Steve Gardner made a comment below in the thread on casting distance with micro guides. It matched my personal experiences to a tee.

To sum it up….He suggested the gentleman add another guide or two, that the added weight shouldn’t detract from the performance of the rod, and the rod will perform better on the fish fighting end as well.

It is the better “fish fighting” part I’m interested in. I have never read, nor heard this comment before. I don’t know if this is just Steve’s (and my) personal feeling or a widely held belief by the majority of rod builders.

I ask because I have seen some so interested in weight savings, particularly near the tip end, they forgo a guide or two compared to what I would do. I’m not trying to suggest anyone is right or wrong just increase my knowledge. Assume we are not talking about having what anyone could call too few or too many guides. Just rather or not adding a guide or two over the bare minimum makes for a better fish fighting rod in your personal opinion and if that is considered common knowledge and/or proven fact.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

COmmon sense I think. More guides (to a point) will distribute the weight better. IMO, it also can change how the blank bends, and how the rod fights a fish. I know from prsonal experiance that rods that have more guides feel better to fight a fish with, I have no scientific proof, but I know what I think I feel.

One advantage modern rod builders have is that the available guides are getting so light that there is rarely more than a very slight weight penalty to pay for having an extra guide or two on the rod to better distribute the load and/or control the line. It wasn't always this way. Go back even just 10 years ago and adding an additional guide could make a very large difference in how a rod responded, balanced and performed. Go back 20 years and the problem was even worse.

Things are getting better, and easier, for custom rod builders every year.

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

I think that Tom is correct that todays lighter guides are much better than the guides of just a few years ago in terms of having lower mass. More guides will result in better stress distribution but more guides will result in higher mass that reduces the rods resonant frequency that results in slower response in casting, hook setting etc. and also reduces the rods sensitivity. More guides is basically a trade off between performance and durability.
It is not really important that more guides better distribute the weight as Billy suggest but more guides will better distribute stress.
As far as "fish fighting ability" is concerned I have no idea what that really means and I will be surprised if anyone can explain in clear, non-ambiguous terms.

Fish fighting ability - when you pull on the rod it doesn't feel awkward. Put 3 guides on a 10' surf blank and pull on it, then put 9 guides on th same rod, you'll understand right away.

Would this mean that the Static Test means a lot more

Bill - willierods.com

IT means that verything comes into play, but you have to be smart enough to know the fishign application and taking all things into consderation build the best rod you know how to.

True ! Start adding more guides - you go back to adding more weight So every thing in moderation

Bill - willierods.com

Emory;
I’m pretty sure you understand the principle or theory maybe just not how it applies to what I was saying, but just incase I will do my best to explain it as simply and quantifiably as possible.

Billy’s last post pretty close to understanding it.

Take a rod, (using a longer, lighter action-ed, moderate rod will create a more pronounced example making it easier to understand/see).
Take a line (no reel needed) double line and tape center point to handle same side as stripper guide.
Run line #1 through all the guides, out the tip.
Run line #2 through stripper guide a center guide and tip only
With rod lying on a table pull both lines out straight and attach an equal weight of about ¾oz. or more to each line at the exact same distance about 3 feet away from tip (crimp weights make this easy).
For easier identification, you can also put a small piece of tape or color with a marker on the weight attached to the line running through only the three guides

Then take the rod with lines and weights free hanging and flex deeply into the blank similar to how you would static test or fighting a fish
Taking note to how much distance there now is between the two weights.

For a more scientifically quantifiable test (if you have the equipment) you can set up the same exercise using one line and a spring loaded scale to see exactly how much more pound force is exerted at the end of the line between the two setups for the particular rod you are using.

What you will see (find) with either; is that using more guides more efficiently conforms the blank and line to each other better harnessing the blanks energy in hook setting and fighting the fish.
It is easy to see that line through more guides moves more line during the hook set, more effectively setting the hook and that same action comes into play while controlling/fighting the fish.

Now the stiffer the rod; the less pronounced this is and the less the benefits, but they are still there, also the larger, stronger the fish the greater the benefits

And using lighter guides such as Micro’s (my reason for playing with them to start with) minimizes any of those concerns about negatively affecting the rods performance.

Emory;
10- 2.5mm guides weigh in at 0.21 grams.
So if I’m using two extra guides or 2/10’s of 0.21 grams, plus a little thread and epoxy.
Do you really thing I am slowing down the casting, hook setting, or reducing the rods performance enough to negatively effect the rods performance?

Here is a link to a post from 2007 doing the exercise a slightly different way which also may make it easier to understand
[rodbuilding.org]

That additional weight does result in some loss of all the attributes you mention. However, in the big picture you'd be talking about such a trivial amount that the average human couldn't possibly note the difference.

The thing is, the perfect rod would have zero weight. But there is no such thing. Everything we do is a compromise of sort. Today's modern, lightweight guides make those compromises far easier to swallow.

...........

Thanks for that Steve. An easy graphical method is much better than me talking about angles across the guide rings and vectors.

It would appear this is neither common knowledge or proven fact. Like BIlly said, "I know what I think I feel". I can live with that and consider myself in very good company.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

Russell Brunt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Just rather or not adding a guide or two over the bare minimum
> makes for a better fish fighting rod in your
> personal opinion and if that is considered common
> knowledge and/or proven fact.

