So I'm at the point where I'm doing the static testing on a rod build. Rod is Point Blank 731MXF paired with Daiwa Ryoga 1060 casting reel. Right now I have 9 running guides (Fuji KW #5), and 3 reduction guides. The reduction guides are KWR#6 (stripper), #5.5 double foot, and #5.5 single foot. Being a newbie, I'm not sure what is acceptable line lay when the rod is flexed 90 degrees. When I do the static flex test, the line comes close to the blank but does not touch it. So I'm thinking I can remove one of the #5's and spread out the guides some more. From the tip down, most of the guides are just a smidge above 3 inches apart until l get to the 6th guide and then they start separating.
Is there any compelling reason to remove one guide? Is it acceptable for the line to come very close to the blank, yet not touch?

You always want to use the fewest and smallest guides that will provide adequate stress distribution. If you can drop a guide and still keep the line off the blank and maintain good line flow, give it a try. I'd also advise going out and casting both set-ups. See if you can tell any difference.

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

I second toms word..

And really really Test cast the heck outa em'...

Dennis,
Sounds to me like you have the perfect setup.

Sure, if you want to delete one, two, three, or four or more guides go for it.

But, put the rod in service, catch a thousand fish and after that, if you want to change it go ahead and change it.

In a nutshell, if you have 9 running guides on the rod, or 8 running guides on the rod, you will never feel the difference, and you will likely never see any difference in the casting ability of the rod.

But, absolutely, if you want to change the rod for the sake of change go for it. With things like they are in the country today - there are lots of folks have lots of time on their hands, so change the rod and enjoy the time you spend on the rod changing it.

You ask about the line touching the blank. In today's world of micro guides on conventionally wrapped casting rods, it is actually general practice for the line to touch the rod and in many cases actually go under the rod. The fact that the line touches or even goes under a loaded rod does not affect the casting and by using the rod as a drag element may actually make it a better rod to bring in big fish --- (wink, wink).

But, you are the custom rod builder. Put as many or as few guides as you wish on a rod, and use it. If you don't like what you have built, then, remove what you put on the rod and change it.

Over the years, I suspect that I rebuilt about 90% of the rods that I built in my first few years of rod building. As much as anything else, I realized that with the practice of building a lot of rods, one gets more proficient in the build and overall appearance of the rods. So, build the rod that you wish and enjoy its use. But, if after using the rod for a short time or a long time you realize that there is something that you want to change on the rod, then - by all means - change it.

It is a beautiful spring day here in the Midwest with the snow melting and the promise of a better day ahead. The boats are getting serviced and are getting ready to be put into the water. So, we will be able to get out and enjoy the wonders of mother nature and enjoy the beauty and fresh air of the out of doors. A pleasant change indeed from what many folks have been experiencing for the last few weeks or months.

Be safe

The struggle between form and function is never-ending. The point of compromise between the looks of a rod and the performance of a rod is a personal thing. Fortunately, it usually takes a lot of unnecessary guides and thread wraps and epoxy before a serious drop in a rod's performance is noticeable - except on fly rods.

The 90-degree bend is an estimation of an "average bend" under load (fish fighting). A change in the bend angle will result in the blank telling you a different story. Since the rod will go through an infinite number of bends in virtually every fight, the idea of "perfect" distribution is literally impossible. Set it up at 90-degrees and don't drive yourself nuts. Line rubbing the blank seems to have evolved as an accepted set-up with guides 5.5 and below.

Dennis, It's really up to your personal preference if the line touches the blank, or not. Whatever you do, DO NOT let the line pass entirely below the blank between guides. Despite what you may have read, that is not general practice, that is just bad guide spacing. Bad guide spacing to the point that it has the potential to damage the rod. However, many builders don't mind the line coming in contact with the blank. For me personally, when I started building rods, I decided that I didn't like the line touching the blank, so that is the way I space my guides. That doesn't mean I do it the "right way" It just means that I do it, "my way"

I have the line come very close to touching the blank, perhaps 2 or 3 sheets of paper, close. If it means I have to use more guides than the next person to accomplish that, then I use more guides. I would normally say that 9 running guides is probably too many, but you're using shorter guides in the lower portion of the blank than I use, which is going to result in you using more guides in the running portion of the blank. With 6 guides basically 3" apart from each other, I'd guess that you could probably lose 1 guide. But I'm not there to look at it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2020 12:06PM by David Baylor.

