The 20x thread below got me thinking a bit. So, here is what I did. I measured spool diameters for every spinning reel in the house.
I had 7 models:
Zebco Micro 00 UL (1.363")
Quantum Catalyst PTiA 10 (1.489")
Shimano Sahara 1500fa (1.576")
Quantum Lite LT2 (1.648")
Shimano Sahara 2500fa (1.696")
Abu Garcia Cardinal 103 (1.828")

This spans the range from UL reels through 3/30/3000 sized reels. I also made what I think are a bit conservative (i.e. on the smaller side) estimates for spool diameters used on 4000 (2") and 5000 (2.2") sized reels based on my observations.

For reference, I typically build for bass and panfish applications and prefer smaller spinning reels, as I rarely use them with line heavier than 6 lb mono. Let's keep in mind that my observations do not extend to surf, offshore, heavy freshwater applications where significantly larger reels are used.

I then decided to look at the choker location prescribed by NGC 27x, KR GPS (new software), and MicroWave.

The MW always places the choker at 39.875"
The KR GPS places the choker between 41.3" and 43.1".
The 27x method places the choker between 36.8" and 59.4" across the whole spectrum.

Interesting notes:
KR GPS doesn't address the smallest UL reels, but I've rarely seen that size in reels over about $40 retail. Let's consider those a bit of an outlier, as significantly shorter guides than those prescribed by the KR and MW systems can be used with the tiny reels.

For the 1000 size and smaller reels, 27x puts the choker closer to the reel than KR, and in about the same place as MW.

From there, reels in the 1500 - 2500 sizes, choker guides are in a relatively small spread with 27x placing them between 42.6" and 45.8", KR 41.3" to 41.9", and MW at 39.875".

As one goes to the 3000 through 5000 class reels, the NGC 27x method begins to diverge placing the choker between 49.4" and 59.4" while KR is in the range of 41.3" and 43.1" and MW still at 39.875".

It seems to me that at this point, guide train layouts for many light freshwater and inshore saltwater applications are coming ever closer to a consensus. Placing a choker at 42" and experimenting by sliding the guide a couple inches one way or the other will likely put one in the sweet spot in short order, keeping in mind that for larger reels, it may be worth checking a 27x layout if the results aren't satisfactory. Personally, if the rod will cast farther than I can set the hook, then it's good enough for me. There will always be a time that one will wish they could get another 5' on the cast, but that's true regardless of how well the rod casts.

I've generally found that when the choker falls in the 40"-42" range, I can usually get by with only 2 reduction guides. As I get much beyond that, then it is time to introduce a 3rd reduction guide. If you are pushing the physical limits of the rod, then you may want a 3rd reduction guide a little sooner.

Until I have an excuse to build for a 4000 or 5000 class reels or larger, I won't comment too much on which approach is best for those, though I suspect the differences will be measured in a few percent of casting distance regardless of the method of choice. I might have a 4000 sized reel laying around somewhere, but not at home.

In the end, all 3 techniques take the line to the blank in a straight line and then to the tip in another straight line. All 3 options provide a quick solution to spinning rod layout. The differences are variation in preferred frame types and a bit of difference in the recipe for the choker location, but all end up in a relatively narrow window for a fairly broad range of reels used in freshwater.

I know I neglected the sizing of reduction guides in this exercise, but 27x and KR don't differ much in that regard. For limp lines, you use the smallest you can, and for stiffer lines, bump it up a size and place them accordingly.

It should also be noted that a given rod blank can cast a given weight only so far. This is why many who try several different guide systems on a given rod are often surprised to find that they all provide roughly the same casting distance. As systems have gotten better and better, they eventually all arrive at optimum casting distance. From there you just have to decide which one enhances the other attributes that you might find attractive - weight, rod balance, durability, cost, etc. etc.

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

The distance difference contributed by guide placement on light freshwater spinninig rods is seldom critical to fishing success. This is not always true, especially when targeting spooky fish in shallow water or when surf casting.

Phil,

Surf casting is off the table for this discussion. I've never built a surf rod, and can't say if there is going to be a range of successful placements as can be seen with the smaller reels, though I suspect that if one looked at enough builds with various techniques, some common trends would emerge.

