with the straightest line path - which is not a spiral based on these photos:

Simple Spiral:
[www.rodbuilding.org]

Revolver Style Spiral:
[www.rodbuilding.org]

On top build:
[www.rodbuilding.org]

Personally, I think a lot of people look at straightest path on one plane. Top or side view. To me, you have to consider both. While some of the styles may be straight on one plane, they aren't as much on another. Even the on top isn't 100% straight, but combining the amount of angle change from two planes... the on top build has the least IMO.

We'll see where this goes!

-----------------
AD



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2009 11:18PM by Alex Dziengielewski.

All the various lines I use are highly flexible. They do not require a perfectly straight path and as long as you keep the path relatively straight I doubt it matters by a tremendous amount. I am sure you can concoct a path that is so highly out of line that it causes some type of problem but within reason I would doubt it makes more than a very slight difference.

Just think what happens to your line as it is forced around the reel spool!

Nice job on teh pics, what brand is that bright yellow "line"? I never really thought about teh line being off plane when viewed from teh top.

As Alex states- direction of pull changes while fighting a fish. That to me says no guide setup will result in a straight line path as pull direction changes without constantly turning rod and reel to follow. That tells me that keeping the line as close to the blank as possible--using shortest guides that will perform properly -will result in lowest amount of torque regardless of direction of pull or guide configuration..

Chris - yes - when a fish is on,

What about the cast?

-----------------
AD

Don't see any difference-angles changing with almost every cast.....in an attempt to change lure presentation on repeated casts to the same target....as boat position changes relative to target. Rod tip up/down...left/right---often changing more than once within a cast or retrieve..no two the same. Not enough room in the boat for that many rods-not if I have to have rods set up to cast and retrieve and fight fish at different angles.

Once a fish is on the line the line path will never be straight. The rod itself will not be straight. It will be flexed and the line follows the rod. As the rod flexes, some of the systems that were less straight on the unflexed rod become more straight. For example, the simple spirals I have done actually become straighter and straighter as the rod is loaded and flexed more and more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2009 04:19AM by Tom Kirkman.

I think it depends a lot on the style of fishing. With smaller fish I generally fight the fish on angles, especially those that like to jump or run me into structure.

When it comes to bigger and/or faster saltwater fish I'll always try to fight "on plane". I'll move my body and even the rod in my hands to get the best angle to pressure that fish (and run up and down and around the boat like a madman). Structure isn't usually a concern, other than what is on the bottom, so I want maximum pressure. In certain situations, once the fish is worn done, I might pull of plane, but that is the only time. Mostly I'm trying to have the shortest line path to the fish and bring him straight in. With smaller fish you have the luxury of guiding his path, not so with bigger salt water fish. There is a reason why those fighting chairs swivel and a good captain swings the stern of the boat.

I've done some reading and I'm still not clear on what is considered to be the best acid wrap style for the middle class salt water rods (30-50# class and fish to 100#). For my type of fishing casting performance isn't much of a concern. The ability to put maximum pressure on the fish and not break your rod is the biggie:) I can see the desire to have a straight line path but you do have to keep the line off the blank and be able to easily guide the line back on wide spool reels. Call me confused and in need of answers.


Russ

I know you probably don’t want to hear this; but based on the casting competition at last years expo between the two 8 ft. cranking rods, one with all on top the other spiral wrapped.
And the fact (as Mr. Davis can attest to) that the spiral wrapped rod blistered the all on top rod.
I don’t think the line path change of angle, being a little more on a spiral wrap has any effect on restricting the distance that can be achieved and (based on results) may actually improve them.

This however may be due to the difference in “greatest angle” change location. With the all on top model that change happens at the stripper guide.
With a properly setup spiral wrap the greatest change happens 3 or 4 guides up.
Not putting this forth as a doctrine, but it is worth considering.

I am in the process of designing rods to bring to the show that should absolutely answer the question as to whether an all on top or spiral wrap casts further.

Chris - "angles changing with almost every cast" How is the line path changing when you cast? Is your rod flexing that much after release of the spool? Do you point the tip towards the target area as cast follow thru resulting in a straight line between you and the target? Does rotating the axis of the rod through the cast, change the line path?

You got me thinking now about lure retrieve and hookset. Rarely do I use the rod on one plane on those circumstances as well. Often changing lure direction, and on hookset it's going where ever - usually at an angle.

-----------------
AD



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2009 10:53AM by Alex Dziengielewski.

Richard - I took new photos under load.

I agree that some of the line path change is lost on both spirals under load from the side view. The on top view still has the same change in line path. Are your rods bending enough laterally so that it removes the line path change from the top view?

