Does any one have test results or empirical evidence of good or bad results of having the line run below the blank and rub the side of the blank during use.
This may be due to guide size, guide height, guide placement or anything else.

Is there any concern to have the line run below the blank.

If there is not any concern about the line running below the blank, why not build a 7 foot rod with 3 guides? Any issues.

For example - on a 7 foot rod, why not put the first guide at 5 feet from the reel? What will happen if you do?

I am playing the part of a devils advocate, but I really do wonder if any one has actually tried such a configuration. Not just looked at the idea and thought it absurd.

I know that there will likely be an issue raised that you don't control the line with 3 guides. But, has anyone built a rod with a very few number of guides and actually used it for fishing? I am not talking about test casting or worrying about where the line goes during casts. But what happens with the fisherman out on the water. Does the very few number of guides on a rod affect the number of fish put in the boat? After all, I assume that the name of a game for a fishing rod is whether it will put fish in the boat or not.
It is not the issue of line control, casting distance, or accuracy. It is the issue of putting fish in the boat.

Thanks for you thoughts
Roger



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2011 04:16PM by roger wilson.

One thing, you would not be putting even pressure on the blank with too few of guides. I have always tried to have the line make the smallest of angles coming in and out of the guide.

They were built that way, with only 2 or 3 guides on them in the early 1900's. I would say that the improvements since then have made a difference in the catch/loss ratio (over 100 years or so). If you think about it though, those things that you listed like line control, casting distance and accuracy directly affect the issue of putting fish in the boat.

David Dosser
Coshocton, OH

David,
I completly agree with your statements.
But I still have to ask again. Has anyone tried building a rod recently with such a setup and what are the results?

I would think that one could put a tip on a rod, put on a couple of guides from the tip and go fish.
Then, put on a couple more guides and fish again. etc. etc.

I really believe that what we have now is likley the best, but I simply haven't tried it myself so I can't verify the results or lack of results with different numbers of guides.

Roger

Roger why don't you try it yourself then you'll have first hand knowledge about how a rod works with three guides on it. That way you won't have to rely on someone else's results. It should only take you a few minutes to build it.

Lance

Roger,
I think you’re going to the extreme by suggesting 3 guides, but “fewer” is sometimes worth considering.
If you measure the weight required to deflect the blank 90 degrees and the do the same test by unstringing every other guide you’ll see the different load capabilities in each case. There is of course some loss of load capacity because of the “bowstring effect”, but not as much as you might think.
It’s often been said that building a casting rod with guides on top as opposed to a spiral (or spinning rod), that additional guides are needed to keep the line off the blank. I’ve never been willing to give up the performance characteristics that I see resulting from fewer guides and I haven’t seen any detrimental effects of the line dropping below the blank when the rod was heavily loaded. As far as other aspects of line control….because most of my rods are relatively short, the higher line velocity attributed to longer rods are not experienced. It’s fair to note that “long” rods can exacerbate the problem of more guides (mass) out further from the fulcrum point. , I recently built a 7’ 1” medium powered bass rod utilizing only 8 (7 + wrapped-on SF for tip) guides and it performs very well (casts extremely well, no wind knots w/braid, very crisp and well balanced).

The guides perform two main functions, line control and stress distribution. The fewer guides that are used the higher the stresses on the blank will be. Older rods, where you probably saw very few guides used, were no doubt low modulus fiber glass. The lower the modulus of elasticity the higher the strain energy or the higher stresses that the blank will tolerate.
You might get by with a lot fewer guides with a fiber glass blank but I would not attempt it with even a standard modulus graphite blank that will only have 1/4 the strain energy of fiber glass. I sure as heck would not try it with intermediate or high modulus blanks that have even lower strain energy.
Strain energy is the amount of energy that the material will absorb before reaching the tensile or compression strength. It can be thought of as how brittle the blank is, the higher the moduilus the more brittle the blank will be and the better the stress distribution should be or in other words the more guides that should be used to distribute the stress.

By the way, it makes no difference whether the guides are on top of the blank or on the bottom of the blank in terms of stress distribution. I am not sure but I suspect that we have become accustomed to using fewer guides when the guides are on the bottom just because that is what was done on inexpensive rods in the past.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2011 09:50PM by Emory J. Harry.

I guess it all comes down to what is the optimum number of guides that is adequate to distribute stress and control the line. Although it would depend on the blank, I’ve found that for me, one guide per foot, plus tip is adequate. All my rods are high modulus (SC5’s, RX8+, NFC (HM) & IMX’s) and more than meet my expectations in heavy use applications for Bass fishing. Admittedly, if I was building rods for someone other than myself, I’d probably add another guide.
As far as the line contacting the blank, contrary to popular belief, I don’t see it as the “kiss of death” (Ha).

How few are too few? I don't know, but I know L-2 is likely not too few.

I fished a couple of Korean built 6'6" factory rods in the late '90s. They had, essentially, the same guide spacing as a 6' Korean built fiberglas rod from the late '70s early '80s, except the butt guide was moved a couple inches closer to the reel seat. Both the 6'6" and 6' rods had 5 guides. The 6'6" rods were built on a blank that compares very favorably standard modulus blanks I've built on recently. I thought of those rods recently and dug them out of storage to rebuild and experiment with some ideas I've been kicking around.

