I got such good advice here before i want to get some more . I am building a st. croix 5C70MF casting rod . What do you all think of me using this set up fugi titanium # 8 #6, then finish it out with #4's will 8 # 4's be enough if i use the stress test method? double foot on #8 & #6 ??
I just went with a ring lock micro guide set from American tackle with the Nannolite rings on my jerkbait rod MHX SB812 .
but i want to get lighter with the st.croix , all components except the guides will be the same for both rods.

Larry,
Sounds good. Whether 8 #4s will be enough depends on the bend of the particular blank. You are speaking of 10 guides on a 7 foot rods, so I would think it would be about right.

Roger

Be careful when you are considering Titanium micro guides. When we tested them the Titanium TLSG 3.5 guides were actually heavier than the regular LSG3.5’s. This isn’t that big of a surprise, the frames of these guides are so small that a very small difference in metal thickness would make a lot of difference, Fuji is stuck with buying material in standard gage sizes and it is very unlikely that SS and Ti are available in the exact same sizes. On larger guides which have a lot more metal in the frames the weight advantage of Ti really pays off, just not necessarily on these small guides.

There is a weight pecking order between microguides, I have weighed about every microguide available. The K series are by far the heaviest, they are fairly tall, have the twin legs, and are pretty beefy. Next are the American Tackle ring locks, ALPS micros, and Kigan. They are all about the same and are a good compromise of weight and strength, they are among my favorites. The BLAG 4 Alconites and Batson 3’s are next on the scale. I really like the Alconites, but the necks are a little flimsy and I have had some break off. The undisputed light weight king is the Fuji LSG 3.5, they are much smaller and lighter than any other readily available guide. I asked at the show for a version of that frame with an Alconite ring, that would be about perfect, getting the smallest and lightest guides without having to pay the extra cost for the SIC rings.

Of course the system you are proposing will work fine, but the #8 double foot guide you are proposing will probably weigh more than all the micro guides on the rod and is totally unnecessary.

On mine I have an Alps 6 dbl foot followed by single 5,4,3 then finished with 2.5's.

Tom

mike good stuff! I would love to see your data. I have the issue here in fla of needing the titanium to against corosian. No comparisons with recoil micros?

mike good stuff! I would love to see your data. I have the issue here in fla of needing the titanium to against corosian. No comparisons with recoil micros?

The primary disadvantages of the 3.5 Fuji LSG - No Tunnel, No Foot, No Neck and Wedge Shape. The design will not allow the Forhan lock to properly secure the guides against pull out. Pull test data pull test very low - in some cases less than 5 pounds. This compares to more than 25 pounds for the K series. For long throw rods using braid the LSG is one of the most effective. This guide isnow used with a secondary adhesive bond.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2011 10:15AM by Bill Stevens.

When I prep the TLSG3.5’s, I remove enough material (shorten foot) to get weight below .04 grams. I do not use Forhan locking wraps because I like being able to make final alignment of guides. I haven’t pulled out a guide yet, so until I do, I won’t fix the “problem”. I don’t know if I should admit to using less guides that convention dictates…..I’m not bothered with line touching the blank.

I quit using Forhan wraps on 4mm and smaller. I do two blocking wraps and apply finish up to the ring. It's not coming out!

_________________________________________
"Angling is extremely time consuming.
That's sort of the whole point." - Thomas McGuane

Chuck please note brand and style of guide frames you do not use Forhan locks.

The guide problem I noted is not guides "coming" out but rather being "yanked" out by bassin bubbas.

Rolly Beenan made a post on this forum a long time ago that reported multiple pull outs of the micro -

It happens due to missuse - causes unnecessary warranty issues the guides pull out and the Forhan Locking wraps are not broken..

The size of the market and the number of rods in service by "bass" anglers would be of interest to a lot of people.

What size thread do you use for the wrap?

What finish are you using?

**

Jim what is the number of guides that "convention dictates" -.

