I still make my own microwave stripper mostly using a reg light frame 20 and a high frame light 6. I then experiment with one 'drop down' guide and the smallest runners that practice cast well with the rig. Only use mono and nothing larger than 8 lb. With a hybrid/custom variation of a Tenn. handle, created to fit a specific spinning reel, these rigs are unbelievably light, sensitive and sweet!

Jim,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2013 12:08AM by roger wilson.

Roger,
As you well know this has been beat to death here and other forums and you have asked this same question on numerous occasions. If you can’t discern any difference with smaller/lighter guides such as crisper feel, faster response/recovery and better balance, then I’d have to assume you’re either dexterity challenged or you’re using such poorly designed rods that guide size is irrelevant and the least of your problems. Perhaps you should start a new thread with your thoughts and opinions on this subject.

Jim Ising,
I requested, received and read your “white paper” regarding the KR vs. MW systems. Very well written and I’d certainly recommend reading it to anyone contemplating different spinning guide set-ups.
I’ve always been a believer that if you want to find out about a product’s “shortcomings”, go to their competitor (Ha). Even “considering the source”, there are always valid points to ponder.

Thanks Jim. I hope MW fans take the time to review our information and draw objective conclusions.

Okay Jim, I'll bite. Send me your "white paper" and I'll take a look.

If there are any possible short comings, I would be glad to see what we can do for improvement.

Send it to darrin@americantackle.us

Thank you.

Darrin Heim
American Tackle Company

To answer the OP, I use both braid and mono. My opinion with using mono with the MW is it controls (or helps control) the line memory coming off the spool. I've always been a braid fan since I began having issues with line memory, using the MW eases my headache with monofilament.

My take on the MicroWave over all is pretty simple:
"It's the shizzle - for - realizzle"

Hi all,

I love this thread for many reasons and some good points were brought up. I gave it a quick read which gave me a few things to comment on even though I could probably go on and on. I apologize for it being so long.

1. I’d like to point out that AT is totally devoted to custom builders. Looking at our product range the majority of it is specifically geared toward custom building. We are in fact custom builders ourselves and appreciate the one stop shop approach for all things rod building.

2. To MicroWave supporters and builders that have tried them, American Tackle is truly appreciative and thanks you for giving them a chance. I’ll point out that they are not the only guides we sell and are only a small part of our entire product line. We also fish and use them weekly and we are complete believers because they work.

3. Mono & Braid performance. True some smaller stripper guide trains can be improvised to cast braid efficiently however as suggested above they may not cast mono as well. Rods created by manufacturers or even many custom builders cannot always be designed for one specific line application. The MWG system’s smaller secondary ring is perfect for controlling braid while the concentric ring line control design features work well for both the initial capture of braid and mono. Making a rod that will work well for whatever line an angler chooses to use.

4. Testing or comparisons were conducted by us here at AT and replicated by many manufacturers (all who claim they have the best set possible). We as rod builders even put our favored sets in the mix as well. Bottom line is that we found nothing better than the MWG’s for distance. Admittedly some came closer than others but if the MWG’s averaged a longer distance, I was satisfied and we then moved on to the next set of requirements. Regarding distance, there are simply too many variables to test if development is going to proceed. Variables can be; blank specs, line size/type, lure size/shape, weather/wind and most importantly, angler casting styles.
We worked on a mechanical casting machine that more than anything demonstrated that less force is required to maintain or increase distance. However there are too many variables for a machine to accurately address them all. And again casting style changed the testing, calibrated to one style won’t be fair to the other.

5. Beyond distance. Long ago we moved beyond the “distance” focus to other positive attributes that enhance performance. Improved accuracy, less expended energy, rod balancing, weight reduction etc. and also focusing on the dreaded revenue approach (yes revenue, that dreaded necessity vital to a company’s existence) pointing out how this new system will actually help those in the rod business sell more rods. We believe it is possible to have a product that not only enhances rod performance but enhances rod sales as well. What I mean to say is that there is a whole lot more to this system than distance.

