I'm setting up my rod with micro guides.....I'm doing the test to position the guides and it looks like I am going to wind up with 13 guides plus tip to keep the line off the blank....7' MHXF.
Is that normal? Seems like a lot of guides.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2016 12:29AM by Jon Salter.

This is your rod, but there is no reason why the line should not touch the blank. Are you using the same criteria to set the first guide from the tip top, or the first guide from the reel? If not, why not? just a thought. It's been thought of before by others and used with success and it would reduce the amount of guides.
Another thought on the line touching the blank, if the blank was being used as a spinning rod would you also have the guides in the same place? Probably not. So are we using the Do Not Touch criteria to protect the blank, or some other reason, and is it a valid reason from a rod performance view point?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2016 09:36AM by Spencer Phipps.

The size of your guides, more specifically the height of the frame and the distance from the the bottom of the inside of the ring to the blanks surface is going to mean a lot in the number of guides you need. If you're using say Fuji LN guides and using a #8 guide as your butt guide in lieu of a #10, then when the blank is loaded, the line is going to be closer to the blank than if you started with a #10. That's going to mean you may end up needing more guides between the tip top, and the butt guide. And the ball starts rolling from there.

If you go to micro guides after the butt guide out to the tip top, their shorter frames are going to require more guides than it would if you used a taller framed guide.

I built a rod on the 72MH Immortal blank you were talking about in one of your earlier threads. I started with a #10 butt guide, to a #8 and then a #6 all three being double foot guides. I then went to 4.5's the rest of the way out to the tip. I ended up with 12 guides, plus the tip top. Is that more guides than most would put on it? It's more than likely that it is. But I don't want the line touching the blank under a full load. I'll give up a lighter guide train, and therefore a little loss in sensitivity to achieve the line path I want.

Do the extra guides make a difference in casting performance, or even a difference in sensitivity? Theoretically, yes. Is the difference to the point that I would be able to notice any difference? Don't know. Haven't built any rods with the guides positioned to where the line would touch the blank, and don't plan on doing so.

The afore mentioned rod performs beautifully. If it were any better I'd probably stroke out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2016 04:21AM by David Baylor.

Jon,

I am going to add my 2 cents to this discussion for what it's worth. When I first started building micro guide rods I used a chart sold by Mudhole which positioned the micro guides on a rod. I would end up with one heck of alot of guides on a rod, say 14 to 16 guides on a 7' rod depending on the power of the blank. The line would definetly not touch the surface of the blank; however, I was concerned with the number of guides and added weight affecting the sensitivity of the rod. Gradually I started reducing the number of guides on a rod while static loading the blank and analyzing the amount of contact I was getting with each set of guides. The question I had to ponder is how much line contact is acceptable. As I thought about the the process of fighting a fish the rod is in it's most loaded condition when you are pulling on the fish. Then as you lower the blank for another "pump" on the fish the blank does not have as much load and is not deflected as much as when the fish is running and you're trying to turn it. So I come by to my original question...how much contact is acceptable?

I concluded they are trade off in rod building as in life. Obviously the guide size / height with affect the clearance distance between the line and the blank. 90% of my customer are bass fisherman and many of them use braided line with a fluorocarbon topshot, which requires a knot to be able to pass through the guides. Originally I used 4 mm running guide on my micro guide builds and found trouble with passing a connecting knot through the guide. I switched to 5 mm running guides, which pretty much eliminated the problem. The 5 mm running guides also have a tall height to them over the 4's which helped reduce the line contact on the blank and resulting number of guide on the build.

I read here on Rodbuilding.org a general "rule of thumb" is 1.5 times the rod lenght in feet will give you a rough approximation of the number of micro guide needed for a rod, (i.e. 1.5 x 7" = 10.5). I have found this to be pretty good starting place when postioning guide while static loading a blank. I tie the guides on with elastic thread for postioning on the blank, which make it easy to adjust their postion and also add additional guides as needed. Since most of my builds are bass rod sensitivity is critical and I will allow the line to contact the rod blank suface; but not dropped down onto the side of the blank. Normally if I find the line is contacting the blank too much the addition of one guide and readjust the other guides solves the problem.

