Kent Griffith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kendall Cikanek Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The bird’s nest related to the Microwave
> casting
> > guides that I most don’t want is the metal
> one
> > that is the guide itself. The high frame,
> reverse
> > Fuji guides (TRVTG, TRVAG, TRVSG) do the job at
> > least as well, and arguably better.
>
> Could you elaborate on this please? I am not sure
> if I am following you correctly.


What I am saying is that if something as light, simple, and sleek as the fully titanium framed/Torzite ringed Fuji TRVTG-6 does the job as well or better than the Microwave 12-6, “why would anyone tie American Tackle’s monstrous bird’s nest of steel and ceramic onto their rod?”. It’s not even cost-savings as the fully titanium Fuji cost three dollars less than the only titanium plated Microwave 12-6.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2021 11:32PM by Kendall Cikanek.

The big difference between. guides of any make is the opinion of the seller or owner, not the performance of the guides. As far as I know there is no literature which reveals a significant, measured difference in the casting distance, accuracy, or strength of different makes and models of guides . I would eagerly welcome such information - more opinions, not so much.

Phil, almost everything you see on forums is an opinion. I think you will remain frustrated if you expect more from forums.

Much of what I have learned about rod building came from factual information shared on this site. Opinions I have read have done little to improve the rods I build.

What a particular blank weighs and it's length are facts how it performs is all opinion . Over the last few years manufacturer rep's have scheduled casting events for surf rod models where people can test cast different rod models before purchasing . That's all most anglers need , they know that the rod they're test casting can be made more to their liking by using different components and different layout's but they now have a feel for the different models and how each felt and responded and whether it's something that will work for them.

They know that it's impossible to determine actual casting distance and sensitivity of each model . All most anglers need is to handle a particular rod in person and cast it to get a feel for it's traits and responsiveness . Many experienced anglers don't even feel it necessary to test cast and handle a blank before purchasing you can determine the performance potential just by looking at factual specs , tip and butt size , taper , material stiffness to weight ratio / modulus per square inch , length , action, blank overall weight , the company behind it and their reputation , what specific task is it made for etc..

I can't say with certainty but the majority of anglers don't seem to be insistent on knowing exact facts or maybe they understand that it's not possible to determine exact facts in regards to performance from different blank models except the facts listed above.

Unfortunately there are many people out there that buy the most expensive gear on the market and while the gear truly offers incredible performance the anglers themselves just aren't capable enough or lack the skills necessary to extract the performance the equipment is capable of , this is much more common than people think.

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Much of what I have learned about rod building
> came from factual information shared on this site.
> Opinions I have read have done little to improve
> the rods I build.


Agreed, it’s especially concerning when opinions seem contrary to fact and logic while appearing be “social media magnified”. Here is something empirical. The listed weight of one Microwave 18/8 guide on AT’s site is 3.5-3.8 grams, depending on the ring options. I just weighed the entire SeaGuide train that I am putting on a saltwater casting/jigging rod. It starts with ring size 16 and progressively goes down to six size 8 guides. This train is fully double footed. The total weight for all nine guides on a laboratory grade, calibrated scale rounds to 4.2 grams. I would have started with a size 12 on this train if I weren’t occasionally going to use a conventional reel. That would have made the entire train lighter than the one MW guide. The cost for this titanium train is within a few dollars of the plated Microwave train.

Kendall Cikanek Wrote:

> That would have made the entire train
> lighter than the one MW guide.

WOW!

Another reason... Thanks!

What gets the weight of the MW system up is the unavoidable equation of (2 * pi * radius) for the circumference of a circle. When you put on an extra ring that is twice or more the radius of the primary ring, you end up with over three times the amount of heavy ceramic material. It takes more stainless steel to connect all the rings together, and then the apparatus to the feet. I won’t argue the merits of the system on spinning rods as it was designed for the coiling line of that application. Porting it to a baitcasting system, that is turned ninety degrees and features linear oscillations instead of coils, just doesn’t make rational sense to me. I’ve looked at my stripper guides during casts to see if the line would even contact an outer ring, if it were there. I don’t believe that it would on my bass-sized baitcasting reels. I only get MW casting guides from a marketing sense in that it become an established brand name in the spinning application.

Kendall Cikanek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I’ve looked at my stripper
> guides during casts to see if the line would even
> contact an outer ring, if it were there. I don’t
> believe that it would on my bass-sized baitcasting
> reels.

Exactly!

When sales hype and reality collide!



Kendall Cikanek Wrote:

> I only get MW casting guides from a
> marketing sense in that it become an established
> brand name in the spinning application.


Dittos! "from a marketing sense..."

But even more so for the baitcast application!

So what we're saying here is, and I wholeheartedly agree ....... a Microwave type butt guide for a casting rod is tantamount to orienting a rod's guides to the spine of the blank the rod is built on. It's neither necessary, nor advantageous.

While I do not see any advantage to the MW casting butt guide, the MW spinning guide system works extremely well. It will cast at least as good as any other system on the market and a far sight better than anything anybody was doing ten or fifteen years ago.