The bottom line is that 5 guides and a tip top on a SM 6'6" MF action blank is not few enough to cause a failure. Perhaps 3 or 4 guides would be few enough to cause failure, I don't know for certain.

Joe

Joe,
With respect to rods being stressed and breaking as a result of too few guides. Is it possible - of course.
Is it likely if a fisherman uses his head when fishing, not very likely .

The reason that I suggest that it is not too likely is that most rods very seldom get heavily stressed, if the user of the rod is a careful and caring fisherman.

Of course, if you start to high stick a rod, so that a part of the rod gets past 90 degrees, you are asking for a fracture, but otherwise. I suspect that it won't be to likely.

The other thing to consider - especially from Emory's point of view, is that the typical strength and power of a rod, at any given point on the rod is certainly more than the loads being imposed on it by the careful fisherman.

No question about it, if you use a rod to pull snags off of the bottom, if you use a rod for an anchor or a boat hook it will certainly break. I would also speculate that under most conditions, that even a point load on a rod that is excessive, would break the line before breaking the rod.

But in answer to one of the other questions - am I going to build a rod with 2 or 3 guides? No I am not. I have better things to do with my time that work on this test. I do think that it would be interesting to know the answer to the question , if a person had the time and perseverance to pursue it though.

Roger

Roger;
if you don't have time to work on this test, and you are the one looking for the answer. why should someone else to their time to answer your question?

Too many is better than too few in terms of stress distribution. But weight robs a rod of performance. Today's substantially lighter guides allow you to err on the side of caution. But we should remember - a blank is strongest when you simply tie a line to the tip and lift away. The problem arises when you add guides and use too few. That creates a situation where the blank can be forced into an unnatural flex.

In most cases where we're talking about freshwater type casting and spinning rods, using at least 1 guide per foot of rod length will be adequate for eliminating the possibility of "bowstring" effect, which is what we're really talking about when we speak of stress distribution. 1 guide per foot, +1 or even +2 isn't out of the question. Beyond that and you're likely robbing yourself of some bit of performance in order to gain something that wasn't necessary to begin with. Should you desire to use fewer than 1 guide per foot, you can likely get by with 1 or 2 less, but the spacing of those guides will become more critical.

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

In the time it took me to read this thread, I could have wrapped 2 guides and glued on a tip top...

George Forster
Fort Collins, CO

Jim S. -

I would appreciate it if you refreshed my mind on the details of your "favorite short bass rod", GLoomis IMX, I think, you showed me at the Duck while I was undeer the influrence of banjo music, boudin and Peach Shine.

I think it was an MB 844 you shortened by removing several inches from the tip top and installed a single foot guide on the tip.

What was the overall length of the rod - how much was removed from the tip - how many guides did you have in place.

I weill agree that you did not have to worry about the line dropping bleow the blank with that particular rod.

Bill,
I had several rods there at the time and can’t remember which ones for sure. I think I had a St Croix 5C66MHF shortened to 71” OAL (nothing off tip), a Rainshadow RX8+C742 shortened to 69.5” OAL (2.5” off tip) and an IMX C723 shortened to 70” OAL (nothing off tip). All had 7 guides (6 + wrapped on SF for tip).
I do have several Rainshadow XMB844’s (shortened to 70”) that I built last year (also 7 guides). And, FWIW, I also have a SC566MHF (70”) with all (8) 3.5 guides. Most of my rods are wrapped with a Fuji TLSG5.5 or 6 for butt guide and the rest 3.5’s (including tip).
All of the aforementioned rods do allow the line to drop below the blank when heavily loaded and no, I don’t worry about it.

Why not just spiral wrap it

Bill - willierods.com

Why?

A more stable rod You do not have to fight the rod AND the fish

Bill - willierods.com

Invariably when the subject of the Spiral Wrap comes up, most “in the know” rod builders are quick to extol the virtues of the concept. It reminds me of the “Emperors new clothes” (Ha). For some applications such as SW fishing it is indeed advantageous, but for most freshwater applications….not so much. Granted, there is a small amount of torque that can be easily demonstrated with a special ball bearing device, but to me it’s not even noticeable….especially considering the stabilizing effect of my grip on the reel handle. Perhaps for those that utilize taller guides (to keep line off the blank?) where there is an increased lever arm, it would be more discernable. As I’ve previously stated, for me, the line touching the blank is a non-issue, so either spiraling to the bottom of the blank or using more guides becomes unnecessary. For those that are psychologically inclined, then maybe the Spiral is the answer. There is that pesky vectoring around the blank to contend with, but as it’s been said a million times, “There's no significant difference in casting distance” (Ha).

I have seen no difference in distance maybe cause I let the line show me where the guides go to an extent, and try to keep the line as straight as possible

Plus the possible cause of blank breakage of the guides on top - twisting - the tip of light blanks ???

Bill - willierods.com