I am somewhat new to the whole rod building thing. I have just over a dozen builds under my belt, and noticed something I thought was odd. I was in a local sporting goods store last night "examining" some factory production rods. (Fenwick, St. Croix, G Loomis, ect.) I notice, as to my knowledge at least, not one rod was spined properly. The only one that came close was a GLX that was reverse spinned. Has anyone else looked at this, or is there some reason for this?? The most common guide possition was 45 dregrees off of the spine. These were all spinning rods.

Josh virtually all factory rods are built on the straightest axis, the spine is rarely utilized and plays little part if any in how the rod performs
John

There is no such thing as a "properly spined rod." As John said, most rods are built on the straightest axis. The idea of a "properly spined rod" is a myth. There is no such thing. You can orient the spine in any position you like and all will be well. The rod is not going to twist, explode, cast around corners, etc. It makes little to no difference.

...........

I just found it odd. Every piece of litterature on rod building I have came across stresses that a rod be properly spined. Newbie mistake or assumption I guess. I will continue to put guides on my rod in line with the spine of my rods. I think it looks nicer when you flex a rod to show someone and the guides pop to the exact inside or outside of the blank.

Josh one question - When you flex a rod for the demonstration to illustrate flex -could you please be very specific and tell me how you do it - thanks.

Bill,
I set the butt of the rod/handle on the floor(smooth floor, no bumpy carpet) cradle the rod in my hand, palm up, about a foot and a half from the tip. Put downward pressure midspan with my other hand and gently roll the rod back and forth. This will cause the rod to pop into a consistent position forming an arch, and the inside of this arch is what I have been refering to as the spine of the rod. If I am doing this wrong, pleas let me know.
Josh

You're not doing it wrong, but what do you consider the proper orientation for that spine?

You can't prevent rod twist (casting rods) by spine orientation nor will spine orientation cause casting accuracy or inaccuracy. So what is your particular orientation doing?

The fact that so many rod builders all orient the spine in a different location, or don't bother with it at all, and all have good performing rods, speaks volumes about the idea that there is a proper orientation for the spine.

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

I am not talking about locating the spine of a blank for the purposes of a build - how do you demo on a completed rod to show that it is properly built.

You made the statement that you were observing completed rods.-

If it is on a finished rod when the fish pulls on it the force is exerted to the tip not a foot and a half back -

Sorry for the confusion



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2010 11:01AM by Bill Stevens.

Josh,
When a person goes into an establishment and looks at a rod, or when a person comes over to pick up a rod - almost without exception - the first thing that a person does is to site down the rod and check over the rod.

The person will check to verify how straight the blank is as well as to check the orientation of the guides.

The people virtually never check to see if the guides are aligned on the spine. In addition to that; with the tip in place it is quite difficult to determine the spine on a completed rod anyway.

However, it is very very easy to site down the rod and see if the guides are aligned. Now, as the person sites down the rod and sees that the rod tip is veering off to the left, right, up or down - the person can easily see this and think about it.

So, this is one of the main reasons about why folks suggest to align guides with the straightest axis - as opposed to the location where the spine is located.

Yes, over the years, there has been a great deal of literature that speaks about spining the blank and placing the guides on the spine. However, in the last few years, the emphasis has changed and has moved to aligning the guides to be in line with the straightest axis.

Actually, when you check, it is fairly often that the spine and the straightest axis will be the same.

It is up to you.

I used to always align my guides with the spine, but now tend to do it more often on the straightest axis. If the blank happens to be very straight, I will check to see if there is a spine and if there is - I will place the guides on the spine.

Good luck
Roger

Bill,
The same way. And that is what I did with at least 30 rods last night. I didn't expect every rod but one to be this way. I was a little shocked so, I inquired. Thank you to all for your informative posts. Now, other than staring down the blank, Is there an easy way to determine the straightest axis of a rod?
Josh

Think about it a bit more. The materials are wrapped around a mandrel and will overlap in different places on the blank. Composite blanks are even more interesting, 2 different materials wrapped around a mandrel, the pieces of material are usually triangular in shape. Do you think they all line up perfectly along the whole blank?? Nope! I have built rods on spine and off spine and noticed no difference. Many builders try to force the "spine" or "spline" issue on people, almost coming to the point of trash talking other builders because they build on the straightest axis, instead of the spine! Tom Kirkman has done extensive machine testing with casting distance and accuracy and found no real advantage. People say the spine puts the rod in line with the natural curve of the rod, but the rod will still bend and the guide feet and wraps will also change how the rod bends compared to the bare blank. I do not spine rods anymore, straightest axis gets my vote!

