I
nternet gathering place for custom rod builders
  • Custom Rod Builders - This message board is provided for your use by the sponsors listed on the left side of the page. Feel free to post any question, answers or topics related in any way to custom building. When purchasing products please remember those who sponsor this board.

  • Manufacturers and Vendors - Only board sponsors are permitted and encouraged to promote and advertise products on the board. You may become a sponsor for a nominal fee. It is the sponsor fees that pay for this message board.

  • Rules - Rod building is a decent and rewarding craft. Those who participate in it are assumed to be civilized individuals who are kind and considerate in their dealings with others. Please respond to others in the same fashion in which you would like to be responded to. Registration IS NOW required in order to post. You must include your actual First and Last name and a correct email address when registering or posting. Posts which are inflammatory, insulting, or that fail to include a proper name and email address will be removed and the persons responsible will be barred from further participation.

    Registration is now required in order to post. You must include your actual First and Last name and a correct email address when registering or posting.
SPONSORS

2019 EXPO
EXPO ON FACEBOOK
CCS Database
Int. Custom Rod Symbol
Common Cents Info
All American Guides
American Tackle
Angler’s Roost
Anglers Rsrc - Fuji
Anglers Workshop
BatsonRainshadowALPS
BRC Rods
Bingham Enterprises
Canada Rodbuildersupply
CRB
Cork4Us
HNL Rod Blanks–CTS
CTS New Zealand
Custom Fly Grips LLC
Decal Connection
Flex Coat Co.
Get Bit Outdoors
Hitena USA
HYDRA
Janns Netcraft
Mickels Custom Rods
Mudhole Custom Tackle
MHX Rod Blanks
North Fork Composites
Pacific Bay
ProProducts
Reelseatblanks.com
Renzetti Inc.
Rod Components USA
Rodgeeks
RodMaker Magazine
RodMaker Magazine Blog
Schneiders Rod Shop
SeaGuide Corp.
Tackleworks
The Rod Room
Trondak U-40
Utmost Enterprises
VisualWRAP/VisualWEAVE
ZipCast

Micro Guides - not as small as first introduced?
Posted by: Mo Yang (---.dhcp.hspr.ca.charter.com)
Date: November 28, 2018 05:05AM

I remember when micro guides first came out years ago, there were some guys (Billy?) who were touting it to the skeptics and using guides as small as 2.5 if I remember. Angler's resource were carrying SICs down to 3.0, again if I remember correctly.

However, Angler's Resource now only go down to 4.0 and I'm reading a number of 'micro' guide users going larger than 4.

Is there a reason why the 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5 no longer seem to be as popular? For most who do not join two lines and have to pass a large know, I'm not sure why sub 4.0 won't work just as well, and save some weight (though very slight weight differential).

Thanks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2018 05:18AM by Mo Yang.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Micro Guides - not as small as first introduced?
Posted by: Billy Vivona (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: November 28, 2018 06:10AM

I have not looked in a long time, I do not know if Fuji still makes the MKSG's. This photo is from 2007, right before the micro craze blew up, so there were not too many options available at the time
[www.rodbuilding.org]

I still have about a set worth of those 2.5's for personal use. I fished them pretty extensively in SW, casting as much as 1oz on an 8' spin rod - and loved them, never had a problem with them. I can see why they stopped producing them thugh, they were probably a nightmare for a factory worker to handle, and there wasn't enough of a demand from the rod building world to warrant keeping them in productiion.

If I remember coorectly, after the initial wave of micro mania, the general consensus was that smaler than a size 4 gives you the law of diminishing returns.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Micro Guides - not as small as first introduced?
Posted by: Jim Ising (---.dyn.centurytel.net)
Date: November 28, 2018 09:47AM

As so often happens in many hobbies new ideas will get pushed to the limit by the innovators (and manufacturers are guilty of helping them do it). In this case, the micro-guide supporters were fighting to overcome a STRONG traditional preference for size 8 or even larger runners. Factories and custom builders gotta sell stuff so eventually, the pendulum started to swing back the other way to recapture customers who "would never use a guide that small". Seems we settled around a 5 or 5.5 in most cases which was a seismic shift for the market. IMO, we had to go all the way to 2.5 to wind up at 5. All the benefits are there with a 5 and you can still see it and wrap it. :)

Special thanks to all the "limit-pushers" out there...you changed far more than preferred runner size.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Micro Guides - not as small as first introduced?
Posted by: Seth Johnson (151.142.219.---)
Date: November 28, 2018 11:42AM

I use Fuji KT 4s when I don't have to pass a knot, 4.5s if they're using something like an FG knot, and 5s for everything else.