Your concern seems to be of the tip, I'll go the other end and you'll get the same answer. For fighting fish on longer blanks that bend deeply into the butt sections, an additional guide and it's weight are sometimes useful. The orientation of the guide to the reel when the rod is deeply loaded can get kinda funny, almost a wobble or uneven feel when reeling under some tension. An additional guide (closer to the reel) that is in proper orientation to the reel when rod is loaded is worth the weight it costs. Sometimes we reel under more tension that we think or want to and the butt guide (especially high frames) can drop very low relative the reel.

I see no problem in adding a guide to the tip if that's what required when it all pays off and you make contact. So much about sensitivity and it's semantics, casting distance, weight and it's all good. But, we have to also fight the fish and it is hard to mimic that in a dry room. Put that extra guide on, for if you're asking, the situation likely warrants it.

BTW, I've got a 5 tine pitchfork with a Scotty rod holder bolted to it and 9' 8wt blank built as a spinning rod sits in the rod holder. Stuck in the middle of a creek in 2' of current, there's plenty of vibe and wobble to the rig, even with that heavy farm tool's weight to steady itself. Yet, I can set my hand on the plastic rod holder anywhere without touching the rod itself and tell you what's a 2" Shiner, a decent Redhorse, a Hogsucker or Channel cat a good percentage of the time before I put the hook to them. Alconites, fat cork, and a weight shoved in the butt of the rod make the rod itself heavier than I care to measure. Make what you will of such silliness, but don't get obsessed over sensitivity and weight savings to the point of sacrificing structural integrity or good guide layout.

You will NOT miss bites on this one, but you may make a better fighting tool. Good luck and stay realistic.

When the line is in tension, as playing a fish, the line takes on a series of straight lines between guides as the rod is flexed. This means the line length is less than the blank length. The blank length doesn't change only it's shape.
With fewer guides the difference between blank length and line length is greater than with more guides. This is the bowstring effect. The difference between rod length and blank length can be viewed as a measure of mechanical loss of efficiency.
Fewer guides, more length difference, more lost motion, less efficient.
More guides, less length difference, less lost motion, more efficient.
More efficiency can be obtained by running the line thru the blank so the only difference in length would be line stretch. That poses a different set of problems

Eugene Moore

Eugene,
Thank you. Your explaination makes sense to me as does the term that you used "mechanical loss of efficiency". It would be easy to quantify as well by just measuring the difference between the length of the line and the rod length. However, I suspect that the reduction or the addition of a guide or two on most rods is not going to be detectable by the fisherman.

Emory,
Glad to have helped in explaining and quantifying the comment.
I respectfully disagree on the statement of detectable by the fisherman.
The addition or reduction of a guide or two in the proper locations can make a huge difference in that mechanical loss of efficiency. The location of guides versus the location of blank taper changes can make large variations even on rods with the same number of guides.
Removal of guides at the tip is easily detected by the angler.
The blank "feels" lighter due to the redistribution of weight and the movement of center of mass.
The blank feels "quicker" due to the decrease in polar moment of inertia and the responding increase in resonant frequency.
The blank casts further due to an increase in tip speed.
The blank requires less torque from the angler for the equivalent cast distance.
Hooksets are improved as is sensitivity.
The key is the distribution of mass along the length of the blank. The rod taper can be a success or a failure.
A properly executed guide train works with the blank taper. The key is the location of the taper transitions and their rate of change.

Eugene Moore

Eugene,
I understand and after thinking about it I think that I agree with your comments about mechanical efficiency. However, I am sorry but several of your above comments are in error. Adding guides, adding mass, will always reduce the resonant frequency not increase it and will also degrade all of those rod characteristics that resonant frequency affects. I have measured how adding guides affects resonant frequency many times.
If you define sensitivity as the input kinetic energy at the rod tip as compared to or divided by the movement, kinetic energy, at the fisherman's hand then the sensitivity of the rod is also reduced by adding guides, adding mass. I have also made this sensitivity measurement many times.

All that matters and that anyone cares abotu in teh real world is what they can actually feel. YOu cannot feel the difference adding an "extra" micro sized guide, you're not goign to cast further, you aren't going to feel more or less. IN a lab you can prove there is a difference, I'll give you that.

Billy,
You may not be able to feel the difference on the type of rods that you build but if you shake most lighter weight, higher performance rods and then add a couple of guides even micro guides toward the tip of the rod and then shake it again you should be able to feel the difference.
You might want to think about it like this: on many high performance rods like Steelhead drift rods or even some Bass rods the difference that the couple of extra micro guides make will be about the same weight difference as there will be between blanks of intermediate modulus and high modulus graphite.

Gentlemen ....
A little perspective is perhaps warranted? The ORIGINAL post was about a 7' (LP842) bass rod and adding size 3 micro guides* in the tip area. This is NOT a noodle rod, NOT a steelhead rod, NOT a fly rod. Certainly adding / removing guides (and finish) has an effect and deserves to be (should be) understood. In the original post the man was test casting and providing results all along the way. I think Steve's response above is correct (in perspective of the original question as well) - that is : Keep the line close to the blank and you will fight the fish better --- Remember BASS SPINNING rod.

Emory.
I understand that adding guides to a blank creates a measurable drop in resonant frequency. Have you experienced if the measured drop has a direct correlation to the guide mass and distance from the center of mass of the blank ? Certainly guides added prior to the center of mass have a much smaller effect than guides added after ?
Is it possible to treat blank mass center as a neutral axis and analyze the effects of adding mass prior to or after and recieving a direct correlation ? Possibly logarihmic ?
If the guide train can be positioned using it's mass and location relative to the blank center mass the results may be obtained mathematically and verified thru resonant frequency testing.
Maybe this has already been attempted and found to be in error or maybe it's another door that hasn't been opened ?

Eugene Moore