Since, when one uses micro guides, the line is going to rub on the blank and or be under the rod when landing fish, why does one need to use any more than about one guide for every 18 inches?

i.e. Why not go with about 6 guides on a 7 foot or 8 foot rod?

When one goes with micros, one has already agreed to let the line rub the blank or be under a flexed blank, so why not just use even fewer guides, as long as you get relative even loading on the blank?

i.e. 2 foot spacing near the butt, and 6 inch spacing near the tip?

Be safe

In my opinion once you start going with longer intervals you will start seeing sharper angles between guides. I believe the sharper the angle the more stress you put on the blank thus creating the chance for a broken rod. I also think those sharper angles put more stress on the drag of your reel and the winding of the line on the reel. I don't like my line touching the blank anymore than I have to, it is also why I wrap all my casting rods in a spiral wrap. If the line is touching the blank on your spinning rod you have some set up issues somewhere. Just my opinion.

Terry,
I think that micro guides generally apply to casting rods, although they could certainly be used on spinning rods.

But, I don't know how it would be possible for the line to touch the blank on any spinning setup during the fight or retreive of the line.
After all, every one of the guides as well as the reel is beneath the rod.
Be safe

I have at least six spinning rods with micro guides on them two of them northfork composite blanks with 3's as running guides, very nice setups for crappie. Not sure where the idea came from that micros are generally on casting rods. I would agree whole heartedly with your last statement, however even with a casting rod set up as you asked I stand by that the blank and reel would be unduly stressed.

roger wilson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since, when one uses micro guides, the line is
> going to rub on the blank and or be under the rod
> when landing fish

HUH?


roger wilson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Terry,
> I think that micro guides generally apply to
> casting rods

HUH?

Roger - where you been the past 5 years? I thought you disliked micros anyway, or did you change your mind from a couple years back?

-----------------
AD

Alex,
Actually, I have been using Micros for a long time.

There always has to be a devils advocate around to stir the pot from time to time.

However, do you have an answer to my question?

Be safe

YES

Simple Use the smallest and lightest rings possible AS long as your line and knots go though

Bill - willierods.com

Roger -

No need to answer really. All this has been discussed in depth. Line doesn't have to rub. Spinning rods are great with micros just like casting rods with them. Fewer guides is great, but the concern is impact on the rod flex. Again, that's been discussed in depth.

The only difference I see now compared to 2/3 years ago is there is a whole host of offerings that address guide height for ring sizes - which gives a better line path. Heck, when we started there wasn't even a micro tip available.

Like you said, stir up the pot. It's been a while since it was.

-----------------
AD

Alex,
My point is very simple.
Basically with the use of micro guides in which the rings are essentially touching the blank basically result in the line rubbing on the blank, or going under the blank when the blank is flexed under the stress of landing a fish.

This is true for virtually any of the rods using micros for running guides and have spacings greater than about 2 inches.

Correct me if I am wrong.

That is why I asked my original question.
If the general rule is that the line rubs the blank or goes under the blank, then why not use about 1/2 as many guides that are normally used?

After all, there will be no effect on casting, since the blank will be straight when the line is leaving the reel.

Also, the fact that the line rubs or is under the blank is not a big deal, since when landing big fish, the rod is typically pumped and stress is taken off the rod during time that the line is moving.

Be safe

I would disagree that the line has to be touching the blank unless you are not spiral wrapping the rod. I also disagree that pumping the rod is typical, slack line when pumping will result in a fish throwing the hook or lure more often than not. Steady pressure and your drag along with proper number of appropriate guides, which you have stressed repeatedly in other posts will boat more fish. I am speaking in terms of most freshwater fish. If you are convinced that fewer guides will make no difference, sell them to your customers and see what they think, I suspect you will be fixing some broken rods, which while may be good for your business may very well damage your good reputation and possibly that of the blank manufacturer with an improperly built rod.

Terry,
I am talking about conventional casting rods, with the guides on the top of the blank from the reel seat to the tip.

This is still the convention of many many bass rods that are built with micro guides.

I certainly build rods with a sufficient number of guides to properly load the rod.

Be safe

It is beyond me as to why someone would want a conventional casting rod. I have never had a customer who didn't like a spiral wrap once they tried them, it is the configuration of choice here, they have commented that they looked "different" or "weird" but they understood the mechanics and science behind the concept and gave them a try, I do a lot of rewraps for those guys on their conventional rods to spiral.

Roger - Your logic can easily be applied to using micro guides and/or standard guides. So why pigeonhole the question into a micro only discussion? Sounds like a general guide spacing and # of guide discussion.

