So today I decided to do some test casting on different guide concepts. I wanted to see some numbers for casting distances. The concepts I tested were, Fuji Concept, same size micros on top, and micros with larger butt guide.

The blank used was a MHX CB843. It has a 10" rear grip. The reel used was a Daiwa Exceler w/ 17 lb mono. Casting plug was 3/8 oz.

Now heres the data...

Fuji Concept from tip
BLAG 6 8cm
BLAG 6 17cm
BLAG 6 27cm
BLAG 6 38cm
BLAG 7 51 cm
BLNAG 7 66cm
BLNAG 8 83cm
BLNAG 10 102cm
BLNAG 12 125cm

Test Casts
101.6 ft
103.2 ft
101.8 ft
98.9 ft
107.4 ft
Average 102.58 ft

Same Size Micros from tip
BLAG 4 9.3cm
BLAG 4 18.1cm
BLAG 4 28.4cm
BLAG 4 39.1cm
BLAG 4 50cm
BLAG 4 60.9cm
BLAG 4 74.8cm
BLAG 4 89.1cm
BLAG4 107.6cm

Test Cast
111.9 ft
113.3 ft
115.2 ft
114.8 ft
112.7 ft
Average 113.58 ft

Micros With Larger Butt Guide from tip
BLAG 4 10.6cm
BLAG 4 20.7cm
BLAG 4 30.5cm
BLAG 4 41.7cm
BLAG 4 53.2cm
BLAG 4 66.3cm
BLAG 4 80.1cm
BLAG 5 95.4cm
BLAG 6 116.1cm

Test Cast
117.3 ft
114.8 ft
118.1 ft
113.7 ft
117.8 ft
Average 116.34 ft

Now I dont consider myself a "great caster" and I wasn't trying to launch it as far as I can. I just used a easy side arm cast to try to keep it as consistant as I could.

So from my testing it shows the the best distance between the three is, micros with larger butt guide. Its not as big as a difference as I thought, but to me, micros have alot more advantages then just casting distance. A few extra feet is just a bonus to the other benefits they provide.

If I get some time this weekend I'm going to try to put a micro spiral in there as well to compare.

All this did for me was confirm that micros are the way to go and when used in the right application there really is no down side to them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2010 12:40AM by Mitch Leppelmeier.

Nice job! Thanks for sharing.

Nice Job Mike;
Those that were at the ICRBE casting competition on Friday this year were able to see similar results on an 8 ft heavy action rod with 3.5mm micros all on top and a spiral wrap starting with 6-5-4mm then 3.5mm to the tip.
With similar results as yours, the only difference being that the distance spread between the two sets ran greater consistently at about 18ft (cross wind) and about 40 (tail wind) with the spiral starting with the larger stripper guide wining every time.

You could also carry this out further and test one spiral wrap style against another to see which one performs best.

Nice! Thanks for that information. I'm not very consistent with a baitcaster to get any kind of results like that. I havn't convinced the one guy who I reguide micros for to test cast different setups for me so I can get the same data. If I get him to test cast some, I'll post the same type of data.

Your final set up - "micros with larger butt guide" is the NGC for casting rods as presented in RodMaker some years back. Once you get past the first or second guide, there is no need to use all the various sizes - you can skip right down to the smallest guide you're able to use and go on out to the tip with them.

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

Good job Mitch. Good info.

Very good info Mitch. You're bordering on obsessed though! LOL

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

Isnt that why we build rods...lol

Mitch,
One thing that many fisher folks are concerned with is accuracy, not necessarily distance.
Out of curiosity, would you consider expanding your test to see if your guide selection had any effect on accuracy.

For example many folks that are bass fishermen, often don't cast more than 50 feet, but they wat to be able to precisely put a lure in a coffee cut from 20-50 feet away.
It would be interesting to see the results of such a test, with everything held constant except for the guide type and size.

Also, I am getting mixed reports from my clients who do musky fishing and jerk bait fishing with respect to spiral guides. Even though I have sold some spiral wrapped guides to users of rods for musky and jerk biat fishing, it seems that when they come back for another rod, they almost always ask for a conventional wrapped rod. It is not that the spiral wrapped rod does not work well and give excellent casting distance. It does.
But it seems that for these folks who do musky fishing with their frequent rod tip in the water figure 8 at the boat, and jerk bait fishing, where - after the cast, the rod is generally jerked - DOWN - not up, the bulk of the fishermen prefer the use of the conventional bait casting rod where the line runs along the top of the rod.

I will admit, that for myself, when I do this style of fishing, I will say that I also prefer the use of the conventional style guides on top of the rod for fishing. Since much of the line pressure comes from the top of the rod, rather than the bottom of the rod, it is just a more intuitive and easier to do.

As other folks have said many times in the past on this forum. Use the right rod for the right purpose.

Summary - it would be interesting to get test data similar to the data posted about casting distance as a function of guides to get the same information with respect to casting accuracy.

