The way it's been explained to me is that you are shooting to reproduce a "fighting position", one close to maxing out the pressure you can put on a fish with any given blank, reel, line etc. The rod travels through an infinite number of bends in every fight. Static Loading is simply an approximation of the best place for guides in a heated fight. Any rod should work best at peak power in that position. Static loading will help do it but how you get there is not magic. Just let the blank bend the WAY IT WANTS TO (hence the weight attached to the tip) and place guides accordingly - like you were fighting a fish.

Has ANYONE documented the difference in guide placement between the single line from the reel method and the two line method? No one has offered that info so far. If there is no difference in placement then the only advantage of two lines is not having the guides twist. Lots of opinions but no data.

I do not know if there is any overall empirical differences in guide placement using the one vs two line methods. But in my opinion the two line method allows for the blank to bend naturally the way it wants to unencumbered and uneffected by the temporary placement of the guides. This along with the lack of guide twisting makes for a quicker and less ambiguous placement of guides to obtain a smooth parallel line curve. This makes sense to me so I use it for heiping to finalize my guide placements. I always test cast for final tweaking. It should be mentioned that some never static test and rely solely on guide placement charts. Others only place guides dependent on how the line touches the guides from the bottom of the reel spool to the top top. Still others only by placing the stripper at a certain distance from the reel or tip top, and placing the last runner at a certain distance from the tip top and then placing the other guides progressively. To me you need more than one technique for optimum guide placement. It's not that hard to do properly.

Michael it is very easy but you have to envision a "thought experiment". I will use an extreme example to best illustrate the difference.

Say you only place two guides on the rod, the tip top and the butt guide near the reel. Now you put a reel on the rod, string the line through the two guides, and attach a variable load to the end of the rod. Let us imagine that we do this from the balcony of an apartment building so we have lots of vertical room to work with. We will also assume the rod is fixed at a horizontal angle. As we add load eventually the tip of the rod will bend 180 degrees and the tip top will touch the butt guide (if the rod doesn't break). By contrast if the load was only attached to the tip top the blank would bend at most 90 degrees and the tip top would go from horizonal to vertical. A very different bend. By going with the single line you force the blank to conform to your guide spacing. With the two line method you see the natural bend of the blank and should attempt to conform you guide spacing to the blanks natural bend.

Tons of factory rods have been built over the decades with no attempt to conform to the natural bend of the blank. They work, but do they perserve the ability to load said blank to it's natural maximum value? Likely doesn't matter for the majority of guys. But I am someone who likes to catch big fish on light tackle and push my stuff to the limit. For me a static load test is worth the effort. Also lets me establish limits before I ever fish the rod. Better it breaks on the porch than a once in a lifetime vacation/fish situation.

Hope the above makes sense and you can see the difference in your mind.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

If you put OMN line on and use it to put tension or static pressure on the blank \
That line will put pressure on ALL THE GUIDES which will cause them to put pressure all along the blank Pulling on the blank where the guides are !!!!! Causing pressure along the blank

But when holding the tip with pressure the blank will bend in a normal fashion then the other line though the guides will give a better showing of WHERE THE GUIDES SHOULD BE

you will get a better vision of where the guides SHOULD BE NO PRESSURE pulling down on the blank

IMHO

Bill - willierods.com

If you put ONE line on and use it to put tension or static pressure on the blank \
That line will put pressure on ALL THE GUIDES which will cause them to put pressure all along the blank Pulling on the blank where the guides are !!!!! Causing pressure along the blank

But when holding the tip with pressure the blank will bend in a normal fashion then the other line though the guides will give a better showing of WHERE THE GUIDES SHOULD BE

you will get a better vision of where the guides SHOULD BE NO PRESSURE pulling down on the blank

IMHO

Bill - willierods.com

With all due respect, and I'm not arguing with either method, no one has presented anything but opinions and theories as to the merits of the two line method. No one has presented any data showing that there will be a difference in guide location between a well-done single line and a well-done two line method. I have a couple rods coming up and if I have time, will do it both ways and report back. I'm surprised that no one appears to have data to present.

Micheal - I do not think anyone was arguing with you but rather giving you our opinions and why we use the methods we use. I think that either method (one vs two lines) will result in no difference in the number of guides or change the position of the guides verry much. However, I do not have hard data concerning this. I like the two line method because I hate dealing with guides twisting under stress, so for me it just seems easier and I am comfortable with that. I have many years of guide placement experience, and for the most part the static test is a confirmation of my guide lay out. As I mentioned above I use several methods to layout the guide train, and my final test is test casting. If I like the way it casts and feels (no hard data on this either) I am happy.

Norman makes a good point With guides on top Casting one line will put pressure on them and they will twist So two lines the guide line can be a lot lighter to eliminate twisting Or spiral wrap it

Bill - willierods.com

Guides on top don't twist when testing if you turn the rod upside down when stressing it.

But it is NOT a SPINNING ROD With a spinning rod or guides at the bottom of the blank one WILL USE LESS GUIDES it should be tested with them on top
IMHO unless I am totally wrong But I don't think so

Bill - willierods.com

Bill, if I assume the rod will be made with the guides on top, and I stress it upside down, and don't take a guide off, what is the problem? I think the process is valid. Why is it not?

