Another new guy question. Thanks in advance. Building an NFC 6wt. The NFC guide spacing chart online shows 11 guides. I bought a Rec recoil guide set with 10 guides in it. All my other 6wt have 10 guides as well. Am I safe to follow my other 6wt guide spacing or follow the NFC and add in one more guide?

Have not built on a NFC blank. Nonetheless, you've got to believe the blank manufacturer knows a thing or two about its blanks and its recommendation has to be seriously considered. On the other hand there is not necessarily one and only one guide location layout that will work for the blank and a reduction in the number of guides will result in a modest weight reduction. I'd try it both ways and determine which static loads best and if you can manage it which loads and casts best at about 30".

Thanks Donald. I agree but it's odd that I can't find another spacing guide in the 6wt range with that many guides. They also have the tip top at 3.7. A 4 works. I'm new to this but find it hard to believe that this blank requires an extra guide. We are taking about a half in difference at most. But again. I'm new.

You can probably do it with 9 guides plus tiptop. But your spacing will be more critical. As you add more guides, the spacing becomes less critical.

Put 9 plus a tiptop on there and space them carefull (static stress distribution) and see what things look like. Enough is enough. But if you need another guide, or two, modern guides aren't very heavy and there is little penalty to pay.

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

Thanks Tom. I just ran across your article on stress testing on another site. I'm going go ahead and use what I have and follow your instructions. The real motivation here is not wanting to order 1 guide online and waiting a week for it. Lol.

Gary: If you come across any credible evidence that one guide more or less will create a PROVEN distance in the accuracy, distance, or durability of a fly rod please post that source.

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gary: If you come across any credible evidence
> that one guide more or less will create a PROVEN
> distance in the accuracy, distance, or durability
> of a fly rod please post that source.


Why?

I'm pretty sure given my casting ability I won't be able to prove anything. Lol. As a new builder, I'm just trying to figure it all out.

Using too few can result in greater stress on the rod blank as the blank flexes in-between guide pairs. This is why using fewer guides requires more careful guide spacing. But you can probably do this fairly easy with just 9 plus a tiptop. I can't imagine using 11 plus a top.

...........

Understood. I'm planning on using 10. That seems to be the standard. I'll static load test it. I feel better after reading on it.

I have used this spacing on a 9 foot and it has worked just fine:

Inches from tip: 4.5; 9.5; 15.25; 21.75; 29; 36.6; 44.75; 54; 64.5; 76 (total of 10)

I used stripping guides in No. 12 and 10.

Pac Bay suggested: 4; 9; 15; 22; 29.5; 37.5; 46.5; 56.5; 67; 78 (total of 10)

In guide sizing, if you believe in tapering, then: 12-10-4-3-3-3-2-2-2-2

I would see no need for 11, just one more guide to wrap.

Thanks for the info. I'm done. I put the guides where I thought based off of some charts and similar rods I had. Went out and cast it and static load tested it. Looked good. I think I was over thinking it.

Thanks for the info. I'm done. I put the guides where I thought based off of some charts and similar rods I had. Went out and cast it and static load tested it. Looked good. I think I was over thinking it.

I'm all honesty, I think it would be hard to mess it up with 10 guides.

Robert: Physical science has sold me on the idea that minimizing leveraged weight (guides) on a fly rod maximizes the rod's casting performance. For many fly rods one less guide+wrapping will improve how it casts. If you fish exclusively in small waters where a 35' cast is a long one a couple of guides more than is necessary won't degrade the rod's performance enough to be a concern and could please the eye of the beholder.