Do most of you end up with uneven guide spacing when doing static load testing? Example, the guides are closer together at the peak of the bend of the rod? Or do you try to find a setting that'll have progressively increasing guide spacing as you move from the tip to the butt?

Hello Darwin.

You just follow the natural curve of the loaded blank.


Tight Wraps & Tighter Lines.

Bob,

New Bern, NC.

.Give the rod what it's taper wants even if the spacing between guides seems odd or not progressive. It's the line that is important. If the line consistently follows the bend of the rod you are done regardless of whether or not the guide spacing is progressive. Assume all guide spacing charts are simply starting points for static load testing.

Usually, but not always, it comes out progressive when using the two line stress test. The differences are minor, and most likely are not compelling. Some advocate just doing a single spacing , like 5 inches, to the reduction train. Others, a 5, 6, 7 , 8 etc. I sometimes think we overthink things. But it's fun. And if you overthink, you most likely will not be wrong. Keep in mind that this is simply an opinion, as are most posts on forums.

Darwin,
Aren't you saying the same thing in both examples??
Greater spaces as you go from tip to butt - OR - decreasing spaces as you go from butt to tip.
Herb
CTS Rep

here is a link to an older discusion of this: [www.rodbuilding.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2020 07:12PM by Gary Weber.

Darwin,
From your description, it seems like the guide spacing closer to the tip is relatively wide compared to the mid section where most of the bend is noticed followed by wider spacing again toward the butt. As Donald and Michael have offered, static load testing (2-line method) will determine the optimum location for each guide to equally distribute the stress the blank encounters under load. I take it one step further and test the blank under full load and partial load to compromise the final location of the guides, but that is just me. That being said, I have never encountered a blank which did not allow for a progressively wider spacing of the guides from the tip to the butt. I suspect the reason for your non-progressive spacing is due to the first few guides closest to the tip are too wide as a result of spacing the guides so that the static line forms the same angle at ALL the guides under full load. While it may seem logical, do not be fooled! One needs to remember two critical things here; 1.) Under a light load, the blank will flex near the tip but as more load is applied, the apex of the flex curve moves toward the butt while the tip starts to straighten out, 2.) The more-fragile tip of the blank needs more support and protection than the heavier mid and butt sections.
Before actually static load testing an blank for guide placement, I temporarily position the running guides in a progressively wider spacing with tiny rubber bands. But there are rules to follow concerning the first 2 or 3 guides to support and protect the tip of the blank. For UL to light rods, the first guide from the tip is never more than 3.75in, usually 3.5in and the remaining progressively increased to the choke guide (4.5, 5.5 6.5 for example). For rods up to 20lb, the first guide should never be more than 4in from the tip with 3.75 being the norm and again progressively increase the spacing to the choke guide. The spacing of the first roller guide to the tip roller on my 80lb tuna rod is only 4in to protect the tip.
After the runners are temporarily mounted on the blank in a somewhat progressive arrangement, then static load testing for their ultimate position can be accomplished. But do not move the first 2 guides from the tip more than .125in unless shortening the gap. The choke guide and remaining reduction guides can also be moved but only slightly to accommodate a nice progression.
Other builders may use different spacing and that is certainly fine. The main thing to remember is to support and protect the tip of the blank by not being lured into widening the spacing of the first few guides because static load testing appears to allow it.

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

Darwin,
To summarize guide spacing as I do it.

I put on the rod blank tip top.

Then, I begin to bend the rod from the tip. As each point on the rod bends, I mark it and that is where I place a guide.

Essentially it ends up with a narrow spacing at the tip of the rod and progressively grows to a greater spacing as one gets toward the tip.

Or another way to look at it - the spacing is pretty much a function of the diameter of the rod blank. i.e. small diameter of the blank - narrow rod spacing. large diameter of the rod blank - wide rod spacing.


Also, note that for many many rod blanks, the first tip from the rod blank tip top - is further away from the tip top as the 2nd guide is spaced from the first guide.


Simply put - the last several inches of the blank can have about the same diameter and this results with a guide spacing that does not appear proportional right at the tip of the rod. Nothing wrong with that at all. It is just the design and manufacture of the rod blank speaking to the builder about where it needs to be loaded by placing a guide at that location.



Best wishes.

Darwin was wrong, at least about humans. Add another guide and get over it.

add two guides and get over it..lol.

