Hello all,

The question is two foot guides vs one foot guides. Will you get more sensitivity out of a single foot guide vs a two foot.
The build is a st croix 4C70MHM Will be a bottom bouncing rod for walleye
guides HHRLC-12, HHRLC-10, HHRLC-8, HHRLC-6, HHRLLT-6-5
I did a search and came back with one good read from 06 but wanted to see if anyone had a differing opinion. I know ever build is different. In a nuts to nuts compression what our your thoughts. Thanks.

Yes!
You will maintain more sensitivity with singles over doubles, and also improve rod performance at the same time

Rods are most sensitive when there is nothing on them and anything we add to that blank lessons that sensitivity

Adding double ft guides means more weight, and not only from the guides. You are now using twice the thread, twice the epoxy adding additional weight.

With single ft guides; rod will be lighter, tip will be more responsive, crisper, will react less, and recover faster from casting due to the less weight.
which (if casting will improve distance).

With the lighter tip section; balance point will be further back improving comfort and bite detection.

PS;
You can also improve that performance by using Micro guides for your runners, which will further lesson tip weight by little over 80% compared to the guides you're planning to use.

Steve Gardner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PS;
> You can also improve that performance by using
> Micro guides for your runners, which will further
> lesson tip weight by little over 80% compared to
> the guides you're planning to use.


I had brought up micro guides at an earlier post and was told that they would not make a difference on a rod like this. It will be paired with a bait caster. Where i fish the state record was caught 22lbs. not uncommon to see them in the 16lbs range. dont know if that makes a difference. so i could go double foot on the reduction and single on the running?

Well then they did not know what they were talking about.

I've used micro guides on every rod from light to heavy setups designed to through 8+oz baits with up to 80 lb test lines.
Have friends throwing them on muskie and stripper rods with no problems.
Unless you are using leaders that would prevent knot passage through them, there is no reason not to micros.

Steve Gardner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well then they did not know what they were talking
> about.
>
> I've used micro guides on every rod from light to
> heavy setups designed to through 8+oz baits with
> up to 80 lb test lines.
> Have friends throwing them on muskie and stripper
> rods with no problems.
> Unless you are using leaders that would prevent
> knot passage through them, there is no reason not
> to micros.

OK. i have not ever used micros or set them up. What would you recomened for this set up. will be using around 3oz weight. no knot passage. Thanks for the quick replies!

The big foot of the Fuji KB belly guides seems like a good Idea. Titanium frame size 5 will be pretty light. There is no reason why double foot guides would not work OK for the first two or three guides, but I would use the Fuji KR as the first guide, then KB's in one size the rest of the way.

Ryan;
What size and types of lines will you be using? and will you be using a low profile or round reel?

Steve Gardner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ryan;
> What size and types of lines will you be using?
> and will you be using a low profile or round reel?


I use 12lb power pro braid for the main line. leader is usually 8lb fluorocarbon
I am using a shimano chronarch 200e7 its a low pro baitcaster

It's more about weight than how many legs a guide has. If the set of single foot guides you use is heavier than the set of double foot guides, then the double foot guides will have retained more rod sensitivity.

Most of the time, a single foot guide of the same size and style will be lighter than its double foot cousin, so in a sense, single foot guides will retain more sensitivity. But do remember it's a matter of weight, not the number of legs on the guide.

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

If it were my rod It would be set up 6 double-- ft 5 double or single ft-- then 3 mm's to tip.
If you have never worked micro's then you might want to use 4 mm's

But 3's will more then handle the job.

My preferred Micros are The Batson ALPS . In six years of using them I have not had a single failure. and the feet are long enough for you not to worry about having to put special guide in center for extra support as is suggested with some of the other brands.

Mr. Kirkman is correct

Steve Gardner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If it were my rod It would be set up 6 double-- ft
> 5 double or single ft-- then 3 mm's to tip.
> If you have never worked micro's then you might
> want to use 4 mm's
>
> But 3's will more then handle the job.
>
> My preferred Micros are The Batson ALPS . In six
> years of using them I have not had a single
> failure. and the feet are long enough for you not
> to worry about having to put special guide in
> center for extra support as is suggested with some
> of the other brands.

so a double ft minima 6 to a 5 then 3 to tip. do you typically need to run more of them then a standard set up. Thanks again to every one for helping.

The amount of sensitivity gained or lost by the number of feet on your guides is inconsequential compared to the type or types of line you are using, and how much of it is between you and the fish. Many who target big fish (80+ lbs.) employ a long mono shock leader to prevent break-offs, but this decreases "sensitivity" regardless of the blank. With smaller (12 pounds or less) fish the rod's "sensitivity" depends upon the weight of the rod and the elasticity of the connection between the rod tip and the fish, not the number of guide feet.

Ryan
I made a mistake in my sizing 6-5-4 then 3's (i left out the 4 mm on the other post)

Phil;
in most cases the rods weight is effected by number of feet which also includes the number of thread wraps and epoxy for double footed guides.
It may not be as noticeable on heavier rods, but it is there none the less.
To you it may be inconsequential. to me it all adds up to

Double foot guides slow the blank as well don't they?

Added weight reduces rod "speed." They do not change the action, but the speed of reaction and recovery. Again, it has nothing to do with how many legs the guide has, but how heavy it is.

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

here are the guides im looking at. Do they seem right?
part # qty
TKWTG-6J 1
TKWTG-5J 1
NIRLMG-4 1
NIRLMG-3 5?

tip top CFM4CT-3-5.0

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Added weight reduces rod "speed." They do not
> change the action, but the speed of reaction and
> recovery. Again, it has nothing to do with how
> many legs the guide has, but how heavy it is.
>
> ..................

So with that train of thought which makes sense. most two footed guides are going to weigh more then singles especially by the time you thread and epoxy. Trying to learn and retain as much as i can. Seems like i always order something then change my mind on how i wanna approach the build when my items arrive. Hey its just money!!! Thanks tom.

I have fished with fly anglers who seem to have ESP the way they they can detect the slightest take of a drifted nymph - and they don't use strike indicators or rely upon the sensitivity of the rod. The weight of the fly line and the inevitable belly in the fly line make feeling the take (sensitivity) impossible. They tell me they detect takes by watching for any change where the line enters the water. I have used this technique with some success worming for bass. The number of guide feet and even their weight are inconsequential when using your eyes to detect hits.