Hello everyone,

I want to make sure I understand the concept of guide placement. I have read the library articles and numerous threads here on the topic, but sometimes it takes numerous tries before I fully get something.

All of this relates to a casting set up.

In the articles regarding static testing, they say to flex the blank under a big load and adjust guide placements so that the line follows the natural bend of the blank without touching the blank. However, many people have written here that to keep the line from touching the blank under load, that too many (more than what is really necessary) guides would be needed. So they use fewer guides and allow the line to touch the blank (because presumably the line is not being reeled in much during max load so little wear on the line is occurring).

Additionally, I've read that one should use the size and number of guides and place them accordingly that is required for the use of the rod.

I see the guides performing two main functions: help achieve maximum casting distance during the cast, and protecting the line during the retrieve (any other functions I need to consider?). So beyond the static test, I assume additional input to size, number, and spacing comes from actual test casting?

So here are my questions: During the static test, how much contact do I allow with the blank? Is the line contacting the blank only in 1 spot or more than 1? During both test casting (primarily) and static testing (less so) what am I looking for / feeling for to determine optimum placement and number (casting distance only? Or is the something else)?

I realize that some of the answer may lie in personal preference, but what are the things you look for and feel for in determining optimum number and placement of guides?

Father to William (15 yrs), who I hope has found his passion in custom rod building!

Spiral wrap the rod. It eliminates the worry about the line touching the blank. I load the blank a little at a time during static distribution and move the guides as necessary.

Were I to start to building casting rods today I would start with the simple spiral. No point in putting guides up top and trying to keep the line up off the blank, especially with the small size of guides popular these days. I always use a batson recipies chart for guide location on a conventional rod as a starting point before my stress test, and add an additional guide location in case I might need it. They usually get you pretty close. If guides must be on top it's now considered o.k. for the line to touch the blank as long as it does not pass below it.

Gib,
There are many fishermen who do not want a rod with a spiral wrapped rod.

For those folks, I simply suggest using taller guides to keep the line off of the blank if it is desired to keep the line off of the blank.

But, to answer your question, you have asked all of the questions and even given all of the answers already.

If you look at the folks who are landing 1000 lb fish on casting rods, it is pretty much guaranteed that the casting rods are on top of the rod and they are not particularly worried about the size of the guides. They simply want a rod that will stand up to the rigors of day in and day out use of a fishing rod that can stand up to the strain and pull of landing these sea faring giants.

So, you go from landing 1000 lb fish down to landing 5 oz fish and you obviously have different requirements. It is up t you, as the rod builder to sort through the actual needs of the fisherman and deliver the rod that satisfies the needs and wishes of the person that will be using the rod in a particular way.

Take care

With respect to the comment by Lynn:

"If guides must be on top it's now considered o.k. for the line to touch the blank as long as it does not pass below it."

I simply have to ask, "If it is all right for the line on a casting rod to touch the blank, why is it not also all right for the line to pass below the blank?"

Just wondering.

Be safe

I think there's a little mischief afoot. But Roger, I'll answer your question concerning why the line passing below the blank with a conventional casting guide layout, is not a good thing

You don't want the line passing below the blank on a conventional casting rod guide train for the same reason you don't want your guides spaced too far apart on a spinning or spiral wrapped guide train. Any time guides are spaced too far apart from one another they can cause the blank to over flex between those two guides. If under a heavy enough load, it can cause blank damage.

Gib, to answer your questions. As you said, the number of guides required lies in personal preference. If you don't have a problem with the line touching the blank, I personally would space the guides so that the line touched the blank the same amount between every guide. Doing so would result in using the least number of guides possible.

You could lessen the number of guides even further by following Roger's suggestion of using higher framed guides. I personally wouldn't do that using a conventional casting guide train though. The taller the guide the more rotational torque there will be. Under a load the line is naturally going to seek the bottom of the blank. Increasing the height of the frame is going to cause the blank to twist more severely because of the additional leverage provided by the taller frame.

The shorter the rod, the easier it is to feel the rod trying to twist in your hand. My guess is, defeating that rod twist is why the spiral wrap was invented.

My question is ..... what is too many guides? My personal preference is that I am going to put enough guides on so the line does not touch the blank. It comes very close, but it doesn't touch. I've fallen in love with using micro guides as running guides. Because they're small and short, it requires more guides, but they weigh less than larger guides. If you want to read some of the benefits of micro running guides, use the search function and put in the name Steve Gardner. He is a well respected member of this site. I think you'll find what he has to say not only very interesting, but very helpful as well.

