Tim you seem to have gotten upset because you could not answer my simple question, which is an answer in itself. You do not know why it makes sense. That's fine, I did not think it made any sense either. Tom, do you know if it makes any sense considering the differences in materials of even the same diameter? I would really like to know if its safe to use.

I doubt it's based on science, but it doesn't look like it would put any tip area in jeopardy for the reasons I've already given. I suspect it would easily be safe to use and could even be a good rule of thumb as a starting point for first guide placement.

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

I have no data or system but just put my first guide at 4.5" on all the freshwater graphite rods I build. Not once have I ever had a problem with rod breakage in the upmost tip area unless the customer pushed the rod tip into the water and against a stump to free a lure. In that case I don't think any other guide placement would have prevented breakage.

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My goal in developing the 27X system was to better
> what you see on rods at places like Cabelas.

Thanks Tom, but I have seen some rather pricey rods at Cabelas made by GLoomis, St Croix, Winston and Sage - I wasn't referring to the one's from Walmart or K-Mart.


Jim - what Gene's method is "based on" doesn't really matter to me - I like it, I have a quality factory rod that followed that same logic or method, and I'll most likely use it on my next project. I don't jump on everyone that doesn't think the same as I do - but I believe I should be allowed to do things based on what I like or seems to make good sense to me. I also build on the spine but that's another can of worms . . .

Tim,

I know - Cabelas sells nice tackle, their CEO is a friend of mine. I was talking about the upper end rods.


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

I think the original question has been answered and this thread has run its course.

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

Tim,

Keep in mind I do mostly freshwater casting and spinning rods. I place the first guide with the same criteria that I place every guide during a static test. I begin by putting on the tip top, and tying a weight to the tip, and run a line through a loose set of guides to from the reel to the tip top. I orient the rod so the guides will point up when the rod is flexed.

Next I flex the rod until the tip gets to about 90 degrees (Yes, I eyeball it instead of measuring it.). Now I place the first guide with the line either just touching the blank between the guide and tip, or a few mm off of the blank, depending on the size of the guides I'm using.

Repeat the above step until all guides are placed with the butt guide being somewhere between 20" and 27" give or take a bit.

After the guides are placed, I'll increase the load to about the max I plan to use while fishing. Make sure the midsection and butt section guides aren't horribly out of place. Then wrap and fish.

My first guide usually lands somewhere between 4" and 5", I think. I'm not at home to measure now. The spacing usually compresses a bit over the next couple guides where the blank does most of its flexing, then goes to a progressive spacing in the butt section. In the end, I often use more guides than necessary to support the blank. I have factory rods that haven't broken with L-2 guides, and often build mine, when using micros with L+2, and occasionally one or two more if the static test calls for it.

The logic for this method is to have the line follow the natural curvature of the blank as closely as possible (I would use infinite guides if they were weightless, but a balance must be struck.) while still keeping weight in the tip area under control. I do not rely on a formal equation, rule of thumb, or anything else. I just place the guides where my criteria tell me to put them. I haven't measured a guide location since my third build, and likely never will again, unless somebody asks for my spacing on a rod.

The benefits of this method are, I have more than enough guides to support the blank, I have enough guides to lessen stress on the tip section when the rod gets high sticked on occasion, particularly during a hook set when the rod loads in a short amount of time. It's often during these high impulse times, loading/unloading during a cast and hook set, that blanks fail in the tip section. At least that is my experience.

I know I can 'get by' with fewer guides than I use, but aesthetics, line control, and shock absorption matter to me.

Granted fly casting and fishing is a different animal than my casting and spinning rods. I just thought I would share my logic.

Joe

[Edit] One caveat, I do use the 27x method spacing for my choker. Then use the process outlined above for the running guides.

Also sorry Tom, I was writing at the same time you were.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2011 02:15PM by Joe Vanfossen.

The - upside down way of putting guides on is only a -- casting rod -- A spin rod will use less guides

Simplify it Start with the guides at one per foot - plus one Space them 4 " apart

The static test will tell you where they should be --- according to the flex of the blank - and test casting

Or just use a factory guide spacing and be done with it

It works !!!

Bill - willierods.com

The next person that takes a poke at somebody, is gone for good.

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

Maybe you deleted the "poke" as I didn't see it.

There are two big points brought up. One, that we dare to think we can beat the likes of Winston and Sage. I think it is a given that the majority of us are positive we can. Frankly it doesn't take much to do so and is insulting to suggest we can't (IMHO).

The next is rather or not any rule of thumb or chart can best static testing. Static testing leaves one needing to make a choice (or two). Like Joe, I often opt for an extra guide. It makes me feel more comfortable and I think the rods fish better. Not all would agree and that is why not all rods look the same.

I build for salt water and my average tip (barrel) size is around 7/64"'s. The rods are not heavy, often in the 15-30# class. To suggest my first guide should be seven inches from the tip is silly. I don't intend that as a poke, just a statement of fact. Worse yet, if my first guide to tip spacing is 4 inches my first guide to second guide spacing is typically less, as in 3.5 inches. It might look weird but I trust my testing procedure. There is a lot ot be said for that even if it proven wrong at a latter date. At least I had a reason for doing so and it was based on actual testing and fishing results and not what someone else said should be right.

As far as I'm concerned what you see in a store is built to catch fishermen, not to perform it's best while catching fish. Look how long it took micros and acid wraps to catch on. One of these days consumer preception will change. By then we will have found a better way (I hope) and still be ahead of the curve.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.