Don Campbell
don@sensorfishingrods.com

I think it is important to remember the first response in this string, and the point is that there is no detriment to the line touching the blank. It will happen with a reasonable number of guides. It won't happen when casting as the rod will be mostly straight. As a matter of personal taste, I just don't like to see the "bowstringing" that can occur with using the normal number of guides, about 1 plus the length of the rod plus tiptop (7 foot rod=8 guides + tiptop), so I add a few, probably to about 10 on a 7 foot rod built with guides on top.

But bottom line, I think this is more of a perception thing in our heads than it is a performance thing. If you want to see no contact, build it as a spiral and you can have both no contact and a minimum number of guides.

I will try again I may not have had my first guide from the tIP correctly spaced...it was 2 1/2 from the tip. Maybe I will accept some of the line touching the blank.
For comparison I static tested my mojo XF rod....the line was under the blank on several of the guide spaces....lol

This is an inherent problem with micro guides on casting rods, the line touching the blank due to guide height. Although conventional set ups using casting guides with taller frames will still touch the rod at extreme bends between 45° and 90°. I would not worry too much about the line touching at these extreme angles. On a 7' rod I would use 10 guides plus a tip top in a spiral configuration with the spacing between the tip top and the first runner being 3".

How to space stripper guides:
Bend the rod to 90° and mark the top of the arc next with the rod back on your wrapper mark 3-4" toward the butt from the center arc mark. This will be your choke point. Mount your casting reel to the rod (1st thing is to put grips and reel seat on) with the level wind in the center of the spool, pull your line and tape it on the bottom of the blank at the 3" to 4" mark behind the arc, pull the slack out and line the center ring of your stripper guides with the line, this is where your guide is going to go as far as distance from the reel (about 21" or 22"). I like to put my first stripper at top center some guys start the spiral there and offset it from center. You may have to mess with the choke point a little to get a good layout. Set your first offset stripper (2nd stripper from reel) center line in ring it will be on top around 45°. *This does not have to be exact. Follow line toward tip and mount 3rd guide under blank around 135°* same thing center of ring. Mount fourth guide under blank at 180° somewhere around the choke point. Keep the line as straight as possible. Finish mounting running guides in whatever spacing you came up with.

After I am done I can bend the rod at 90° and none of the line will touch the blank.

This can be used for stripper spacing on conventional casting rod guide set ups also.

Sorry about the book, hope it helps.

Jon,
I normally set up my bass rods using a “one guide per foot + tip-top” rule. I use Fuji 3.5 running guides (on top) and although my line does touch the blank under load, I could care less. It’s never caused a problem of any kind. Over the last 8 or 10 years, it seems that there’s been a trend toward more guides and I cringe when I see performance-killing guide spacing of 2” to 3” close to a rod tip. I still think the “1 guide per foot + 1 + tip top” is still the best rule of thumb. After hearing laudable arguments of better line control, I’ve tried adding more guides, but immediately noticed a reduction of response and recovery. If you’re really concerned about line touch, I’d use a spiral wrap as Michael suggested, but to me, it’s unwarranted for bass rods.

Neither my (last year's) Mudhole Catalog or today's Google search included any mention of an "MHXF" blank. What kind of reel is used with and what kind of fishing is done with an MHXF blank?

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Neither my (last year's) Mudhole Catalog or
> today's Google search included any mention of an
> "MHXF" blank. What kind of reel is used with and
> what kind of fishing is done with an MHXF blank?


Phil the blank is a St.Croix 3C70MHXF......I am a bass fisherman and use it for swim jigs.

I have made rods with 31/2 " from the tip when static testing looked like it needed that and as far as I can tell it did not "kill performance." It seems to me like 2 1/2 to 3 is a bit of overkill, but I don't think it affects performance. If one is worried about that, I recommend doing back to back test casting. I'll bet you cannot find a difference. I have a 6' 8" micro, on top, casting rod with 10 guides + the tiptop, and it casts great. I think that the first couple guides at the back have a lot more to do with casting performance than the last few at the tip. I think Amtac and Fuji think so too. They invented new guides for the first casting guide.

If you want another idea for an easy and effective spiral, investigate the "simple spiral."

Here is how the spacing ended up, starting from the top....

3 7/8, 2 1/2, 2 3/8, 2 1/2, 2 1/2, 3, 3, 3 7/8, 5 7/8, 7 1/8, 12 first guide from the but is 21" from the end of the seat.

Guide sizing from the butt..... 8, 6, 6, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 ,4, 4.5 tip top.