The last ime we wre together one convention was 9 on a sever footer and another convention was 15 on a seven footer.

How many guides for what length are you using.

I have seen your rods and the "length" of the rods seems to defy convention.

mike harris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Be careful when you are considering Titanium micro
> guides. When we tested them the Titanium TLSG 3.5
> guides were actually heavier than the regular
> LSG3.5’s. This isn’t that big of a surprise,
> the frames of these guides are so small that a
> very small difference in metal thickness would
> make a lot of difference, Fuji is stuck with
> buying material in standard gage sizes and it is
> very unlikely that SS and Ti are available in the
> exact same sizes. On larger guides which have a
> lot more metal in the frames the weight advantage
> of Ti really pays off, just not necessarily on
> these small guides.


>
> There is a weight pecking order between
> microguides, I have weighed about every microguide
> available. The K series are by far the heaviest,
> they are fairly tall, have the twin legs, and are
> pretty beefy. Next are the American Tackle ring
> locks, ALPS micros, and Kigan. They are all about
> the same and are a good compromise of weight and
> strength, they are among my favorites. The BLAG 4
> Alconites and Batson 3’s are next on the scale.
> I really like the Alconites, but the necks are a
> little flimsy and I have had some break off. The
> undisputed light weight king is the Fuji LSG 3.5,
> they are much smaller and lighter than any other
> readily available guide. I asked at the show for
> a version of that frame with an Alconite ring,
> that would be about perfect, getting the smallest
> and lightest guides without having to pay the
> extra cost for the SIC rings.
>
> Of course the system you are proposing will work
> fine, but the #8 double foot guide you are
> proposing will probably weigh more than all the
> micro guides on the rod and is totally
> unnecessary.

Mike, where do Pac Bay Minnima4s fall on this list?

About the same as the AmTak ring locks, ALPS, and Kigan, slightly heavier than the BLAG4, and slightly lighter than the K series 4. Remember we are talking about slight differences between all of these, and lots of other factors are important in deciding which guide is best for your application. You see the big benefit when you replace old school guides with any of the lightweight alternatives, once you get down to the differences between each model they do exist but are much less noticeable.

Mike,
If you don't mind - please itimize the "big benefit" that you personally find with the use of the guides of which you speak?

Also, please itimize the - "downside" of using these guides of which you speak.

Thanks much
Roger

Bill,
The popular consensus of “convention” (rule-of-thumb) regarding number of guides seems to be one guide per foot, plus one, plus the tip top. Many consider this to be the minimum. Most of my casting rods are less than 6’ and I usually have a total of 7 guides (6 + wrapped-on single foot)….all on top. The line does fall below the blank when the rods are heavily loaded and I’ve never experienced any negative affects (broken rods, worn line, worn blank finish, friction). The so called “purse string effect” is no different than guides on bottom. Torque is almost non-existent with micros. There may be something to be said for line control, but by adding guides, you quickly reach a point of diminishing return….. especially considering the weight penalties (however slight) toward the rod tip.
On my spinning rods, I will usually add one more guide because they tend to be lighter powered with more flex.
Anyway, although it may be a “don’t try this at home” thing..…it works for me (Ha).

I thought I'd chime in regarding Mr. Mills' statement about Forhan wraps. When testing our new size 04 FX frames I wrapped samples with and without a Forhan using size A thread. The difference in pullout strength was always within a couple of pounds and was always in favor of the Forhan wrapped guides. On our guides the difference a Forhan made could be considered very minimal.
The greatest factor in increasing pull out strength was by far the anchoring created between the new guide foot and finish. Ensuring finish penetration of thread and any voids created by the wider foot (even wider than the rod tip in some cases) as well as creating a small area of blocking finish in front of the wider guide neck is key. Control tests were also performed on standard narrow footed guides to ensure the large increases in pull-out strength were a result of the new foot working in conjunction with the finish.

PS Full specs on the FX can be viewed via the link on the front page of our website.

-The Batson TEAM
BatsonEnterprises.com