Pardon the ignorance, as I've been away from the site and craft for a while.

I am intrigued by the micrwave set up and see that a number of you have endorsed it's value. I see most talking about light braid but as a mono user, I wonder does the casting still improve to a noticable degree when using mono?

I didn't get this specific info in a search.

Thanks for your input,
Keith

Yes.... I only use mono and give the challenge using mono. Try them, you will love them.

______________________________________
Super Tight Lines......Don

Improve over what? A Cone of Flight System? Almost surely, yes.

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

I think they’re comparable to a good NGC set-up. Lots of marketing @#$%& going on as well. My only gripe is that they’re only sold in sets. Not custom rod builder friendly….like Shimano/G Loomis blank unavailability. The MW set-up can be improved in many cases with smaller/lighter running guides. Still worth trying if you don’t mind the cost penalty of buying the complete set and then having to supplement with smaller/lighter running guides. I guess maybe there’s a parallel with Amtak’s and Shimano/Loomis marketing mind-set that catering to custom rod builders is not sufficiently cost-effective.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2013 03:36PM by jim spooner.

I don't personally think going smaller than size 5's is very beneficial. Sure you save a little weight....very little. The running guides that come with the set are very good quality, I have had zero problems with them. We all have our own opinions and our own building styles and that is one of the great things about this hobby. Check out the new Tidal Wave series.... the running guides are full titanium frames and the butt and transition guides are ti-ion coated.....talk about a super light set of guides.

______________________________________
Super Tight Lines......Don

Many of us would beg to differ with you, but your opinion is understandable since you’re on Amtak’s Pro Staff. Bottom line is revenue….and we get that. For factory rods, “one size fits all” is a practical approach, but for those of us that wish to optimize rod performance, component selection is important.

Considering the premium that can be charged for rods with the MicroWave system currently (but perhaps not for much longer now that some OEM manufacturers are using them), it's not a big deal to substitute running guides of your choice. Figure that the price of the MicroWave set is for the butt and transition guide and forget about the runners. Use them on something else or toss them in the trash - it should be a non issue.

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

Keith,
To get back to your use of mono with the MWs, I think one advantage they have over the “fast choke” set-up I normally use is that they work well with braid or mono. My “fast choke” set-ups utilize a 12mm butt guide and definitely does NOT like mono. Regardless of line (spinning or casting), I get better performance from smaller/lighter (Fuji 3.5’s) running guides. If I were to use leaders, knots, etc…… or just wanted more versatility, I’d have to compromise and use the larger guides provided with the MW set. I’m accumulating quite a pile (Ha).

Thanks for the info, I appreciate it! For a one off build the cost isn't a big issue. I rarely build or use spinning rods (this will only be the 3rd one ever) I'll be using it while I recover from a 2nd shoulder surgury.

Another question on set up- I've read to use the chart for the guide placement... I can see that for the stripper and transition guides but the rest, does it matter? The chart lists the 1st guide at 2.5" to 2.875" which seems mighty close to the tip.

Thanks again for the info!

jim spooner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many of us would beg to differ with you, but your
> opinion is understandable since you’re on
> Amtak’s Pro Staff. Bottom line is revenue….and
> we get that. For factory rods, “one size fits
> all” is a practical approach, but for those of
> us that wish to optimize rod performance,
> component selection is important.


Not to get in a peeing contest with you but I built a good many rods using smaller running guides and a quick choke type system, I have built a few rods using the MW butt and transition and #3 micros. I don't see any advantage to go from 5's to 3's. BTW..... I don't say these things because I am a pro-staffer, I say them because I believe them. I use products I believe in and only products I believe in weather they be from ATC or anyone else.

______________________________________
Super Tight Lines......Don

Something that didn't come to light here, the guide train with a MW setup is lighter than the COF or 27X setup.

Keith,
I too had trouble reading the AT chart for guide spacing until some fellows on here simplified it for me. Start from the REEL FACE. The most important thing is that the first guide (stripper) is 19 1/2" from the reel face. The second, 30 1/2". And the third 39 7/8" from the extended reel face. I just space the rest of the running guides equidistant between the third guide and the tip. Usually about 4"-5" apart, depending on the rod length. The chart confused me because my grip length was different than was advertised. By using these 3 measurements, layout got much simpler. Hope that helps.

Jon

Actually that depends on the type and style guides used.

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

Don,
No contest. I respect your opinion, honesty and integrity, but I also have to consider where your loyalties lie. We can agree to disagree on optimum running guide size. I would agree that the sizes provided would probably give the best “all-purpose” set-up, which would be especially desirable in a factory rod. Other conditions would also make the larger guides preferable, but by the same token, in many cases, smaller/lighter guides will improve performance significantly.
What makes the MW set-up unique is the Double ringed butt guide and the high-ringed transition guide. I think the runner sizes are pretty much irrelevant to its successful function and in some cases, a deterrent, same as any other guide set-up.
And, I guess most of us would agree that most well set up guide systems (27x, NGC, KR Concept, Fast Choke, Microwave) are pretty much comparable and would out-perform the old “cone of flight” system.

jim spooner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And, I guess most of us would agree that most well
> set up guide systems (27x, NGC, KR Concept, Fast
> Choke, Microwave) are pretty much comparable and
> would out-perform the old “cone of flight”
> system.

