So here are some thoughts that have come to me when building maximum distance spinning carp rods and dealing with heavier weights, from 3-6oz...

I am using NGC system, and trying to run the smallest running guides possible, which for my setup I went with 8's (6-20 powerpro, 16lb shock leader). When I lightly test-casted this setup before it really got cold here I was getting about 70yds w/ guides taped on running a 1oz bell sinker.

Using a 60mm (6000) spool shimano, went with 30-20-10-8's out, 10's to 8's (all K series Fuji sics) are single foot, the other two are doubles. Every carp rod I have ever seen basically uses the cone of flight theory, no matter how long the rod (usually 11-13') 6 guides are used, so I am bucking the trend quite a bit by using 10 guides counting tip on a 12'. Nearly all carp rods I have seen (which are dozens) start w/ 50mm or the rare 40mm and work down to 16mm tips. Much like surf rods, most all use double foot guides all the way out.

So here is the crux of why I am posting. Like I stated, on my build I have run more guides, but they are single foot guides. When really laying into the rod (which I haven't done yet as its single digits here in WI and I don't want to really crank on the rod in those temps), as the rod fully loads and I make the turn to bring the rod forward and the full inertia and weight are on the blank and the guides, am I losing any energy by using single foot guides that MIGHT be flexing more than double foot guides? And by having nearly double the amount of guides on a typical rod, am I overcoming any of this loss of energy to the guides flexing by spreading out the energy more on other guides? Or is all the energy of the cast being transmitted to the blank just fine?

Any thoughts?

Most of the manufactured rods I have with tons of guides are not my best casting rods. They typically shoot straight and have very little ark.

Doc Ski talks about the stripper guide being related to cast distance. I would try an oversized stripper guide to match the amount of guides you are using and see if that helps.


I'm a newbie so please take my advice for what it's worth.

Energy is used to stop and start the rod. The heavier the rod, particularly in the upper half, the more of your imparted energy will be spent starting and stopping the rod. How many guides you use isn't as important as how much weight you add. Single foot or double foot makes no difference - to gain efficiency (increase reaction and recovery speed) reduce weight.

Most NGC systems end up weighing less than most COF systems, even though the NGC requires more guides. This is because the guides used are generally smaller and lighter.

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

Hi Tim,
Just my thoughts, your guides are smaller so lighter. Single foot lighter. Smaller ring, and more of them the line is under better control and loads rod more evenly. SiC and Braided line great combo. This rod, reel, guide combo sounds like some of my surf rods.

Dave von Doehren
PRRODS......If man built it , man can fix it.and if man built it man can break it !

Tim,
Is this a spinning rod, or a bait casting rod?
Are the guides on the top of the rod, the boattom of the rod or spiral wrapped?

Roger

Tim,
You're going to get a bunch of answers, but I doubt anyone really has an idea. Very technical discussions like this don't get technical answers which is too bad.

You're right to be concerned with guide flex if your looking to maximize casting distance. An easy way to test this would be to use some single footed REC Recoil guides and compare the results to the same rod with double footed guides. The Recoils are very flexible and if any guides would cost you distance, they would. You might also check and see what the tournament casting rods have for guides.

Regards,
TC

The flex of the guides isn't going to make any difference - guides don't stiffen rod blanks, they soften them due to the additional weight.

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

thanks for the replies so far, it is a spinning set-up.

Here's some extra info--Blank weighed in before build at 5.59oz and after build went 8.59oz.

Tom-- where I was thinking there might be energy loss to the guides is just at the point where I am making the "turn" from having the rod fully loaded to "propelling" the bait forward. I would think at that point the strain on the guides would be at maximum, and the possible energy loss would take place...

I went with the Fuji "K's for running guides here, even though I think there is no reason for the supposed anti-tangle properties on running guides, at least I was thinkin they are single-footers with double braces to help strengthen the set-up. Could have used a similar bridge guide here, but I liked the K's frames and the way they encapsulated the ring better than the bridges. Whole set-up I tried to keep as light as possible on the tip without compromising strength..

Thomas--RECoils is what really got me thinking about energy loss on the cast--I would be willing to bet that on a real hard "crankin" on a rod with recoils goin for a max cast, a lot of energy is lost to the guides flexing (depending again on the model of the RECoil). In the same respect, I believe you are also right in stating that the only real way I will know if anything is getting "lost" would be to tie a blank up with a flexible guide like a recoil vs. a rigid guide like a double-footer. Curious on opinions. I just don't see any surf rods or carp rods with the NGC on them in my travels. Not that they don't exist, I just don't see them.

Thomas Cayman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tim,
> You're going to get a bunch of answers, but I
> doubt anyone really has an idea. Very technical
> discussions like this don't get technical answers
> which is too bad.
>
Tim actually got a very technical answer but you may not have recognized it because it was simple and to the point. Lots of mumbo jumbo doesn't make for better information.

Any builder that has been around very long knows that heavy, stiff guides reduce casting distance and overall rod performance. You can take a bunch of heavy stiff guides and wrap them along a rod blank and suddenly the blank will act and feel like a noodle. A lightweight flexible guide is BETTER as long as it will be durable enough for the type use the rod is going to be used for.

Assuming the guides sizes are the same, and your lure and input properly load the rod, whichever set of guides is heavier will result in reduced distance versus the lighter set. The heavier rod requires more energy to stop and start , than the lighter one. So less of your imparted energy will go into casting the lure.

Guide "flex" is immaterial and will not make any practical difference.

