Did a microwave guide challenge this afternoon at a tackle shop here in High Point NC. Well the response was " wow i never thought of that and how much the line make that much noise. Did the Challenge on a Bushido DS69/4-10 blank with microwaves against a G Loomis SJR 842 GL3 cone of flight guides. Thanks Ben Stein could have done it with out you.

Fishing Fever or Dave's?

I'd been trying to get Sammy to do this.

..........

Yay...I like to hear that.... Will have the challenge at the Michigan Rod Builders Round Up on April 6th.

______________________________________
Super Tight Lines......Don

Sammy you need to get in on this. I sold 8 Microwave guide rods at the Houston show this past weekend. Plus we sold over 15 sets of American Tackle MIcrowave sets and the Original Castaway Microwave guide now known as the Line Tamer guide. We did lots of demo casting ourselves and also a guide from the area picked up the rod and did some demo casting from his booth which resulted in extra sales of the guide sets.

Lance

Comparing the Microwave guide layout to a Cone of Flight layout is a poor comparison, IMO. Cone of Flight has been dated for a LONG time and isn't even close to an accepted "modern" layout. Try a fair comparison such as Fuji's New Guide Concept or one of the variations thereof.

went to fishing fever but there still trying to figure how it works out haha picked up jetty tuttle tackle down the road talk to micheal at fishing fever but they are to set on loomis

Most commercially made spinning rods still feature some sort of quasi-COF. Most just install whatever guides are available, in all the sizes offered. If a rod builder is going to do a demo and make a comparison with the intent of selling rods with the MW, why not compare to a COF rod?

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

Jim Gamble Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Comparing the Microwave guide layout to a Cone of
> Flight layout is a poor comparison, IMO. Cone of
> Flight has been dated for a LONG time and isn't
> even close to an accepted "modern" layout. Try a
> fair comparison such as Fuji's New Guide Concept
> or one of the variations thereof.


You are right Jim....BUT, there is still noticeable difference in noise and line control after the butt guide, just more noticeable and easier to detect with the COF system...try em' you'll like em'

______________________________________
Super Tight Lines......Don

also doing a challenge at badin after a tourny im sponsoring. should make for a great time

It's been fairly well documented here that a good NGC set-up casts as far, or as quietly etc. as a Microwave rod...
On the other hand, the Microwave system is simple!
It doesn't have to be fine-tuned for each and every size or model or brand of reel you, or more importantly, your client might happen to use.
Simplicity and adaptability are what counts for me.
Garry2rs

Don Morse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jim Gamble Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Comparing the Microwave guide layout to a Cone
> of
> > Flight layout is a poor comparison, IMO. Cone
> of
> > Flight has been dated for a LONG time and isn't
> > even close to an accepted "modern" layout. Try
> a
> > fair comparison such as Fuji's New Guide
> Concept
> > or one of the variations thereof.
>
>
> You are right Jim....BUT, there is still
> noticeable difference in noise and line control
> after the butt guide, just more noticeable and
> easier to detect with the COF system...try em'
> you'll like em'


I have been building with the original Microwave guides for a long time. I had to special order them from Swampland/Castaway to get them and was doing so before most knew what they were. I don't use the newer design since I don't like the paired running guides. I stocked up on the older guide set to keep them available in my preferred format. As far as the performance, I do like the original design AND it has definite benefits. Distance isn't one of them, which IS touted as a benefit by the manufacturer. I just think if you are going to do a test, be fair and offer a competitive situation. While COF is the design of some factory rods, you won't find it on many others ... St Croix is a good example of a company that moved to NGC long ago. If you do a search, you can find my analysis of the original Microwave system.

If your intent is to sell rods featuring the MW, why would you put it in a test where there is going to be less difference? Since most fishermen with spinning gear are using rods with COF type set ups, that's the best comparison to make. If you are trying to sell rods with the NGC system, put that up against the COF as well. What is the intent in this challenge anyway - to pit the MW against the NGC, or to show fishermen using the average commercially made rod what they're missing?