I agree, although the MW spinning guide system works quite well, I also don’t see an advantage using a MW casting guide system. Line dynamics and line control are quite different between spinning and casting outfits. I don’t think Doug Hannon had anything to do with the MW casting guides.
Norm

Norman Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree, although the MW spinning guide system
> works quite well, I also don’t see an advantage
> using a MW casting guide system. Line dynamics and
> line control are quite different between spinning
> and casting outfits. I don’t think Doug Hannon
> had anything to do with the MW casting guides.
> Norm

Glad to see some comments coming around to agreeing on certain aspects of this situation.

And Norm you would be absolutely correct in that Doug Hannon never had anything to do with the casting MW guide. He probably never even saw it and may have never been informed this would be a direction for the purchaser of his patented idea to move in.

Doug Hannon died in 2013. And just before he died, he "partnered" with American Tackle through a mysterious shadow corporation being held by a third party as mentioned above since no owner is named in the Dept of State filing, only a "manager" is listed.

But we all know who is behind it now since it is clearly posted on the American Tackle website regardless of how or why they went about it the way they have trying to hide who precisely was the purchasing partner.

But what we do know is just before Doug died in 2013, his "partner" is more than likely the entity behind the design change in the patent.

And shortly after Doug died in 2013, in 2014 another change in design was filed on his patent by a Russel L. Riley of Remus, Mi. And presto, another new MW guide idea was born. An idea Doug may have never been told about or that it would happen, or that any more changes to his patent might occur. I can't be certain of this, but surely if this baitcasting idea for a MW guide had been in the plans during the "partnering" of this idea, then it should have made its appearance on the original design change made in Doug's name before his death. But all of this appears to have happened after he died and may be a change Doug never saw coming as to how his idea would be used in ways he did not originally envision.







One thing that really bothers me about all of this "new concept" designing based on an original patented idea is how easily the funnel distancing is changing with no regard to physics.

Doug made clear in his original patent that there was a "science" to it, but the new designs seem to be on the edge of that scope of invention as originally described by Doug Hannon himself.

What I mean is this... in his original patented idea, his funnel distancing was really all over the place. from a short distance to a longer distance (1/4" to 2") based on the size of the guide rings, but the in production models seem to have in some ways ignored this funnel distancing in the final for sale products.



So it is clear Doug said based on the size of guide rings, there is an applied formula for the funnel distancing. And I am not so sure this part of the patent has come foward into production models, especially the baitcasting model...

One would have to try and extract the formula Doug wrote up on "D3" and then see if the final production models fall within the limits.

And I can tell you without a baitcast model guide in my hand, I can not say for sure if the D3 distance is a 1/4" or greater. (I have seen several on rods before and from memory do not recall that D3 distance being at least a 1/4"- I remember less) I am sure the spinning version meets this, but not sure about the baitcast version. Just something to consider in this situation...

It is as if Doug had an idea that has been taken away from him and turned into something else all together mainly for profits first and foremost- even if the science does not apply as is the case with the baitcast version which has really crossed a line to gimmicky as I see it. A harmless gimmick.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2021 03:43PM by Kent Griffith.

chris c nash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kent , lets try this again it's NOT COMPLICATED
> !!! What I said about the guide is 100% correct ,
> it's a Stripper/Choke combo guide one look at it
> tells you that . OF COURSE American Tackle and
> Mudhole call it a stripper that's to make it easy
> to understand for the average rod building person
> . Any semi experienced rod builder knows it's a
> Stripper/choke combo guide JUST LOOK AT IT C'MON .
> Note how the descriptions DO NOT mention a choke
> guide , that's because the choke is a part of the
> stripper .

Re: Microwave guide train for musky rod new
Posted by: Darrin Heim (---.biz.spectrum.com)
Date: April 25, 2021 03:48PM

> the MWG stripper is in fact called a stripper. Generally the first guide in the train is called a stripping guide or stripper and the MWG system is no different.

Respectfully,

Darrin Heim
American Tackle Company


Hopefully this one is now settled...

Kent Griffith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chris c nash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Kent , lets try this again it's NOT
> COMPLICATED
> > !!! What I said about the guide is 100% correct
> ,
> > it's a Stripper/Choke combo guide one look at
> it
> > tells you that . OF COURSE American Tackle and
> > Mudhole call it a stripper that's to make it
> easy
> > to understand for the average rod building
> person
> > . Any semi experienced rod builder knows it's
> a
> > Stripper/choke combo guide JUST LOOK AT IT C'MON
> .
> > Note how the descriptions DO NOT mention a
> choke
> > guide , that's because the choke is a part of
> the
> > stripper .
>
> Re: Microwave guide train for musky rod new
> Posted by: Darrin Heim (---.biz.spectrum.com)
> Date: April 25, 2021 03:48PM
>
> > the MWG stripper is in fact called a stripper.
> Generally the first guide in the train is called a
> stripping guide or stripper and the MWG system is
> no different.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Darrin Heim
> American Tackle Company
>
>
> Hopefully this one is now settled...



