Was looking at a high end factory spinning rod, Med power, very fast action - only flexed in the upper 1/4 of the blank under heavy load. They had guides spaced no more than 8" appart all the way to the butt guide.

I find on the stiff section of a rod the guides don't need to be that close together, resulting in using fewer guides which = less weight. I can see no benefit to the extra guides on the portion of rod that does not flex.

Kinda has me thinking, how far appart can we space guides on the section of the blank that has little to no flex? On a lot of rods today, we may be able to drop one to three guides and save a lot of weight.

Any other thoughts on this?

Thanks,
Marc



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2009 08:17AM by marc morrone.

Lots of info on the forum on guide spacing. Most of the static measurement processes will put fewer guides on the butt section because the blank flexes less there. So, you're right, if they are 8" apart at the butt, it's not needed. Although, more guides in the butt section have less effect than more guides in the tip section. Equal spacing of 8" tip to butt would put the tip section at some risk for too few guides in that area.

Probably some marketing idea to get a different look. Certainly wasn't done for performance reasons.

Terry

You could bring a line with you and right in the store do a static test on the rod to see how the line looks and how it follows the blank, especially at the tip.

Bill - willierods.com

All those guides are there to make the rod better at catching. Unfortunately, better at catching anglers and not fish. As Terry noted, it's all about marketing and not function.

If you're using at least 1 guide per foot of rod length, you should have enough to provide adequate stress distribution to the rod. The only exception would be if your spacing is simply terrible. Even so, with that number even a fair progressive spacing should keep you out of hot water.

Generally, using 1 guide per foot of rod length plus a tiptop is about right. Sometimes you may feel better using 1 more than that, or one less, and either is still well within the range needed for adequate stress distribution. Using far fewer or far more, however, puts you at a danger point on one end and causes a loss of rod efficiency and performance at the other end.

...........

I would think that the "micro" guides should enable you to add a guide or two and not hurt anything. I typically use 9 + a tip on my 7ft UL and L rods where I use size 3 and 4 running guides. The guides are tiny and I use short wraps and PG for finish so the weight on the end is still minimal.

Marc,
You only need to put enough guides on the rod, to insure that you have a "reasonable" line path of the line following the guide- when the rod is under stress.

Any more than that minimum is extra.

You may be able to get by with two guides or 42 guides depending on the length and action.

For a very very stiff rod, you can get by with very few guides. For a rod with a very fast tip, you may have to put the guides closer than 3 inches together to get the line to properly follow the blank. Of course, at the butt of the same rod, you may be able to separate the guides by as much as 2 feet.

Take care
Roger

p.s.
I don't buy the advertising hype that more guides give you better feel in your hand on a strike.

You can try the test for yourself - i.e. adding a bunch more guides to give you "better feel".
Then fish the identical blank with the minimum number of guides and fish the same blank with one that has several more guides added to give you "better feel"

Draw your own conclusions.

Take care
Roger