Hello everyone! It's nice to join the community. I can never just watch something, i always end up wanting to do it- which is why i took up rod building. I'm a kayaker but avid trophy bass hunter so the first rod i built was to be a good quality rod with a shorter grip. I needed it because a giant long handle gets in the way and constantly bumps into everything while trying to work a lure in the sitting position and I'd hate to stand in my kayak everytime i want to use it- it's hard to find something like that on the shelves of an outdoor store. I'd like to say i did fine for my first try, but for my next build I wanted to make it solely on the basis of being the best frog rod you could design. This rod will be a more traditional style for the most part: no short, pistol grip. I'd like to use it for more than just on the kayak. My questions about this build are as follows:

1) Blank: I've narrowed it down to either Mag Taper MHX High Mod or Castaway 874; opinions? My first rod was built on the MHX Shooter, and I'm fond of the company, but perhaps the focus on senesitivy and lightweight in the graphite blank is a bit much to be paying for as I don't really care about that in a frog rod; i'm also not afraid to build a rod on the heavier side as i know that can be overcome by balancing it properly (i'd even prefer a hefty bulky rod for this idea)

2) Underwrap idea: this is more of a novel concept and I just wanted feedback about it. I know through research that the actual functionality/purpose of underwraps are definitely not necessary for any rod that's not taking on tuna and the like, and that underwraps can even add weight and reduce the sensitivy of the rod as well as slow down the whip of the tip... SO, as a compromise, consider this: since senstivity and weight reduction aren't all that imporant in this rod, and I'd prefer a beefier, stronger, heavier rod, what if we went with underwraps on the lower guides in the backbone- which barely flexes in a heavy bass rod anyway- to add extra bulk and strength, but not underwrap the guides on the tip section? My hypothesis is that this would give me the added strength and bulk I want in the backbone (this could also perhaps work to balance the rod more), yet not compromise the action of the tip. Feedback on this idea would be much appreciated.

Thank you all for any help. I've learned so much by just browsing the site so it's nice to be able to voice my idea and get some direct feedback.

While underwraps look cool, for the rod you are talking about, definitely not needed and won't add any strength to the blank in any way. Underwraps do add a cushion for guides used on big saltwater rods that see a lot of heavy loads, but not the same environment you are talking about. It's really not necessary, unless you like the look of course.

Since you are kayak fishing (even only part time) and you don't mind a little heavier rod, you might consider a lower modulus material for a little better durability. If you say that sensitivity isn't a big factor, a blank with higher strain material might save you some money. If you like MHX, check out the Blend line for lower modulus blanks.

Terry

Thanks a bunch for the info on the blank. I'll have to look into the Blend series; I'd seen it before but never researched it much. As for the underwraps, I think I agree with you for the most part. It was just a curious idea I had, I'd never do it (at least, for now). The reason I ask is there's so much conflicting information about it. Some say its just cosmetic, others say it does influence action and perfomance. But your info on the blanks is very valuable.

Many thanks,
Cam

A Frog Rod? Do you use it for catching frogs or for casting frogs or frog baits? Don't have that many frogs here in WA State that would be worth building a special rod for. Just curious. :>)

A rod designed for flinging frog lures and topwater baits into heavy vegetation. its better for it to be pretty stiff and heavy to handle not only (hopefully) a big bass but as well as quit a few pounds of salad with the fish. Topwater is pretty much my go-to style; its so addicting. Off a kayak, I can get into some very secluded areas that boaters have never seen and its prime for using a frog in the summer. As for frogs in WA state, i know the Pacific Tree/Chorus frog (P. regilla) lives there and is kinda secluded to the northwest, as well as others including the bull frog (R. catesbeiana) and even the Northern leopard frog (R. pipiens) is a pretty common one... sorry, I'm a zoologist in grad school. Animals are kinda my thing.

Cam,
The underwraps are cosmetically pleasing and add some degree of class to a custom build.
By locating them in the butt third of the rod they will have almost no affect to the action, weight or balence.
Good idea.

Gene

Cameron,

You can't go wrong with the Castaway 874! I've got one and simply love it. I build it with a 6,5,4 and then 3's to the tip. I can darn near spool the reel (Curado E) with ease. I typically throw hollow bodied frogs on it and have caught some very nice fish with it. If you give the guys at Swampland a call they can help you out.