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

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The flex of the guides isn't going to make any
> difference - guides don't stiffen rod blanks, they
> soften them due to the additional weight.
>
> .............

Anything empirical to back this up? A flexing guide is absorbing energy by definition. I'm not making any claims about the impact or even that guides flex, but when something flexes or deflects, it is absorbing energy. How and if that impacts a cast is the question that's yet to be answered with anything empirical.

This is a very technical question that involves a page worth of physics equations to give an accurate answer. I'd be curious what forces act on the guide train while casting a 6 oz weight at the end of three feet of line hanging from an 8' rod. How does rolling your wrist and changing the guides's position impact these forces? A very complex question indeed.

TC

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Guide "flex" is immaterial and will not make any
> practical difference.
>
> ...............

just to use an exaggerated example, and not to pick on RECoils because I like them for what I use them for (not distance casting).....Lets assume I was to put recoil RSGP's, the high frame recoils on this rod, they are lighter than the "k's, this means that they could possibly cast farther? My envisioning of making a cast with the RSPG's mental picture as I make the "turn" to propel the bait forward has these guides pinned to the blank flat, where the "k"s would keep their form, and not flatten out nearly as much as the recoils. The recoils laying flat on to the blank wouldn't affect the distance at all, it would just be the physical weight or lack of weight that would affect the distance of the cast?

I know this is an exaggerated example, again cause I would use high-framed recoils for distance casting...

As long as the guides remain in the elastic realm and don't take an abnormally long time to damp any oscillations, they will have a minimal effect on casting distance. The overall efficiency of the rod is far more important than the efficiency at each guide. The bottom line is that in order to optimize a property of a multicomponent system, does not necessarily optimize that same property at each component.

The bottom line is that the blank is what takes the most energy out of the system. It is as efficient as it gets before you add anything to it. Every little thing that you add to the blank decreases its efficiency, with approximately exponential increase penalties as you approach the tip. This IS THE REASON that you will often hear, "Use the smallest, lightest guides that will perform the task."

By putting heavy guides on the tip section, you increase the rods inertia, decrease the rods resonant frequency, and increase the damping time of the blank. The quicker that a rod dampens, the more efficient it is.

"The physics is easy, the rest is a bunch of lousy math." - Ed Meyer

Joe

Tim,

The line isn't moving until you release the cast. And at the moment of release, there is no pressure on the guides. They're not flexed and won't be laying flat on the rod.


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

Good point. And it did not take a page's worth of physics equations either.

Maybe reverse engineering this problem will lend clues.

1. What makes a rod cast better than others?
2. Why do the rods I have with 10+ guides not cast as well as my rods with fewer guides spread out over the same rod distance (comparing 7' with tons of guides to a 7' with standard amount).
3. I've noticed my manufactured rods that have tons of guides on them use a small stripper guide. Could making this bigger help?


As a newbie these are questions I stumble with and after reading all the responses I'm still not putting all the dots together.


Edit - just saw Joes response. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2011 07:48PM by Adam Curtis.

Adam,

First of all, you have to make sure you're comparing apples to apples. Comparing guides sets on two different rods isn't going to tell you much. Any difference could be due to the differences in the rod blanks. Now if you take the same rod, and try using different guide sets on the same blank, you'll have eliminated one important variable - the blank.

The butt or stripping guide does make a difference. Particularly on spinning rods. There's a ton of information here and in the magazine which covers why guide type and size has much to do with the particular type line you're using. Generally, a smaller ring, higher frame guide will be better for spinning rods than larger ring, lower frame guides.

You'll also find that there is a point of diminishing returns. The difference between a really good COF system and a really good NGC is only going to be about 3% or so. Whether you consider that a marked increase is something only you can decide. But reducing guide weight on the upper half of the rod has other benefits - better rod balance, quicker response and recovery and easier handling and transport.

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

When you load the rod with your casting motion and the single foot guides flex this guide flexing takes energy. Most of the energy that resulted in the guides flexing will be returned when the guide straightens back to its original position. However, the energy returned will not be on the plane needed to add distance to your cast. In fact it will be close to 90 degrees from that plane.
There is also the question of when the energy is returned. The rod and each guide will all have different time constants so what energy is returned will not only be 90 degrees out it will also not be returned synchronized with the unflexing of the rod.
Having said all of that I do not think that the amount of energy lost due to the flexing of the guides can be very large. And as was said above it would take some very sophisticated measurements and heavy duty calculations to determine the amount of energy lost.

Richard Kuhne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good point. And it did not take a page's worth of
> physics equations either.

And still not anything more than a guess to the question at hand, how does guide flexibility impact casting distance?

It's obvious there isn't an answer to this question outside of the WAGs posted. To truly answer Tim's question without doing the math, we need a few basic things to test the impact 1) identical rods 2) identical guides with the exception of a significant difference in frame flexibility and 3) the ability to apply the exact same force in the exact same manner for repeatable cast. Outside of doing the math or setting up the testing scenario, everything else is just another guess and offers us no insight to the question at hand.

HEY ALL YOU GUYS
Are you all CNC machines, Will you swing the rod in the same arc every time....??? NO
Will your release angle be the same every time ???? NO
Will your index finger release the line exactly every time ???? NO
Will you have the exact amount of line out from the tip every time ??? NO
TIM Build your rod, forget most of what everyone posted !!!!!
Have fun, don't over think it !!!

Dave von Doehren
PRRODS......If man built it , man can fix it.and if man built it man can break it !