I am building a 7’3” walleye jig rod, 2500 reel w/ 15lb braid, I punched in my numbers as follows, rod length 87”, butt to spool axle 14.25”. I get 16h-8h-5.5m and five 4.5kt runners. My question is are they not recommending the kb guide any longer? I thought I was supposed to use a kb after the 5.5m?

KB's and KT's are interchangeable exc that for a stronger f'oot for mid rod the KB's are better. The only thing that would prevent your using KB's would be if using them toward the tip would result in the foot of the KB being too wide for the diameter of the blank tip. Don't worry about any calculator, use a couple KB's in the middle of the rod, then KT's to the end.

When I punch in your numbers I just get 5 running guides, KB vs KT type and ring size not specified. So use the runner size of your choice and use one or two KBs followed by KTs. I like to use one more runner than recommended. My preference for runner size is 4.5, but anything from 5.5 to 4 will work, that’s your choice. If you have never used the KR concept before you will quickly realize it’s a performance enhancer.
Norm

I pay no mind to how many runners the GPS software recommends , i only care about the reduction train recommendations . I use a single KB for the choke guide and then all KT's and a static deflection test tells me how many runners i will need based on each blanks bend profile . I don't like to use any more runners than absolutely necessary but i make sure the blank is well supported all the way out.

The GPS software has no idea if the rod you're building has very little bend in the upper half of the rod or if it bends into a pretzel shape so it's not possible for it to be accurate with the amount of running guides needed , that being said the GPS recommendations are ridiculously accurate regardless.

Where can I find results (numbers) comparing the performances of rods with different guide trains but built on the same blank? I don't want to pay more and get less because of vague claims made by persons with unknown expertise and motives.

Phil,
You use the word "performance" of a rod.

How do you rate performance? The way that it feels to an individual fisherman? The distance that the rod cases, using different lines and reels? The number of fish that the rod catches in a season?

You see, I just suggest that when the word performance is used when evaluating a rod, it becomes very subjective and less objective.

Just wondering.

Phil,
You use the word "performance" of a rod.

How do you rate performance? The way that it feels to an individual fisherman? The distance that the rod cases, using different lines and reels? The number of fish that the rod catches in a season?

You see, I just suggest that when the word performance is used when evaluating a rod, it becomes very subjective and less objective.

Just wondering.

Roger: Good question. I would rate a rod's performance in distance, accuracy, and resistance to breakage (hoop strength), all of which are measurable in feet, inches, and pounds, but not "feelings" - which are pure ad-speak. While we are at it let's throw in the blank's "resonant frequency" or what casters call "feel". This measurement of time and movement can enable us to find a blank that "feels" like a different blank, with infinitely more precision than the current "slow", "medium", "fast" and "extra fast" ad-speak terms. Nobody would HAVE to consult or believe these verifiable, scientific facts - but I bet a lot of practical rod builders and anglers would.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2019 11:35AM by Phil Ewanicki.

Phil,
All read and understood.

But, in reality, would this data make any difference at all to either the rod builder or the user of the finished rod?

Don't most folks simply want a fishing rod that will let them use their fishing technique to catch fish?

Can't have it both ways. Can't reject observable facts and proclaim superior performance. Nobody HAS to accept scientific facts, but many rod users, rod builders and their customers would prefer to have verified objective data about their fish-poles rather than just vague generalities and ad-speak. Fishing is too important to trust advertisers.

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where can I find results (numbers) comparing the
> performances of rods with different guide trains
> but built on the same blank? I don't want to pay
> more and get less because of vague claims made by
> persons with unknown expertise and motives.


I know you have said in the past that you feel you have paid too much for rods that have not lived up to your expectations in regards to advertised claims about performance . I think most agree performance difference between high end blanks produced by different manufacturers will be subtle with none being vastly superior in overall performance than it's high end peers .


IMO, i believe the Point Blank and NFC X Ray are two that will not disappoint any angler looking for the very best performance and i base that on some of the guys on these boards who have a lifetime of experience and have said that those particular lines of blanks are the best they have ever had the pleasure to fish with.