P.S. Welcome to the addiction.

Tom

As others have said already, avoid the high mod for this build. High mod rods are great for lightweight/high sensitivity builds like drop-shotting but for the top water frog rod you are talking about not necessary and are also more fragile. The blend would be good or even the standard MHX Mag taper blanks, they are very durable and still have good sensitivity, although topwater baits tend to get slammed. Not sure what length you are looking for but you might check out the MB874. As for underwraps, unless you want it for the look they are not necessary on a build like this save a little weight and go with out them. Added weight dampens the frequency transmitted through the rod and reduces the perceived sensitivity.

Just my thoughts and experience, everyone has different opinions about what is best though. Welcome to rodbuilding and to the site.

Kristopher Byers
Villain Custom Rods
www.villaincustomrods.com

Tom,
thanks for the input on the Castaway, but for now I think I'll stick with the MHX for this build. As for the guides, are those considered a bit smaller than normal? I was thinking of like 2x12, 2x10, then maybe like 8-6 the rest of the way to the tip. Your input is much appreciated.

Kristopher,
Your opinion is greatly appreciated! As i mentioned before, the only reason I asked is I've seen so much different input on this subject, even form this site. Some say its only cosmetic, others say it does affect the weight and sensitivity. In my original post I made sure to say that sensitivity isn't much of an issue as this rod will be mostly designated for slinging frogs and topwaters- not much need for it- and the weight is no concern either. I probably won't underwrap it, I just wanted some feedback on the Lower Third Hypothesis i had. I'm glad you guys are discussing this, but i think the best way to really figure out if there is a difference is to build two rods exactly the same in every way except one exhibits the Lower Third underwraps and the other doesnt, fish em both and record the findings. The only reason the idea came to mind is because, as i said, I'm trying to design the perfect frog rod and I considered every little detail and how it might affect the build, including the wraps. Thank you very much for the input on the blank selection- I'm definitely going with the MHX Mag Taper (7'3" hvy fast), that was my first choice before I did a little more searching and thought about it more.

One thing, any input on the guide size? I've researched microguides but I just don't think I care to use them unless anyone has something to say about it.

Thanks to all for kind words and advise,
Cam



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2013 08:06PM by Cameron Cholewa.

Cam,

You, sir, have a problem. Discovering rod building during grad school is a bad thing. You will spend lots of time considering future rod builds.

If you aren't passing knots, the micros are the way to go (even then they still work with the appropriate knots and line combinations). They will save you at least a 1/4oz. of weight, likely more on a frog rod. It doesn't sound like much, but the difference is significant because it is removed from the top half of the rod. Think about the difference of taping a 1/4oz. weight about 2/3 of the distance between the butt and tip. Buy a set of micros and a set of traditional guides, tape them up and compare, and let the guides speak for themselves. I've not used a running guide over 5mm since I started building in 08. If you do go with micros, a 6mm tip top may be in order if you are fishing with heavy mono (especially if you spiral wrap). The heavy mono (14lb.+) can pinch in the smaller tip tops as it makes the turn after it leaves the tip.

By the way, your last hypothesis is off a bit. The guides are all in front of your hand, so the extra weight added from the underwraps work against you in regards to balance (better than putting them on the tip, but still not helping). They also do not add strength in the sense of lifting power, but they do add a little bit of hoop strength in the case the rod would split for some reason under the wrap, as once the split makes it past the wrap, it's all over. On that type of a build, they will be purely for cosmetics. You want to keep materials in front of the reel seat to the absolute minimum, as everything added to the rod takes away from its efficiency. The added weight becomes much more important as it approaches the tip. The added weight decreases the rods resonant frequency, and causes it to respond slower and take more cycles to stop oscillating once the tip is deflected, all in turn affecting the (feel the bite) sensitivity. Granted this type of sensitivity isn't critical to a frog rod, but a lighter more efficient rod makes for a more efficient angler, as you will experience less fatigue through the day.

A few comments when it comes time to balance the rod. Make sure you add the weight to the extreme butt of the rod. Shoving weight inside the blank just moves the weight closer to the fulcrum, making it much less effective. Weight that can be hidden under the last inch or so under the butt cap, and possibly under the last bit of butt grip will be much more effective.

