Freshwater and Inshore Casting and Spinning

It is curious that specific rods are not dealt with individually on this or any other Internet Forum. When line control is presented as problematic does the type of rod matter? Which rod type presents the greatest "line control" issue - a casting rod or a spinning rod. Those who mention line touch do not define the specific locations on the blank where the line "touches" under load. Load up a casting all on top moderate to fast action bass or inshore blank to the full load - take a look - what is the location of the area that "line touch" becomes a problem? You find as load is applied "line touch" in the immediate tip area does not occur with even the lowest guide rings using conventional spacing. If you have a casting rod guides on top that deflection due to load causes line touch in the last four inches of the blank I would love to see a photograph.

A better rod is a better rod - a better rod fishes better - some fisherman know the difference and some do not - a visually pleasing rod sells - a progressive guide spacing arrangement appears to be pleasing to most - commercial value of retail rack rods is related to the number of guides - all custom builders have the choice of which path they choose to follow.

If anyone has data, calculations or even theory that guide spacing in the tip area has any contribution to blank failure please consider making the information available to all.

We just finished breaking 200 rod blanks by any and all manner of abuse and torture you can imagine. On those rods which were taken to failure either by a deadlift overload or by extreme high-sticking (butt pointed straight up, tip straight down) not a single blank broke anywhere near the tiptop. Even the high-stick failures occurred much farther back than that.

The only way you'll get a fishing rod to break very close to the tiptop is to fracture or bruise the rod in that exact area and then put it under load. So locating a guide in that area immediate to the tiptop isn't going to forestall breakage there - rods don't break there unless they've been damaged in that area and in such a case locating a guide there isn't going to help anything.

But I don't think the reasoning behind putting a guide in that location has anything to do with preventing breakage.

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

Tom

What do you think the reasoning is?

Bobby Feazel

[www.shockwaverods.com]

Conventional wisdom will not open the box.

Angular distribution of the guides. The entire point of the chart is to place the guides so they have the same angle between them when the rod under load.

Joe



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2009 05:08PM by Joe Vanfossen.

Joe - what does angular distribution of the guides accomplish other than having the same angle? What is the point of that?

Why could that not be accomplished using the tip as the first guide? Or is it?

I read your first post: "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."

If I am reading right, the same angle makes for a pretty rod, maybe symetrical, but what does that do for performance. Right now I'm stuck in the "you're diminishing performance by using so many guides" mode.

Remember - I have no engineering background - so a little slow on some of this at times. Thanks.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2009 05:15PM by Alex Dziengielewski.

Alex,

It is accomplished by using the tip as the first guide.

Take a look at the enlarged chart on Mud Hole's site. It appears to me that it is based on approximating a rod as having a butt that remains straight and then has a circular arc at the top. They chose some point to be the center of this arc, which happens to be directly below the top when the rod is flexed to 90 degrees. So, the first guide is the tip top, now move some predetermined angle and draw another line outward from the center point. Repeat the process several more times, and you have your chart setup.

Now, we all know that blanks aren't exactly a straight line and a circular arc. That is fine. Take your blank and flex it to 90 degrees and lay it on the chart. Every time one of the lines coming out from the center of the arc touches your blank, put a guide there. It will keep the guides separated by the same angle. It is more or less an aesthetic thing.

If we tried to have each guide carry the same load, we wouldn't have very many guides in the tip section, as you know the tip will straighten out when put under a heavy load and the butt of the rod takes most of the load. Of course, if we don't have enough guides in the tip section, the blank doesn't flex naturally and may fail.

The goal of placing guides is to constrain the line path to follow the natural curvature of the blank.

Just as arbitrary as the chart method may seem for placing guides, statically placing them is equally as arbitrary. Let's take for example an all micros on top build. When we place them statically, we choose to keep the distance between the line and the blank the same at the center point between each pair of guides. Placing the guides this way gives you a spacing that may or may not be aesthetically pleasing.

I usually find a bit of a 'slinky' effect in my static placement, having the tip guides spaced a bit further apart than the next few guides, and then going back to having the guides being further apart in the butt section. The chart method will lead to a more aesthetic looking progressive spacing. To do that with static placement requires sticking another guide in the tip section of the rod, just not so close to the tip.

I really don't think it matters a whole lot how you space your guides once you have the line under control (spinning rods that would be after the choke guide, casting rods may be after the first guide or two), so long as you have enough guides to get the line path to follow the natural flex pattern of the blank.

