I spine and mark each section of the four-section blanks I build into rods. Then I wrap the first section guides on the spine, wrap guides on the second rod section 90 degrees off the spine, wrap guides on the third rod section 180 degrees off the spine, and finally wrap guides and tip-top on the fourth rod section 270 degrees off the spine. Result? 4 X 90 degrees equals 360 degrees: the line comes out the tip-top at precisely the same plane as it entered the guide train, resulting in dead-on accurate casting!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2021 11:43AM by Phil Ewanicki.

Phil,
It would be interesting to hear the results of two of your rods built on identical blanks.

Build one rod, using the spine / guide alignment as you detail in the post just listed.

Then, using an identical blank build a rod - but build and align the guides so that the spine is at its very worst that you can imagine - with respect to your preferred method of building.

Then take the two rods out for a month of heavy fishing, alternating between the rods. Really good spine/guide alignment and really bad spine/guide alignment.

Record your results and let us know your results as to your good spine / bad spine on the water fishing results.

i.e.
At the end of the month - which rod caught the most fish.

After all - the purpose of a fishing rod is to catch fish. So, I am curious as to whether a very good spine / guide rod build compared to a very bad spine/guide results in any difference in the amount of fish caught.

I don't particularly care abut casting accuracy, or rod handling, or great feeling or bad feeling - I am only interested in knowing if the one spine / guide aligment compared to a different spine / guide alignment results in catching a different amount of fish.

Best wishes.

Record my casting results? Cite numbers and facts? This would be a huge break with tradition among rod builders. I wouldn't want to start a surge of measured and recorded facts about building and casting fishing rods. That could stifle imaginations.

roger wilson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

> At the end of the month - which rod caught the
> most fish.
>
> The one that was used by the best fisherman.

> > At the end of the month - which rod caught the
> > most fish.
> >
> > The one that was used by the best fisherman.

Now this is debatable!

I have seen knowledgeable experienced fishermen catch nothing while a complete rookie is catching!

So does equipment and knowledge really have all that much to do with it? Or, could the cooperation or lack of cooperation of the fish be the more important factor?

Knowledge and skill- and high performance custom rods, or artsy fartsy custom rods- do not always equate to more fish in the boat! Just ask any one of my old ladies! Sometimes they have kicked my butt while being traditionally completely clueless!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2021 06:46PM by Kent Griffith.

Phil, this info would be a huge boon to the rodbuilding community. Please share any of this "existing" data you may have compiled. Unless of course it pertains to fly rods in which I have no interest (go ahead, label me a charlatan) . Balance and sensitivity will of course have to remain objective. Lol.

When I took the same spin reel with the same line and the same weight and casted it on two six-foot rods built on different blanks with different guides with different (but similar) spacing there was less than a foot of difference in averaged casting distance (10 casts) between the two, and the rods' balance points are within 1 inch of being the same. All rods, but not all casters, are equally accurate. You are wise to ignore fly rods since a fly rod has little to do with casting distance - the line and the hauling hand do that. Lefty would cast a full fly line using no rod at all to prove that point. BTW: Balance is not subjective: it is a measurable quality. Ask a tightrope walker.

Its a little like golf. I can beat Tiger woods on a given hole but at the end of the round he will always beat me by at least 20 strokes.

Phil, wish I knew what rods, reels, line, lure weight and DISTANCES we were talking about here. Some of that actual documented info we're always hearing about!

Lyn: You missed my point: I used the same reel, line, and lure weight at the same time and place so no other differences could corrupt my results. If I had identified any of these someone would have kindly suggested a different, better reel, line, or weight and confused the issue. The only distance of concern in my experiment was clearly stated: "less than a foot of average distance". I urge you to replicate this experiment and see for yourself.

"Less than a foot of average distance".



But there is a difference and that's what's important . I personally would go to the ends of the earth to be able to pick up an extra 2 millimeter's of distance let alone 2 to 3 inches because that's absolutely huge and the difference between catching that once in a lifetime fish and going home with no fish at all .

Remember truly monster fish are typically lazy by nature and don't like to expend energy unless absolutely necessary meaning that extra few millimeter's of distance may put your bait right next to the fishes mouth instead of your bait landing a whole inch away from the fishes mouth wiping out any chance of success.

Sorry, gonna have to call @#$%& on that one.

HAHAHA! I agree with Mark. I was hoping someone else would call him on it so I wouldn't have to. I edited....shouldn't have written all that I feel. Sorry.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2021 12:08PM by Todd Andrizzi.