Yes, there are times when casting distance can become critical, but what good does it do me if I can't hook the fish anyway? In that scenario, I would consider a longer rod as a possibility or, most likely, look to downsize the line as far as possible to reduce the drag on the line as much as possible, as this is the biggest factor in our casting distance. The last time I was on the water, I was reminded of that as I watched an 1/8 oz jig and grub sail off into the distance when the broke on the cast (although it was a casting rod and reel). I was admiring the casting distance as I heard the line pull through the guides and felt the spool speed up. The same thing happens with spinning rods and reels.

Let me ask this. What is your preferred technique for placing guides on spinning rods? Do you not start with some preconceived notion of guide size and placement and experiment from there, or do you cycle through test casting with every possible size guide at each location shifting each guide forward and back in order? The latter would seem to take quite some time.

There are several articals in the Library page that you can take a look at They should be helpfull

Bill - willierods.com

Joe,
Actually, when I build rods, I never worry about the diameter of the spools on the reel. I simply place the butt guide at 20 inches and go from there.

The rods work well with ultra light reels as well as 4000 sized reels.

Your choice.

The butt guide starts at ring 1/2 the size of the diamiter of the spool face With higher guide frames now you can get smaller rings on taller guide frames Having several different sizes to test is a good thing

Bill - willierods.com

Joe: I mostly build fly rods so I have no claim to the fine details of building light-duty spinning reels, other than 60 years of fishing with them. My observation about differences in casting distance not often being critical with light spinning tackle is based upon personal fishing experience but not upon scientific measurements of changes in casting distances with different guide placements with different weights and different lines under controlled conditions. The first rod I ever built was on a light-duty spinning rod blank in 1956. I put the guides where they looked good and imitated whip-finishing a manilla rope to attach them.

Thanks Phil. Casting distance certainly matters at times, but it doesn't seem to matter whether I have my best or worst casting rod in hand, when a bass surfaces chasing shad, more than half the time it is just past the outer limit of the rod I have in hand. It's funny how they seem to 'know' how far you can cast. Most of the lures I fish on spinning rods tend to fall in the "it's only going to cast so far" category that Tom mentioned above. I'm also generally pushing the lower limits of a rods effective casting range as well so I have the power I want in the rod which Tom mentioned as well.

The biggest point that I wanted to drive home is that regardless of the technique and the reasons for its development, 3 different techniques have put the choker location inside a relatively narrow window for a pretty broad range of reels. I have to say that I'm inclined to believe that it is more than a mere coincidence.

Roger, I generally place my choker fist, and then place the reduction guides, and finally static test for the running guides. I've always tended to find my butt guides landing in the 21"-23" range rather than the rule of thumb 19"-21" range. I usually end up test casting, checking and rechecking for line slap, but it doesn't seem to occur, so once I'm satisfied, I call it a day and go wrap the rod.

Bill, I still generally use that rule of thumb, though I will check to see if I can get by with a 20mm Y frame on a 2500 or 3000 sized reel before bumping up to the 25mm. From there, I know I can drop one guide size with match frames to get the same height, or go up one guide size in V frames to get the same height. With light monos or braids, it's generally a little easier to get away with a smaller guide.

As you may have read before, I have a tendency to prefer the look of Y frames for my reduction guides. As fussy as I am about weight and ergonomics, there is still a little bit of me that enjoys the aesthetics of a build as well. I'm sure there are a few more quirks to my building techniques and strategies as well.

First let me say I think you are on firm ground Joe. I appreciate your efforts and admire the way you think.

For me casting distance is just one aspect, and usually not the most important one. A lot of my fishing involves putting a live bait on a hook and dropping him overboard. He goes where he wants....sometimes a hundred yards....sometimes only a few yards. I find a big part of guide placement is about how the rod handles once the fish is hooked. It makes a difference. I like the 27X method but tend to use an extra reduction guide or two for such fishing (and maybe an extra running guide or two).

Plenty of rods have been built with abritary guide placement. They manage to catch fish and people line up at stores to buy them. I have found I can do better.

