Ken, my trial was with the same line path, through the center of the guides. The 18 allowed me to center it in the existing guide. No changes were made to subsequent guides, so it's through the center on all guides. I tried it only because I thought someone would have said the 25, since it showed line revolving all the way around the guide instead of just hitting at the bottom, was not controlling the line like a smaller guide would, so I tried a smaller guide. And found the same thing regarding line contact but slightly less distance.

Regarding the spool diameter, it is a Shimano Solstice 500, and if I remember right, the spool is 1 1/2 diameter, maybe a little bigger, but not 2 inches. It's pretty small.

I don't want to remove the 12 to put on an 18, so will try the suggested setup when I do my next rod, which is pretty well laid out and quite similar to this one except for a much faster action and medium power.

The suggestion does seem to conflict with the objective of getting the line controlled as early as possible, but I'll give it a try. Sounds like we are about to rewrite NGC.

Excellent discussion everyone. Much appreciated.

Michael, so your 25 and 18 Butt guides were both place through the center so that means the 25 was closer than the 18 right? How many inches from the spool were each? My guess is that if you found an 18 the height of th 25 so that it is the same distance to the spool as the 25, you will actually have longer casting distance with the 18.

Anyways, my gut level sense recently is that there's much to be done with spinning guide sizes and height that can increase casting distance appreciably. Another gut sense was that line speed in casting had a greater effect than gravity and that properly placed guide would see the line going all around the guide as it spirals out from the spool. You seem to have confirmed that.

Tom, I thought that the reason line seem to be dancing on the bottom of the ring was not due to gravity, but due to the fact we may be using too short guides feet, thus forcing the line to dance on the bottom as it seeks to have the 'shortest' path to the next guide.


Mo

I may be misreading something in Michael's post, but I don't think he attempted casting with either of the butt guide sizes placed so that the ring edge is on the line path. According to what I'm reading, he used the same line path through the middle of the ring on both the 25 and 18. So the only variable was the butt ring size, not the line path through the guide rings.

.........

Mo,

I've not seen any line "dancing" on the bottom of the guide ring. My sets only have the line touching the bottom of the butt guide ring, after which it straightens out.

Gravity is still acting on the line the entire time.

I still have some videos taken of the sets that gave the best distance on the mechanical casting device. If I have time over the weekend I'll see if I can take still frames out of them. I'm pretty sure I can.

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

Tom:

That same guide ring size with different heights thing, Is that why the Batsons have some of there guides set that way ?? But I notice that it may be after one or two of there guides that they set at the same ring size ?
Is this not contrary to the belief of controlling the pig tails ??? You are saying the butt and 2ND guide the same ring size ?? But different height

Bill - willierods.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/2009 10:19AM by bill boettcher.

"Pig Tails" should be controlled at the butt guide for the most part, if possible.

I'm not saying anything other than try it and see what you think.

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

Answering the questions on guide placement and alignment, the 18 was placed "over" the original 25, rings centered, so it maintained the line path through the center of the rings that I had used when I built the rod. The distance to the reel was altered maybe 1/16 of an inch, essentially unchanged. Tom interpreted my posting exactly right.

Here is a number I haven't given you before, the distance from the reel spool face to the first guide is 24 inches, a little longer than conventional wisdom. I did it in the interest of getting good guide spacing and line path with 8 guides. If I moved the guides to something like 20 inches I would have used another guide. When I built the rod I thought it was working very well, and a summer of fishing the rod has not changed my mind. In fact it has been my go to rod during a summer of slow bites, causing me to go small and slow and doing pretty well. And successfully landing some fish that were far from "panfish."

Is a pigtail a curly tangle of line? New one on me.

Regarding Eugene's 15,000 rpm for the line coming off the spool, I found that number to be suspect intuitively, so I did my own computations. Lo and behold, he is right. Pretty illustrative of the dynamic process we are discussing. Just think about the dynamics of 15,000 rpm, .014 seconds from reel to the first guide.

Sorry to doubt you, Eugene. As you can see from this string of postings, I tend to be a skeptic until I check it out myself.

Just for kicks you might slide either of those back towards the reel so the ring edge sits on the line path instead of centering it. I realize you can't adjust the other guides if they're already wrapped but it's something else you can try and see what you think.

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

Michael: That was why the Concept system was invented. To straighten out the Little Curly Line that comes off of spinning reels.

Bill - willierods.com

To clarify, what I did was mount an 18 to the 25 with the rings concentric, centered to each other. So the centerline line path was unaltered and the distance to the spool was unaltered at 24 inches.

Tom, I can place a guide at any distance less than 24, will try a couple positions of each size and see what happens. Of course there will be the extra guide a few inches in front of the first guide. Will be interesting. It would seem to me that (here we go again) theoretically there would be a multiple of the spool diameter, from about 8 to about 11, that would be optimum for the position of the first guide. It would probably vary with line characteristics, or a bazillion other things. . . This is pretty interesting stuff!

Mo, I reread your last posting, and what I have "confirmed" is what occurred with only two configurations that were almost identical. It's really nothing more than that, so I would be careful about extrapolating the findings to other configurations. I can testify that the auto wax film on a shiny guide is easy and conclusive and leaves no doubt about where the line contacts the guide. It is possible, however, that the polishing is done randomly and not in smooth spirals, although in this case it doesn't look random and doesn't sound random-it looks very precise and "regular" and sounds very cyclical.

Michael,

If you're going to have that additional guide just a few inches away you won't really be able to tell anything. I had thought the original topic was about what difference would be found when mounting the rings so the line path passed through the center of the guides versus the rings set on edge against the line path. Nothing done here has compared the two versions and I'm afraid that without being able to remove the guides you have now you wouldn't be comparing apples to apples. Maybe give it a try on the next rod you build, trying each method.

