Eugene,
The affect that added weight, including guide weight, has on a rods resonant frequency and performance increases roughly exponentially as the weight is added closer and closer to the tip of the rod. An added guide near the butt of the rod will have very little affect but that same weight added near the tip can have a dramatic effect.
I have made a lot of measurements of the effect that different numbers of guides and their locations on the rod have on resonant frequency. In fact, a few years ago I wrote an article that was in RodMaker on this subject.
If you want to look into the math I would suggest that you look first at inertia because the inertia is what drives what we feel. I have looked at this and it gets a little complicated but we should probably take this off line because I doubt that anyone else is really interested in this.

Emory (and Eugene)
On the contrary (for me at least). The effects should be written down and documented and then understood. Emory, I still reference your earlier article. I failed physics the first time around but if you two could collaborate and then simplify I think those of us who are mathematically challenged would learn quite a bit and be better at what we do. Seemingly this is akin to the invention of the transistor. Invented here in the US but the power wasn't appreciated until the theoretical had a practical application when Japanese made transistor radios - or the mathematical formulas that were published in early RodCrafter's journals on how to lay out diamond wraps. The formulas were elegant - but not appreciated until "translated" into understandable terms and pracitcal tools were made available to relieve (again the mathematically challenged - like me) of paper tabulations - when calculators were largely unavailable.

I think in answering the man’s question we have gotten backwards on what is happening with his setup.

There has been enough testing and weighing of micro’s –verses- larger guides to say there is at least an 80% weight deduction in guides and guide trains when using them.

Now that may or may not add up to an 80% reduction over what would be lost in blank performance (resonant frequency) ECT. from the weight of a guide train.
But for the sake of understanding lets say it does, even if the percentages vary a tad.

So using the additional micro guides may have only afforded him a 70% increase in weigh reduction over the fewer more traditional larger guide train and sizes, and a 70% improvement in rod performance (resonant frequency)ECT. over other guide trains.

The point is that regardless of the exact percentages of improvement with an extra micro guide or 2 he is still ahead of where he would have been performance wise with this setup and larger guides.

The improvement in line control and fish fighting control by adding the extra guides is worth having ONLY a 70% increase in performance.

NOTE;
The percentages may be changed to protect the innocent, guilty, over educated, and ignorant.


Russell;
I’m not sure how common or uncommon this knowledge is on this, I first read about it some ten years ago from some articles Fuji had written on the subject in reference to their testing.
But it is fact, and I can promise you that you will lose fewer fish by increasing the line to blank efficiency.

Eugene;
Thank you also for more efficiently stating the info.

A 70% reduction in guide weight will not necessarily result in a 70% increase in rod performance on any front. In fact, depending on the actual amount that 70% represents, it may not result in a 1% increase in rod peformance anywhere.

It all depends on what you're starting with and how good your present set up is. I am always for a lighter rod provided it will still do the job as well and as long, but sooner or later you will reach a point of diminishing returns.

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

Tom
I totally agree which is why I included the note.

Then It is also true that if a70% reduction in weight may be as little as a 1% increase in rod performance.

Adding one or two little guides or about 7% to a setup could equate to as little as .01% decrease in performance as far as resonant frequencies, casting, and action are concerned.
A percentage so small that it would be virtually undetectable while improving other aspects of the same setup. (blank to line efficiency and increased hooking power).

I'm not sure what prompted us to move down that path. It was done long ago (1960's) back when guides were heavy and still worked. I'd imagine it was repair work. A guy comes in with a 6' rod that has four guides on it and two are broke. My dad tells him it will fish better with a different guide layout. And they definitely did, or so we felt. Back then the number of guides on a rod was sometimes viewed as a mark of overall quality. Again assuming one isn't actually using too few or too many guides.

We have historically used big spinning reels on short rods in my waters. Even today a 7' spinning rod is about as long as many will consider. Pair that up with a reel that holds 250 yards of 20# mono (most boats won't allow braid) and your choker is your tip, or close. Double foot guides with full underwraps are still the norm. Old habits die hard.

I'm trying to get on board with this micro guide thing. Latest build was an 8'6" steelhead blank and I have 10 guides, five of which are #6 blag's. Close but no cigar I'm told. If I go with #4 Minima's on the next one can I gain admittance to the micro guide club? I really want to fit in and the peer pressure is killing me:)

Problem is I have an attachment to bimini twists, albrights, and long shock leaders. I know I'm weird. Even my fishing buddies can't understand why I need 10 yards of 40# test on the end of my 15# line. And they never will until Mr. Mako happens their way:)

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

Tom,
I was going to leave this alone but I cannot let your comments about a 70 reduction in weight having a small affect on performance go without commenting. A 70% reduction may well have more than a 70% affect on performance depending upon where that weight reduction is located. It will of course also depend upon the type and weight ot the blank but If the weight were located at the tip of most rods it would likely have a dramatic affect on performance, much more than 70%.

Steve,
You are making some irrational assumptions, 70% weight reduction equaling a 1% reduction in performance? Where did you come up with that? And that meaning that a 7% reduction equalling will equaL 0.01% reduction is even worse?
If you will go back and read the article that I wrote that was based upon a bunch of actual measurements of different guide sizes and configurations and the affect that these changes in guide sizes and configurations had you will see that you are way out in left field somewhere.

Emory;
I got that from Tom's comment ( post) and was based on what he said.
I don't think either of us were trying to state some kind of doctrine but that said percentage differences could be that small based on the situations. Not that they had to be that small.
What I was saying is that (IF) 70% equated to 1% difference that it would be plausible that 7% would or could equate to .01% difference.