I suspect the "better" part has to be taken in context. These days I'm fishing a lot more fresh water finesse techniques. For those rods I'd not bother with the extra guides. The fish aren't making extended runs and lighter build weight is a plus. In short I don't think I'd place guides the same for fresh and salt water rods. It would even depend on the type of fish I was building the rod to target (I'm sure there are fresh water fish capable of extended high speed runs). Reel size and line class would always play a part.

It should be kept in mind that I fish anything from 2# to 50#, from fresh to salt, spinning/fly/casting/trolling. I think it only reasonable that a different guide train would be optimum for a fish that makes a three hundred yard run at 60 mph, in open water, on line that is 1/5th its weight,......than a fish that makes a very determined five foot run to the nearest branch/rock/whatever and might need to be reeled back through weeds/salad.

Life would be simple for me if I felt like I could place all my butt guides at XX inches....and I don't mean this as a knock on Roger. I think we need to acknowledge that different situations call for "adjustments" in the build. If we were the types to be satisfied with "one size fits all" we would all be happy with an ugly stick from wally world:)

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

I just finished building my third and fourth rods respectively, both of them identical spinning rods. And I've got to say that spinning rod guide trains were, and still are a mystery to me. Having watched Joe do an excellent presentation on spinning guide placement, at an Ohio Rod Builders gathering helped my understanding of how to place guides immensely. He answered all of my questions, as well as others that were watching the presentation's questions very well. My problem at the time was, I didn't know which questions to ask.

While watching his presentation I learned that guide height determined where reduction train guides were placed, but I didn't know enough to ask how you determine which ring size to use in the guides of the reduction train. When I went to start ordering components for these spinning rod builds, I was simply going to match the sizes used on the factory built spinning rods I currently own, and place them using the information I had gleaned from watching the presentation. The only problem I was worried about by doing that, is that I get line slap with each and every one of the factory rods I own, when using fluorocarbon line. If I put regular mono, or braid on them, I get no line slap. So I started looking for something that would tell me what size guides to use. That's when I went to the KR, GPS software on the Anglers Resource linked on this site.

I have to be honest .... that just added to my confusion concerning spinning rod guide trains.

Using the 27X method Joe outlined in his presentation, I came up with a choker placement measurement of 47.79". When I put the required information into the KR GPS, it placed the choker location at 38.38" As you can see, that's more than a 9" difference. Can anyone explain to me why there would be such a big difference in those distances? Since using the 27X method would have required at least one, and possibly two more reduction guides, I went with the location called out by the KR GPS software. The rod casts beautifully. Much better than any of my factory rods, and I have no line slap, and I'm using the same fluorocarbon line I used on the factory rods.

Also, and not related to choke guide placement. How does one determine what size ring to use for the stripper and other reduction train guides? My factory rods all have a size 30 as the stripper guide. The KR GPS called for a size 20 stripper guide. How does one determine which ring size to use? It can't simply be based on guide height, because the KL 20H guide is shorter than the size 30 guide on my factory rods. I know line type and weight goes into determining stripper guide ring size ... but what other things are needed to be considered?

And finally .... a question that has to do with how many running guides there should be. In reading various articles, some from the library of this site, and some from other sources, it has been stated that there is normally one guide for every foot of running length of the rod. A 7' rod would have 7 guides plus the tip top. I used static load testing to place my running guides on the two rods I just built. It's a 6'6" rod, and I have 9 guides total, 6 of them being running guides if you count the choke guide as a running guide, plus the tip top.

My question is, do I have too many running guides? In the static loading articles I've read concerning spinning rods, it says that to achieve maximum power from the blank, that line should follow the curve of the blank as closely as possible. When I loaded the rod to place the running guides, I loaded it as if I were trying to determine the rods IP. So it was loaded quite a bit, which is what I interpreted the static load test to require for final guide placement.

The blanks I used for the builds are rated as medium light power, with an extra fast action. The rods are going to be used for finesse techniques where sensitivity is very important. Am I killing a lot of potential sensitivity with possibly too may running guides? The running guides are 5 mm Fuji KT guides.

