Is there any MEASURABLE difference in friction created by different ring materials used in guides? Is there any MEASURABLE difference in heat dissipation between different ring materials used in guides? If not I'll stick with weight, durability, and price.

Yes there is, but the larger question is how much practical difference there is. Because friction is largely the result of two surfaces being pressed/forced together, it is highly doubtful that simply moving to a slicker ring material would increase casting distance. On the other hand, if you're fighting large fish and experience long runs under heavy drag, then the pressure component is in larger play and things like friction and heat dissipation because more important considerations.

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

Can't address this with any real info, but I will say that while perfectly happy using an alconite guide train, I will often use a Sic tip at twice the price. (Alc. 5 tube, 5 ring- $3.19, Sic - $6.24) So either I have fallen for that oft mentioned hype or there is some real benefit in this. I'd be interested in the thoughts of others on this subject. (Just using Fuji guides as an example.) Maybe we can take this thread to 3 pages. Ha!

Agree with Tom 100% , if your fishing includes long battles and extended runs by powerful game fish it is wise to choose a ceramic that offers the least amount of friction but i don't think you will see any detectable difference in casting performance as far as distance . Being lighter weight can add to distance but to say the ring material itself will add distance if all weigh essentially the same i would bet it would be very negligible


I have always stayed away from SIC tiptops because i believe they're somewhat more brittle than Alconite (At least in my experience) thats why i prefer tiptops with titanium frames for lighter weight but with a different ring material.

I was looking at it from a wear standpoint, casting distance was not the issue for me.

Did not mean to make it appear i was signaling you out Lynn , my apologies . Many people agree with you and do prefer Sic tops just like you do there's no question about that . I am in the minority i'm sure , as far as wear , imo i don't think wear is an issue with any of the modern ceramics i think the attributes people consider when choosing ring materials are slickness, weight and are they a good value compared to what else is available.

Remember, just my opinion.

If you were going to run with a more expensive, slicker, etc., guide, but didn't want to run the whole set, the place to do it would be the tiptop (greater surface contact and often higher angle of the line to the ring) and the butt guide where most of the power is applied when you're really leaning into a fish.

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

Herb, it's all good, just looking for opinions. And Tom I'm with you 100% on the stripper and tip thing.

Hello Phil.

Do a search for "Vickers Hardness" and all dates.


Tight Wraps & Tighter Lines.

Bob,

New Bern, NC.

I've had a number of tiptops groove, all from factory rods before I started making my own rods and using premium materials for tiptops. None of those has grooved. Tiptop grooving is an issue.

Not doubting others experiences but i have yet to see grooving in any Alconite or Sic ring material ever on any fishing rod , these ceramics are so hard that you can't even scratch them with a rough cut file let alone braided lines. As said factory rods are rarely equipped with the best ceramic ring material so i have no doubt many have suffered grooving . I also agree with Tom and Lynn that the tip top would be the spot to choose the highest rated ring material like Torzite or Sic and choosing a titanium frame would be the ultimate choice.

Everyone has different experiences so opinions vary , it's enjoyable to read other people's experiences as i have great respect for all the contributors on these boards.

Phil,

You can go and get yourself a copy of the CRC Handbook, a list of data tables that includes properties of materials. However, most of the info you need can be found with a good Google search, at least on the Thermal Conductivity front. I'm not entirely sure that mating surfaces between nylon, dyneema, or fluorocarbon and aluminum oxide or silicon carbide occur often enough that coefficients of friction are measured by people who make the tables that appear in something like the CRC Handbook.

I will say this that based on my readings about and experiences with the ring materials available to rod builders that there is a reason that my personal rods generally get aluminum oxide rings in a well designed SS316 frame. I fish freshwater and there is nothing that pulls hard enough, long enough, nor runs fast enough to warrant the added cost of inserts with different properties. If I were designing a rod for big fast saltwater fish, then I would be looking at silicon carbide in titanium frames very hard. There aren't a lot of rods that leave my shop, but I am always up front and honest when putting a rod in the hand of a friend as to why I make the component selections I make, and leave it up to them if they want to go for an upgraded material.

The only guide I ever had groove on me was a steel tip top on a Browning factory rod. Because of this, I opt for a ceramic tip top on the odd occasion when I use minima guides.

I have seen handbook numbers for the coefficient of friction, hardness, and heat conductivity of Alox and Sic but none conducted when these materials were wet? Has anyone actually [not theoretically] measured these qualities using wet/damp mono, flouro, or braid, on various guide ring materials and stated where these results are published? When such measurements are made and published by reputable researchers I might use these results to select the guides I buy, if the physical differences are big enough and the price differences are small enough. Until then I am suspicious of the motives for and accuracy of hearsay recommendations for rod componnents

All aspects considered, there is none better than Fuji’s Alconite.

Mark Talmo
FISHING IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM LIFE BUT RATHER A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO IT!!! BUILDING YOUR OWN SIMPLY ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE.

Phil, why would anyone go to these extreme lengths? And do you really think it would make a difference to most builders and customers? My thoughts are that the differences would be so small as to be of little value.

Phil,

Wet lines will not impact the thermal conductivity of the ceramics. The coefficient of friction depends on the physical structure of the mating surfaces, i.e. how bumpy they are on small scales. These will be affected as the surface changes. As far as how moisture will affect the coefficients of friction, there will be some change as the lines, particularly nylon absorb water. Fluorocarbon and dyneema are going to be less affected as they do not absorb water as readily if at all.

If you are willing to pick up the tab for the specialized equipment, I'll gladly build it and conduct the research. I could make some practical measurements using guides and line, but I do not believe that the freshman physics equipment that I have at my disposal in the lab is going to reliable enough to make conclusive measurements.

I think there is a tendency of people to not look carefully at function and application when building rods. By that I mean that some people/customers look
only at the aesthetics and not function. I sold a ton of rods with colorful rings just because they were "pretty". They were good guides so no one had a
problem especially with freshwater gear. Anyone that used that kind of logic on a boat rod for tuna would probably end up with a problem. If a client
was going to fish freshwater and was looking for a bass rod, crappie, or other smaller fish; then the guides are not going to get the same kind of play as someone going for strippers or large catfish. What works for a surf rod is not necessarily going to upgrade a crappie rod.
Just my 2 cents.