Simple:
[www.rodbuilding.org]

Revolver Style:
[www.rodbuilding.org]

On Top:
[www.rodbuilding.org]

Steve - It wasn't the same blank or reel (I think - maybe even line?), so there's room for error. I eagerly await the results of using the same blank and reel! That will give us some great info! Things can be analyzed all day - but I want to see what it does real world. I want to be out there when it happens!

No doctrine here either... looking for some truths. What started this for me was looking at line path in relation to the best compromise for how rods are fished. For me personally, since my builds fight fish on all different planes, it's advantageous to examine different benefits from various build styles. I think all build styles have appropriate uses and pros/cons within the same type of fishing.

I am wondering now about the torque generated deeper in a spiral wrap under load. The stress is coming from top, side, and under simulatneously with a spiral whereas a spinning or casting reel has the stress from only one direction. When a fish runs on a spiral, is it possible there is more twist occuring than with a straight (on top or all under) build? Example: straight build - fish runs to left, rod and line arc left 90 deg; spiral to right - tip arcs left and the line is going right from the reel, around the blank then arcing 90 deg to the top of the rod. To me that's much less straight at a 3D perspective (Both examples have the rod held level and pulled opposite the direction the fish runs). What's happening differently with the line stress in the two scenarios?

Just thinking thru things. Regardless, I've fished both successfully.

-----------------
AD

Alex I see your point...line path changes within the cast are limited to where line contacts guide surfaces with rod held at different angles-little change for sure

Russ - the best spiral style is teh one which makes you happy. THere's a good reason why so many people use different "styles", not everything works for everyone. As long as you build the rod to the best of your ability, and are happy with the results, there's no need to worry. I've triedseveraldifferent set ups, fished them all, before settling on the one I curently use. It has no special name, but it satisfies all the criteria I look for when I build a rod.

Steve - there is one big problem when the same person is buulding 2 types of rods for a comparison. While there will always be a difference in blanks, for the most part you should be able to find 2 of the same model that are close enough to be considered the same where the results won't be skewed. YOu can use the same reel and line, make 10 cast with one rod, then takethe reel on the other rod and make 10 casts with it. The problem that nobody addresses is that you are going to do a better job building the rod that you want to cast further, so that the end results prove the point you are looking to prove.

The issue of casting distance differences between a well built spiral and a well built all on top are miniscule. Steve, I think you will admit that both rods tested in the moonlight windswept freezer episode in the parking lot launched the traps distances that would please any serious bass fisherman.

If you are a bass fisherman who carries more than one rod in the boat think about the hook set on the last 100 fish you have put in the boat - how long were the casts? How many of the rods laying on your deck does the distance of cast play no significant part? Long throw moving bait rods are a special case - everything in its proper time and place. No rules apply to each and every single rod! The Bass Masters Classic will be held year after next in a place that all fish will be latched on to in canals that are only 20 feet wide - the rods used in this special place will not be set up for record long throw!

My present my mind set has more to do with line freedom and positioning during lure, bite detection and hook set. I honestly believe that both spirals and all on top have their special case advantages - I think arguments to prove superority of one over the other considering only casting distance will be fruitless and may slow down others from using some of the new build techniques with the micro guides available.

The best comparison I have seen as a fair test was done in a Magazine Article last year in Bass Walleye Boating Magazine. This test was done prior to the introduction of the micro guides.

Copy of text from magazine:

Bass anglers are always looking for a competitive edge. One of the most important advantages and angler can have is the ability to cast lures with distance and accuracy.

That's where this new column takes you, to a comparison of spiral wrapped rod vs. the conventional rod. The design of this rod, where the guides rotate around the blank, is also known as a Robert's Wrap, a Missouri Wrap, or, in saltwater circles, and acid wrap. Though most anglers are not familiar with Rods wrapped using this method tout several benefits including; less torsion or twisting force on the rod while under load; and the ability to cast farther.

We wanted to check out this claim for ourselves, so we held a little cast- between identical conventional and spiral wrapped rods. For out test, we used two seven-foot medium- heavy bait casting rods from custom rod builder Kit Harrison at Texas Sidewinder Rods. Kit built the rods using two identical blanks, one wrapped conventionally and the other spiral wrapped. Bt rods were outfitted with new Team Diawa Zillion 100Sha bait casting reels spooled with12 pound Maxima Ultra Green line.

To make this comparison as fair as possible, I asked Ron Ballanti, a contributor to BWB and an accomplished recreational angler, and Robert Lutes, a Southern California bass pro, to put these rigs to the test.