Just so you know I have always been out in left field, there is a lot of good company out there if you ever decide to visit.

What article are you referring to?

Guys, Tom said, "It all depends on what you're starting with and how good your present set up is. ". Any talk of weight saved and performance difference must start off with a baseline.

I promise I could find some old brass guides that are so heavy they would ruin anything you have. If a given rod results in 10% less fish...or 50% less fish....or 100% less how do you rate it's performance? For me there isn't much middle ground. If it costs 5 times as much and felt a little better and the guy bests me by one fish in a hundred I might say it isn't X% better. On the other hand if a rod is such a pig I can't feel a bite and everyone is hooked up that rod is a billion godzillion % worse.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

Steve,
No, if 70% reduction in weight resulted in a 1% change in performance then a 7% reduction in weight, at the same point on the blank, would not necessarily result in a 0.01% change in performance. That assumes a linear relationship that does not exist. In fact the relationship between weight and performance, resonant frequency or damping factor or sensitivity or whatever is very non-linear.

Emory.
I understand what you are saying; that those percentages it would not necessarily be the results.

I am sorry for not being clear.
I was putting out the info as a possibility that it could or would be plausible for those percentages work out that way, not as an empirical fact that had to.

Questions;
How much difference or percentage of differences in resonant frequency (normally associated with rod blanks) has to occur before it is humanly detectable by the hand?

Which article did you write that are you suggesting I read?

The rods I buid and sell are used by fishermen.

Nearly to the last person they will at some point use the word "sensitivity" - they are not referring to resonte frequency of the blank or the finished rod.

Many of these fishermen are highly skilled and know what they want a rod to "feel" like and how it must perform its required tasks.

The tasks are generally: Cast the desired lure, retrieve "work" the lure properly, detect the bite, set the hook, "fight" the fish without loss, put the fish to put the fish in the boat and be able to handle it for the desired duration of time.

The fishermen who understand the above will nomally select the rods that has the lowest total weight. The highest level of fishermen, Elites, do not even use balance in their evaluations.

Not one understands resonate frequency nor cares about the minute differeces in physical proberties of the rods blank. They fish with rods not blanks.

Build any rod lighter keeping in mind all other attrbutes and they will be considered as the better rod.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2010 12:10PM by Bill Stevens.

Here - Here

Bill - willierods.com

Bill,
I would agree that a fisherman can be very subjective with his or her evaluation of a rod and does not really need to have any understanding of the physics involved. But I think that the fisherman could make better rod choices with a little understanding of the physics.
However, it seems to me that for a custom rod builder to not have at least a little understanding of the rods physics and how what he or she does when constructing the rod affects the physics is inexcusable.

Statement 1.

"I would agree that a fisherman can be very subjective with his or her evaluation of a rod and does not really need to have any understanding of the physics involved"

Statement 2

"But I think that the fisherman could make better rod choices with a little understanding of the physics."

I am pleased to hear what YOU THINK proposed in statement 2.

Your two statements appear that you are trying to reason out how this should play out.

It may surprise you that some rodbuilders do have an underestanding of your position.

In most cases I agree.

It has never been a successful marketing tool for golf clubs and it will not be successful in the selection or selling of fishing rods.

Statement 2 will never happen in the real world.

Statement 1 drives the boat!

The only thing that anglers worry about when the apple falls from the tree, konks him is the size of the knot on his head. They will not take the time to perform calculations for the relationship of mass velocity, inertia, and momentum.

You assumption that rodbuilders are incapable of understanding physics concepts is what I consider inexcusable.

What I find ( inexcusable ) is that you think everyone here should know this

God bless you for being able to go to school and have the ability and the money to learn this.

Don't look down on me cause I don't know this ( stuff ) or care about it If I thought it would make a better rod

Which I do not. I put my paints on one leg at a time - just like you

Bill - willierods.com

There are always compromises.

Nobody will argue that "all things equal" having the rod as light as possible is best. Problem is things are never equal. Worse yet the way we use rods isn't equal.

For Emory, every last bit of casting performance and sensitivity may be worth the effort required. For me, those things may not matter at all but every last bit of fish fighting ability might be worth the effort required.

Typically we want a balanced approach. There has been much said here about the improvments in reducing guide train weight. I hadn't seen anything said about improving fish fighting ability by adding a guide or two despite it adding guide train weight. I felt it worth bringing up in case others didn't know so they could consider it if that was of primary importance to them.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

I don't believe Emory has suggested giving up anything other than being stubborn.
You can have a rod that casts better, is more sensitive and plays fish better
by becoming more knowlegable about the physics in the blank.
The changes he's suggesting are small enough that the fisherman won't even be aware.
It just feels and performs better than the one he was using last week and maybe better than the one you sold him last year. These are win win changes.
Are you so positive a better rod can't be built ???

Eugene Moore

Bill,
The big rod manufacturers are not idiots and they do understand the physics. Do you actually believe that without having at least a basic understanding of the effect that what you do when building a rod has on the rods performance that you can build a better rod then the big rod manufacturers.

Frankly, I do not really care what is or is not an effective marketing tool. I will leave the marking baloney up to you.

As far as golf clubs are concerned, if you will go to your local golf club repair shop and ask to see their device for measuring the resonant frequency of golf club shafts and golf clubs you will find that they have a device for measuring resonant frequency. Sets of good golf club shafts and the clubs are resonant frequency matched these days.