Hello All,
I've dabbled in rod building off and on for 40 years, and I haven't posted much here since joining in 2004. I've watched this thread since this morning and while I don't have any technical data to make the case one way or the other, I can say without a doubt that these guides and the reduction train guides that go before them are THE reason I have gone full bore back into rod building - for myself, my wife and some close friends. And taken a renewed interest in this board. A short anecdotal story: Friend of mine runs his own charter business here in eastern NC and in the winter when things are otherwise slow we have a chance to fish together. He made an investment in some custom rods when he got his license and when I got aboard last November, I told him I just couldn't get used to way they looked and kind of turned my nose up. (They were all Fuji KR spinning/micro guides on 7'2" Rainshadow Immortals.) He then told me, you better get over it because they are the way of the future. I was skeptical until we got to the first creek and he encouraged me to try one. 10lb braid, 20" or so flouro leader, with a #8 x-rap flew across the creek and into the weeds with hardly any effort. He then went on to tell me that the less time he spends digging out "wind knots" after he puts these rods in the hands of less experienced casters, the more quality experience he can give his clients. Especially throwing topwater plugs at puppy drum this time of year around here. Upon hooking a decent trout, I was also hooked - the rod felt like a finely tuned musical instrument, compared to the "off the rack" cone of flight rods I bought in 2010 when I finally got frustrated enough with beach access here and bought our flats boat.
All my boat rods are now being replaced. I've built on Castaway blanks, MHX, Bushido and the immortals are next. I also have three sets of Airwaves that I am looking forward to trying. Can't wait for more of them to become available.

Sorry this was a little long and run-on. Thanks to everybody who contributes here and Mr. Kirkman for the board.

V/R,
George Mason



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/27/2019 08:15PM by George Mason.

10 pound braid with a 20" or so flouro leader huh , that just so happens to be the exact pound test braid and exact pound test flouro leader that i have used over the last 15 years of inshore fishing , with a KR concept build it's "Out of this world " performance .

Some years ago I was enlightened by some high-speed photographs of monofilament line exiting a guide train, but I can't relocate them. After passing through the well-named "taming guide" the line displayed no loops and few waves while exiting the rest of the guide train. Can someone suggest where I can find some high-speed photos of monofilament or braid coming off a spinning reel passing through a guide train so I don't have to rely completely upon hypotheses and guess work?

David and Herb,
I agree with your statements.

But I still ask the question why - assuming that the micro system works so well -- that there are very few production rods offered with Micro guides.

I have to think that the market is not there for the micro guides, or the manufacturers would move in to fill the niche wouldn't they.

Be safe

David and Herb,
I agree with your statements.

But I still ask the question why - assuming that the micro system works so well -- that there are very few production rods offered with Micro guides.

I have to think that the market is not there for the micro guides, or the manufacturers would move in to fill the niche wouldn't they.

It seemed to me that 5 years ago, there were quite a few manufacturers who had micro guide based rods on the market that are no longer there?
Not enough sales?

Be safe

Here is the Anglers Resources video, both spinning and casting.
[m.youtube.com]
Norm

I use 4's at the smallest. That's small enough for me.

Could it just be that they don't look right, when built on a production rod, like they initially didn't to me? All my rods look "funny" now to me I'll admit, but I would not go back to cone-of-flight now in my sixties for any of those rods regardless of the blank they might be wrapped on. All the old arguments against may come into play: too many guides = too much line contact = reduced distance, for example. I know if I took an 8' plugging rod with the KR guides to the beach this fall for trout and drum, or back to Jersey for bass, guys would tell me - "that single foot stuff will never hold up" - as another example.

Could it be basic economics: how much does it cost a manufacturer to wrap 9 guides vs five or six? what does the corresponding price need to be to cover the increase cost and time to make the rod - even in a factory overseas?

Not to be argumentative, you pose a valid question. And I agree they probably didn't sell hence they got dropped.
I just believe for my time, effort, and fishing enjoyment you can really leverage these new style blanks with these guides. I hope they continue to be available.

V/R,
George Mason

Roger , i think you and George nailed it with the " Not enough sales" comment . I think thats what determines most everything when you come right down to it , if the masses are not familiar with it the likelihood of rods equipped with micro guides selling really well are going to be slim . Many will sell but not to the majority of people who purchase factory built rods, anglers typically believe what they have been brought up with and used for fishing throughout their life in the past is whats " Correct/Proper " and they expect to see something that resembles what they're familiar with when purchasing a new rod but micros are a shock to their system .

