Mohs hardness scale and the majority of angler opinion are a reliable indicator of the durability of fishing rod guide. Weight scales provide a reliable measure of the weight of a guide or a guide train, if you endorse the physics of leveraged weight. If there is any proof that one guide brand or model provide provides longer or more accurate casts this proof is certainly a tightly-held secret. On the other hand guide advertisers and some commenters don't let the lack of evidence keep them from claiming some sort of superiority of guide make/model besides personal taste.

SIC guides are the hardest, but they are also the most brittle. Durability is a matter of perspective. If you can take good care of a rod and never drop it, then SIC guides may be the most durable. But if an accident ever happens and a rod smacks a hard floor or side of a boat, you can shatter a SIC guide. Then it might not be more durable.

For me, I never purchase SIC guides. Just no need to. But I do have a couple of rods with them. The cost is prohibitive, so I am perfectly satisfied with Fuji alconite level of quality and price. But then again, my needs are low loads for bass fishing rods. Saltwater guys might need a harder guide eye or ring since their loading is far greater.

As for casting, I do not believe hardness affects casting distance because during a cast there is a no load situation happening and the line is really not loading against any guide eye hard enough to develop any appreciable friction to reduce a cast by any measurable amount in my opinion. So no I don't notice any difference through the hardness scale of guide ring materials. They all work pretty much the same during a cast. Under heavier and heavier loads is where the differences really become apparent in my opinion- which I am sure could very well be wrong and some may be able to explain in greater detail more clearly.

I would also suggest guides do not determine accuracy. The angler does.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2020 03:13PM by Kent Griffith.

Very well said Kent

I can think of at least one additional application for that Mohs hardness scale.

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mohs hardness scale and the majority of angler
> opinion are a reliable indicator of the durability
> of fishing rod guide. Weight scales provide a
> reliable measure of the weight of a guide or a
> guide train, if you endorse the physics of
> leveraged weight. If there is any proof that one
> guide brand or model provide provides longer or
> more accurate casts this proof is certainly a
> tightly-held secret. On the other hand guide
> advertisers and some commenters don't let the lack
> of evidence keep them from claiming some sort of
> superiority of guide make/model besides personal
> taste.

Are you an engineer by trade?

Accuracy is a function of the angler. The truth of this statement comes from real live events. I have been to many Icast shows and there is always an area set aside for fly anglers. The promoter provides a long rectangular pool several inches deep and also provides a number of fly rods for demo and occasional contests.

It is amazing to see the folks try their hand in testing and casting different styles and builds. Mind you these folks have never seen these rods before let alone cast with them and after some practice casts they handle them with remarkable ease. The obvious conclusion is that these folks have handled fly rods before and can adapt or adjust to any rod given to them and work them with little effort.

An avid angler knows what they want in a rod and they can pursue building it themselves or contract a builder to provide it if they do not have the skills or the equipment.

My criteria for rod components are a culmination of, forum discussions, personal experience, component quality, the manufacturers’ reputation; cost factors, customer feedback and with all that the bottom line is,

HOW GOOD IT FEELS, HOW EASY IT IS TO FISH WITH AND WHAT SATISFACTION IT GIVES!

I love having options, but I take a very practical approach to component selection. Part of that involves looking at the physical properties of the options and deciding which benefits are going to be applicable to my needs.

When it comes to hardness, about the hardest thing we regularly encounter out in nature while fishing is granite. Given that I've watched my grandfather and father use carborundum (silicon carbide) and, in more recent years, aluminum oxide sand to cut granite in the monument lettering business for decades, either of those two are going to be more than enough to satisfy my needs for a material that my nylon or dyneema line is going to come in contact with.

When it comes to casting, as Kent mentioned, friction only works when there is a force perpendicular to the parallel surfaces pushing them together. On the cast, there just isn't going to be a significant perpendicular force between the line and guides to cause a significant effect. After all, the casting distance difference between COF and modern spinning systems is typically less than 10 feet in well executed designs. Changes due to the coefficient of friction from the guides will be smaller.

The only time I see the ring material becoming of significant importance is when dealing with fish that can strip hundreds of yards of line in seconds with a locked down drag. In those scenarios, you can bet I would be carefully considering the coefficient of friction, lower means less heat will be produced, and thermal conductivity of the material and frame both, higher will dissipate heat faster. Given that I build for myself, family, and friends, my building is limited to freshwater applications.

About the only property of the guide that really matters to me, given the incredible options we have available on the market, is the weight. However, if I can drop my running guides down to a 3-4mm guide, the weight differences have a much smaller impact on the performance of the rod. In those cases, I will tend to opt for an aluminum oxide ring in a steel frame. If I need to go larger SiC or other thin ring materials become an option as well as splurging for titanium frames.

There is no one guide insert and frame material combination that is best for every build. I like the subtle differences that makes offerings from each manufacturer unique. I'll use the original Batson MK running guides when going for really light builds. I like how the guide sits slightly higher than some other designs. I'll choose something with a contoured foot if I know the rods are going in a rod locker an pullout becomes more of an issue, the arrow shape of AmTak's guides are great in this regard. A bit stouter frame is in order if I know someone abuses rods. Like everyone, I have my preferences, but each rod is unique. That is what makes rod building such an exciting hobby for me. If I built everything the same, I may as well find a factory rod.

Phil,
Please enlighten all of us as to the numbers and resultant facts your research has discovered. We are all here to learn and consequently benefit.

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

Marc,
Sorry - I can't begin to provide "all of us" with all of the "numbers" I have researched and facts I have discovered in the last 70+ years. If you have a specific fact you would like to research I may be able to refer you to a credible source containing the numbers and facts you seek, and you can share this information with all of us. Perhaps you could reveal the results in the number of feet and inches of double-blind casting distance or accuracy between different guide trains. Sensible rod builders would be more interested in observed results than the opinion of any one person.

I received as a gift from an employer a Daiwa fishing rod that was a combo fly/spinning rod. It had inexpensive ceramic guides. The rod spent a lot more time casting braided Dyneema than fly line. Over time, I noticed that my line seemed to be getting hung up in the tip top. close inspection revealed that the braided line actually created a grove in the tip top that created a lot of friction, and damaged my fishing line. I had to replace the tip top. The running and stripping guides faired better, without obvious damage from the braided line.

The new Torzite guides show Youtube demonstrations showing how the material is much stronger than even SIC guides, and how running monofilament through ordinary ceramic guides creates heat from friction. The mono was quickly damaged in the demo, while the same monofilament run through the Torzite guides showed no damage after many, many more runs through the guides.

The problem with this, new from Fuji, super material is that it is ridiculously expensive. I do use SIC guides, or AT's strongest material guides so as not to adversely damage either the guide rings, or line. I can't give you any empirical data, only my personal observations from actually using fishing gear. I hope that helps.

Tight lines and frisky fish

RJF