I acquired an older Calstar 6465 XH-B that I thought would make a great rail rod. It's so stiff that finding the spine the usual way by having the butt on the floor and applying pressure against the blank while supporting the tip just wasn't getting it, so I used the straightest axis to find it. That worked well. Everything was going smoothly until I glued up the aluminum reel seat. It required very minimal arboring for which I used drywall tape that was tacked in place with a dab of super glue to ensure that it wouldn't shift when I put the reel seat in place. Rod Bond was used for the adhesive. After it had dried, I could see where I had inadvertantly deviated from the marked spine by about 10-15 degrees. I can only attribute this to operator error. What I'm wondering about is how much this would affect the rod if it was being railed while fighting a big tuna. If it is perceived to be significant I'll cut off the reel seat and use another aluminum one that I have. I'm not excited about finishing the rod and find that it is going to be a problem. Replacing the fore grip isn't a big deal; it's HD Hypalon.

Dave Sytsma

And the “to spine” or “not to spine” saga continues.
David,
Continue with the build as is. If you mount the guides conventionally on top, you are going to have rod torque anyway. But consider spiral-wrapping the guides to eliminate any rod torque and save your energy to fight the fish rather than wasting energy from attempting to counter the rod torque. Plus, with the rod more stable under load, it is just more pleasurable to fish. Most people do not realize how much energy they are wasting death-gripping the rod to keep it from twisting; with a 100lb+ tuna hooked, you’ll need all the energy you can muster.

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

David,
Simply put - FORGET ABOUT SPINE>

Go build your rod.

Best wishes

I prefer building on the spine.

I believe it also contributes to casting accuracy as Gary Loomis states in his videos because the swing out of the load up is predictable when you use the spine. If you don't then no telling what angle the rod will flow to forcing the caster to compensate for the off angle out flow choice angle the rod chooses.

Its nice to know where it is and use it to my advantage rather than not.

Its a preference thing.

People who ignore the spine are missing out!

On what is still debatable.

Building on the spine sounds good in theory, the problem I have is that so far all the blanks I've checked have multiple spines. Do it if you want but don't worry about it if you don't. The rod will perform fine either way.

If you cannot find the spine how important can it be?

If the blank is as stiff as you say, build the rod and enjoy it. You will never notice any effect due to a 10-15 degree alignment error

Have fun
John

Rod twist is determined by guide orientation. Regardless of where you orient the spine, the lever arm effect of the guides will overcome it. This isn't an opinion, it's physics.

If the guides are located on top of the rod, the rod will attempt to twist under load regardless of where the spine is oriented. This is typically negated by a gimbal or your grasp on the rod. If the guides are located on the underside of the rod, the rod will be absolutely stable under load, no matter where you have oriented the spine.


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

Also the spine does not contribute to casting accuracy, that is strictly in control of the person casting.

The spine debate has more lives than a boatload of zombies. How does one measure the benefits of a "properly spined" rod? In feet? inches? pounds? If anyone presented actual physical measurements of the difference in performance between a spined versus an unspined rod I would be quick to spine my next rod build.

It has been done, at least in terms of maximum deadlift capacity: [www.rodbuilding.org]

As far as "performance" I'm not sure what that entails or how you could measure it. Casting "accuracy" without some sort of mechanized, verbatim casting process would be impossible to assess.

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

Thanks for all the advice and opinions. If I wasn't such a #$*&^%! perfectionist I wouldn't even have given it a thought. I'll just wrap it up tomorrow as is. After all, with the grips and reel seat I've only got about 37" of usable blank for the guides. I've been tempted to spiral wrap it (simple spiral) but the deckhands on the last trip I went on were, can we say, less than enthusiastic about spiral wrapped rods. Two other anglers had spiral wrapped rods and the deckhands who I know well and respect were very adamant that I don't go there. Nobody was offering any explanations on why this was so. If I spiral wrap and it doesn't perform to expectations, I can always cut them off and mount them conventional. Again, thanks very much for all your help.

Dave

The deckhands have probably never used a spiral wrapped rod. Ignorance is bliss,
Norm

Troche’ Norman!!! You are point-on!!!

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

David,

Have you ever noticed guys on party boats moving down the line with a fish on and how they allow the rod to spin so that the reel is upside down as they move down and along? That's because the lever arm effect of the guides turn the rod to that orientation.

A spiral wrapped rod will allow you to support even a heavily loaded rod with an open palm and remain perfectly upright, even with a heavy reel attached. It's not a theory - it's physics.

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

Since your rod is a custom, one-off rod, whether you build it considering the spine of the blank or not, when completed you'll have no basis for comparison with any other rod to determine which method would have been better- erase the mark where the spine is supposed to be, build it (hopefully with spiral), and enjoy the heck out of it- it will be fine. As Michael pointed out, in a rod this stiff if it's difficult to find the spine, how important can it be?