6. Comparisons with which guide trains? Our demo is conducted with cone of flight (COF) configuration because when most anglers are asked if they fish a KR, NCG or COF, they haven’t a clue what you are talking about. If you ask them which guide set do their rods resemble, they most often pick the COF. Simply, there are more COF rods in garages around the world than anything else. Asking a rod builder might have different results however our primary focus is to promote the system to fisherman not necessarily the builders. Builders, whether they be large brands or custom guys, supply anglers with rods often paying attention to what is requested. We aim to create demand for MWG rods by directly comparing them to what more anglers are familiar with.

7. Mr. Kirkman makes a great point about maximizing a blank’s casting potential(distance). Good line control(among other things) helps a blank perform at an optimum. In our testing (along with other independent testers) the greatest distance improvement took place in the lighter lure weights and less in the heavier lure weights. I believe it is because at that point, that particular blank’s ability dictates the results. When we move to a heavier power blank(heavier lure range) the bottom end of the scale moved accordingly.

8. Sets and guide sizes. The system is sold in sets simply because we wanted a complete product that works right out of the box/bag. There is no trick or specific knowledge required for use in order to achieve beneficial results. Testing with different sizing made little difference whether it’s maintaining line control or reducing weight(balancing was considered with excellent results). Also made sense that one set and a few additional running guides would be all that’s needed to build a rod that performs. Any manufacturer or custom builder can utilize them with consistent results within a use range where we can make bold claims with total confidence.

9. Comparisons. I am often asked about comparisons to many different systems. The problem I have with the comparison debates is that there aren’t any comparisons. My questions back are always which guide style, which sizes, how many etc. Although there are generic packaged sets sold, there aren’t complete specific systems. Anyone can make any combination of anything for some set that is proposed to be better which may be fine for some blanks but not ideal for all. Too many different styles with rules of thumb on how to assemble a set that may work or may not work for braid or mono, heavy or light rods and so on. A set might have different combinations of sizing/sequence for line, blank length but no one size fits all approach(that works equally well). American Tackle obviously has many different styles of guides that can be assembled in different combinations for some excellent guide options that are certainly as good as anything else out there. But we also now have a complete MWG set for use in all situations that will absolutely work well and offers characteristics that no other guides can.

In the end, I wonder why someone wouldn’t utilize the MWG’s. They work incredibly well, they are easy to use, they allow rods to balance and perform at their best and most of all, they stand out on a rod prompting additional sales.

This is long and if you read it, thank you for your time.

Darrin Heim
American Tackle Company

Very well said Darrin

______________________________________
Super Tight Lines......Don

In short

Maybe there is a Peak And maybe it has be Reached ????

Bill - willierods.com

Darrin,
Just so you don’t think you’re “preaching to the choir”……..(Ha)
After reading your comments, my first thought was “smoke and mirrors”. After re-reading it, I did note that you did reiterate some of the positive characteristics of the MW’s (all-purpose versatility, easy set-up) already mentioned.

You said “AT is totally devoted to custom builders”. Not to be cynical, but maybe promoting/selling product may be a slightly higher priority. We get that. That’s your job.

You go on to say that “Looking at our product range the majority of it is specifically geared toward custom building.” I guess that means, except for MW Sets…..which inhibit customized set-ups for optimum performance. Again, no big deal, but not geared for custom builders.

I get the impression that many of your comments were geared for the average fisherman and/or factory rod builders whose only previous alternative was the “cone of flight” guide configuration. Or, perhaps novice builders looking for a pre-packaged kit.

Having said all that, I do have 3 personal rods set up with MW’s and I’m impressed with some of their unique characteristics. I was able to offset some of their “negative” aspects by utilizing smaller/lighter running guides as I mentioned previously. I no longer sell my rods, so my interest is in getting optimum performance (specific lines, reels, techniques, etc)….as opposed to nominal performance (all-purpose). I think many custom builders that do sell rods want the same for their customers.

jim spooner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

Thanks for the response Jim, but has the COF vs other system comparison been done properly and if so, what were the results? How much do these new systems increase casting distance? And I don't think you need a mechanical device to achieve a scientifically robust comparison. Here's what I think would stand up as being a fairly well controlled and relatively cheap test (yet still not perfect):

While there are a multitude of different comparisons you could look at, I'd be inclined to start with the comparison that is likely to yield the biggest difference among the most commonly used systems (e.g. the best COF layout vs the best microwave system layout). The next step would to take each layout (COF or MW) and bind and epoxy them onto exactly the same blank model (separate blanks for each guide set of course). Here I would advise against just temporarily taping the guides the guides on, or even just leaving the bound without epoxy, as the guides are likely to move around or reposition themselves during repeated experimentation that could compromise the results.