Roger, I wish I knew the answer to your question. I personally hate seeing the line touch, but after much reading about the use of fly guides and micros on casting rods it seems to have become an acceptable practice. When I say I start with a Batson recipe, they usually are saying to use older style more conventional size casting guides on top. This as you said, is the only way I know to keep the line off the blank . When using fly guides and or micros on top, seems like you never have enough. So I put em' on the bottom. Keep in mind I'm a hobby builder, ( so I don't have to do anything if I don't want to). If a friend wants a casting rod with guides on top I usually use size 5 as my smallest guides, and they're smaller than anything my friends are used to seeing. And for my personal rods, small enough. (my first thought was I wonder if this is a trick question) I should also say I'm usually dealing with trout, walleye, bass rods and forget not everyone's doing the same!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2017 04:50PM by Lynn Behler.

David Baylor your comment is spot on...

Gib, here are a couple of my 2 cents to consider with the # of guides and placement. First, size of the guides vs the type of blank. Think of it not as a total guide weight issue alone, but a guide weight vs blank power issue. Most of the single foot guides are very very small and weight little (especially micros), and the recovery of the rod won't be hampered as much if the rod is of greater power. The sandbags on a diving board analogy comes to mind. If you have a powerful blank with small guides, add the guides you need. If it is a lighter power rod, then downsize your guides, and use the least and lightest amount possible.

Also, there is some added utility to adding more guides. Imagine you had a rod with only one guide and one tip. The line would pass through the guide to the tip, and upon hook set you would see a straight line from point A(guide) to point B(tip). The line won't cover much distance despite great bend. If you add a guide in between, the line now takes the path of a triangle, guide to guide to tip (A to B to C), thus more distance per swing. The more guides you add, the more "true-to-blank" your line will follow, and the more line you will actually pull during a hook set. The line can't "cut the corner" so to speak, it will take more of the full distance of the rod the more guides you use. This will also prevent the rod from the uncontrolled flex.

Spiral wraps are nice and you can decrease the amount of guides you use, but don't use too little or you will end up losing line-pull distance and the rod won't function the way it was designed to.

As David mentioned, taller guides aren't better either because any side load on the guides will result in that much more torsion. You might get more line-pull distance, but its not worth a broken rod. Longer rods are especially vulnerable to this.

Personally, I don't mind using the guides I need to keep the line off the blank because I know I am getting the full utility of the rod, and the guides I use aren't really that heavy by comparison anyway.

Good luck and have fun,
Nick

Nick, you're comments are spot in my book as well. Like you, I am going to use as many guides as it takes to keep the line off the blank.

Gib, I'll add a little more of my thoughts that piggy back what Nick is saying. The intended use of the rod can have a bearing on how many guides a builder puts on it. If I'm building a rod that I'm not going to be putting a lot of lifting pressure on, for instance a crankbait rod, then I don't mind allowing the line to touch the blank. I'm going to fight the fish using the flex of the rod, and when I bring the fish to the boat, I'm either going to net it, or land it by lifting it with my hand on its belly. I'm not going to boat flip it with the rod like I would if I were flipping or pitching at close range.

Also, while micro guides shorter height means it's going to require more guides to keep the line off of or barely touching the blank, their shorter height is going to reduce the rotational torque placed on the rod blank. The line is still going to want to find the bottom of the blank, but the leverage from the guide to twist the blank is reduced by the shorter frame.

I have an old heavy power 5'6" pistol grip casting rod that I use for throwing spinnerbaits in and around heavy cover. Years ago I had a guy that used to fish one of the tournament circuits I fish, put new guides on it. He put taller guides on it than what were on it from the factory. When I hooked a fish, especially a bigger fish, I could feel the rod wanting to twist in my hand. It was so bad that even though I loved that rod, I stopped using it. I just couldn't handle how it felt.

My first foray into working on rods was replacing the guides on that and another of the factory rods I owned. The difference in performance I saw in those rods, just be replacing the guide trains are what hooked me on rod building. I used to think the only difference in fishing rods, was the blank the rods were built on.

Now I know it's much more than just the blank.

All,

Thank you for the replies. This is exactly the type of input I was looking for.

Best,
Gib

Father to William (15 yrs), who I hope has found his passion in custom rod building!