The "micro rods" present a new and innovative concept detailing a "stand alone" series of rods. They are not like other typical rods in appearance to the buying public. Anglers are now able to distinguish the "micro rods" from all other conventional rods in the store.

The market now has buyers seeking these specific rods.

The superior performance of the rods has created a situation which opens the door for sellers to structure a warranty that protects the manufacturer, builder and angler in an equitable manner.

The existing warranty situation, for conventional fishing rods, has been a death knell for many who tried to compete in that market with the existing lifetime warranty hanging over their balance sheet.

If the demand for the product is strong enough - with the micro rod at present it is - a purchaser will take the option to execute a formal warranty with different conditions in order to obtain one of the micro rods. Life time warranty packages hopefully will soon be a thing of the past. Not only were the micro rods a new way to build rods they also present an ideal opportunity the change the way rods are sold and warrantied.

The blank breakage article in Rodmaker was the last proof source needed complete a new warranty package.

I have used very small guides for the running guides on my NGC spinning rods and feel the reduced weight creates a much better balanced outfit. Casting is certainly not harmed and if you care about a few extra inches or perhaps a couple feet in increased casting distance, they contribute there as well.

I am using Pac Bay Minima #4's for all my fly rods lately. These would include about everything up to a 7-weight. I might do a little more testing before using them on rods beyond an 8-weight or for use with large loop-to-loop connections, however.

The fact remains - unless the ring size won't pass your required line and/or connections, or you fish in an area where water readily freezes in small guide rings, what is the argument against using the smallest possible rings?

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

NHow have they proven to have superior performance?? What is superior about them?

John;
I suggest you doing a search on the micro guides. There are pages and pages of info that will answer that question.

If you don't subscribe to RodMaker magazine, I would also do that and order the three back issues in which you will find some of the best info printed on them including the dispelling of myths such as have been eluded to in some of the posts in this thread.

But I will provide you one small bit of info that is the underlying principle for a majority of the performance enhancements from using them.

Wight in the upper section of a rod is one of the most determining factors limiting rod performance and the greater that weight is towards the tip of the rod the greater the deterrence on performance.
By down sizing the size and weight of the guides used, the rods performance is increased.
Using micro guides can remove 80%+ of the guide train weight on a rod, increasing its performance accordingly.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2010 09:43AM by Steve Gardner.

Generalizations are untrustworthy, perhaps including this one. A set of micro guides for a given fly rod definitely do not weigh 80% less than a set of REC Recoil snake guides for that fly rod. In fact, the micros might weigh as much or more than the Recoils, and be less durable and less corrosion resistant to boot. The "open loop" design of snake guides also allows the passage of larger nail knots and kinks in the line than closed ring micros of the same diameter.

Phil;
You are correct
I was not thinking about fly rods when I made that generalization. Sorry if I confused any one!

My generalization when talking about fly rods may be off in the percentage noted, when compared to recoil snake guides (I have not weighed between the two, to be able to provide that info)
One other thing to consider; is that with one wrap per micro guide instead of the two wraps per snake guide.
The combined weight difference, (when considering that the wrap and epoxy can actually weigh more then a micro guide itself.) Between the two may be pretty close the 80% mark if not over.
You are also correct in that the open loop of the snake guides may “allow passage of larger knots”, which is why people should
"Use the smallest guide that will do the job",
and is why I tie little knots.

Haven't had any problems with kinks in my line, who knows maybe that is something the micro guides are helping to eliminate. I will leave that testing to someone else.

I can however tell you quantifiably that on bait casting rods I build, the weight savings exceeds the percentile number provided in the simple fact that the hole guide train now used often weighs less the stripper guides of my former more traditional setups, and when you take into consideration the weight savings of epoxy and thread I can pretty well push the 90% mark
Example:
The feet on a Batson 3mm micro guides are about 26% shorter then on their 6mm guides. Which means I'm using aproxamently 26% less thread, and 26% less epoxy, that when added to the (known) 83% weight savings over compared traditional guide setups, increases the stated percentage.

Whether Micro’s are more durable then recoils or not? I have no clue.
To date my only experience with recoils have come from people asking me to remove them from their rods. Of the which I happen to be doing one to day. For the record they are being replaced with micro guides, go figure.

Hopefully that is a little less general and more specific for you!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2010 01:33PM by Steve Gardner.

Tom, (not to hijack hopefully)....

I'm curious concerning line wear with the Minima guides. I have a fresh set here for the 1st time and one side of the ring is rather sharp, and don't mean "good looking" sharp. The rings have a rather pronounced edge on the incoming line side (reeling in fish side) that seems to me would wear line rather quickly, especially a line like a thin braided line or a dacron fly backing.

DR