There seems to be a lot of different ideas and claims as to which system perform best, but has anyone gone out and done a rigorous side-by-side comparison of each system to see which 'performs' best (I assume this means longest casting distance)?
I ask this because I'm a scientist by trade and we have to be incredibly careful when claiming things like 'this works better than that' or 'this is the cause of that'. To claim that one guide train system works better than the other, we would have to rule out any affect by the multitude of other factors that can also influence casting performance. Has this been done?

I ask this not to start a war of who's right and who's wrong, but because custom rodbuilders like myself can be very attracted to new ideas that will be unique and set them apart from the competition. This could very well lead us to be a bit bias and overestimate the performance of a new system in comparison to the old system, when in fact there might not be any difference at all. However, in saying this, I realise that it is probably far too much work to properly test each system as they come along and most of us will just have to rely on 'feel' and the opinions of other builders. But I would like to know if there's any convincing data out there on the benefits of each system.

Dane,
I’d love to see that done as well, but unless someone could (or would) design and build a mechanical device to replicate a person’s casting motion, it’s not likely that we’ll ever see comparative tests done. Even if there was sufficient capital to fund such an effort, I suspect we wouldn’t see significant differences in their “performance”. At least not enough that when all the other variables are considered, the few inches (or even a foot or two) would be relevant.
Comparing the Microwave System or one of the other popular guide set-ups with the “old” (still used on factory rods) “cone-of-flight” is easily conclusive and requires no highly sophisticated test.
As with other mechanical “devices” like race car engines, competitors tend to top out at a certain level of performance which are very close to each other. It takes a considerable amount of effort (and money) to get the slightest of improvements.
I did what I thought was pretty comprehensive testing to compare the “Fast Choke” guide set-up to the NGC and couldn’t really quantify the exact difference in terms of distance other than they were very close. The only significant advantage (for me) was the weight difference. Other guide set-ups can also offer unique advantages as well….such as “tangle free”, “torque-free” (spiral), etc. Each of us has our own opinion as to what attributes are most important for our particular fishing styles and can select from various guide set-ups that best fit our needs.

Jim already landed on this, but in my initial tinkering the biggest advantage to me is that the Microwave guides do really well (when properly set up) with both fmono / fluoro and braid.

Full disclosure: I am sort of late to the game on Microwaves. I have only built 5 rods with them and am still learning. I only built the first one in May of this year. Per Dane's very good (IMO) point about hard data, I don't have any per se. But here is whtat I can tell you based on my personal experience.

For the last few years, I have been making a determination whether the spinning rod would be used primarily with braid or primarily with mono and setting the rod up accordingly. The braid set ups tend to be much smaller guides than the mono set up. If I optimize the set up for 20 or 30 pound braid and then try to throw 12 pound fluoro on it, it does not work well. LIkewise, a rod that does very well with 12 lb. flouro will work fine with 20 or 30 pound braid...but not as well (and I'm definining well as casting distance and occurrence of line twist and wind knots) as a rod set up specifically for the braid.

So far, the Microwave rods seem to handle both braid and mono equally well with line up to 12 pound fluoro. That's not to say the won't work with heavier - I just haven't tried it. The lighter the line the less difference it seems to make. All marketing aside, the question then becomes how does a Microwave set up do with braid vs. a dedidcated braid set up using braid or a dedicated mono set up using mono. I haven't measured but in doing my own backyard and on the water challenges they perform as well or better than my preferred decidated braid or mono set ups.. Add to that the fact that the MW set up allows you to switch back and forth between line types and to me you have a winner. I no longer run the risk of a client who wanted a braid rod later switching to mono and then bringing me the rod and saying it's noisy and it won't cast very far.

Just in case any of our good friends at AMTAK are listening, I agree about the sets. I would probably buy more of them if I could simply buy the first three guides or elect which running guides come with my set. As Tom suggests, I am breaking up the sets and using diffferent, lower size 5 running guides with the same ring material.. To me the guides that come with the set sit very high and look funny out near the tip.

Also, there is not currently a tip top that (to me) matches the set. You need a size 5 ring to match the ring of the runners...to me a size 6 looks goofy with all those size 5 running guides. It looks like a mismatch. If you use a size 5 ring tiip, the runners sit so high that the low size 5 tip top looks like a mismatch, too. I know all this is aesthetic and not functional, but once I go to all the trouble to make every aspect of the rod look as good as I can make it look I don't want the guides' appearance to bother me. Thanks!

We have generated a "white paper" comparing MW to a KR Concept rod. If you would like to see our comparison, email info@anglersresource.net. It is not a scientific test but does include measurable differences in the two layouts where possible.

(. . . elect which running guides come with my set. ) Now there is a good idea. Amtak could come up with a marketing plan that allowed different Amtak guides to be sold with the first three?

I think it's important to realize that for any given rod blank and any given lure weight, you can only cast so far. While we'd like to think that various systems will allow us to cast further and further with each new concept or system, that's just not the case. You're never going to throw 3/8th ounces on a 7 foot rod 500 yards no matter what you do with the guides.

Modern guide systems have gotten so good in so many ways, that the best ones leave little on the table to further improve upon and certainly do not show great differences between themselves at least where casting distance is concerned. At some point choosing between them becomes a matter of other things such as weight, balance, cost, ease of set-up, etc.

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