I'm perplexed by something that I am hoping someone can help me understand. I'm hearing of micro guided rods with distances of 1.25" - 2" from tip to first guide.

I've spaced some rods and never seen a blank that required a tip that close with micros or conventional guides. I went back at my "big guide" spacing and found similar - first guide further from tip.

I guess I am wondering if it's a difference in the blanks being used. Most of the rods I have built on, the tips are pretty much straight under load until you get 'around' (not exact measure) 3" in from the tip. The amount of curve in a flexed tip from end to about 3" back isn't a whole lot. So I'm guessing here that the guide that close is not to get the line up off the blank.

I'm just confused on the logic there. Not trying to pick a fight, I'd just like to understand the science or the why behind it because I don't get it. I'm sure there are plenty on both sides, but I've shared my experience, what's yours?

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

Not sure there is any science behind it. Somebody does something and it hits the internet and next thing you know its some sort of necessity or brilliant idea. I have never put one that close but I have been as close as about 3.5\" from the tip. That would be about it. Cannot see any reason to go closer than that. What does a guide an inch back from the tip do? What function does it serve? I do know this.....the more guides you cram onto the area near the tip the worse the rod balance will be and the more oscillating it will do after casting. The idea is to get weight OFF of that area.

Where did you here this. I don't think it was here ??

The new Mudhole guide location tool, keeps the first guide within 2" of the tip on all the rods i've measured on it. (5 or 6 rods all 7ft fast action rods) I'd also be very interested to hear about some of the "science" or at very least reasoning behind it.

I don't know how much sceince there is to it, I'm in agreement with Alex. I haven't seen any need to put a micro that close to the tip. For the most part that last few inches runs paralell with the line.

Steve Bro
(BroCo Custom Rods)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2009 05:59PM by Steve Bro.

Joe and Alex,

After looking at the Mudhole chart, I think the idea is to keep the angle between the guides the same. It looks as though you flex your rod to 90 degrees, and then place the guides where lines from some arbitrary radius of curvature intersect your blank. This will cause the line to make the same change in direction at each guide. I'm sure it works just like any spacing that uses enough guides to keep the blank from failing.

Personally, I place the guides statically, and put them where the line will just touch the blank when flexed to 90 degrees, which gives spacing more along the lines of what you expect Alex.

Nothing wrong with either way, they are just different ways of placing the guides. One may give a more aesthetic looking spacing, but both provide enough guides to keep the line following the blank.

Joe

I think it's a plot by the guide manufacturers to sell more guides ;).

Alex
I am with you and have never put a guide closer then 3-3.5 inches from the tip. I just do not see a reason for it.
I ended up in a mighty big argument over that guide location chart on another forum and I will not go into it here as a lot of people were dragged into it that shouldn't have.

Rolly Beenen
Rovic Custom Rods

I've done some testing and I can't seem to see a flaw in the performance of the Mudhole chart. I'm just not accustomed to placing the first guide so close. Thought I'd try to get a little feedback.

I guess the biggest question that comes to mind for me - especially given my clientele of tournament bass guys who are rough on their stuff is could a guide that close to the tip cause the first few inches of the blank to gain a flex it should not have (or not designed for) and open the door for more tip breakage or easier tip breakage closer to the tip? Or does this protect the tip more?

My other thought is you are putting another guide on the tip, so you're putting extra weight at the worst place - needs to be a good trade off to justify that for me personally.

Thanks for the feedback - good info. I haven't tried it, so interested to hear what others have to say.

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

It's not going to cause any sort of unnatural flex. That wouldn't be an issue.

It will add weight at the worst possible place, however, so unless it's actually doing something for you, i.e. solving some sort of problem or improving some aspect of overall performance, you'll have to decide if it's worth the trade off in additional weight, slight as it may be. But again, that is the worst place to add any unnecessary weight.

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

Alex,
You are absolutely right about that being the worst possible place to add weight.
I think that you are also correct about why the first few inches do not require a guide. The guides serve two functions stress distribution and line control. I do not think that either one of these functions dictates a guide that close to the tip. Certainly not for line control and if you deflect a blank a small amount through to maximum deflection you will notice that at no point do the first few inches of the tip deflect or bend. The first few inches of the blank remain straight regardless of the amount that the blank is being deflected. If there is no deflection in those first few inches that means by definition there is no strain and if there is no strain there cannot be any stress. If there is no stress through that section of the blank then there obviously is no need for a guide for distributing the stress.
Micro guides may require more guides than conventional guides but not one that is that close to the tip.

I don't see a need. I don't like wrapping 3" from the tip...sure as heck would not like it any closer.

Don't know any of thetechnical aspects but, for the life of me, I just can't see any possible purpose fo a guide that close and can't imagine any advantage to it. One more reason why I would never use a preconceived chart, tool, or anything other than static deflection to tell me where to put the guides *and then tweak with test casting) I trust the blank that I have to tell me what I need to know. One more thing that makes it a custom rod.

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!!

Alex,
With this question, are you referring to a conventional - guides on top of the blank - casting rod, or a spinning rod or spiral wrapped guide with the tip guides on the underside of the blank.

If you are referring to a conventional casting rod - guides on top - and are using micro guides - you may be concerned with the line touching the blank.

Small micros - used in a casting rod setup have near 0 line lift off of the rod blank.
So, if you are concerned about the line touching the blank with very small guides and a fairly fast tip - you may have a need to place the tip guides quite close together.

This is one of the main reasons, why I feel that if you are going to use micros and or other very short and compact guides for a casting rod - you are normally better off to wrap the rod in a spiral wrap configuration.
That way, the short guide height does not come into play as a result of the line touching the blank.

Good luck
Roger

Gentlemen.

The 'fruit and vegetable' rack rods need more than one gimmick to be a viable force in the market these days. The color of the blank is not enough by itself no matter how pretty it looks on the rack. They need something else to go with the pretty color.

The latest craze is to have a whole bunch of guides “because it makes the rod…blah….blah….blah…hype…hype…hype”. Some manufacturers could care less if the rod is a good tool or not, they just want to sell as many as they can with spin and marketing. It’s kind of like our politicians these days.

I’m convinced we will see more and more of this in the coming months and hate to say it; but, I am highly disappointed that some of our ‘noted’ suppliers are dancing right along in lock step with this latest tune by trying to sell the idea to the unsuspecting.

I’m glad I’m a custom builder because I can at least have a good tool to fish with.

Bobby Feazel

[www.shockwaverods.com]

Conventional wisdom will not open the box.

Roger,
If the first few inches of the blank are not deflecting under any load conditions, and they do not, then there is no danger of the line touching the blank in the first few inches. Plus, when a rod is heavily loaded the line is not normally, under most conditions, moving so there cannot be any friction between the line and the blank so why do you care if the line touches the blank?

I confess, I bought the chart and P.T. Brnum lives.

Does this chart say why you would want a guide so close to the tip? I would think the idea would be to get the job done with the fewest number of guides possible. I see guides as a necessary evil. I wish I could completely do away with them! But this isn't possible so I try to use the very fewest I can. Enough to provide adequate stress distribution but not so many as to weigh the blank down and cause a loss of casting distance or reduce the quick response of the blank. Almost any rod builder or fisherman can waggle a bare blank and then do it again with nothing more than the tip glued on and feel the difference even that small amount of weight placed that far out makes.

Emory,
I don't build rods where the line will touch or go by the blank under deflection, simply because I don't like the look. Perhaps it won't hurt the function of the rod, its appearance is just not pleasing to me.


Take care
Roger