The next part is probably one of the more difficult factors to control - the reel and line. Casting distance can be influenced by the reel size/brand/model, line size/brand/type, how full the spool is filled, and even how much the line has been stretched or coiled previously. Probably the easiest way of limiting these influences (I always say 'limiting' since you can never fully eliminate these factors), is to start with two identical reels models - Reel A and Reel B. Then spool them up with exactly the same type and amount of line. I'll come back to where they fit into the scheme later in the experiment.

The next step requires at least two people - the caster and the assistant (and distance measurer, which could also be a third person). You need at least two people here because the person who is casting should have absolutely no knowledge of what rod setup they're casting with. This is because humans are emotional creatures and if allowed, will tend to favor one system over the other and therefore maybe cast a little bit harder with the one they want to 'win'. This favoritism might not even be a conscious thing, but it can still happen. Therefore, any potential for this type of bias needs to be ruled out. This means that the caster needs to be literally blindfolded, hence why you need the second person.

The assistant then needs to pair the COF rod with Reel A (Outfit 1) and the MW blank with Reel B (Outfit 2) and then tie on identical casting weights to each. Each system needs to be cast repeatedly, so the assistant then needs to predetermine a completely random order at which each setup will be cast. This can be done by flipping a coin (heads, outfit A; tails outfit B) and writing down the order of procession for the number of casts required (i will talk about the number of required casts later). The order needs to be random since you simply can't have a series of casts with one system and then a series of casts with the other. This is because you need to account for scenarios such as the wind becoming stronger after testing one system, or the caster starts to warm up and cast further in the second half, etc. You also can't just have an alternating system (i.e. outfit A, outfit B, outfit A, etc) because that provides an opportunity for the caster to favor one system over the next (i.e. he might want every second cast, hence the second system to be longer). It might seem to be a small risk, but better to rule it out any potential favoritism or advantage with a completely random casting order.

So finally onto the casting field, and it is the job of the assistant to hand the outfit that is first on the list to the blindfolded caster. The caster then cast as far as he can and the distance is measured and recorded. The outfit is then wound back, taken out of the hands of the caster by the assistant, and then the outfit second on the list is handed to the caster and again, he casts as far as he can in the same direction. If the list says that one outfit has two or more casts in a row, then it is still important that the assistant takes it off him and then hands it back so that he doesn't have any idea which outfit he is holding at any one time (no matter how silly it seems).

Now to the question of how many casts should be done with each outfit. In the science game we call it 'sample size', and determining the minimum sample size needed for a decent result can be a bit of a guessing game or at best, a wait and see approach. Firstly, say for example with every cast made with outfit A, you are not going to land on exactly 103.1 metres everytime - there's going to be variation from the caster (he's no robot) and the external conditions. So you need to account for this variation by casting the same outfit a number of times. Say for example the casting distances from the first 5 casts of outfit A were 102, 107, 99, 108, 105, while the first 5 casts of outfit B were 76, 82, 85, 78, 77, then it makes a pretty obvious and convincing result and a sample size of only 5 cast each would only be necessary. You could make more casts and improve the robustness of the result, but the conclusion would still be the same. However, if you the recorded distances from 5 cast were: outfit A, 101, 107, 106, 103, 99 (average 103.2) and outfit B, 103, 106, 99, 97, 100 (average 101) then you have quite a bit of overlap and the results wouldn't be so convincing. You could tentatively say that outfit A casts longer than outfit B, but there is still a bit of doubt about the results (e.g. maybe there was a strong wind gust when outfit B casted the 99 and 97 distances?). The best way to tell whether this result is real or not (i.e. is a difference directly caused by the guide system differences of each rod) is to increase the number of casts until you get a convincing result, or you conclude that there is no appreciable difference. Hope this makes sense.