It was mentioned that the first couple guide affect the casting most....how so?

Also my first guide is no different than the rest, just bigger. I bought the micro kit from Mudhole, should I have gotten a different first guide? I have been reading about the stripper guides.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2016 08:25PM by Jon Salter.

If you are only worried about test casting, set up a micro guided 7 foot casting rod with 7 guides and test cast.

Then set up the same rod with 14 guides and test cast.

I would guess that you would find little difference in the test CAST of the rod - whether it had 7 guides or 14 guides.

As others have said, during casts - the blank is straight or nearly straight and the line is essentially slack or close to it so no touching the rod and no friction on the blank in any case.

Also, when setting the hook, the line runs under the blank - a problem - up to you. When reeling in the fish, the typical fisherman pumps the rod, so that when the line is moving on the blank the blank is somewhat relaxed.

Or, just build the rod with micro match guides. These are 2 or 3 mm guides, but they are on a taller foot. So, you have the small guides but you have more height to avoid touching the blank with few guides.

Be safe

I'm with Michael on this. Does the weight of extra guides cost you in theoretical casting efficiency and sensitivity. No doubts that it does. Can you feel the difference? I can't honestly say because I haven't built two rods using the same blank, with different guide lay outs. But I do know this. I have factory rods with far fewer and larger guides on them than the rods I've built with more numerous and smaller micro guides on them, and the rods I've built absolutely blow my factory rods away in casting performance.

Is that because the micro guides weigh less than the running guides on my factory rods? Or is it because the higher number of guides offers better line control? I believe Steve Gardner once posted that 6, 3mm guides weigh as much as one 6mm guide. So if we take into account the added thread and wrap finish that the additional 3 mm guides would require, lets say that 3, 3mm guides equal the weight of one 6. That's 2 more guides. 2 more guides. Better line control.

As far as whether the line touching the blank makes a difference? It evidently doesn't, because as Jon stated earlier, he as well as I. have used factory rods where the guide spacing allows the line to pass below the blank. And while everyone agrees that that's not a good thing, I fished rods like that for years without seeing any ill effects. So why don't I like the line touching the blank on rods I build? Because I don't.

And it's not because I'm afraid of the line touching the rod blank while reeling in a fish. Heck, when I static load a rod to place the guides, I have that rod fully loaded using the criteria set forth in the CCS. A lot of the fish I reel in don't load the rod to that extent. I just don't want the line touching the blank, so I build it so it doesn't.

We all do a lot of subjective thinking /talking. It would be prudent to put our theories to practical test casting as several have suggested. Roger’s idea of setting up a rod with 7 guides vs. 14 guides is a good one. He may not think you’d find much difference (subjective thinking), but I think anyone with a normal sensory system would (more subjective thinking). I have several rods where I’ve experimented with different guide setups, including the number of guides, and the differences were significant and obvious. I guess it depends on where your priorities lie…..speed, avoiding blank contact, line control, etc. As we know, more of one means giving up another.

Although rod guides are a necessary evil, they’re required to distribute the load. They are, however parasitic in nature requiring the rod to expend energy for their dynamic movement. Ever wiggle a bare blank prior to wrapping the guides and think "too stiff" .After guides are placed the tip may feel "too soft”. It has nothing to do with the blank, just the energy the blank must provide to deflect the guides. This energy is taken from the blank and lost from the available energy pool the blank has stored. This is most apparent during casting. The energy lost is based on "weight times radius squared". Replacing the top three guides, closest to the tip top, with titanium frame guides can reduce these parasitic losses from 40 to 50 percent depending on location to the tip. This will change none of the static characteristics of the rod, but will make a huge difference in "feel" when the rod is moving. Rods "feel" lighter and crisper and less tiring to cast. Sensitivity at the tip is also improved by reducing transmitted energy losses. Extra Fast tips or blanks with thin, flexible tips do not carry extra guide weight well. Ironically, some builders will add more guides with closer spacing to alleviate the perceived additional stress. Blanks can carry more guide weight towards the butt as the inertial mass is less a proportion of the blank's reflex capability. The tip area is critical in regard to inertial mass in the cast as the power delivery capability in the reflex of the blank in that area is relatively low. The benefits of micro guides is not so much in any significant change in line control effect, but rather that of less inertial mass leading to higher tip velocities.