Ken re read my last post :

OF COURSE IT'S CALLED A STRIPPER , THE FIRST GUIDE NO MATTER WHAT IT REALLY IS WILL ALWAYS BE CALLED A STRIPPER GUIDE . But make no mistake , the Microwave's first guide is a stripper/choke combination guide , always has been and always will be, END OF STORY . It doesn't matter who or what anybody else on the entire planet says that's what it is .

This site has the worlds most experienced rod builders to be found anywhere , there are numerous 'American Tackle' representatives on this site so lets settle this in your mind because in my mind it was settled before it even began . If there is anybody on these boards INCLUDING American Tackle representatives that insist the main guide of the Microwave system is just a regular stripper WITHOUT a choke guide being integrated into it please speak up .

Ken let me ask you this , where is the 'Choke' guide located in a Microwave guide set ? All spinning rod guide sets have a choke , where is it on a microwave system ?

This seems like a case of somebody coming to the party late. Doug Hannon was at the Expo the year the Microwave guides were introduced. Why didn't you ask him these questions in person then? And what on earth does any of this have to do with whether or not the guides work? They do. And there is no line overshoot. They will stand up to any other guide system and beat most in terms of set up.

Chris it boils down to this... I called it a stripper guide and you said it was not.

I showed you quotes on it from American Tackle also saying it was a stripper guide. That's it. Done deal. Settled.

Choke point is not a part of this no matter how much you bring it in. The MW guide as an entire unit is the stripper guide. Case closed as I see it.

It seems if I say it is, you say it isn't. And the debate goes ever on! But as far as I am concerned it is case closed.

And Mike I wish I had been able to ask Doug some questions. As it is now, all I have left are his various co-inventors on some items to ask their side of things like one of his co-inventors Bingham McClellan I just found... And, when certain claims are made as to what a person is credited for, then digging out the facts becomes necessary. Throwing around claims is easy to do- some have yet to be substantiated. Digging out the facts takes more time and effort.

I think what has been shown is that Doug had an idea and someone else capitalized on making it and selling it in a way that is uniquely different than the original idea and designs and even scope of it.

I am learning from this so it is valuable to me to dig for more than "they work" and that's all I need to know type of thing.

As I dig into some of the claims, I am finding out that in more than one idea Doug is not a sole inventor, he is merely a co-inventor but no one bothered to mention that which is a huge disservice to the other inventors listed in the patents I am digging out who are completely faceless and left out of the crediting. I want to know, and I have the time, and this information is freely available public information at the click of a button in the right places. So why not?

As to the line overshoot, to me that one is still not settled. Next week I am going to contact some people I know in an engineering dept of a university who also have a fishing program and custom rod program for engineering students. This would be a great science project to say the least. Time for some outside verification if I can get this ball rolling I surely will. Should be interesting if I can get one or more engineering student involved in testing it.

I can see it's both a stripper and a choker guide. What I can't see is what difference in MEASURED performance [if any] this combination guide provides. It does provide leveraged weight, for sure.

I would never ever ask such a question especially to Doug Hannon out of sheer embarrassment because it's as obvious as obvious gets that it's a Stripper/Choke combo guide integrated into a single frame . People tend to get annoyed when you ask them questions that everybody already knows the answer to .

All anyone has to do is look at the guide a single time to know what it is . I'm having very serious doubts about whether Kent is serious or likes pulling peoples legs . If he's an accomplished builder as he says he is he would never argue what the guide is because even semi experienced builders know it's two separate guides in a single guide frame which eliminates the need for a choke guide further down the rod where it typically is always located .

I'm convinced Ken knows this but refuses to admit it for some reason. I also understand why the manufacturer calls it a stripper but if you think the manufacturer doesn't know it's in actuality a Stripper/Choke combo guide think again of course they do . This is basic novice rod building 101.

I believe "Butt" guide is the correct term (stripper is the butt guide on a fly rod). But this is semantics.

I knew Doug Hannon and we had many conversations about the MicroWave guide concept before it ever came to market. I had cooked up something similar when the first PacBay Minima guides arrived and stacked a 25 and a 12 on top of each other. There are pictures of this on the photo page going back many years now. Doug was a straight up guy and a real innovator. We had many hour long conversations on the phone about various things and when I asked him to come to the Expo that year he didn't hesitate. He was well received and very forthcoming about his idea behind the MicroWave system. At the time, it was only for spinning reels. I ran his article in RodMaker and I don't publish articles on theories - they have to work or they won't appear in RodMaker.

The original post received a rebuttal to the effect that stacking two rings of such dissimilar size would create a line overshoot situation. It does not. Take your pick, MicroWave or KR or New Guide Concept, whatever. All these systems, properly implemented, will provide casting performance all within 1% or 2% of each other. They work as advertised. They are light years beyond what guys were doing even into the 90's. But casting distance is only one benefit - getting the weight off the upper 1/2 of the rod by choking (controlling) the line early increases rod speed (reaction and recovery) and improves rod balance. These modern systems are light years ahead of where we were just couple decades ago.

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