9'6" slow parabolic action. From the choker guide out to the tip I started with roughly 6.375" spacing between guides. Started doing the static load test, but since it's a parabolic action, the even spacing seemed to fit it pretty well. About the only thing I was going to do was tighten up the spacing to around 6-6.25" about 3-4 guides in where the bend might be slightly deeper when loaded. Overall, I have 11 guides plus the tip top

However, I've always read and practiced that the farthest out running guide should be 4.5-5" from the tip top. Are there major downsides to having a wider 6.375" spacing all the way out to the tip? If I add one running guide to the set, my spacing will drop to around 5.6". Just seems like I'd be adding the weight of one guide and not gaining much.

Thanks



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2018 01:13AM by Sean Mitchell.

Sean,
It sounds like you have it correct.

With a slow action rod, the tip of the rod does not bend quickly.
Since the tip does not bend quickly, there is no need to have the first guide near the tip any closer than what you have listed.

i.e. simply place a guide where it is needed to have the line follow the contour of the loaded blank. It sounds like you have achieved that goal.

I have built similar slow action rods and found the same thing with rod spacing as you listed.


Conversely, I have built some extra fast rods and have the first guide at 2 1/2 inches from the tip because the tip bends so quickly.

Good luck

ok. Just making sure i'm not missing something. I mean most all "traditional" or production rods use an increased spacing as you move tip to butt. However, like you mention, the tip section, even under heavy deep bend does really bend. I guess, after really looking at the static load testing, most of that "traditional" spacing is probably to make the rod look right, rather than match the profile of the blank.

Is this a fly rod?

Phil,

It's not a fly rod, but the action is very similar to a 8/9 weight spey rod. it's a spinning rod. GREAT comment though... i realized I haven't even looked at typical fly rod running guide spacing. Thanks



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2018 02:33PM by Sean Mitchell.

Sean,
Fly rods don't have the grips in the same configuration as your build so it will be of little value. Light power steelhead rods would be a closer fit probably.

I never put any guide 4 inches away from the tip because for # 1 the rods i built don't require it and i have always preferred to keep the first guide at an absolute minimum of 5 inches away and preferably between 8 or 9 inches away from the tip . Imo the rods are much more lively when the first guide is not too close to the tip top but not so far as to effect support if it requires it. The 8 and 9 inch spacing from the tip is for my surf rods that are quite stout and stiff out toward the tip which i much prefer.

Where can I find photos or drawings of the ideal curves of different rods under a load? "Different" as in slow, medium fast, medium etc. I could look at these ideal bends and move my guides up or down the rod I'm building, pulling on a line through the guide train, until I got a match with the best bend.

Phil,
I create the curve very easily. I just take the tip of the rod and place it on the carpeted floor. Then, just increase the pressure on the rod by bending the grip. As the pressure is increased just observe the change in the bend of the rod, and this will essentially be the same bend that the rod will have as it is landing a fish.

Good luck

roger: I'm more concerned about the rod's curve created when the line is pulled through the guides. I don't know if there is an ideal slow, medium, medium-fast etc. rod arc caused by the pull of the line through the guides, but I would like to see a photograph of, say, the IDEAL curve of a "fast" blank being deflected by a line passing from a reel, through the guide train, and out the tip-top. I could compare this to the curve created by a line being pulled through a train of temporarily attached guides, and relocate the guides until I achieved the best slow, medium etc. rod blank. If this photo were taken against a background of regularly spaced squares - like big graph paper, it would make it easier for me to place the guides to match the curve of the rod I'm building to the speed of the blank.

Phil,
I have found in building many many rods, that there is very little difference in the curvature of the rods, whether there is line pulling on guides, or just tying a line to a tip top on the end of the rod and pulling it down.

You can do the test, but I think you will find the curves to be very very similar.

Be safe

[www.google.com]

roger: I don't doubt your observation, but that means all the fuss about guide spacing is a waste of time and trouble - stuff like the angle of the line entering and leaving each guide.

Phil,
Not a waste of time at all.

But to simplify - have the rod bent to its limit and then place a piece of tape where ever it is needed to have a guide to follow the contour of the loaded blank and you will be good to go.

The only real concern is guide height and guide size.

Good luck

One thing I'm starting to notice is how the modulus of the blank impacts the action. From the longer, slow action rods I've been building, I've noticed that the deeper the bend in the rod, the action can tend to become faster or slower. I don't think it's solely due to the graphite used, but some other factors.

I think that just shows that each rod can be slightly different and why that static load test is important if you're really trying to get everything you can out of a rod.

I'm confused. Does the pull on the tip-top ALONE determine the arc of the rod, or can the placement of the running guides alter that curve? If placement of running guides can alter the curve of the rod should guide placement try to "preserve" the natural bend of the blank or alter it to a superior shape?

The way I understand it... the line tie to the tip ALONE lets the rod bend the way it wants to. Then you align your guides to allow the rod to bend that way. If your guide placement, and more important the load from the line on the guides, causes the rod to bend differently, then part of the power of the blank is spent resisting that load from the guides.

I supposed you could purposely place the guide to slightly manipulate the action, but overall you would end up with a less powerful, less sensitive rod........ I believe.

Sounds reasonable. Thanks, Sean. Then I will bend the bare blank from the tip, trace the blank's curve on a piece of paper, and position guides on the rod. When the bend of the rod with a line through the guides duplicates the bend of the bare blank I will have the best possible guide placement. No need for charts, books, discussions, or doubts!

Phil,
As has been said before.
No need to trace the blanks curve. Just have someone hold the rod blank and you can pull down on the tip to curve the blank. then, just have a few piece of thin masking tape handy. Just place a piece of masking tape on the blank at locations where the blank is bending and will need a guide at that location to maintain the line flow to follow the curve of the bent rod.

Once, you have the blank marked with tape, then you can lay the blank on the bench with the tape on it and record the locations of the tape for current and future reference.

If I am doing production builds of the same blank, I will take a piece of cardboard with straight lines scribed on the surface. Then, I take the blank with the tape on it, and make marks on the line on the cardboard to form a template. Then, for future builds of the same blank it is very easy and quick to lay the blank down on the surface and place a piece of tape on the new blank to copy the original mark up. Put the blank on the wrapper, tape the guides in place and wrap them up.


Very simple, easy and it works every time.

Good luck

I apologize, but I don't get the part about putting a piece of tape "where the blank is bending"? I'm sure it's easier to show than to tell this technique.