Most everthing I read says the line of sight from the reel spool to the choke should be perfectly straight. Why is this? It seems to me that creates a sharper angle at the choke point. The line flows smooth and straight to the choke then make a sharp trun to the running guides. Lets say the transition guides were set up so line of sight was not a concern. If the line flows smooth transitioning a little at the time between each guide line flow would seamingly be smoother.

Take plumbing for instance. A pipe with a sharpe 90 degree turn will have more resistance and back pressure than an elongated bend that makes the same 90 degree turn. I realize we are talking a few degrees and not 90 degrees but the principal should be the same. If the angle of line turn was distributited over sever guides in the reduction train instead of just the choke point, wouldn't it stand to reason that there would be less "back pressure" on the line? It would also seem that the rod would static load better as the choke point and reduction guides seem to have more pressure on them when the rod is loaded.

What do you guys think?

BTW. How do you get spell check to work? I really need it. LOL

It's not line to guide friction that makes the sort of difference that affects casting distance.

Line is flexible, and unlike water in a pipe under pressure, is being pulled from the reel rather than being pushed.

Why not set up a rod with your idea and see how it works? That should tell you what you want to know.

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

In order to do what you suggest you will find that you will have to use larger guides along a longer portion of the rod at which point you will find that the addition weight added makes a LOT more difference than the friction you think is taking place at the choke guide. A true Cone of Flight system doesn't touch the line much at all and never redirects it but it won't cast nearly as far as the NGC.

This post raised a question I have thought quite a bit about over the years. When I set up a fly rod for test casting and start casting the guides are aligned in a straight line. When I finish casting and moving the stripping guide a bit to maximize casting distance. I noticed that the guides taped to the blank are all askew in a more or less random manner. yet the casting distance has not been diminished. All rod builders I know work hard to ensure that the guides are aligned before we wrap them and we even twiddle with them after wrapping to be sure they are aligned. However, I don't think the alignment has any real effect on casting distance or casting accuracy.

I admit I have not tried to carry this out with engineering accuracy--mostly because I lack the equipment to do so. This might make a good idea to explore in Rodmaker magazine with both custom builders as well as commercial rod building companies. Just a thought.

Mike Blomme

Nothing is as simple as it should be. Lines with different stiffness will form different sized loops and resist straightening to a greater or lesser degree. Nylon monofilament, fluorocarbon monofilament, and braids differ widely in stiffness, and differ within each category according to brand - Stren vs. Mason, for example. The larger the diameter of the line the stiffer it gets. Furthermore, the colder the ambient temperature when the line is used the stiffer the line becomes.
I would be very careful before I urged anyone to use a particular guide size or spacing, and I would not readily accept any "one size fits all" claim about guide type, size, or spacing.

Greg Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most everthing I read says the line of sight from
> the reel spool to the choke should be perfectly
> straight. Why is this? It seems to me that creates
> a sharper angle at the choke point. The line flows
> smooth and straight to the choke then make a sharp
> trun to the running guides. Lets say the
> transition guides were set up so line of sight was
> not a concern. If the line flows smooth
> transitioning a little at the time between each
> guide line flow would seamingly be smoother.
>
> Take plumbing for instance. A pipe with a sharpe
> 90 degree turn will have more resistance and back
> pressure than an elongated bend that makes the
> same 90 degree turn. I realize we are talking a
> few degrees and not 90 degrees but the principal
> should be the same. If the angle of line turn was
> distributited over sever guides in the reduction
> train instead of just the choke point, wouldn't it
> stand to reason that there would be less "back
> pressure" on the line? It would also seem that the
> rod would static load better as the choke point
> and reduction guides seem to have more pressure on
> them when the rod is loaded.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> BTW. How do you get spell check to work? I really
> need it. LOL

Hey Tom,

You make a good point about the pressure verses pull.

I did try it today just for kicks and I could not tell any noticable difference in distance. All cast were with in a few feet of the origional line of sight cast distances.

I should note that this is a rapid choke method. Choke on this rod is around 39".

Where I could tell the difference was in the way the rod static loaded. By dispersing the angle over the choke, reduction guide, and stripper instead of line of sight, it makes a perfect transition from the reel all the way to the first runner. Before, most of the load was on the choke and reduction guide with little pressure on the first runner and the stripper.

Ken Finch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In order to do what you suggest you will find that
> you will have to use larger guides along a longer
> portion of the rod at which point you will find
> that the addition weight added makes a LOT more
> difference than the friction you think is taking
> place at the choke guide. A true Cone of Flight
> system doesn't touch the line much at all and
> never redirects it but it won't cast nearly as far
> as the NGC.


Hey Ken,

I guess I am not following what you are talking about with the larger guides? What I am doing is just moveing the same size running guides a little closer to the stripper. The stripper and choke positions don't change, just the position of the reduction guides. By moveing them a touch closer to the stripper, it changes the angle the line touches each of the guides form the stripper all the way to the choke. This give more of a sweep into the runners as opposed to a straight line with a turn at the choke.

Greg;
From a plumbers perspective.
if you used 45 degree fittings compare to 90 degree fittings. ( closer example what you are asking then, your example of long sweep-v-short sweep ells)

A 45 causes 50% less back pressure then a 90 degree fitting. But by the time you use two 45's to achieve the same 90 degree turn (regardless of how far apart they are).
In the end, you still end up with the same amount of back pressure.