-----------------
AD

Terry, I've done both conventional and spiral wrap casting rods, and, call me nuts if you want, I just don't like the look of spiral rods when I'm fishing with them. On light duty rods I've never felt the rod torqueing in my hands, so I don't see that advantage. My spiral rods cast well, not better or worse than conventional in spite of the fact I've never been able to accomplish as straight a line path with spiral as I can with conventional. If I were dealing with vertical jigging rods for salt then I could heartily endorse spiral, but with that hangup in the head, and not being able to see a functional advantage, I'll stick with conventional. Even with micros. Speaking of micros, they are so close to the blank that I can't believe anyone can detect torqueing on a crankbait rod wound conventionally with micros. I think if I were building for sales, I could probably argue for spiral because most people will believe almost anything if properly presented.

Alex,
The reason that I put the question into the micro guide context is that with a standard sized guide and or a guide that is taller or shorter, it is trivial for a rod builder to use a low number of guides and still keep the line off of the blank and from running beneath the blank on a bent rod.

Not so, with micros - which essentially have the lower side of the rings resting on the blank.

i.e. virtually any bend at all in the blank is going to cause the line to rub on the blank or go beneath the blank - depending on the speed of the blank and the spacing of the guides.

There has been lots of press and comments over the years, that it is not important if the line rubs the blank or if the line goes beneath a bent blank.

If that is so, I was just pushing the envelope a bit more with the suggestion that one could basically use the same spacing as one uses for a spiral or spinning rod - if there is really a don't care attitude about the line touching the blank, and or going beneath the blank on a bent and loaded blank.

Be safe

Ok, so we know that braided lines can groove older softer guides, right? So, if braided line touches the blank when loaded wouldn't it damage the graphite? Since the graphite is not nearly as hard as the guide ring materials, wouldn't that damage occur much faster and cause the rod to break?

Roman,
Why don't you build a rod and test it.

Then, report back with your results.

Be safe

To confirm your scenario of the same spacing as spiral or spinning setups, I use micros (Fuji 3.5s), all on top, one guide per foot, plus tiptop (wrapped -on guide) and have had absolutely no issues with torque, stress distribution or wear/scuffing (line or blank). And yes, the line drops well below the blank when the rod is loaded. This subject has been discussed in great length in this thread:
[rodbuilding.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2014 09:33AM by jim spooner.

Jim,
I hear you.
But, I am not talking about spinning rods.
I am not talking about spiral wrapped casting rods.

I am talking about concentional casting rods, with all guides on the top of the blank.

Be safe



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2014 10:56AM by roger wilson.

Roger,

Here are my thoughts. I have never seen one, but have read about old surf rods with just 2 or 3 guides and a tip top, and what I have read about competition distance casting rods, they use only a few guides as well. While I'm certain that we could get by with far fewer guides and still have them function reasonably well, I'm not certain that pushing the number of guides to the fewest possible is going to serve the fisherman that well. When those rods with very few guides load to cast, the lure's inertia is the source of the load, and as long as you stay within the mechanical limits of the blank, you aren't going to damage it, as the lure is free to move.

Now let's move on to a fishing situation. Here the rod is loaded during the hookset with the added inertia of a fish, or at worst an immovable underwater object. Here the stresses in the rod may cause the blank to fail through high sticking or load failure. So here, many have found that very reliable rod can be built with n + or - 1 guides (n is the length of the rod in feet). This sets a rule of thumb, and is usually a good starting point.

Personally, I build my rods based on the results of my static testing. This often results in rods with n to n+3 guides. The reason I do this is because in order to hook a fish (short of using circle hooks), you need to move the hook inside the fish's mouth. The more line I can move with a given length of line, the better. And yes, I realize that the difference in line path between a variety of setups is a fraction of an inch, but a fraction of an inch in line movement can be the difference between a fish in the boat and one that swims off.

If I had my way, we would use an infinite number of massless guides or line through blanks, but due to limits imposed by physics, one is not possible, and the other is not all that practical.

In the end, my thoughts are that one should static test and test cast until he is satisfied with the way the rod loads and casts. Use the number and size/style of guide that gets the job done, and not spend so much time fussing over the number of guides. I tend to err on the side of a guide or two too many than a guide or two too few, as it helps insure against high stick failures, and will move more line on the hookset. It doesn't matter whether what type of rod I'm building, I approach the guide train the same way. The only difference is the sizing/style of my reduction guides.

Joe