And finally, after enough casts have been made to make a conclusion, the assistant needs to switch Reel A and Reel B onto the other rod and repeat the whole process. This way, if any particular reel had any unknown advantage over the other, then you can rule that out by repeating the same experiment after swapping reels.

This is just one 'simple' approach and certainly doesn't answer every question. But it is the absolute minimum level of 'rigour' that is expected out of us scientists before we can go about making claims about 'this works and this doesn't'. And even then it will almost certainly be provided with a number of caveats. Scientist should never say they are 100% correct, because unless it becomes a law (e.g. Newton's laws), they usually aren't. This is why we only make claims when our statistical tests provide us with a probability confidence level of 95% or greater.

Thanks for reading if you did (you can thank a quite day at work for it) and I hope you can appreciate where my skepticism of 'hard and fast' claims come from.

In tests that have been performed, a well done NGC system will generally outcast a well done COF system on the same blank with the same casting lure weight by about 3% to 5%. I have found that the Microwave system casts at least as well as the NGC system. When there is a difference one way or the other between the two, it is generally very small, along the lines of 1/2% to 1%.

Casting distance alone does not a great guide system make. Few that have fished with a COF system would prefer it after feeling the increased crispness or better balance of the same rod with the NGC or MW.

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

Hi Gents,
I think microwaves are both good and bad. Tom is correct in saying good setups don't offer much difference. I tested the microwaves at the last Expo and I managed to get slighly more distance and similar accuracy with them compared to the COF rod provided. The microwaves are definitely a lot smoother in use and probably require less effort although more work needs to be done on that aspect.
AmTak could probably provide different sized running guides eg 6's, 5's, 4's and 3's which would alleviate a lot of the issues with different builders.
The area where I think microwaves are bad is that AmTak may dominate the spinning guide market especially since they have finally gone on the titanium framed route. This has the potential to put a lot of other manufacturers out of business and in my mind that isn't good for anybody except AmTak. Darren is in the business of doing the best he can for his company.
The good area is where they are a lot easier and cheaper to set up than NGC or 27X systems. They have a standard system which works for a lot of different sized reels. A really good NGC or 27X setup might be slightly better for a particular reel but if you change reels then you could get a big difference where with the microwaves are fairly consistent with different reels but probably work better with some sizes than others.
I've always been a big fan of SiC rings for saltwater rods that can often run into some big fast fish that can put a lot of heat and pressure on a guide train. I've had a number of those encounters and the SiC rings have never let me down so I'd like to stick with them. AmTak may or maynot produce microwaves with SiC rings but there might not be a need for that in their opinion.
I've got a number of microwave sets both stainless and shortly titanium and I'll be very interested to see how my testing compares to the 27X rods that I have with titanium framed SiC rings.
They've definitely got a lot of attention and offered some short term benefits for custom builders but when they appear on a lot of factory rods that will quickly disappear.
I've also got a number of reels that run both mono and braid and will be interested to see any difference between the two.

ESFNEM Col
Port Kembla, NSW
Australia

As far as I know all superbraids are very similar in limpness, so I imagine they all behave pretty much the same in a guide train. All monofilaments are definitely not equally limp. It's hard to believe all monofilaments perform equally well using microwaves. Any observations?

Dane,
Testing doesn’t need to be too complicated and can net reasonably quantifiable results if done methodically. It’s still not very scientific and it is very tedious and time-consuming if done properly. If you’ll “unhide” your address or email me, I’ll send you a guide set-up test I did a while back for “Down-sized Guide/Rapid Choke System” (DG/RCS)(….don’t laugh) vs “NGC”. In this test, I used two identical rods (same CCS/AA) and the same reel so as to negate any possible reel variables.

As Tom pointed out, distance alone is not the only consideration when setting up a guide train, but it does give some indication of its efficiency. My specific requirements don’t necessarily require distance and in fact, I knowingly give up distance in favor of light weight, sensitivity and balance.

To any interested, Mr. Isling has provided me with the "white paper" so thank you to him.

Obviously from my point of view I see vast holes in the arguments and issues with the comparisons. I do take note that it was stated as not "scientific" and can only take it as opinion.