This is just my two cents. On most freshwater rods, I have not noticed any need to truly build on the rod's spine. However, on certain saltwater rods, especially in situations without the harness and fighting lugs, long fights get more tiring when fighting the rod as well. With today's blanks, the moment you have a gimbal, saltwater fighting sticks don't seem to need to be built on the spine. The two areas in freshwater where I would argue the spine would be 1) working certain hard pulling muskie baits all day long depending on how you work the rod (if you are pulling up, it is more important to spine than if you are jerking down) and 2) when a person is chasing sturgeon or catfish in open areas. (giant catfish in my neck of the woods are almost never in open areas, but it does happen from time to time) For spinning blanks, I haven't noticed a difference at all in any venue yet...(knock on wood) The very best thing to happen is if the straightest axis lines up with the spine (with over a hundred rods, I've had this once.) There are a few cases in saltwater where I have seen the spine matter and the clearest one happened on a factory rod where the foregrip was not properly glued down and the gimbal was covered by a vinyl cover taking it out of the equation. During some of the runs, the angler voiced that the foregrip felt funny. Coming near the end game, the glue gave way and it was necessary for one person to hold the rod while the original angler worked the reel as the rod kept trying to flip to the spine up position. Again, these are just my observations and nothing more. So, to spine or not to spine in my opinion still ultimately depends on what you're going to use the rod for. I build all of my rods on the spine now because I am constantly redlining my equipment and most of my customers are the same way. Choice is yours.

Not flip to the spine up position; the guides want to be on the bottom like a spinning rod, so they will try to flip over regardless of the spine orientation. I have seen factory tuna jigging rods have the guides turn to the 3 oclock position while fighting a tuna. Nothing to do with spine! Once the line is away from the centerline of the blank, the line will want to twist the rod so the line can be on the bottom. Taller guides, softer tipped rods, thinner blanks, etc, all make this worse. A spiral wrap will make any conventional rod more stable and not want to flip. It will feel as stable as a spinning rod.

And that rod twisting to force the guides down is probably the best example of why a spiral wrapped rod is a better option for offshore rods. Or....um.....just about any casting rod.

Timothy,
Uhmmmmm, I haven't yet seen a properly spined rod under pressure try to flip to the guides going down yet. Not once. I only have a touch over a hundred rods under my belt which ain't much compared to many builders on this forum, so I know I haven't seen it all...Far from it, but I still haven't seen a rod under pressure flip to guides down unless the rod was built with the spine facing up and the guides facing down.... like a spinning rod. I've posted a lot of experiments i've done in the past on spiral wrap rods. They have their uses for sure, but IMHO, they have their place and no more. There have been fantastic debates about spiral versus no spiral wraps. The logic and the theory clashed horrifically if my memory serves me. Tom himself was back into a corner on one exchange several years ago. I don't have the experience to argue for or against other than that spiral wrap rods are a nightmare going in and out of rod tubes when you're trying to cram as many rods in as possible. That and that a badly designed spiral wrap (bad placement) can have catastrophic results when the rod blank is redlined. My advice to anybody who has questions or if you just want to know more about spines, spiral wraps, etc....get some cheap blank, build up the rods in all different styles, theories, and ideas, and then redline them and fish with them really hard. From there, you can find what works for you. This set of different styles will also give your customers different styles to try and feel to help them select what compliments their style of fishing the best at that particular time in their lives. If a person hasn't really gone and tested their rods to the red line (dead lift the (*&^#$ out of it) against other theories and ideas, I find it difficult to take their advice as anything other than a well-intended but uninformed observation....Not calling anyone out at all. Just my two cents.

If the guides are on top of the rod, it will either twist or attempt to twist when loaded in any normal fishing situation. The lever arm effect of the guides will trump any spine effect and the more powerful the blank and the greater the load, the more prevalent the lever arm effect becomes. Higher frame guides also exacerbate this situation.

If you're using a gimbal, it's the gimbal that's keeping the rod from twisting or turning, but rest assured, it's trying to do so. Slip the rod out from the gimbal nock and relax your grasp and watch what happens. Conversely, with a spiral wrapped rod you can relax your rod hand and allow the fish to pull all he wants, but the reel will stay upright and the rod will remain stable.

I would like to know when I was "backed into a corner on one exchange several years ago" on the spiral wrap. I think your memory isn't serving you as well as you may think. The laws of physics are the same now as they were then.