We rigged the rods with identical 1/2 ounce jigs (with the hooks and skirts removed: and adjusted the Magforce-Zanti backlash control on each reel to identical settings. Following this, each angler took a few practice casts to warm up.

Because we were all curious to see how the spiral wrapped rod would perform, we tested it first. Robert stepped to the line and rifled of 10 consistent casts ranging from a low of 127 feet to a high of 146 feet, with an average of 138 feet- 4 inches for the set. Next, Ron stepped up to the plate and fired of his casts. Ron's cast ranged from a low of 129 feet to a high of 142feet- 8 inches. His average was 139feet 5 inches.

With our spiral wrapped date logged, it was time to see if the conventional rod could keep up. Robert led off again, his first cast came in at 128 feet, 7 inches. Ron's first was also near the low end of the range at 124 feet. As the tests continued, it became obvious that the conventional rod couldn't keep up with it twisted sister. either angler was able to reach the 140-foot mark with the conventional rod Robert averaged 126 feet while Ron averaged 130 feet 4 inches.

To be certain our results were accurate, we eliminated the only remain variable between the two set ups by switching the reels and performing the tests again - and got virtually the same numbers.

Although not truly scientific, our test offers accurate real world results. The three of us were skeptical a the beginning of this comparison, with the spiral wrapped rod easily outperforming its conventional counterpart, we all walked away eager to put the "outcast" through it paces on the water.

Since this column focused solely on the casting difference between the two rods, we used identical reels. The pair of new reels (#250)were excellent casting reels. I believe the reels six ball bearings and the Magforce-Zanti backlash control contributed greatly to the consistency of our tests.

End Magazine Text

Some of the things Alex is seeking have to do with the issues I note for my desired choice of use of the spiral wrapped rods.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2009 06:50PM by Bill Stevens.

Alex

The line path from the top would not change. No. But the very slight deviation from straight due to the line having to pass the blank on one side would not be enough to really make any difference.

I have no idea why a good spiral built rod would outcast a good guides on top rod. In fact I am not sure that I can really believe that. I think they would come out about the same, give or take a couple or three feet. Steve may have more information on the exact casting done but I would have to believe there was some sort of variable that someone did not account for. I like spiral wraps by a wide margin over a guides on top rod, but I do not believe they possess anything that gives them a casting advantage.

Richard - The "competition" was done using different blanks. Steve's (the spiral) did go further. I believe this year we will see the same blank against itself. Hopefully Billy's reel suggestions will be used as well. Reel has an impact on casting distance - as does type of line - but that point was long ago established.

I'd love to see a "load test" competition between spiral and on top as well. I know Bobby did some testing with pushing the limits on guides, but I'd like to see the same blank built up with two configurations and then tested to break point and see if the spiral or on top fractured/broke first. I don't feel like blowing the $ on blanks to do it though!

-----------------
AD

Oh my god, if the blanks were not the same then it was not a test in any sense of the word. How silly.

Unless you can break the exact same blank you wouldn't have any sort of valid results. No 2 blanks are likely to have the exact same deadlift capability, even among the same models.

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

Bill;
I totally agree with your comment about each rod’s abilities and have shared that before. Any one in doubt of how those two rods cast only needed stand back and watch the eyes widen and the jaws drop form those builders who stood watching either of them during the day. Both easily out preformed the more traditional setups. Casting, as Rich Forhan has said “ was beyond the angler’s ability to effectively set the hook”

I also totally agree with your third paragraph, and is why I build the spirals, for me it has never been about the added casting distance achieved that just happened to be a side benefit.
What Mr.’ Davis said in another post is why I enjoy the added casting distance.
Basically he was saying; if you need to cast a rod approximately 100 ft and can build one that casts 150, then it takes less effort on each cast during the day to cast that hundred ft. Therefore saving on expelled energy and fatigue for yourself.

Richard;
Yes two different name brand blanks were used.
But to my knowledge they were the same length, same actions, made on the same mandrels. One sold under the manufacturer’s name the other sold under Castaways. The only difference is that the Castaway has a slightly different modulus, because Castaway wanted a more durable blank.
That manufacturer is no longer around and that blank is such a good blank for crankbaiting that Castaway is having that same design cloned by another company, so they can continue to carry it

This year we will be using exactly the same blanks so there is no variance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2009 02:10PM by Steve Gardner.

Unless you rig up the different systems on the same blank--- not the same model but on the SAME blank, you would have no way of knowing if the increase in casting distance was due to one blank being slightly better suited powerwise to the casting weight being tossed. What they did was not a true "test" in any sense of the word.