I encourage all to take the "Challenge" and decide for themselves. The best way is to have it presented by us here at AT. Although not feasible for most, we can supply the information on how our demos are conducted and the details on the demo gear(always identical I might add). Thousands of participants have already done so, in fact enough to vote this system "Innovation of the Year" & "Best Fishing Accessory" at recent fishing tackle trade shows.

If anyone is interested, please contact ben@americantackle.us This offer is open to all. Even Jim but for him I would recommend thorough testing, with possibly a thousand MWG rods and I would be happy to arrange their guide purchase as well.

Respectfully,

Darrin Heim
American Tackle Company

Col,
If you think the only “bad” thing about the MW’s is the chance of taking over the market, I wouldn’t be too concerned. I don’t think there’s much chance of AmTak dominating the market in spite of their ongoing promotional campaign, which will eventually lose momentum. It’s a good product and certainly an award winning product for innovation, but not necessarily a “better mousetrap”.

What could be possible, is that rod companies may begin to look at alternative and more effective guide set-ups that can easily demonstrate improvement over their previous “cone of flight” set-ups. Especially if AmTak continues its efforts to demonstrate the COF inferiority. And, they (rod companies) could adopt any one of several improved guide set-ups without fear of patent infringement or having to pay royalties. They could also come up with some razzle-dazzle, clever name and create enough marketing hype to show their superiority to even the “MW System”.

Col,
Don't worry about MW taking over the market. ;)

All,
If you're going to take the challenge you may as well request the white paper. Objective opinions cannot be formed with only one side of the story and COF is a wrinkled, limping comparison to modern guide technology.

Darrin,
Guess I need to get to work on my post (or essay) concerning KR, ha!

Fuji has introduced 7 new KR guide sizes and heights that greatly expand the KR application and, more importantly, the new guides have lead to a modification (actually a simplification) of stripper and choke point placement. I am gathering information now and will post as soon as we have a suitable translation.

Col, Fuji has dominated the market and it hasn’t put companies out of business, it has only stiffened the competition. Whether the MWG’s dominate anything or not, they certainly have already made an impact felt around the world. Initially nobody thought these guides would go anywhere and obviously they are moving along. In fact nobody ever thought a guide set would garner such positive attention in the general tackle trade but they have. Anything is possible with them because they work really well, no matter what Fuji will try to say. And the very fact that they invest their time trying to de-sell our product rather than selling their products speaks volumes.

Lets look at these two options, KR vs MWG.

KR guides are available in different sizes with many different sizing options. Results can vary from good to not so good. They focus on “rapid choke” (or basically controlling line quickly). So do most other guide configurations that custom builders have been employing for years. Only they have used AT, Batson, Pac Bay, Fuji guides. In combinations of high frame, single-foot, double-foot, micro sizes and so on. In reality nothing particularly new other than a different look to a guide and the published idea about sizing/position. The point is that you can use many other guides to achieve a smooth casting line controlling (after using multiple guides) sequence to duplicate a KR concept. Basically what us rod builders have been doing for a long time already.

MWG’s are available in one set & size that will absolutely work well. A single complete product that captures and controls line in the first guide. They are efficient, effective and cannot be matched. They balance a rod better, reduce weight and will work well across the board for braid or mono with different blanks as well as reels. They are the perfect product for attracting attention of and delivering satisfaction to an angler thus selling a rod for a builder(who might be concerned about selling rods…). For custom builders, they also offer something different and new that works right out of the package. Or they can fine tune their rods with different placement options. Several custom builders have already proven to me that our spacing isn’t absolute and even claim to have improved on what we suggest, which I feel outstanding and in the spirit of custom rod building. There is no denying though that this system is new innovative from the way it’s offered, marketed and even its outstanding performance.

I read Jim’s argument and found it weak with most of it either false of or little consequence, certainly not a convincing argument. It really showed me that they don’t understand the system. If they have more info, I’d be happy to read it again and if it’s valid, I would be happy to make improvement on what we offer. Bottom line is that “white papers” or blue papers won’t change the fact that the MWG’s are here to stay.

Respectfully,

Darrin Heim
American Tackle Company