Pac Bay still makes size 3 runners. I put them on an ultralight spinning rod the other day and am happy with the way it turned out.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Micro Guides - not as small as first introduced?
Posted by: David Baylor (---.neo.res.rr.com)
Date: November 28, 2018 03:59PM

Forecast offers a #2 in their minis. A #4 in their BMKLG "minis" weighs 4x more than the #2. A #5 in that same series weight 5.5x as much. There is no way I would use a #2 ....... I wouldn't be able to see it LOL

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Micro Guides - not as small as first introduced?
Posted by: roger wilson (---.hsd1.mn.comcast.net)
Date: November 28, 2018 05:13PM

David,
10-4 on seeing the tiny guides.

This is a real problem for a lot of older fishermen who go to thread a line through the guides on their rods. If they can't easily see the guides to thread the line, they will soon throw the rod in a corner and use a rod with 5 or 6 runners so that they do not have to fight the vision problem.

Yes, there are a lot of older fishermen who have vision issues, but still love to fish.

Good luck

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Micro Guides - not as small as first introduced?
Posted by: Mo Yang (---.dhcp.hspr.ca.charter.com)
Date: November 28, 2018 05:27PM

Thanks everyone for the conversation. Much appreciated.

So it seems that the advantages of the 5.0 and 5.5 are primarily for ease of wrapping, public acceptance, ease of threading line for older eyes? (I too have older eyes....:) and possibly passing knots through.

Is there are distance detriment to using 3.0 over 5.0? If I recall Billy, you are fishing for bass and use something like 12 lbs mono or fluoro for your micro micros?

Jim, is there any distance reduction by going too small - or is it more just market forces?

I do think that there is still a slight but detectable difference for very light UL - and my gut reaction is not just the weight, but also the air resistance from 6 running guides where one is seeking maximum tip speed while casting.

Thanks!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Micro Guides - not as small as first introduced?
Posted by: Spencer Phipps (---.hsd1.or.comcast.net)
Date: November 28, 2018 06:43PM

I have them down to 2 mm, and use the 3 mm Batson BMKLG quite a bit, because they are easier to find, other 3mm are getting harder to find. Haven't have distance problems, in fact with braid the distances increased considerably, mono in the 10 lb. range is about as far as I go and didn't lose any distance over standard builds and dang close to the distances with braid.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Micro Guides - not as small as first introduced?
Posted by: Billy Vivona (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: November 28, 2018 07:09PM

I use 10# Power pro with teh 2.5's, stripper was a TATSG 12 & 16, then a size 8. I never had a problem with the sf guides, but I broke the size 16 and replaced with teh 12, works just fine. I never ha da problem stringing the line through the guides, you do it one time when you are home and tie a lure on, and the line never has to be restrung until I take teh reel off to clean at the end of teh year. And there is a big difference between how the lighter tipped rods feel with those tiny guides vs what people now consider micros - and I'm one of the people who believe in teh law of diminishing returns.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Micro Guides - not as small as first introduced?
Posted by: Thomas Kaufmann (---.mobile.att.net)
Date: November 29, 2018 10:35AM

Mo I have a bunch of the batson in 2.0. Let me know what you are looking for and an address and you find Santa comes early. I have all black as well as black frame with blue ring( I have these up to 6 with each size in between).

Regarding detriment of distance I find the 3.0 are superior especially when pitching for bass as well as small braid and mono under 10(2.0’s)

Tom

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Micro Guides - not as small as first introduced?
Posted by: Mo Yang (---.dhcp.hspr.ca.charter.com)
Date: December 01, 2018 02:13AM

Thanks Thomas. Very generous. Not sure if I should take you on your offer without paying you. I've never seen a 2.0 and am curious how tiny they must be. Smallest I ever went was 3.0.

But it sounds like 3.0 pitches further for you. Is that the sweet spot or did not compare with even larger sizes like 4.0?

I build for 2 to 4 lbs mono/fluoro. At most, 6 lbs and that is rarely.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Micro Guides - not as small as first introduced?
Posted by: Thomas Kaufmann (---.mobile.att.net)
Date: December 01, 2018 03:19PM

Hi Mo, not worried about payment! Am simply offering to you if you would like. On my ultralight setups I really the 2.0’s. That is the sweet spot for me. On bass rods using 12 lb and under I go with 2.5. Over 12lb up to 20 I use 3.0 or 3.5’s.

Let me know in the 2.0’s

Tom

Options: ReplyQuote


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Webmaster