I do not know of a single person that always casts in a direct plain with the spine of a rod consistently. You have side arm, underhand, sideways, etc, and I can assure you that it is not in relation to the spine, no more than one always fights a fish is direct correlation to the spine.

I spine only for casting. No other reason.

Does not matter if I side cast or overhead. I still turn the rod for spine use.

Underhanded pitching does not get into the spine enough to be relevant.

Fighting a fish is also irrelevant to the spine, since the stiff side versus the light side differences in gain or loss are not enough to matter really.

Gary Loomis says using the spine is for casting accuracy. It loads straight into the sweet spot and straight out of it exactly as Gary mentions in the video.

If one does not build on the spine according to Gary, then his words "straight into the loaded backswing and casting straight out of it" no longer apply because the definer is ignored.

OK, I am done for now, after the last statement of totally contradicting himself, I have rods to build and seats to turn

If you are not casting along the exact same plane as the spine then the rod is not loading "straight into the loaded backswing and casting straight out of it." And few fishermen cast along a single axis all the time. Apologies to Mr. Loomis but this is nonsense. Plain marketing jargon.

I do not use the spine when building rods. My lures go where I cast them. They do not strike out on weird tangents and land in oddball places. I doubt the people on this thread who do not build on the spine are having any issues with the casting accuracy of their rods.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2021 04:46PM by Mike Ballard.

If I contradicted myself I'd like to know where.

Another spine issue I have a hard time getting past...

I have spent the last 35 years on and off working in and around the rod and reel tackle business, working mainly as a reel tech at the shop because that is where most efforts were needed as the owner did most of the rod work, and I also made income buying and selling used tackle over the years.

And living in central Florida I have had close access to MudHole and Get Bit OutDoors as well as numerous rod builders.

And what I would say is this... as I write this right now I am caught in the middle. On the one side I see and read this forum where the general consensus is to ignore blank spine and build on the blank any old way one wants to, and on the other side I walk into MudHole or Get Bit OutDoors, 2 of the top custom rod building companies around, both are sponsors here, and yet when I walk inside BOTH locations, SPINING ROD BLANKS is GOD!

You can look up youtube and find videos made by Mudhole themselves explaining how to get the most out of their rod blanks by spining them and this is how it is done... and with Get Bit OutDoors and their Liberty blanks we find the same thing... SPINING IS GOD! And you can even find the owner, president and founder of Get Bit OutDoors himself Kevin, on youtube TEACHING how to spine a blank.

Point is, in the real world I see every day in custom rod building the idea of NOT building on the spine does not exist. Yet when I get online and start reading in just one place, I am told something completely different. And yes I have seen the idea pop up in other places on the web, but nothing taken seriously as it is around here.

And I am curious as to why?

Why is it MudHole says one thing and teaches it, and Get Bit OutDoors does as well, and Gary Loomis and many others in the industry all are on the same page in building fishing rods. Spine the blank.

But here ignoring it is more important than using it to our advantage and I simply do not get this.

Am I to ignore Gary Loomis and decades of knowledge and experience? Am I to ignore MudHole and their teachings? And Get Bit OutDoors? And all the others... heck I even made a list of rod companies with URL links to them and showed where all I posted claimed to spine their blanks as well.

Am I to ignore all of that?

MudHole and Get Bit OutDoors make a friggin career out of making and selling rods for the custom market. Its what they do. And they all say spine the rods. Take a class and this will be taught in the class. Been there. Done that.

Spining is gospel everywhere else in the industry worldwide- except for a small online few who adamantly say otherwise.

This is the perspective of it...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

If any of you travel here from out of state and want to visit MudHole and Get Bit Outdoors, please let me tag along and I promise to be quiet and just listen as both companies shoot down the idea of building on their blanks without spining them. Just let me be a fly on the wall as I watch and listen to people trying to persuade companies who make their living out of it to do it a different way---" yeah but some guys online said"..... The hardest part will be biting my tongue!

I can say with certainty that the idea of not spining a rod won't go over well.

ADDED:

Another thing that does not make any sense to me...

I am told around here to build on a rod blank any old way I want to and it will not matter.

So what is the problem or issue of building on the spine if it does not matter?

But if it did matter even in the slightest, is it not better and wiser to use it to our advantage than to ignore it with a belief that could be wrong?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2021 05:16PM by Kent Griffith.

there is another complication we have to consider..the spine does not run in a straight line from tip to butt..it spirals around the blank..so it depends on how much you deflect the rod tip and at what point does this spiraling spine come into play..it boggles the mind..lol..

Kent - Do Mudhole and Getbit sell spine finding tools??? There is your answer as to why spining is "GOD." Hard to sell spine finding tools unless you push the idea that rods should be spined.

Mike Ballard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are not casting along the exact same plane
> as the spine then the rod is not loading "straight
> into the loaded backswing and casting straight out
> of it." And few fishermen cast along a single axis
> all the time. Apologies to Mr. Loomis but this is
> nonsense. Plain marketing jargon.

I disagree.