My preference would be to obstruct line flow once instead of spreading it out over different guides.

Greg, you do understand that the choke guide and the running guides (the ones from the choker to the tip top) are the same size....right? If you keep the stripper and choke guide in the same place.....well those are the only guides that were ever supposed to form that bullseye pattern to begin with.....and you'd only be moving the reduction guides (the ones between the stripper and choke guide).

To consider your plumbing example....and imagining drainage piping....would you rather have several small change of direction fittings a few feet apart......or a straight pipe several feet long to one 1/16 or 1/4 bend (22.5 or 45 degree) and then straight pipe from there all the way out?

Okay...after reading again...assuming choker and running guides are all the same.......by moving only the reduction guides closer to the stripper it seems to me that you are increasing stress because the spacing between the last reduction guide and the choker would be increased. IMHO that would be the last place I would wish to increase stress on the blank....ie about a 1/3rd of the way up from the extreme butt end.

Could be a terminology problem going on.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

I'm guessing you aren't a piping guy Steve. Actually if the two 45's are close to one another they are a greater head loss (restriction) than the one 90 degree fitting. This is for pressure piping.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

I don't think fish line follows the laws of fluid dynamics, but since the analogy seems popular why not extend it? Liquid tar and water have quite different viscosities, just as #10 GSP braid has a much different degree of stiffness than #30 fluorocarbon monofilament. Nobody in his right mind would use the same size and conformation of pipe to deliver liquid tar as he would use to deliver water. Why wouldn't the difference in "springiness"between fishing lines influence the size and conformation of guides on a rod?

Russell Brunt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Greg, you do understand that the choke guide and
> the running guides (the ones from the choker to
> the tip top) are the same size....right? If you
> keep the stripper and choke guide in the same
> place.....well those are the only guides that were
> ever supposed to form that bullseye pattern to
> begin with.....and you'd only be moving the
> reduction guides (the ones between the stripper
> and choke guide).
>
> To consider your plumbing example....and imagining
> drainage piping....would you rather have several
> small change of direction fittings a few feet
> apart......or a straight pipe several feet long to
> one 1/16 or 1/4 bend (22.5 or 45 degree) and then
> straight pipe from there all the way out?
>
> Okay...after reading again...assuming choker and
> running guides are all the same.......by moving
> only the reduction guides closer to the stripper
> it seems to me that you are increasing stress
> because the spacing between the last reduction
> guide and the choker would be increased. IMHO
> that would be the last place I would wish to
> increase stress on the blank....ie about a 1/3rd
> of the way up from the extreme butt end.
>
> Could be a terminology problem going on.

Russel,

I do understand that the technical definition of the choke and the first runner is the same guide and is the same size. I replaced the 5.5 LDB (single foot) "choke guide" with a 6 SV (double foot) because I am building a lite weight 9' surf rod. I wanted double footed guides for the reduction train and the line seems to flow smoother through the 6 SV as a choke instead of the 5.5 LDB. I supect it is because the SV stands errect and the LDB lays much flater. I can not quantify for sure using the SV has any effect what so ever but it seems to help a little. I am making this statement based on watching the line fly through the SV as a choke verses a LDB as the choke. It just seems to be a cleaner path. I also realize that the SV is a slightly taller frame which changes the choke point a little. This is a rapid choke build I am working on with a choke point around 39" so I have a little room to play with.

According to the height comparison chart, the SV is 3 mm taller than the LDB and goes without saying but is .5mm larger. It being that close to the LDB, Would you not consider it to be the choke point? even though technicaly it is not the exact same as the LDB.

I have not noticed any difference in distance using this, but we are talking 2 oz at around 110-120 yards so a slight gust of wind could mean a few yards of distance. It is hard to quantify minuet changes with distances like that. Just have to take averages and go with it as operator error is always in play also.

After making these adjustments, I was averaging just over 110 with a long cast of 115. The longest cast I have made with the line of sight and the same reductionguides is 119 yards. This could have been wind or operator error accounting for the 4 yards. But the averages are very close to the same. I don't think I am seeing a real difference in distance. The static load however may have inproved. I will test and that and post later.

Thanks everone for your input. I am learning lots. I don't just ask these questions because I am lazy and don't want to find out for myself. I ask these questions then go and test to see what I come up with and compare my notes to those of others to see if there are things that repeat themselves. Hope I am not driveing anyone nuts but it is the learning that is the fun part to me.

Greg,
With respect to spelling checker.
Some of the spelling checkers that have worked in the past don't necessarily work with newer operating systems.
But the Google Tool bar has an excellent tool bar, that will work with anything that you write. As long as the transmit button has not been pressed, the spelling check will check the written information.
Simply go to Google.com and download the tool bar, or just do a google search for the google tool bar.
Once you have the tool bar active and up on your screen, you will see an item called "check" this is your spelling checker.
After writing anything on any forum, simply click on the "check" button that is on the tool bar and it will check your writing and highlight any errors in red. Then, you can go to the work and the spelling check will offer suggestions, the ability to edit, or add the word as written to your dictionary.

It works very well with all of the operating systems that I have used.

Good luck
Roger

Roger,

Thank you very much! That is a great help.