Thanks everyone for the all the suggestions! It was a good detailed read.
Yes I understand that in the end there'll be different ideas/theories and I like that about custom rod building

I was running into the scenario Mark had replied with:

Mark Talmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From your description, it seems like the guide
> spacing closer to the tip is relatively wide
> compared to the mid section where most of the bend
> is noticed followed by wider spacing again toward
> the butt.

Will apply these tips on my next attempt and see how the spacing looks after!

For some reason I wasn't able to read the linked thread. It didn't show up as a link on my page, and when I copy and pasted the line it brought me back to this very thread. So anyhow ..... like some others, I let static loading tell me where the guides belong. I don't really care if the guides are progressively spaced or not. I will say that on blanks that are labeled as fast action, my first guide from the tip usually ends up further from the tip than the 2nd guide is from the first, and the 3rd guide is from the second.

On blanks that I have built on with moderate fast and moderate actions, the guides further down (from the tip) the blank are spaced closer together than some of the guides closer to the tip. And that is because of where the blank is flexing with those actions. Like others I use the two line method when static loading. And I fully load the rod per CCS criteria for a fully loaded rod. I'm not really concerned with the line path on a lightly loaded rod. The way I see it, if the line path is to my liking on a fully loaded rod, then it's going to be to my liking on a lightly loaded rod.

I will say that casting distance isn't really a major concern to me as far as running guide placement goes. For me it's all about protecting the blank while fighting and landing fish. In my world extra guides are a safety measure. lol

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my world extra guides are a safety measure. lol

Speaking of extra guides... I'm doing a KR concept with the KL-H (16H-8H-5.5M, 4.5 runners) on a 6'9 SJ Medium rod, fast action, . GPS software said i should use 4 running guides but i bought 5 just to be safe. But even with 5 running guides, an equal distance between them is at least 5.5+ inches. I'll do the static test this week and move them around slightly to see how it looks. But just thinking may be a guide short if wanting to keep the first guide near the tip within 3-4"

In my opinion the KR GPS always under estimates the number of running guides, it basically gives a minimum number. I alway add 1 or 2 more runners than suggested. The extra runner(s) makes it much easier to to get a nice progressive guide spacing, that fits the bend of the blank. The KRGPS gives a good starting point, but it can certainly be modified. The KR GPS estimates the choke point by placing it approximately O.42 X the distance from the stripper to the tip top in front of the stripper. Thus the longer the rod the further out the choke guides moves. So as you can see the choke point a moveable point and can certainly be moved in or out a little to get a good progressive guide layout. In your case the choke point will be about 20” in front of the stripper. I would place the two transition guides (8H and 5.5M) progressively between the stripper and choke guide, and then progressively place the runners between the choke and the tip top, using an extra runner or two. I normally place the first runner somewhere between 9 to 10 cm from the tip top and gradually increase this distance to the choke. If needed the choke can be moved in or out a little to get the layout you like. For a 81” rod I will normally use a total of 9 guides not counting the tip top, although 8 would work. The extra guides will almost certainly give you progressive guide spacing, a very good static test and will cast just great. I have done a bunch of 6’9” rods so if you need a tentative layout contact me. I will be happy to help. I do like progressive spacing, non progressive spacing bother me, but that just me.
Norm

Like Norman, I always order more running guides than suggested, or that I might think I'll need. For me personally, I'd rather have more guides than I may need, on hand, than wish I had another guide or two. I've pretty much settled on using the same size and type of running guides on all of my builds, so any extra guides can always go to use on my next build.

As for the number of guides on a particular length rod goes, I don't believe there is a set number. I believe the number of guides a builder uses is dependent on how closely they want the line's path, to follow the curve of the blank. My personal preference is for the path of the line to follow the curve of the blank very closely. Because of that, I am quite certain that I use more running guides than other builders on this site would if they were building the same rod. And I'm quite alright with that. As I've posted in other similar threads, I'm not the least bit concerned if my guide spacing works out to be progressive or not, but I can certainly understand those that prefer the looks of progressively spaced guides. I still use 3 double foot guides for the reduction train on my casting rods. And it is strictly because I like the way it looks.

Thanks Norm, I may reach out later this month if things still look a bit wonky.

Thanks David, yup i just ordered some extra guides from the weekend sales. Hard part will be waiting the next couple weeks with the rod just sitting there :)