When I am holding a spinning rod and backswing into the cast I am very consistent over and over and over in doing it precisely the same way with different levels of force used, but I can assure you I load my rods, whether spinning or baitcast, into the same sweet spot on nearly all of my casts. I plan for it. The spine is oriented to the reel's location and does not change in my hands.

And it does not matter if I backswing over my head or off to the side or anywhere in between. Because of the spine orientation relating to the reel's location, I adjust how it is turned so I can cast into the sweet spot just about every cast.

I want that sweet spot in one location. Right where Gary and all the others in this industry say to put it. It works! So why not? I have yet to read just one reasonable reason not to. And to those who says it does not matter where a person builds on a rod blank should have no problem with those of us who do choose one spot in particular.

Spine according to the top experts like Gary Loomis, MudHole, Get Bit OutDoors and numerous others all say is directly related to rod performance. Getting the most out of rod performance. So spine the blanks. If it does not matter where, then let those who spine spine away because that spot is as good as any other.

Mike Ballard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kent - Do Mudhole and Getbit sell spine finding
> tools??? There is your answer as to why spining is
> "GOD." Hard to sell spine finding tools unless you
> push the idea that rods should be spined.

Disagree.

Spining was god before anyone ever made up a tool to sell. (That I know of)

I have been doing this a very long time. The concept of rod spine came out of an early book written by Dale Clemens. He reversed himself in his second book somewhat but continued with the idea that you must spine a rod or all sorts of bad things are going to happen. And he then began building and selling spine finding tools.

Mudhole and Getbit sell spine finding tools. It is profitable for them to teach that people should fine the spine. Nothing wrong with that. Just smart business.

In the meantime thousands and thousands of rod builders do not bother with the spine and their rods perform just fine. If not spining a rod caused poor casting or other undesirable effects we would know about it by now.

And the debate rages on!

I spent decades building up my rod collection, all built on the findable spine.

I'm not about to change now.

I'd be in a fix if I did!

OK, sons, here are my life long collection of custom rods to be passed down to you one day... I'll give you the unspined rods for now... and only upon my death will you ever get your hands on my spined rods! Ha!

"All the others in the industry?" Sorry, that's not true. Dick Kantner didn't worry over spine. Nor did Don Green. Jason Brunner wrote an article for RodMaker a few years ago and detailed how St. Croix uses a laser to find the straightest axis and builds on that. You would be better and more correct to say, "Like some others in the industry."

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

Maybe so, but you know Tom, if one pays close attention to what Gary Loomis says in that video... when he said if the rod is going to have a bend, more than 90% of the time it will be on the spine anyway.

So for all those who are building on straightest axis, they are actually building on the spine but calling it something else.

Gary Loomis made it very clear building on the spine and building on the supposed straightest axis are one and the same thing.

So in this sense, ALL others seems to apply better to me because it does not matter if you call it spining a rod or building on the straightest axis- Gary Loomis says in the video right out of his own mouth its all the same thing but called by different names.

So if what Gary Loomis says is true, then there really is no debate over substance, the debate is over what to call that which is being done.


But to clarify my original point...

A while back I posted a list of rod brand companies. And without exception, ALL of the others I placed on that list all advertised they spine their rods. So that quote was in reference to a list of rod companies I made myself and had nothing to do with the names you mentioned above.

That said, since the bend in the rod and spine correspond more than 90% of the time, when I spine my rods, according to Gary Loomis I am also building on the straightest axis, but in dialing down the details I am more concerned about where the findable spine is located than slight curves in a rod.

Well guys, here is where I am. I made the one spiral wrapped rod in my life about 3 years ago and it was a colossal failure. I won't go into the details as it isn't important now. I spent the better part of this afternoon setting up this Calstar for a simple spiral wrap and it looked "okay" but seemed a little off. I went back on the Rodboard, researched earlier posts, and ended up running the line from the reel through the guides (Fuji HB's) which were held in place with dental bands with the exception of the stripper which I taped on. The reel I was using was a Makaira SeA 30 with 130# Spectra and I'm guessing a 50# mono topshot (my son's reel so I'm not sure). I put the rod in my vise, tied a ring on the end of the line, pulled it down to about a 45 angle, and let the guides set their own positions. What I ended up with was (from the butt) the stripper at 0 degrees, the next guide 90 degrees, #3 at ~45 degrees, and #4 at ~170 degrees. I kept the line centered in the rings. No matter how hard I tried, the 4th guide always wanted to be at 170 degrees, not 180. Remainder of the guides (nine total plus tip top) liked being at 180 degrees. Took it out and test casted it with all guides taped down and it was unremarkable. So I switched them all over to a conventional layout and test casted that. That was a little worse than the spiral, so I switched everything back to the spiral layout which is where they are going to be. The rod doesn't cast well with the 2oz. bell sinker I was using. I think it's a function of the short, stiff blank and the heavy topshot. It was like using a broomstick and clothesline. But I'm heading out toward the end of this month for an 11 day trip and we'll see how it works. If it doesn't perform well, I've got other rods to fall back on.