Joe

Bobby,

I have absolutely no idea, but I'm fairly certain it's not to help prevent breakage.

...........

Joe,

The angle between the line/guides changes as the flex in the rod changes/moves. That's not the point of the chart.

The "Equal Angle" concept had to do with plotting the guide positions by means of a set of lines, an equal amount of degrees apart, to intersection points on a flexed rod blank. It was not intended to nor does it ensure that the guides "have the same angle when the rod is under load. " Just as the story pole method uses equal spaces on a pole which is then slid along the blank to locate guides via intersection points, the Equal Angle concept has the lines originating from the same point so you need some means of determining at what angle they are going to extend along. You can use equal angles, or non-equal angles. It depends on what you're after. Don chose equal angles for his original chart but they're only there as a means for extending the intersection lines. I think it's a good guide placement method although I don't use that many guides - 1 guide per foot of rod length, perhaps maybe 1 more, is more than enough.

Hopefully I didn't mis-read your earlier post.

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

Tom,

I should have been a bit more careful with my wording. The angle between the guides certainly changes depending on the amount of flex in the rod.

Edit: I think you got the idea of my post. Also, thanks for the tid bit on a few spacing methods. It is now in better perspective for me.

Joe



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2009 06:20PM by Joe Vanfossen.

I thought I might have misread that. Sorry.


..........

Correct me if I'm wrong.

The New Concept guide placement system is purportedly designed for better performance, yet every post I've seen in this thread alienates the idea of using more guides.

The chart in question is designed around laying out the "concept" system. Whether or not it's aesthetically pleasing is irrelevant, what I'm picking up is that the concept system is a farce as far as performance goes? Hmmm food for thought....

If the Concept system is something different or is derived in some other manner I'd love to hear about it.

Joe
The ad for the graph states for the layout of micro guides and concept guides. It does not state that it was laying out the guides in the new concept manner.
Please read the following.[www.rodbuilding.org] and you will understand a little clearer.

Rolly Beenen
Rovic Custom Rods

Don't confuse the "New Guide Concept System" with the system that Fuji shows on their web site. They are 2 different animals.

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!!

Fuji coined the term "New Guide Concept" and it is their system. And, they do suggest a pretty good number of guides - a lot of guides, really.

What I have modified in the system since I began working with it and writing on it in RodMaker are a more concrete means of locating the choker guide and a reduction in total guide number.

On Don's chart, the part about locating "Concept Guides" refers to the particular guide type, not the New Guide Concept system itself.

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

Rolly:

Thanks, I've read about everything there is to read about the "new guide concept system". I also build my rods using what I consider the "new guide concept system" but this chart has got me thinking.

I wonder if there is a way to quantify in performance the downside or upside of the "aesthetically pleasing" layout. Has anyone gone down this road?

I would think it's just a matter of taping on a set of guides and trying them.

The chart does not place guides per the New Guide Concept System. It places Concept Guides.

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

Mudhole guys regularly read this board. Perhaps you can speak up? Seem like this is as easy to answer as making a simple call to Mudhole and asking their top few guys.

Mo

Mo Yang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>Seem like this is as easy to
> answer as making a simple call to Mudhole and
> asking their top few guys.
>
> Mo


That's exactly what I was thinking Mo. Why not ask the people that made the chart what the reasoning is?
I guess some sponsors are to be grilled and some to be hailed.

No sponsors are grilled here. Neither are non-sponsors. It's not allowed.

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

Just to be fair -

I know this went the direction of the chart - but the original intent was anyone using that set up. I think you're going to see more of it in a bigger way than custom rods and folks who bought a chart - reference Bobby's first post.

Bottom line to whoever has used this set up - have you seen an advantage to adding a guide that close to the tip and if so, what was it? I can build one like that, but it's also going to be a while before it's fully field tested on my part to give a good opinion/judgement/etc. Hoping someone had some experience with it to validate it.

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

Took a rod I already had and taped a guide on about 1.5\" behind the tip. Couldnt tell much difference. It certainly was not any better but there was nothing wrong with it the way it was.

Took a few more guides and put them between the ones already on the rod to sort of set up a seven footer with 13 guides. Okay but felt floppier than it did without all the extra guides. I see no advantage and have no idea what all those extra guides are supposed to be doing for you.