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

Tom,
I still haven't seen a rod that was properly built on the spine when put under load spin away from the spine. I have seen where a builder builds on a spine of lesser prominence and so when placed under load, the more prominent spine at the butt end of the rod takes over and the blank spins there. This happens a lot in older and cheaper blanks with multiple spines. Many inexperienced builders would build a trolling rod on the spine they found at the tip instead of at the butt. What happened then was easy to predict. I can understand completely that if one tests the rod by placing into a static rod holder minus gimbal, ties a line to the reel seat and running through the guides and then adds pressure, the rod will flip to guides down. However, if you keep adding more and more pressure, I've found my rods to flip to spine up. Also, by deadlifting a weight with the rod and rolling it around to see where the comfort point is, it usually is where the spine is the most prominent in the area you are holding. As I'd stated above though, for most fishing applications, I agree that it really doesn't matter. There's no doubt that high frame guides can cause twisting issues. I'm glad you agree with me about the gimbal. And I agree with you on the spiral wrap staying stable whether built on the spine or not. The exchange I was talking about when you were backed into a corner was by a gentleman that had previously called me out for being too aggro in my posts. He then went on to hunt you down for a while arguing against spiral wraps (I stayed out of it because, as I do now, I believe that spiral wraps have their place) declaring that they couldn't cast farther than in-line guide placements stating that the least resistance between two point is a straight line. I can't remember his exact wording, but I do recall that you'd replied on that thread that you couldn't contest his reasoning because he was correct. As you'd just mentioned, the laws of physics haven't changed. The exchange was about casting only though, if I remember correctly (which is always suspect in my case!) However, that exchange was merely theoretical. I know a builder in Malaysia who tested casting distances and found spiral wrapped rods to cast farther. So, I remain without an opinion on which style casts farther. I've also met a builder that claims that his style of spiral wrap increases the energy of the line in his particular set up and he let me cast it. It was like holding air in my hands and it flew like a rocket, but I can't recreate his set up so I again remain without an opinion. I just wanted to give my two cents with good intentions and am seriously hoping to not ruffle any feathers.

I've never stated that a spiral wrapped rod would cast further than a guides on top rod. Never. That would be a silly statement for anyone to make. I have only stated that spiral wrapped rods are inherently stable in fishing situations, which they certainly are. I don't recall being back into a corner on such a statement - I'd love it if you could find it and let me know where it exists.

I have a device that allows one to place rods in a ball bearing fixture at the butt and then load the tip. There is absolutely no way that you can load a rod and not have it spin so that the guides turn to the bottom unless you can hold the rod at an absolutely true 0 degrees, which is practically impossible on the device and certainly impossible in a real world fishing situation. The idea that a rod with guides on top, built on a particular spine orientation will not attempt to twist or turn, and would actually become more stable under load, just isn't possible. The reverse is actually the case. The lever arm effect of the guides will always trump any spine effect.

I'm afraid I'll have to challenge you on the idea that a "properly spined" rod is stable, and becomes more stable, under load. I wish we were closer so we could get together and play with some rods and different spine orientations and/or guide set ups. What you've described is just contrary to everything I've seen, done or witnessed in some 35+ years of custom rod building. I don't think you can prove it in an actual demonstration that mimics a real world fishing situation. Perhaps one day we can get together and try it.

.........

So you are claiming that once the rod has flipped over and the guides are on the bottom you can get it to flip back over by pulling on it harder? That seems extremely unlikely, once the guides are on the bottom I haven’t seen anything that will get them back on top except significant effort by the user.

Tom,
I found the old debate and lo and behold it wasn't you! I must be losing my mind or something...maybe mad cow disease! I don't want to name names but it happened three years ago. I just ran the test again and found something interesting. When you test your rods in your ball bearing fixture, where are you providing the upwards pressure point (simulating the hand holding the rod?) If it's behind the reel seat, I got your same exact results no matter now much pressure I applied. Then, I recreated the test this time using a belly saver and a rod sporting a rubber butt cap with reel attached and applied pressure using a long screw driver parallel to the floor placed just above the foregrip for my upwards pressure and I started with the rod guides facing the floor (easiest possible direction with the weight of the reel and guides). The rod flipped to spine up. When I tried the same belly test with the screwdriver below the reel seat, my results were identical to yours again with the rod going guides down. I then tried starting both experiments with the guides facing to the side. If I have the point of pressure behind the reel seat, I mimic your results everytime. The moment I put pressure ahead of the foregrip, the rod flips to guides up. I understand the lever effect you're talking about and it's absolutely true. As far as I've seen, when dealing with more powerful rods, spine becomes more important than for less powerful rods. As far as stability, I will never argue that a spiral wrap is less stable than a conventional wrap. I build them for bottom fishing and trolling for that reason. I somehow doubt that what I'm saying is different than what you've seen and experienced, as when I run my experiments the way I am assuming you ran yours, I got your exact results. I adamantly refuse to say that anything you've posted is wrong because I'd be an idiot, but I do offer that by messing with the experiment such as upward pressure points and such, one can change the result. In my fishing applications, I grab my rods by the forward end of the foregrip and shove the butt either into a gimbal belt (where spine doesn't matter!) or into my hip when using a rod with no gimbal (for me spine starts to matter!) This is a great discussion because it's forcing me to retry experiments that I haven't done in a long time!