Listen to the anglers fishing the blanks not what the manufacturers say about their own product . Now i'm talking about exceptionally experienced anglers NOT Mr. Joe " Weekend warrior" fisherman who insists that the $19.99 Walmart special is the best rod they have ever fished.

I suspect the "best" rod for one angler is not necessarily the "best" rod for another. That's where Objective measurements versus "feelings" come in handy. For example fly-fisher who lacks the ability or a reason to double-haul cast probably won't like the "feel" of an 8wt. TFO Axiom II rod, but the guy with the 80' cast will love it. Heeding subjective feelings results in wasted time and money which could be saved by reading some objective facts and learning what they mean.

Well i doubt there will ever be a chart showing every rod blank setup with exactly the same line , guide types and layout and have a casting machine record all the data , Tom made a machine that is able to cast many different rod blanks without the human element being a factor which allows him to record very accurate data .


I would love to know exactly what you want to know , i have learned that the design of a rod is of the utmost importance but also it's construction , i have gravitated to higher modulus materials and rods that contain them due to the fact that higher modulus materials are capable of storing and releasing more energy and i can feel the difference and appreciate the difference when fishing . Dynamic efficiency , a featherlight feel and sensitivity is whats important to me.

Luckily for me i have chosen rods that fit this description and my casting style allows me to get the most out of them , anglers need to define exactly what they want because so many go in without having a real defined description on what they expect and want and this leads to disappointment

Here is a list of things a good rod builder should know and savvy custom rod buyers want to know: (1) How the rod compares in distance and accuracy to similar rods - like in the "Yellowstone Fly-Rod Shootouts" (2) The "hoop strength" [resistance to breaking] of the rod blank (3) the "resonant frequency" of the rod blank - to allow meaningful comparison of how this blank "feels" compared to other blanks. This isn't rocket science, but it is science, not vague generalizations or "ad speak". If for some reason a rod buyer wishes to ignore observed facts he does not have to pay attention to them.

Futile. If I remember right the Yellowstone Shootouts used the same lines on all the rods? If correct then they were not necessarily the "best" lines for every rod. If the testing requested didn't use the "right" guide brand and design, or the "right" line, or the right reel, then we'd be complaining about that too. This is totally impractical.

Also I contend that if we forced all manufacturers to provide all the info requested the thousands of blanks now at our disposal would no longer be offered. There would be no business case that would support that expense.

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is a list of things a good rod builder should
> know and savvy custom rod buyers want to know:
> (1) How the rod compares in distance and accuracy
> to similar rods - like in the "Yellowstone Fly-Rod
> Shootouts" (2) The "hoop strength" [resistance to
> breaking] of the rod blank (3) the "resonant
> frequency" of the rod blank - to allow meaningful
> comparison of how this blank "feels" compared to
> other blanks. This isn't rocket science, but it is
> science, not vague generalizations or "ad speak".
> If for some reason a rod buyer wishes to ignore
> observed facts he does not have to pay attention
> to them.


Phil , we're talking about bare blanks here right or are you talking finished and ready to sell factory rods because there's no way to test casting distance and casting accuracy on a blank . I am not familiar with how to test hoop strength but i have total confidence in manufacturers these days to utilize technology that prevents ovaling of the blank if used within it's design limits .

I would also like to know about resonant frequency but after trying to understand some of those Japanese rod tech links it's not easy to understand , much of it is just sales fluff but some of it seems legit enough to further explore . I believe the chance of having manufacturers go out of their way to provide additional and more detailed info about their blanks isn't going to happen .

Lets face it, you and I & our requests for more info are very very low on rod manufacturers "To do" list .

As long as anglers buy rods or blanks because copywriters (not anglers) describe these rods or blanks as "smooth" or "powerful" or "responsive" or "soulful" or some other advertising jive then serious anglers will have to borrow or blindly buy a rod to learn anything useful about it. That certainly will stimulate rod and blank sales and fill cellars or garages with unused rods.