Keep in mind that when doing this on a spinning rod or a spiral, one observes the angles of the line through the guides just like doing it on an upside down casting rod.

The original instructions for a simple spiral said to locate the guides without regard to the spiral, then add the one at 90 degrees between the first and third. , and take all from #3 to the end under to 180 degrees. It said nothing about removing a guide, if I remember correctly. So if I locate the guides for a spiral based on guides on top, then I can locate guides for a "guides on top" build from underneath.

OK, go for it everyone. Tell me the fallacy in my reasoning.

Well
As fare as I understand it a casting rod ( guides on top ) in order to TRY to keep the line OFF the blank which is said not to make any real matter when under pressure will use O say 3 - 4 more guides then a spinning rod More guides more weight more thread and finish
Since WEIGHT is the factor I would think a spiral is better Guides are at a 180 as a spinning rod Less guides less finish thread less weight Lighter rod - Better performance

Unless one does a static test buy putting the guides on top ( using a spacing chart ) factory chart with the extra guides on then turning it over static testing it -- but not taking any guides off )

Hay if I am wrong i don't mind being told so ???

Bill - willierods.com

Bill, I've never used 3-4 more guides on a casting rod than a spinning rod, not sure why one would. What I'm saying is that If I'm building a casting rod with guides on top, and I've settled on a number of guides that I am sure will work well with that blank, on top, it doesn't matter whether I test that rod upright or upside down. I will get the same answer.

Yes, I know that I could probably cut a running guide out if I make it spiral, but I don't like spiral. Not based on performance, simply my preference based on looking down the rod when fishing (crazy? maybe, but that is me). I will take some contact by the line with the blank under stress, and it doesn't bother me to use an extra guide that weighs next to nothing. All I'm saying is that when you've set the number of guides assuming it will be an "on top" casting rod, you can evaluate the guide spacing upside down and the guides will not twist.

Michael, no one is telling you that you are wrong in the way you do your static testing. If you are comfortable with the one line method just go with it, that's your opinion and I respect it. I thought you were asking for our opinions on this subject. I gave the reasons why I preferr the two line method and that is my opinion. Like I mentioned before, I do not think there will be much difference between the two methods. I flex the rod in both directions with guides on top and on the bottom; having them on top allows you to see if the line touches the blank or goes below it. For me the two line method is easy with no guide twisting and this works for me, and that's my opinion with no data to back it up. Hope this is clear.
Norm

Norm, I wasn't taking the responses as a problem, but I was asking for data and getting opinions and theories. So many think that their opinion is data. It is not. Data would be positions x, y, and z for this method and a, b, and c for that method. I do appreciate the opinions of others; we have many really talented builders here. But if the two line method is superior (in positioning, not in avoiding twisting of the guides) then it should result in different positions. And it apparently does not.

One person mentioned a final check by casting. And that makes a lot of sense. But if a person were to say that after the two line method they used the line off the reel as a final check, then I would say the two methods give the same result since you use one to confirm the other.

I know it's not world peace, and I know that performance is not as sensitive to placement as we often think, but I was trying to determine if anyone has in fact documented a spacing difference between the two methods, and I find that no one has (so far). Thanks to all for their participation.

I guess I missed the part where anyone thought the two line method gave superior results to the one line method. I thought that we were just gaving opinions on why we use one method vs the other, not trying to prove superiority of one over the other. I fully agree with you that for flyrods and casting rods, small spacing differences have little effect on casting performance. This is also true, in part, for for spinning rods in that small differences in placement of running guides have a small effect on performance. Howevet, the placement of strippers and reduction guides.can make a big difference in spinning rod performance. I have actually tested this a number of times over the years by moving various guides around on fly, casting and spinning rods and test casting on a measured course. I have also tested various types of guide trains against each other. I always test cast every rod I build and I have enough experience to know how an optimally paced guide train should feel and perform.
Norm

Michael, please forgive me if by skimming through some of the more recent responses to your question, I missed something that may have already been said concerning your method of static testing a guides on top casting rod, by turning the rod upside down.

The problem I see in determining guides on top placement with the rod turned upside down has to do with guide height. By turning the guide upside down you're effectively increasing the distance of the line from the blank by whatever the inside diameter of your ring is. Once you flip the rod over, if you're using lower framed guides such as running guides are, the line may touch or pass below the blank.

In fact, my guess is that it would at least touch the blank. While I know that isn't a problem for some, I personally don't like to have the line touch the blank. Not because I'm worried about friction between the line and the blank on a long running fish. I'm an Ohio bass fisherman. Rarely if ever does my drag slip when fighting a fish.

As for the data you're looking for of the 2 line versus your 1 line method of static load testing. I don't have that data, but I can't see the guide spacing being all that different, if different at all. All I can say is that I tried the one line method on the very first rod I ever put guides on, and I couldn't keep the guides from rotating out of position. Perhaps I load my rods more heavily than you.

Anyhow ...... that's what I got

Thanks, David. I'm doing the upside down thing only when I have trouble with rotating guides. My builds are almost all of low micros exc for the reduction guides. I also recheck after the initial setup with the rod upside down. It seems to work fine. With casting rods, which I build on top, not spirals, I always have at least one extra guide to keep the line off the blank until the rod stress gets very high. I have found no discernible loss in performance with extra guides.