ICAST Show Center in Las Vegas

The bookies are at work in the parking lot -

Pssssssst -

It works!

Advice from Lance - Get your name on the priority preorder list at:

[www.swamplandtackle.com]

What is the average - extra - distance gotten from them ??

Bill - willierods.com

I do not think anyone here ever said it did not work..... What some have asked is if it works better or gives more distance than something like a good NGC set up. I know that Castaway is only comparing it against an old fashioned cone of flight system. I hope not many use that anymore.

Of course it works. But they aren't going to compare it against a well implemented NGC set up. More than likely they'll only go head to head against Cone of Flight Systems ("...more distance than any traditional spinning rod" - you have to read between the lines). Even then you'll want to make sure they were comparing the same rod with two different guide sets, not two different rods. If you're going to compare guide systems, you have to eliminate variables outside the guide systems themselves. This a great chance for builders to have some fun and do some testing on their own, utilizing the same blank with various guide systems.



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

I'm most excited about the prospect of being able to reduce guide sizes much more quickly with the new guides (thereby saving some more weight in the mid-section of the rod).

I'm also really interested to see how the new guides handle some of the stiffer fluorocarbons.

You're on the right track - looking for extra distance from this guide may leave you disappointed depending on where you're at now. But if you're looking to reduce guides more quickly and perhaps gain a little better response or balance, you're moving in the right direction.

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

If you do not get any benefits from this guide - extra distance - why use it. ??

What is the big deal ??

Bill - willierods.com

Distance is not the only benefit to be had when trying to improve a spinning rod guide system. Even the NGC only adds a few extra feet in distance over the old Cone of Flight System. But it also offers a better balanced and more responsive rod. Both are benefits that most fishermen will enjoy perhaps even more so than a few extra feet at the end of a cast - distance that many aren't likely to need or use anyway.

Granted, reducing or eliminating the transition guides on the NGC system won't result in a marked difference - you're getting lower on the rod and you're talking about guides that would generally be pretty light to start with. But it's worth experimenting with. You just need to be realistic in your expectations and remember where you're starting from.

I haven't tried it with anything beyond 12lb mono, but I suspect it would work with any commonly used braid. If you're using braid on a surf rod and wanted to get rid of the larger transition guides, you might want to try it. Just remember that if you generally use a shock leader you need to spool up and test that way. Than again, many guys running braid on surf outfits don't use shock leaders.

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

Tom K:

"I haven't tried it with anything beyond 12lb mono"

Did Doug Hannon, Scott Luft or Gena Box Young send you a MICROWAVE Guide to test?

That is just like the Spin/Cast reels that were talked about. Why do they cast so well. If it is the small sized ring in the cover face, the low profile of the reel, then why will a small M guide maybe 10" more or less from an open faced reel not work better then - I like to call it , Your Concept System - I think it is , work ?

This has been posted several years ago and I have never herd of any positive results.

Bill - willierods.com

Bill Stevens,

I've been working with the concept longer than they have and you've also seen the photo of the guide I made.

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

Bill Boettcher,

There is a difference with the spincasting reel as the line never has a chance to billow outward to begin with. It's caught right at the spool and funneled into a small opening right there and then. But yes, the concept is about the same, it's just happening a bit further up the rod. There is a lost more resistance due to large billows of line moving through the air than there is friction between line and small guides. This is why a spinning rod with higher frame smaller ringed guides will generally outcast one with lower, larger ringed guides.

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

How about a picture of that guide Tom

Bill - willierods.com

You got it.

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

OK, I will be more specific. If were to take the spinning rod shown on the cover of the current issue of Rodmaker mag, and remove the butt guide as shown and replace it with a Microwave guide, and then remove the next two guides and replace them with the same little ones you have for the choker and running guides, what is my casting difference going to be??

Specific Answer -

Peter you are welcome to send you name, shipping address and billing profile to Swampland. I will send you one of the first production models that arrive - then you can post your results for all to see. If you have a blanket order with any other vendor on this forum order it through them. We will drop ship to you pending their their instructions.

All I am requesting is not to pass a verdict before the evidence is presented. It is being presented at this time and surely we will hear the responses by those with no "hook" very soon! All I know at present is that the test rods have been in the hands of test casters since the ICAST Show opened this morning.

By the way, your quote from above is incorrect.

"I know that Castaway is only comparing it against an old fashioned cone of flight system."

Peter,

As far as distance is concerned? You won’t get any measurable increase on that rod. Same thing with balance and response - the rod is already utilizing very light guides and where you’d be saving weight would be in the mid area, not out on the upper half of the rod or near the tip where it would make the most difference. The half gram you would save (I weighed those guides and the replacements before I posted this) doesn't amount to any practical difference particularly there on the mid section. And the Microwave guide is going to be heavier than the current butt guide, so in effect you’re back to where you started, weightwise. By the way, I have tried exactly what you suggest on that very rod, so I'm not guessing here.

But keep in mind, the rod shown on that cover isn’t a “traditional spinning rod.” You have to remember that Castaway is marketing their new spinning rod type to the fishing public, not to custom rod builders. The standard spinning rod that most of the general fishing public is using is wide open for a marked advance - there is a lot of room for improvement where “traditional spinning rods” are concerned. On the other hand, the rods made by knowledgeable custom rod builders are a lot harder to improve upon because they’re already a heck of a lot better than what most commercial rod operations are turning out.

I'd take Bill Stevens up on his offer and try it for yourself. How much improvement you see is going to depend on what you're comparing to.


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

Thanks guys. This is sort of what I thought. Please understand that I am a little skeptical of "deer in the headlight" fishermen who get handed something new and make all sorts of wild claims about how great something is so reports from something like ICAST do not really impress me. I wanted to compare against a known starting point for the sake of real comparison over a personal impression.

What we'll do in the near future, is buy one of the ready made Castaway rods with the Microwave system. Then we'll get a half dozen builders to come by and each make, say 25 casts with the standard rod and record the distances. Then we''ll cut off the first few guides and put on a NGC type set up and repeat the casting and again record the distances. Then we'll remove those and install something more "traditional" and again repeat the process.

By keeping the same rod, reel and line for all the casting we eliminate all the variables except the guide systems and the fishermen themselves. The latter is one variable we can't do much about but the number of casts and builders involved should help minimize that aspect. Any differences realized should be due to the guide system used. At least this would be closer to a true test, not subjective opinion nor personal impression.

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

Great! I would trust that sort of real world test. The mag readers would probably like it to. Maybe you can get some of the better known builders in the area to take part.