Any help in increasing my understanding of spinning rod guide trains would be extremely helpful, and very much appreciated.

Dave,

Shoot me an email or unhide your address.

The difference comes from the way the choke point is found. In the 27x method, it's found simply by multiplying the spool diameter by 27. In the original KR concept, the spool upsweep is used and the choker brought in a few inches closer, I believe. Jim Ising would know more about the details of the calculation of the choke point. The KR GPS is based on known spacings that work well with a size class of reel making the system spool diameter and line type dependent.

Your reel is right at the point where the 27x method begins to diverge significantly from the KR method. if you went one size smaller, you would have found the two likely within about 5" or so of one another.

My advice for addressing the difference is to tinker with both setups. As you saw at the ORBS Gathering, I keep a box with sets of reduction guides in V, Y, and match frames. This gives the ability to tinker with ring diameters and guide heights in the build. The guides are all aluminum oxide rings in steel frames from Batson and Pac Bay, and was a great investment. While Fuji markets the KR system with their K guides, in application it's a variation on the NGC, as shown by the variety of guide types listed in the original GPS software. If you work with guides of the appropriate height, which can be found in the specs, then substitutions can be made while test casting. If you use the same ring diameter and height, swapping out the guides later won't make a big difference.

What the above exercise tells me is that going forward, is that I'll likely start with the choker guide at 40", and slide the choker out to 42" and 45" while test casting to see if there is any improvement. If I'm not happy, then I will likely push things out further and check the 27x location. I know the MW works and works well. There aren't people lining up and complaining about casting distance issues with KR or 27x. At this point I've found enough common ground to feel comfortable just building the rod, as Roger likes to say.

In determining guide height, the rule of thumb for Y guides is to use something about half the diameter of the spool face. You can drop one size if you go to a taller frame guide. So, when KR calls for a 20, you could substitute a 25 in a Y frame. Determining which guide for the butt guide is a matter of getting the height right first. Most of the time, your reel is going to fall between two guide sizes according to the rule of thumb. I generally try to get by with the smaller guide first, but if I'm not happy, then I bump up to the larger option. Once you have the height right, then you can tinker with diameter a bit. Alternate between the Y fame and taller frame guides with about the same height and see which works best. For finesse rods, you likely won't see a difference, but for pike/musky rods or rods with heavy line, you may see a difference. Generally, the goal is to try and get away with the lightest guides you can. This is where that set of cheap guides can really come in handy. You'll have the tools on hand to get the guide train right, and can then only spring for the expensive Ti frames or PVD coated frames and rings as needed.

In terms of running guide numbers, I static test the spinning rods with guides on top of the rod and place them just like I would do on a casting rod. Yes, I know I use an extra guide or two, but I feel I get better line control and more reliable hook sets that way. I know I don't have to worry about the line dropping below the blank, and I could get by with a guide or two fewer, but I also know I have 6'6" factory rods with only 5 guides and a tip top and they haven't blown up either. In general, on a 6'6" rod, I would typically expect to end up with about 9 guides when using micro runners, probably 8 guides with 5mm or 6mm runners. If the static test calls for more, so be it.

You won't make or break the build with an extra running guide or two.

Joe, thanks very much for the response. I was hoping you would, and I'll definitely be shooting you an e mail. Or actually a message on OGF if that's ok with you?

After writing my post to this thread I did a little investigating to see if I could find a reason for such a large discrepancy in the two choker distances. I had read other threads mentioning the up sweep of different reels, but didn't pay much attention to it because a lot of posts said it didn't play as much of a roll as spool lip diameter in determining proper choke guide placement.

As I'd read in one particular thread on this site, and one of the NGC tutorials I'd read ..... it's not like the line is being shot down the barrel of a gun. And I totally understand that, but I gotta believe that while it may not play as an important as a roll as spool lip diameter, it has to have some effect.