Take care
Roger

I wouldnt trust my personal casting ability to do such a test and provide accurate results. The rod tested was a crankbait rod and I feel for that application most people are looking for distance. Now if someone would do a test on a flipping/pitching rod at a close distance that would be great information to have. Again, I think the main point is that a rod needs to be built for how the person is using it. It does no good to get maximum distance on a flipping rod that will be used at close range. More important for that role is accuracy, and ability to pull the fish out as fast as you can.

I think that each concept (spiral or on top) serves a purpose depending on how the rod will be used.

Im waiting on some info from Steve Gardner to do the distance test with a micro spiral to compare to the rest.

Years ago when testing with a mechanical casting machine, it was easy to see that casting accuracy is not really part of any guide set up equation. The lure follows the same path that the rod tip does and will travel in the direction the rod tip is traveling at the moment of release. Accuracy, is a function of the person doing the casting.

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

> For example many folks that are bass fishermen,
> often don't cast more than 50 feet, but they wat
> to be able to precisely put a lure in a coffee cut
> from 20-50 feet away.

Not really a fact... fish where we have blueback herring. You'll want the longest cast possible. I believe many of the big swimbait fishermen on the west coast would say the same thing. Also fish lakes where dragging a jig or carolina rig 40 yards is expected - whether through timber, long points, ledges, etc. Or even cranking ledges on many lakes - distance is king.

Those who skip, pitch, work docks, timber, blowdowns, etc my confine themselves to shorter range work to increase time in the strike zone when a particular pattern is targeted. Most people I fish against and sell to - this is not the norm anymore.

Until I see I need to be on top of something - my avg cast is usually over 50 feet. If I have developed my accuracy at a distance, why risk spooking a fish by putting my boat, trolling motor, and sonar on top of them?

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2010 04:29PM by Alex Dziengielewski.

In our large, deep, clear, coverless, rocky reservoirs, distance is more important than accuracy. There are occasions when I make multiple pitches to a piece of standing timber, but most of my time is spent making long casts over points with a spinnerbait or crankbait.

So for me and my buddies, distance is what matters. They (and I) can learn to be accurate, but we gotta' be able to make a long cast first.

I agree to some extent with Roger. There are advantages to both long And to accurate casts. But the rod you build in my opinion is specifically designed for one or the other, and to what species, lure, presentation, body of water etc,etc. I choose rods for what I intentionally want to use them for. But I enjoy sight fishing in the gnarliest jungle I can find, specifically looking for fish holding to cover. An accurate cast is a MUST.

But what can you do to a rod besides just making it shorter that will improve the accuracy?

Mike,
As much as anything, I was trying to discover if anyone had done any testing to see if guide type, placement, style, or any other guide function would have an effect on accuracy.
From several answers to the post, it appears that guides have very little effect on the accuracy of a cast.

Roger

Mitch is using 17lb mono line with various guides configuration and achieved distant over 100+ ft. It will be interesting to see what the result would be if Mitch would be using lighter and heavier line. This would give us more data to look at.

Ben

I am in the middle on this, building rods for accurate close in work and long distance casting. Depending on the bodies of water being fished and client’s needs

From experience I can say that guides have no direct effect on accuracy. Except that in using Micro guides I've realized it takes less effort to reach targets.

So over the length of the day I find that less effort equates to less fatigue, and accuracy stays better. I have found that even a .5mm difference in guide sizes can make what I consider large differences in distances.

The links below are from some tests I posted a couple of years back.
[rodbuilding.org]

[rodbuilding.org]

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Years ago when testing with a mechanical casting
> machine, it was easy to see that casting accuracy
> is not really part of any guide set up equation.
> The lure follows the same path that the rod tip
> does and will travel in the direction the rod tip
> is traveling at the moment of release. Accuracy,
> is a function of the person doing the casting.
>
> .............


I agree and disagree. The easier a rod and reel is to cast the better the accuracy will be in my opinion. If a rod casts farther I assume it will take less effort to cast. This kinda goes along with what Steve says.

Ok so I did the test with a micro spiral....

The setup was using Steve Gardners method, He uses a slighty different guide sizes, but since I dont have those on hand I needed to improvise a bit.

Distance from tip
BLAG 4 8.1cm
BLAG 4 17.4cm
BLAG 4 28.6cm
BLAG 4 38.7cm
BLAG 4 51.5cm
BLAG 4 66.4cm
BLAG 4 83.9cm
BLAG 5 103cm
BLNAG 6 125.5cm


Test Cast
110.4 ft
108.6 ft
108.9 ft
109.4 ft
108.7 ft
Average 109.2


One thing I did notice it that the distances were more consistant with the spiral. Another thing is that it seemed harder to get a straight cast, they all seemed to be a bit to the right or left of me. Now maybe that is just me not being used to casting a spiral wrap, im not sure.