I have been reading the forum for a while now without posting and have finally had enough of people spouting RUBBISH about how the spine doesn't matter..
It does matter - a LOT
I tested all my rods by hand and those that had a strong spine which weren't spine built torque twisted horribly under load - the effect was obvious, horrible, and very detrimental - basically a terrible lack of sensitivity which also placed the blank under huge undue stress - with no feel at all going directly where it should be - to YOU
The bottom line is that big companies have been trying to rubbish spine building for decades now - simply because it takes extra time and equates to a percentage of loss of income - in short, THEY CANNOT BE BOTHERED TO DO IT, SO THEY TRY AND TELL PEOPLE IT DOESN'T MATTER!!
- - - Do NOT have the wool pulled over your eyes; a rod with a strong spine MUST be carefully spine built or it will be a horrible wreck of a fishing tool..
I rebuilt all 11 of my rods perfectly on the spine. It took me many months labour but now I have a set of rods I am happy with. It makes me sad that a simple part of old fashioned rod building that rings as true as it ever did (and ever will) has been (ALMOST) ruined by the cheap and easy trashy society we live in.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2020 04:26PM by Dufford Scott.

I won't tell you my secrets (I am a professionally trained rod builder)
But I can rebuild any rod on the spine by rebuilding ONLY the top section
With travel rods its even easier for me, I only ever need to rebuild one or two middle sections
I HATE unspined rods (almost as much as I hate the rubbishing of spine building which seems to be happily taken as the truth by sheep who believe in a cheap, fast and trashy consumer society)
It is a simple part of rod building which takes MINUTES. There is no excuse whatsoever not to do it and I will never look at another rod where the so called ''builder'' hasn't bothered.
Building on the straightest axis is absolute rubbish.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2020 04:29PM by Dufford Scott.

Dufford, i,m not telling you any of my secrets either, nah! nah!..lol.

What is the Proof of the faults of an un-spined rod? Have you taken any measurements of the performance of a rod "before" and "after" the rod was spined? I would be very interested to see the difference in feet and inches, and I would gladly strip guides from rods I have built to achieve a Measured (not just claimed) improvement in improved casting distance, accuracy, and fish fighting. I'm not much interested any more in the feelings other anglers have for their fishing rods, but I am interested in their measured performance

My take on the spining of rod blanks, for what it's worth. As an electrical engineer who had to take a lot of math classes, a number of physics classes, and who understands that there are physical laws that come into play (static, stress,and vector forces), finding the spine is obviously going to make your bank behave as it should. Whether casting, feeling for that little nibble, or fighting a fish, the rod must bend along its natural bend, i.e. the spine. The fishing line initially receives the energy from the weight of the lure, the bite, and the tension from a hooked fish. It transmits this energy to the guides, pulling the line toward the fish. If the guides are oriented properly to the spine, or belly, as required by the type of pole, then the blank will bend along its natural arch. If not, it will try to, and put rotational stress, or torque on the blank. That torque will try to twist the rod, and can cause blank failure if extreme enough. IN casting, as you swing the rod behind you, especially, but not exclusively in fly fishing, the weight of the line/lure will store energy in the rod blank as it bends backward on the reverse cast, and then more so it bends on the forward cast. That stored energy releases as the rod tip stops moving forward, [propelling the line/lure forward with more velocity, hence longer, and more controllable casts. If the guides are not properly aligned, that same torque come in play and robs the pole of both accuracy, and power. You really want all of the energy to be transmitted in a straight line from the reel to the end of the pole.

That is why finding the spine, and aligning the guides properly is of great importance.

Tight lines and frisky fish

RJF

Dufford,
If you check the videos of various factory tours I think you will see quite a few spine the blanks before building. I myself build on the straightest axis. None of my casting rods torque, not even a little.

Dufford-

You aren't testing your rods under real world conditions and your statements defy physics.

Try this - set up your rod with the guides on top and put the spine wherever you want. Now load the line running through the guides. The rod will twist until it is upside down. The lever arm effect will easily trump any spine effect.

Physics is not rubbish.

.........

Another good read which relies on actual test data, not theory:

[www.rodbuilding.org]

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

And yet another which proves it is guide orientation, not spine, that controls rod twist:

[www.rodbuilding.org]

...........

I am more concerned with what exactly makes you a professionally trained rod builder!!