Anyhow ....... I had never tried the choker guide placement method depicted in a couple of the NGC tutorials I'd read, where it uses the intersection of a straight line between the spool shaft and the rod blank, so I went and did that. The intersection fell within 1/4" of where the KR GPS placed my choker guide. You're right about the 27X method matching the KR GPS more closely with smaller reels. I did the numbers for a 2000 series Symetre and the discrepancy in distances was less than 5", versus the more than 9" for the 3000 series reels that I regularly use.

Since I use fluorocarbon line exclusively on spinning gear, I use the larger size reel for it's added spool diameter.

I'm definitely going to take the suggestion of getting a cheap set of guides so I can actually learn how different sizes affect casting, versus merely copying the sizes that I was told to use by GPS software.

Although as I said in my previous post. I placed the guides on these last two builds using the KR GPS software, and they cast like a dream compared to my factory rods.

As far as the number of running guides I ended up with .... I'm glad to hear that the number isn't way out of line. My reasoning was much like yours in that I wanted to ensure I was getting the maximum power out of the blank to enhance the hook set. Especially with a rod that has medium light power rating. From reading some of my responses to questions posed on OGF, I'm sure you've figured out that I always recommend a more powerful rod. The way I see it, the time for playing with fish is once they're in the boat. lol

Anyhow...... thank you for the response Joe. It is very much appreciated. And I'll be sending you that message in the next day or two.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2015 04:21PM by David Baylor.

Joe

I can not understand why you would static test a spin with the guides UP
The line will not follow the blank untill you put them at the 180 or down possition Like you said more guides - more weight - ????

Bill - willierods.com

Bill,

You can make the same argument for most casting rods, excluding those used for chasing fish that run very far and very fast. In that scenario, I would do all I could to be sure the line does not touch the blank. There are factory rods that have been in use for decades with 5-6 guides on 6'-7' rods. The line drops well below the blank, rubs the blank, and they do not blow up.

I do it that way for the sake of line control. I know the difference isn't much, but I want to move as much line as possible on the hook set without going off the deep end with the number of guides. Using factory rods with too few guides and too many fish that were not hooked led me to start building rods. Because of that, I tend to err on the side of too many guides rather than too few. In the end, it amounts to a difference of 1 or 2 guides on most builds, and the guides I use for runners are generally 3-5mm single foot fly guides depending on the application. The weight penalty is not much.

You can consider it one of those quirks to the way that I build rods that makes them my own, and is related to the types of rods I build, and the characteristics I want them to have.

My daughters little 5' Glass UL is spiral wrapped Kigan Z guides and ended up using all 8 guides I had. I would have expected it to end up with about maybe 6, most likely 7, but I ended up with 8 after the static test. It's just the way it worked out.

Joe

Joe

If that is the way you decide to build and what you like -- Have at it - There are so many ways to do the same thing ( I guess you have been here a while ) I am not putting you down for how you do it - what you do - just wondering why
I static test in the possition the rod will be fished WE all do things a little differently

Bill - willierods.com

The idea behind turning a spinning rod so the guides are on top during static testing is to make it easier to view the relationship of the line to the blank. Some don't need to do that, you may be one of those. Either way it amounts to about the same thing.

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

That is why with a spiral wraped rod one would use less guides cause the runners on at the 180 as a spining rod

Bill - willierods.com

Absolutely, but for reference, some still turn a spinning rod upside down for what they believe is a better or easier view.

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

Bill,

Now that I think about it, the static test with the guides on top did start for me as an easier way to view things, as Tom said. I bet the tip probably originally came to me from his book. Now, it is just the way I do things, and I'm happy with the results. I also have another quirk to the way that I do it, and that is to begin with no guides on a casting rod or just the reduction guides and choker on a spinning rod. Then I start placing guides at the tip and work my way back one at a time. Again, it's an easier way to view the problem and allows me to concentrate only on the guide at hand, and occasionally tweak the location of the previously placed guides as needed.

If I remove a guide or two from my guide trains, they just don't look right to me, mostly because the line is so close to the blank with the guides I use most often. If I were building with 6mm or 8mm V frames for runners, I would likely handle guide numbers a little differently.

I know that I could get by with fewer guides on spinning rods and spiral wraps. As the running guides get larger, the number goes down.

Dave,

I missed your last response, but I'll look for the PM.

Joe