Ron Weber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also the spine does not contribute to casting
> accuracy, that is strictly in control of the
> person casting.

Disagree.

Some rods do cast more accurately than others. Same as high end rifles shoot more accurately than lower quality rifles are even capable of. A better product can produce better results.

Is it better to have a rod behave predictably in your hands? Or, ignore such things and build on any side of the rod you so choose and then you have to adjust to cast it, and readjust for your next rod not built on spine.

Gary Loomis specifically states in his own words the how and why a rod's particular characteristics contribute to easier casting accuracy.

If you build off axis to the main spine, not smaller insignificant spines, but the main blank spine bend, you can predict your casting better because the rod loads up straight and will come out straight. If you build off axis, then load up the rod, it will unload to the angle that is easiest for it. And this is what we look for to place in one particular location for predictable casting accuracy.

Building off spine means once backloaded, the rod may unload not straight and this forces the fisherman to fight with the equipment to get what he wants from it. Build it with predictable characteristics for predictable results.

Here is a link to the video: [youtu.be]

Words of Gary Loomis: (((Speaking about a properly spined rod))) "When I cast it will load straight and it WILL CAST STRAIGHT!!!"

Gary Loomis is GOD. And what he is saying here is biblical gospel.

One of the greatest rod blank builders of all time in all the world and he says it true and correct and I believe it and strictly adhere to it and will not build rods based on any old which a way the wind wants to blow around here today.
----------------------------------------------------------------

ADDED, I just read a comment here saying the rod in this thread is a super heavy stiff type of rod. If so, then I would agree spine might not matter much at all on those. But for my bass fishing rods... spining is the ONLY way to go.

If I ever built a rod off spine I'd feel guilty like I done something wrong!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2021 03:08PM by Kent Griffith.

Kent,
Be guilty of doing something wrong.

If you have time on your hands, take two rods - identical and both which have a very heavy and noticeable spine.

Build both rods in an identical fashion.

However, build one of the rods with the spine at 90 degrees to the heavy spine in the rod.

When finished, take both rods out and fish both of them equally for a season.

At the end of the season, write a summary report of your experiences with each of the rods and let us all know if you find any significant in using either rod - in any aspect of fishing - with first one rod and then the other rod.

At the end of the test - I would be very surprised if you were able to actually feel or tell any difference - what so ever between the two rods - with respect to casting accuracy and catching and landing a fish.

Do the test, write the report and let us all know what you find out.



People can say a lot of different things about different items. But, at the end of the day - they are simply words. Now, back up the words with actions and let the results of the actions be the result of the testing and final report.

Best wishes

I'm curious Roger... and how can I word this...

Is it better to have all of your rods built on the same basis so that changing from one rod to the next does not change "muscle memory" for casting accuracy? Or, is it better to simply ignore the science of predictable bends in rods and build on any angle so that now all of your rods are now all different in regards to spine. How can every rod built on a different angle off the spine be good for casting accuracy and muscle memory issues for casting accurately from one rod to the next?

My point is simply that building all rods to perform predictably into the backswing of a cast and straight out of it all built on the same easily findable spine, than it is to build any old which a way which cannot produce consistent casting or muscle memory results when changing between rods.

I prefer ALL of my rods to be built the same on the spine exactly how GOD, er, Gary Loomis stated it in the video.

Spining a rod is not just about that one rod.

Spining all of your rods means when you change from one to the next your muscle memory can easily adjust between the different rods. But if one ignores the spine and all of their rods are different, then using just one rod all the time is not so bad, but try fishing a dozen rods all built in different ways and now we leave muscle memory behind and find the fisherman working harder to compensate between rod differences, and the work effort goes up and enjoyment of fishing can slip.

To me spining is a way of averaging out my rods in a usable predictable way that works to my advantage which is precisely why this idea is still to this day the number one way to build a rod.

Honestly I do not want a bunch of custom rods all built at differing angles off spine.

Spining is not just for one rod. It is for a whole collection of rods, rods from different companies, and for entire companies to adhere to so they can also produce a consistent product with predictable results.

Maybe the differences are not all that noticeable to some... but regardless, I check every blank to find it, and just gotta build based on it because GOD told me so! Ha!

In bass fishing you make all sorts of casts. Some overhead, some sidearm, some backhanded. etc., etc., etc. So the idea that one single axis of the blank somehow makes the rod cast more accurate is just completely impossible. You would rarely be casting on that particular axis. Gary Loomis might be GOD but he is also in business to sell rods and what he is saying now is not what he was saying ten or fifteen years ago. I heard him speak at a seminar at the Expo and what he said then is not what he is saying now.