Ron Weber

Ron Weber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am more concerned with what exactly makes you a
> professionally trained rod builder!!

Good point...

All the nonsense about rod spine is a myth that dates back about forty years now. Clemens started it but even changed his mind between the two books he wrote. If it was so important than every factory would do it as it only takes about thirty seconds and would supposedly cut down on breakage and warranty claims. But no one has ever provided evidence for its support other than theory and those of us who use the straightest axis are not seeing any undue breakage and if anything, less breakage due to having more deadlift capacity on the straightest axis. Time for this myth to die once and for all.

Before I put in a few thoughts, I have a couple questions. Where should the spine go? Does it matter whether I'm building a spinning rod or casting rod?

I used to be a firm believer in spining a rod always did it. I took a break of about twenty years and straightest axis was introduced to me. So I in no scientific way tried both ways on my first few builds. I can see no difference. As mentioned and as I found in my own experience guide placement dictates rod twist not spine. A rod is going to want to to have the load on the inside of the curve period. Could the spine have an impact as to how easy the rod twists to place the load inside the curve possibly. Is it something tangible that can be recognized while fishing the rod, highly doubt it.

To me straightest axis makes the most sense as you can. I have spined blanks that if built on spine the rod would be flexing in two different directions under load. It would flex on a horizontal plane then on the vertical plane. My thinking might not be correct but I would worry those forces could in some way effect each other and the blank. If I go straightest axis I can eliminate horizontal flex and place the guides so impart some weight and preload of any bend in the blank. So any curve will be placed with the tip curving skyward opposed to the floor.

A lot of talk here. No one addresses the possible effect of spine location on casting accuracy.

Spine has no effect on casting accuracy. The lure will go where the tip goes. Even if the tip were to twist, that would not deviate it from a straight line path.


........

I feel humbled conversing with "professionally trained" rod builders, so here goes.

My experience is, when I find the spine and compare it to the straightest axis (eye ball) they usually are in line or close enough that the effects due to the angular difference between the guide location and the spine winds up being negligible and so I build along the straight axis.

Another factor to consider is how pronounced the spine is, if you are lucky enough to get a blank that has a spine that is difficult to find or even better non-existent then it doesn't matter where you place the guides, if you get a blank with an aggressive spine then guide location is an issue and the spine has to factor in the placement of the guides.

That is the way I do it.

As I mentioned I took about a twenty year break from building. The blanks I have built on recently have extremely less noticeable spine than those if the past. I find myself questioning is that the spine?. Years ago most blanks would feel like a mouse trap going off they would snap to the spine so hard. So at one time spine was probably a factor. Now not so much. I look for straightest axis then spine the blank. Usual they are within about 25 degrees in my experiences. And as I said all my recent builds have had a nearly undetectable spine.

John DeMartini Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
"Another factor to consider is how pronounced the spine is, if you are lucky enough to get a blank that has a spine that is difficult to find or even better non-existent then it doesn't matter where you place the guides, if you get a blank with an aggressive spine then guide location is an issue and the spine has to factor in the placement of the guides. "


I think the effect of the spine placement is minimal, but it DOES exist, otherwise we could not locate the spine. The spine is easily located, therefore has an effect, even if minimal.

The spine is where the rod naturally wants to bend and many threads on how to locate the spine, it is easily done. I believe in utilizing ALL natural aspects of the blank, no matter how minimal the effect. Therefore, I build on the spine. It mentally satisfies me and that makes a difference to me.

If you don't BELIEVE spine placement makes any difference, then it doesn't (even if there is a minuscule difference, it is so small that your BELIEF over rides the effect). The difference in overall rod performance is so small, that it makes very, VERY little difference in overall performance.

I truly believe this is a subject that YOUR mental attitude makes more difference than actual spine location as far as rod performance.

This discussion contains a good number of vague declarations about the benefits of "spine placement" but not a single Real Life example of any tangible benefits of doing so. If building your rod on the spine pleases you go right ahead. If you claim it increases accuracy or distance you owe it to your readers to reveal how many additional feet or inches results from building on the spine. Distance and accuracy are easily measured and belief is not proof. Note that no rod building company even claims to build on the spine, much less that doing so improves distance or accuracy in casting. This is likely the result of truth in advertising legislation. Rod advertisements carefully stick to stuff like "smooth" "fast" "powerful" "soulful" - qualities which can't be measured.