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

I'll have to try it on the next build, Tom. I'm not going to start removing guides from what has become one of my favorite rods, one that seems to work just fine. I'm just a hobby builder, building a few rods max a year, and when I finish one, it's a significant occasion, and not an accomplishment to be undone.

Yes, the original topic was centerline vs bottom edge of the ring for the line path, then it wandered into other things. It has been very informative to me, and I expect it has been for others. I will be testing further because the line passage through the guides on my rod appeared to be just what I had predicted it would be; I'll have to see if it stays that way on my next rod, and which alignment casts better. Also, I just cannot buy that gravity is significant regarding which line path alignment is optimal. If one or the other is superior, it has to be due to other dynamic influences. IMHO. If I learn anything more significant I will inform the forum.

thanks to you, Tom, and the others who have contributed to what became a really hot topic in a very short time.

First two guides of the same size on the line path. Interesting.

Yes, I understand. Next time you set one up try the guide edge on the line path and see how that works for you.

Gravity ensures the line will drop to whatever level you allow it to. It is the bottom of the guide ring that determines where that point will be.

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

Tom, saw the same size for first two guides thing in my magazine today-interesting. I still think there is a lot to learn about what is going on. And the gravity thing, I still haven't convinced you that given it has only .o14 seconds to work and gets only .003 drop in that time, gravity is not the most significant factor in line motion. Gravity certainly didn't drop the line on my panfish rod. Not even at the second guide. I admit that's only one rod, but it doesn't support the gravity idea. And if it doesn't, any idea why it doesn't? Gravity is a pretty consistent force. The only way to keep it from being the controlling factor is to have an influence that overwhelms it. My nest build should provide some info because I'll order guides that will allow me to go both ways. With on edge alignment, it would seem logical that the line would hit there harder than if you have centerline alignment, just from geometry rather than gravity. Here I go again.

Good magazine issue, again. I have said before, and it's still true, I cannot read one of the magazines or visit the forum without learning something. Good stuff.

You've misunderstood what I said about gravity.

Gravity acts on your line the entire time, even during the cast. The line will always touch the bottom edge of the guide ring due to gravity. You cannot make the line pass through the center of the ring.

On your current set up, your line touches the bottom of each guide ring both on the retrieve and the cast. And if you were to move to an even larger ring and higher frame butt guide, the line will still drop to the bottom edge of the guide ring. Remove the butt guide altogether and watch what happens on the casts - it will billow out further and drop even lower, much lower.

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

I'll try to get some photos up over the weekend so you can see how much "cleaner" the actual casting line path is on a rod with the guides with their edges set on the plotted line path versus one with the guides set so the plotted path runs through the center.

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

RE: Even on your cast, the line is not passing through the center of the ring. It is going as far as it can until being contained in some way.

I don't think I said it was going through the center of the guide. If it were it would not polish the ring. I interpret what is going on is that the line path is being constrained symmetrically by the guide ring. If gravity were controlling where the line was going I would expect the polish to be uneven, heavier at the bottom of the ring. It was not.

Whatever it's doing, it's doing it on the second guide, too, evenly polishing the wax I put there. It is not tending to hit the lower part of the guide and then going on from that point. Otherwise the second guide would not have symmetrical polish removal on the guide. All evidence from the even polishing of the wax indicates that it is evenly going through the guide and not bearing heavily on the lower edge. It will be interesting when I can move the alignment of the line with the guide and see if the polishing of the wax looks less symmetrical. It could look the same and it could bear heavier on the lower edge of the guide, and it could cast farther or less far. I'm not saying that centerline alignment is better than edge alignment, but am just saying I don't agree that gravity is the controlling influence on actual line path. This particular build does not show any evidence that gravity is controlling line motion as much as other factors like the direction it's pointing, axial velocity, and centrifugal force (making it want to billow out off the spool until constrained by the guide). Being an engineer I have a hard time ignoring the numbers. And observations that appear to agree with the numbers.

There are obviously things going on here that we do not understand. Like why do two guides the same size cast farther than progressively reduced guide sizes? When what we say we want to do is quickly control the line path? If I can, I'll experiment with this setup as well as alignment. May never really get the rod done.

Michael.
IMO your on the correct wave.
Centrifugal force creating friction perpendicular to the guides is polishing them 360 degrees.
Forget control.
Control extracts a penalty in extra work causing greater friction.
Increase your first guide dia to 70% of the spool dia and your second guide to 50% of the spool dia.
Don't attempt control rather suggest direction.
If you require longer casts increase spool dia, fill spool completely, size guides to match increased spool, use lighter line to minimize loss of spool dia during cast, lighter line will also decrease the frictional forces due to the centrifugal force.

I did not say that gravity was the only factor, I said that gravity pulls the line downward on the cast, which it does.

There is very little friction involved between the line and the guides. Friction is a function of 2 surfaces and the pressure between them. Centrifugal force does exert some pressure therefore friction is present, but it is slight and therefore plays a small role.

A smaller ring placed on the edge of the line path will net you more distance.

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

Tom, on RETRIEVE, Michael's setup will see the line rotate around the guide ring as the bail arm moves around the spool. It won't just stay at the bottom but I think I must have misunderstood what you wrote.

Eugene, there's a tradeoff between friction and lower air drag from better line control. Finding the best balance where the two intersect for maximum distance is the trick. Your formula for longer cast works for thicker and strong memory line but not limp lines. If you use thin braid, you can just use the venerable and tiny Daiwa 500C from the 1980s and cast about as far as a Supercaster 240. Possibly further depending on how you set up your guides and your lure weight. (By the way, that Daiwa is all solid metal, incredibly durable, and 4.9 oz! If it has instant reverse, it'll still be the ideal UL braided reel.)

Mo