When it comes to chasing those once in a lifetime fish the decorative aspects of the build really come into play in clear water scenarios. When that trophy fish sees all that abalone and colorful butt wraps it puts them into the mood. They want to bite that lure just to get a peek at your wonderous beauty of a rod. This is why decoration and beauty is more important than performance. I can't prove this with data but it just works. I can feel it.

Aaron Petersen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When it comes to chasing those once in a lifetime
> fish the decorative aspects of the build really
> come into play in clear water scenarios. When that
> trophy fish sees all that abalone and colorful
> butt wraps it puts them into the mood. They want
> to bite that lure just to get a peek at your
> wonderous beauty of a rod. This is why decoration
> and beauty is more important than performance. I
> can't prove this with data but it just works. I
> can feel it.

LOL! Finally! There is hope!

Mark and Todd C'MON LOL . You guys actually thought my post above was serious that is hysterical . This entire thread is based on sarcasm . It's all for laughs nothing more .

Everybody knows Phil E is always the one that is wanting factual data and this thread is the opposite with Phil E having all that data but refusing to share it with everybody else .

C.C.N.: The data is there if you know what to look for: same spin reel, same line, same weight being cast, same length spin rods, same distance (plus or minus one foot) average cast. This is all real, hard data from my experiment. I will gladly provide additional data if you would reveal exactly what relevant data you desire - and in what form? Please be specific.

Thanks, Chris. I'll keep that in mind for future posts.

I never took any part of this thread serious for obvious reasons . Phil , one of those comments is yours and it's also obviously a joke .



"The best method is to magnetize a needle and balance it on the rod tip. This magnetized needle will interact with the carbon and point to the blanks inherent "True North" thus aligning the rod in perfect balance with nature"

" Once I start selling needle kits I will join the sponsors bar"

" I am holding out for the release of the illuminated, motorized version of the spine finder. It will supplement my rod harmonics detector"

" The magnetic to true north harmonics detector actually works best! I saw one on alibaba today as well! This one was called the humdinger!

" Toss magnet in humdinger and stand rod in humdinger from either end as it does not matter, and swish it around any old which a way. Where ever it stops build on the side closest to magnet. Works especially well on multi-sectional fly rods as a bonus! Casting accuracy and greatest dead lifting capacity guaranteed or your money back"

" The decorative aspects of the build really come into play in clear water scenarios. When that trophy fish sees all that abalone and colorful butt wraps it puts them into the mood. They want to bite that lure just to get a peek at your wonderous beauty of a rod. This is why decoration and beauty is more important than performance. I can't prove this with data but it just works. I can feel it"



Anybody who actually believes I was serious when I said : " I will go to the ends of the earth to gain a 2 to 3 millimeter distance increase " will likely believe that pigs can really fly .

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When I took the same spin reel with the same line
> and the same weight and casted it on two six-foot
> rods built on different blanks with different
> guides with different (but similar) spacing there
> was less than a foot of difference in averaged
> casting distance (10 casts) between the two, and
> the rods' balance points are within 1 inch of
> being the same. All rods, but not all casters, are
> equally accurate. You are wise to ignore fly rods
> since a fly rod has little to do with casting
> distance - the line and the hauling hand do that.
> Lefty would cast a full fly line using no rod at
> all to prove that point. BTW: Balance is not
> subjective: it is a measurable quality. Ask a
> tightrope walker.


How different were the blanks is my question and secondly how much different were the guides ? Using the same line , same reel , similar guide spacing although different guides etc... your results don't surprise me although I need to know if the difference in guides means smaller rings, higher frames or lower frames or both . I have also found that slight adjustments in guide positioning do not make much difference especially when using lighter line . Line type and diameter choices will reveal substantial differences when reel and guide spacing won't .

When testing two different blanks from two different manufacturers in the same price range and with the same ratings the likelihood of seeing noticeable differences is going to be very slim . Now try a high end much more expensive blank that's rated the same as the lower end blank and you will see significant differences but only IF your skills are capable of extracting the extra performance that higher end blank offers . Nobody will ever convince me that the differences between a very high end more expensive blank vs a much less expensive lower modulus blank will not reveal itself by someone with the skills to use it to it's potential because higher modulus blanks are capable of storing and releasing more energy than lower modulus blanks are capable of .

Put a top shelf super high performance blank in the hands of an average caster and you won't even know it's a blank capable of much better performance but make no mistake there are big differences .