I was at Cabelas yesterday and really liked the Ross Worldwide Essence FW 1090-4 fly rod (I know, a 4pc). For $250 I could have very easily brought this rod except the first guide seemed awfully close to the tip, about 3" - 3 1/2" or so. I can't see this helping in fishfighting as the upper section should straighten out and point towards the fish.

I was wondering if the close placement is to protect the tip while casting the heavier 10wt fly line or is it some other reason? I have a Sage RPLXi 9wt and the first guide is 4 5/8" from the tip top - it's bit slower action but that Ross seemed unusually close to me. Thanks.

You'd not likely ever flex the extreme tip are very sharply on a cast. More likely, whatever chart or equation they use to arrive at their guide spacings just put it that close. Few commercial makers put as much thought into guide placement as you might think. Some even still use the old Fenwick charts.

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

Thanks Tom, I don't quite understand your first two sentences - are saying the first guide doesn't need to be that close, even for casting 10wt line?

I'm with Tom here. This guide was probably located using some chart.

I doubt if you will ever flex that rod that close to the tip using any weight line. JMHO C2

You wouldn't need it that close for casting any line. If it was put that close for a reason, it would almost certainly have to be to help out when landing a fish - that's when so many fly rods get "high sticked" and the tip can be pulled over into a very sharp bend. Even then, however, most high stick failures occur further back from the tip than those first few inches.

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

On fly rods, I put my first guide at 4-41/4 inches. So while 3 1/5 is close it isn't totally crazy. Maybe the tip section on the rod is really light.

Funny-at the lower end of the market, you will not save any money building your own rod. And, a TFO rod would work awesome and probably save you money. So it isn't about saving money, it's about fishing with a custom rod you made yourself, with all of the details done "right".

Drew

Tim,
When building rods that have very light tipped sections - I frequently put the first guide at 3 1/2 or even 3 inches from the tip.

When rods had thicker and less flexible tip sections, there is no need. but if it is a really light tipeed rod, you really do need the first guide that close to the tip to properly load the blank.

Take care
Roger

Many years ago I was given a peice of advice by the late Hugh Falkus, a well known sea trout and salmon expert from the UK. He advocated placing the first runner close to the tip, about 31/2 inches to help straighten out the kinks and coils in fly lines to control the lines better as they are cast. This was probably truer on some of the older lines, but I think less necesary for today's modern fly lines.

I will put it on at about 3 - 3 1/2 and then a static test Also on maybe 6 wt and lighter I will just put it at 3 trying to protect the tip section Then a static test i may move but not much

Bill - willierods.com

Your rods must all be tip heavy willie . . .

Tim,
I generally place the guide closest the tip based on the tip dia times 64.
On a rod with a 4/64 tip this would be 4 inches, 4.5/64 would be 4.5.
This takes into account rods with heavy or light tips.

Eugene Moore

No They are not I use on say a 4 wt single foot wire

Bill - willierods.com

Eugene Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tim,
> I generally place the guide closest the tip based
> on the tip dia times 64.
> On a rod with a 4/64 tip this would be 4 inches,
> 4.5/64 would be 4.5.
> This takes into account rods with heavy or light
> tips.
>
> Eugene Moore


Gene - now that just makes good sense. I wonder how many rodbuilders will start quoting that statement as their own.

I must have missed the sense part. Since different materials or different thicknesses of the walls will cause differences in power or action, why would it be correct to use the diameter as a reference for where to put the first guide? Surely not all rods with 4/64s" tips would call for the same first guide placement, would they?

Well it makes sense to me James - alot more than the 27x choker placement or the multiple blank flexing static test for guide spacing (it's just a me thing I suppose). Many years ago I posted a thread asking if you took a blank, passed it around to 20 different rodmakers for static testing, what would the variations be in the guide spacings for that same blank? The consensous was there would be considerable differences. Based on that, I take alot of advice sometimes with a grain of salt. But if something "makes sense" to me, like Gene's method, I'm going to keep it in my rod building check list. If people disagree, that's their right.

I really think there's too much attention given to protecting the tip. The only time I ever broke the very tip of a rod was when I stepped on the landing net and the rod was underneath it in the boat. Every rod that I have during fish fighting has the first 18" or so pointed straight at the fish - why do I need a guide 3" from the end? I built two different Sage 10' XP rods awhile back, a 7wt and an 8wt and decided to use the Sage factory spacings verbatum. The initial spacings were 6" -12 1/8"-18 1/4"- 24 3/8" which made me a bit nervous to begin with but I've landed several Steelhead with the 8wt and haven't broke the tip off yet. My feeling (or sense) is guide placement around the "bend point" or the upper 1/4 to 1/2 section of the rod is more critical, not the tip area.

The unique thing about building my own rods is I get to build them the way I feel makes the most sense to me - the only people I have to please is my wife first, then me.

But the 27X choker placement was based on an average of something like one hundred optimum tested sets ups wasn't it? So it's based on something other than just an arbitrary number or guess. I guess what I am asking is what is Gene's first guide placement based on in terms of actual testing or stress distribution tests.

Tim

St Croix's charts there heavy salt fly rods start at 4" from the tip -- 6"

Bill - willierods.com

I spend alot of time at Cabelas looking at rods and have never seen one with a "27X" label on them. I've never seen a factory spinning with guides that equal length + one more. I have one factory rod - a Gloomis 8 1/2' STR 1025S. It originaly had 7 guides, I rebuilt the handle section and converted the butt section into a 2 guide "concept" for a toal of 8 guides. The factory butt guide was originally 27 1/2" from the reel spool, it is now 21" which is in the "preferred" 17" - 21" range and I don't think it casts any better than before.

On this GLoomis my calipers indicate a .083" measurement about 1" below the tip - I would think the tip section was originally a 5/64" (.078") tip. The first guide is exactly 5" from the tip. Evidentally GLoomis likes Gene's method too. Maybe someone should start a class action lawsuit against all of the rod manufactures for not building their rods the correct way . . .

I did not say it was not correct, I asked what it was based on. That's all.

My goal in developing the 27X system was to better what you see on rods at places like Cabelas. 27X wasn't pulled out of a hat. The original article clearly explains where that factor came from and why it works well for so many different reels and lines.

G.Loomis was fond of the old Fenwick guide spacing chart. Many companies have used those generic spacings for decades. As I pointed out earlier, as long as you don't put the first guide so far back that you could force that area of the tip into more than a 90 degree bend, you shouldn't have a problem.

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