I usually use one or a couple extra Fuji micros of 5.5 or smaller on casting rods wrapped on top (more than the blank length + 1 rule) and I've never been able to detect a drop in sensitivity or casting performance or fish fighting performance or anything else. I think we often over-think things. Maybe someone could develop a machine full of sensors that could tell the difference, but I cannot. Using braid.

I have the same blank set up as a casting rod and I have 10 guides total and it works great. My guide layout consist of KW10, KW5.5, four KB4.5 and four KT4.5. My stripper is about 20” in front of the reel and my first runner is about 9 cm from the tip top with the remaining guides spaced progressively between them. If you are overly concerned about the line touching the blank then do a spiral wrap, and you can even use fewer guides. Twelve guides for my taste is too many, but if you are happy with it, based on test casting, then go for it.
Norm

David,
I read and understand your statement about not having the line run below the blank.

When I build rods, I personally use guides that are tall enough so that the line never touches the blank. I don't get hung up on saving a gram or two by using tiny, short guides on a rod. I know all of the arguments about weight and I am very happy with the rods that I build.


But from a manufacturing point of view and usability point of view, I suspect that a rod blank will not be damaged if the line runs an inch to a few inches below the blank during the fight of a fish. Obviously, the rod would have less power, but from a durability point of view, I suspect that there would be little difference in the life of the rod.

However, since I don't build rods like that - I have no personal knowldege.

I just fastened a 6 1/2 foot spinning rod horizontally to a wall, tied a 3 ounce sinker to the tiptop with a piece of monofilament, then traced the arc of the rod on the wall with a pencil. Then I untied the mono from the weight and tip-top, ran the line from a reel on the rod through the guide train, out the tiptop, and suspended the same 3 oz. weight. from the end of the line. The arc of the rod exactly matched the first tracing. Then I ran the line through the first (biggest) guide, outside the other guides, and through the tip-top and suspended the same 3 oz. weight. The arc of the rod was again visually identical to the first two trials. I no longer buy into the unproven and untrue (as far as I can tell) speculation that guide placement can alter the arc of the rod in any realistic situation. Guide placement might reduce line slap, but it seems that would vary wildly with the flexibility of the line being used.

Phil, for my own curiosity try first fastening the rod at a 45 degree angle and trying again. I tried static testing horizontally and subjectively had the same results. Again subjectively I seem to notice a large difference once I tip the rod up changing the force vector.

Phil, maybe 3oz. is not enough weight to deflect the rod well into the butt..what is the power of the rod you used?..

Jonathan, at a 45 degree tilt the rod is being hair pinned if the weight is still straight down..

Foolishness: adjective, Lacking or exhibiting a lack of good sense or judgment; silly.

ben: It was a light rod, so 3 oz. bent the rod at a 90 degree angle. I do all I can to keep a tubular graphite rod from being bent at more than a 90 degree angle, but someone else might try this experiment. I would like to hear from anyone who tries this experiment himself to see if he gets the same results. It only takes a couple of minutes. If you get the same results we will have debunked an old wives' tale about guides and rod building.

Sorry guys, it's been a long quarantine and I haven't slept much! I do static deflection very similar to how it's depicted on the anglers resource site. I use an adjustable angle PVC tube to slip the rod handle Into and a weighted pulley that I can put any amount of tension through. The problem I have with static deflection with the rod mounted horizontally is convenience and space. On any longer rod, using gravity my weights are nearly on the floor or I'm working on the ground when trying to put a good load on the rod. As such when I used this method I tended to only load the tip, and never go much further. With the rod at a 45 degree angle and using a pulley to maintain around a 90° angle it makes life alot easier, and I can load the rod as deeply as I feel is needed. I also get to stand comfortably next to the rod as I place and adjust guides.

instead of comparing the arcs of the rods, i would compare the position of the rod tips..the tip position of the third case(line bypassing guides) most likely moved towards the butt of the rod more so than in the other two cases..just be sure keep the rod butt in the same exact position for each case..

instead of comparing the arcs of the rods, i would compare the position of the rod tips..the tip position of the third case(line bypassing guides) most likely moved towards the butt of the rod more so than in the other two cases..just be sure keep the rod butt in the same exact position for each case..

A furniture clamp with rubber-coated jaws continuously held the rod in place in the test I described above. The rod handle did not move, nor did the location of the tip of the weighted rod: exact same arc, exact same tip location. Other people using other rods in this test might get different results, but I have no faith in objections from rod builders who rely strictly upon their beliefs rather than taking the trouble to observe physical results.