Anglers don't like uncertainty they want to feel extremely comfortable with a purchase . The number of anglers that keep up to date on rod building tech etc..like the guys who utilize this forum are a tiny minority of anglers compared to everybody who fishes .




I tried to quote Lynn and i got the " You used a word that is banned" message again so i added what i wanted to say below:


# 4 size runners are the smallest size Fuji recommends and says anything smaller can cause issues , it says it on the Anglers Resource website .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/27/2019 10:29PM by herb canter.

Feelings are intensely personal things and vary widely - even when reacting to the same stimulus. I'm not at all certain that my feelings will be the same as those of another person, even when we are both subjected to exactly the same circumstances. On the other hand, the vast majority of us agree on what is meant by measurements of inches, feet, yards, ounces, pounds, and other physical facts. I am disappointed by the profusion of feelings and imaginings reported by rod builders compared to their reports of physical reality.

and i want to hear them all Phil because i might learn something new or get another idea on how to do something better..it happens often on this forum..

What were the "Measurements of inches, feet,yards,ounces, pounds and other physical facts that made you come to the conclusion that TFO's Axiom II was as you called it " Superb" ? No imaginings and feelings allowed of course .

The objective details were obtained with a nine-weight Ax II rod, a 10 wt. Lee Wulff Triangle Taper line, a 9 foot tapered leader, and a tape measure which measured casts in the 90 foot range. I must confess the rod "felt good" too, and I admit you don't have to be able to cast a fly line 90 feet to "feel good" about a rod. Expectations vary, and a fly rod that "folds up" with 40 feet of line in the air could cause good feelings in some anglers but still disappoint others. That's why I find standard measurements more useful than subjective judgments.

OK then , it seems like you have figured out how to satisfy yourself regarding blank performance and you acknowledge that others may feel very differently than you do . When David said the rod set up with smaller guides performed and felt far more efficient than rods with larger guides and just using a flip cast revealed that. David didn't need to measure anything as i didn't either as the difference was as obvious as night and day so not everybody needs physical data to be convinced when something is just better but to each their own as they say.

While I do not often look at factory-built rods now that I have taken up rod building, I can only speculate rod manufactures do not use micros much simply due to lack of sales. This could be due to either potential customers not liking the looks or not willing to pay a higher price for the extra guides and additional labor required to wrap them, even cheap overseas labor.
It is all about educating the masses to the benefits to justify the price. Still, it is safe to say 90% of fishermen would never consider spending the extra money for micros let alone a custom rod. Fly or deep sea anglers may be an exception. Most fishermen probably have never heard of, let alone understand the difference between COF, NGC or KR Concept. They simply go to the store and wiggle rods until the find one that seems to their liking.
I cannot imagine using anything other than the KR Concept even though I rarely use runners smaller than a #5 which many do not consider a true micro. I am of the “Senior” group mentioned earlier and prefer the ease of wrapping and threading line through #5s rather than a tiny true micro.

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

Despite our feelings, progress marches on. Micro guides are on the way out. Solid Rhodium guides are on the way in. In several feeling tests the Rhodium guides were clearly superior to the micros : )

micro guides don,t waggle enough..people shake the rod and expect it to shake back and if it doesn,t they think it,s too stiff..you need heavier guides to get a good waggle..lol..sounds silly i know.

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Despite our feelings, progress marches on. Micro
> guides are on the way out. Solid Rhodium guides
> are on the way in. In several feeling tests the
> Rhodium guides were clearly superior to the micros
> : )



So , the "Feeling" testing shows Rhodium guides are superior , now this should be interesting . Never been able to tell how a guide feels when attached to a blank , it either lightens up the blank or add's weight depending on how many are used and what each guide weighs .If the ring size is the same as the micros it should perform similarly .

Expensive stuff with great corrosion resistance and beauty , could this be the new Gold Cermet & go the way of Gold Cermet in the end ..........we will find out at some point.

Rhodium guides ??

Here is a like to Rhodium plating on rings:

[www.everything-wedding-rings.com]

The claim here is that this material is one of the most expensive metals on earth. It also indicates that it is a very soft metal. If this is true, why would one a guide made of this material?

I just don't get why it would be popular , i can't see metal rings replacing ceramics and why would they become popular for guide frame material instead of all the options we already have. 316 (S-6) stainless is exceptionally corrosion resistant and softer than the 306 stainless that was and still is popular . I would like to know where Phil read that solid Rhodium guides are on the way in .


" Solid Rhodium guides are on the way in. In several feeling tests the Rhodium guides were clearly superior to the micros "