Joe

Joe,
Well, I got through undergrad well enough while feeding my kayaking, fishing, hiking, general outdoorsing addiction, but thanks for the concern! About the underwraps, as i said a couple times before, i probably won't do it (at least, now), but maybe in the future when I'm more set up I'll test the idea and make 2 identical rods, one with and one without and see if theres a discernible effect.
As for the micro-guides, thanks for your input. I almost exclusively use ~30lb braid, so inner diameter isn't a problem, and I rarely use leaders either; just tie straight to the lure. I just prefer it that way. The more I think about it, the more i rationalize on just going for the micros. I've used traditional my whole life, I might as well be open to it. Any suggestion on the number of guides total I should use?

Thank you for the info,
Cam

Cam,

Just giving you a hard time. I've been a physics student far too long now.

Let your static test dictate the number of guides. That type of rod will likely be somewhere between 9 and 12 guides plus a tip top. It'll depend on your guide selection and the relationship between the line and the blank between each pair. There are a series of threads from shortly after Steve Gardner spilled the beans about micros, and they started becoming popular among custom builders. A search over all dates for Micro Maniacs or M&Ms should turn them up. Those who build all micros all on top tend to start with their butt guide further from the reel (26"-30") than traditional guide trains. The rods I've done all on top are in the 25"-27" range. Those starting with a double foot 6, bring the butt guide back closer to a more traditional location. I usually land in the 22"-24" area with a double foot 6.

One thing you may find with the braid, particularly with a 3mm or 4mm butt guide is that if it is too close to the reel, the change in angle will give you a bit more braid noise than normal from that butt guide. If the noise bothers you at all, make sure to test it out a bit before wrapping and finishing.

Joe

Underwraps, and the extra finish to cover the additional thread bulk, adds significant unnecessary weight to the rod; so do the large guides you initially propose. A more responsive, more sensitive, better balanced, less tiring, and more enjoyable rod to fish will use the lightest guide frame and smallest rings that will pass your line and any rigging like knots or splices.

If you check with the Bass Guys at Swampland to the left, they'll pretty much confirm everything that's been posted above. The rod you describe building sounds like how rods were built in the '70s. You can certainly do better today.

Cam,
For your question on micros a good philosophy, and it has been said before on this site and elsewhere, why use a bigger guide than necessary. I really like the fuji k-frame guides, if I were building it I would probably go with a BKWAG8 then BKTAG6, 5, and 4's out to the tip. I've used this set-up on Salmon, walleye and bass rods up here on the Columbia river and the guides hold up really well so they will have no problem on your frog rod.

I really like that statement Kristopher... it makes a lot of sense.

I think I probably will go for micros, might as well give it a try; not like I can't always remove them and do something else. i started out in this craft repairing, refurbishing, and re-wrapping guides on old rods anyway. Everyone's input is very valuable. My first post and I've already gathered much concise information, better than any of my prior research has given. as for the underwraps: it was just an idea. I will not be doing it (yet), but in the future when I have more time, funds, and just the set up to fiddle around with it, I'll probably make a rod as close to the same specifications as I can with the only difference being the partial underwrap, just for the experimentation to see if there really is any discernible effect. Even here on this newest post we have some conflict of opinion (as I said before): some say underwraps will affect the rod, others say it won't. Only way to settle it is with real scientific rigor and test this in practicality.

Until then, many thanks for kind words and advise,

Cam

Joe is right on all accounts. Underwraps and any added weight do have an effect. That is not open to debate. The bigger question might be rather you, or only an oscope, can tell the difference. I think the best cheap and easy way to test your theroy is to rebuild an old rod that you are very familar with. Try to pick one that has underwraps and double foot guides. Redo it with smaller single foot guides without underwraps. I'd wager good money that you won't be left with any doubt as to "effect". However the change might not be in the way you anticapate (for example you may find yourself overreacting and ripping the lure out of the fishes mouth). Understanding what "resonant hertz" brings to the table isn't so clear cut.

I bring this up because you mention a frog lure and a top water lure as both possibilities. I'm going to suggest that you want a rod with different "speed" (hertz) for a treble hook bait than you do for a single hook bait.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

You will want the lightest rod you can build
the more thread the more finish the more weight Not needed
graphite will be your lightest to use make a list of posible blanks and then come back with questions on them to narrow it down

Bill - willierods.com