I don't think I've ever seen so many rod builders talk themselves out of making money. And we're not talking about misleading anyone - if your offering does exactly what you say it will do and your customer agrees to the price you set, then no one is being shortchanged nor cheated in any way.

In the meantime, at least a few savvy custom builders are making customers very happy and cashing in at the same time.

..........

Granted, I haven't done any extensive casting w/ the MW's yet. But, from what I have, it's good. I re-wrapped a CTS blank that I had some Fuji K series guides set up w/ the NGC and can I tell a difference. You may say that you can cast as far w/ a good NGC set up and that's probably true. But, guaranteed I can cast that same distance w/ less effort w/ the MW's. To me it's the real deal.
I guess I understand some folks being wary of jumping on a fad bandwagon. But, I put this right up there w/ micro's.

I've built several rods using microwaves and all cast nicely. The issue for me is their potential durability when used in salt or brackish water. Add to that the relatively "caustic" tap water in coastal NC and I'm skeptical that the thin metal of the butt guide will last as well as a good set of titaniums even if they are well rinsed and dried after each use. Hopefully American tackle will consider adding a titanium set in the future.

I got lucky at the Expo when Billy Vivona grabbed me first to have a go with both rods. The difference between the two is marked, for me, in distance and smoothness.
The testing that Tom did suggest that once a rod is maxed out then guide train changes won't increase that distance. He also states that distance is not the only relevant improvement they make, ie a bit lighter and easier to set up than other methods. He is correct distance isn't everything.
A lot of guys are calling for titanium frames, me for one, and possibly SiC rings, me again. If ATC do that then there is a real possibilty they will corner the market on spinning guide trains. You also have the age old problem of tips, the size five tip doesn't go up enough in tube size. I've got ten blanks I'm going to build with microwaves and they don't have a tip that fits any of them so it's back to the size 6 tips for them, but at least they will be titanium frames with SiC rings. The other problem I see is guys that want to use it but size fives are too small for their leaders so they have to go back to the 30/8 and build the rest themselves which will suit some as they are not keen on buying sets but may not lead to an optimum setup and possibly negative comments.
All the talk about the system has been mostly positive. It's up to ATC to address the other issues
I got a big laugh out of the youtube video with Ben Stein. His voice came out on my computer like he been gargling with hydrogen!! Good one Ben.

ESFNEM Col
Port Kembla, NSW
Australia

Jim, I agree with the comparison testing,which is why when I set the 2 rods up in September I pitted the MW's vs teh K's set up with the GPS system. THere is still a noticeable difference, just not as much when you use a COF set up. Since I've never built a spin rod COF, there is no reason for me to start now.

I agree with Tom seems as though builders are trying to talk themselves out of making money. I build most of my rods with MWGs and charge a premium for it. The way I see it is that these guides perform really well and I am happy to let my customers know that I am using the latest and greatest technology thats why they come to me.

I keep up with developments in the industry and they pay a premium for accessing that knowledge. If thats not the case we may aswell call ourselves rod assemblers and go brooke because we cant possibly compete with our asian friends when it comes to pure assembly. As a rod builder my biggest asset is my knowledge and my willingness to asses any new developments in any part of the craft.

Cheers

Mark Newcombe
Old Bar NSW
Australia
markscustomfishing.com
American Tackle Pro-Staff

FWIW most factory rods claiming to use the NGC don't really have it. They just take a handful of sizes of Fuji's New Concept Guides and stick them on the rod and label them as using the NGC system. Next time you see one take it off the rack and sight down the guides from the butt to the choke guide. There is no straight line path or bulls eye target image. The line has to jump all around from guide to guide to get to the choke guide. MOst I've seen are horrible and I have to wonder how they can cast well at all. If you do decide to compare the Micro Wave guide system to the NGC, I would use the NGC as it is being done on the factory rods, not the true NGC set up as custom builders know it.

I’ve been messing with UV waves lately and having great results. The MWG’s are on the block.

Guide downsizing has pretty much reached its limit, but planned obsolescence requires a new product every year. Next year will it be new guide size, height, ring material, or ring shape which will render all previous guides obsolescent? I'm betting on ring shape.