Dave Sytsma

David Sytsma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well guys, here is where I am. I made the one
> spiral wrapped rod in my life about 3 years ago
> and it was a colossal failure.

> I spent the
> better part of this afternoon setting up this
> Calstar for a simple spiral wrap and it looked
> "okay" but seemed a little off.

Simple spirals a colossal failure and a little off? I've heard this before right here on this forum. Yeah I'd agree with that! I spent nearly 25 years unlocking the secrets to a great performing spiral wrapped rod. Tom published an article on it back in December 2020 called the Cagey Hook Wrap method.

I got away from the nonsense of placing guides based on degrees as prevalent going all the way back to Scanlan's 1909 patented idea. Its still taught to this day and I can only wonder why when there are more advanced ways producing better results.

Spiral wrapped rods should not be built with preconceived ideas of where guides should go. That is the first mistake! The ideas of 90 degrees, 45 degrees, 120, etc. cannot apply to every rod. And this does nothing to straighten line flow under load, and in fact makes it worse than before!

When I began making my first spiral wrapped rods that is how I learned it, but quickly found out it was all wrong. Once I learned to let the line flow under load show me where it wants to flow, placing guides is a breeze. But alignment of guides comes from trial and error, not because some guy online says put one at 45 and 90 and 120 and call it a day. High performance does not come from one size fits all rods.

My method of spiral wrapping a rod uses the rod's unique bend to achieve optimal line flow under an approximate 90 degree rod loaded like this one with ruler straight line flow under load past blank through transition guides and right into entry point of the 180's flawlessly and notice line flow is in either the bottom or top of the guides and NO SIDE loading of any guides in this method. Strictly Don Morton by the book!



It looks simple, but it isn't. Finding the ideal line flow in its straightest natural path alongside the blank takes some effort.

Here is a link to the old thread on the Cagey Hook Wrap method: [www.rodbuilding.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2021 06:55PM by Kent Griffith.

The straightest axis and the spine are rarely on the same plane. The effective spine is the softest axis and will generally put any curve about 90 degrees off to one side, give or take a bit. If you look at the photo here on page 2, you can get an understanding why. [www.rodbuilding.org]

The names I mentioned are legends in the fishing world and I think most long time rod builders will recognize them and the companies they founded. I realize that a generation of rod builders has come and gone but I think even newer builders should be aware of the history of the craft. This is one of the reasons we did the interviews with all the great rod designers and continue to publish historical articles in every issue.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2021 07:02PM by Tom Kirkman.

David Sytsma Wrote:

> I kept the line
> centered in the rings. No matter how hard I tried,
> the 4th guide always wanted to be at 170 degrees,
> not 180. Remainder of the guides (nine total plus
> tip top) liked being at 180 degrees.

What you said here is the road to success and the pathway to unlocking the spiral wrapped rod secrets. Let the line flow under load show you where the guides should be. Do not force the line to flow in un-natural ways causing angular bends through the guides and side loading of some guides.

Your mentality above is showing how the process is actually teaching you to do something different than you were advised to do.

Follow your instincts here.

I did the same for 25 years and slowly found the right path to the ideal spiral wrapped rods, and it was totally different than any advice found online at the time. Back then it was all carved in stone... put a guide here and put one there and do this same thing on every single rod you own and call it a spiral wrap!

You and I have both found out that the materials do want to tell us the right way to build it, but are we listening to the materials or people online?

I can honestly say that once I stopped listening to others is when I began advancing because now I was listening to the materials as the correct teacher rather than me imposing external ideas on the materials, let the materials teach and lead you to the ultimate in spiral wrapping.

It is not just a process, it is also a way of thinking, a way of observing and going with the flow naturally rather than trying to redirect the flow elsewhere.

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The straightest axis and the spine are rarely on
> the same plane. The effective spine is the softest
> axis and will generally put any curve about 90
> degrees off to one side, give or take a bit. If
> you look at the photo here on page 2, you can get
> an understanding why.
> [www.rodbuilding.org].
> pdf
>

I did not see what you were saying in that photo. No curve to observe in that photo. It makes sense to me that a rod would bend towards its weakest side which would tend to indicate spine also. But you are saying the findable spine is different than the soft side and or curved side more often than not?

I get it that you believe the two do not correspond as much as Gary Loomis' more than 90% claimed in the video.


> The names I mentioned are legends in the fishing
> world and I think most long time rod builders will
> recognize them and the companies they founded. I
> realize that a generation of rod builders has come
> and gone but I think even newer builders should be
> aware of the history of the craft. This is one of
> the reasons we did the interviews with all the
> great rod designers and continue to publish
> historical articles in every issue.
>
> ................

I agree with this... and great work too! Thanks for all you do Tom!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2021 07:41PM by Kent Griffith.

The Simple Spiral, assuming you do understand what that is, is not a colossal failures in any sense of those words. It works perfectly fine.. It has no transition guides and offers a very straight line path, the only deviation is slipping by one side of the blank. It's the only one I use, although I think many of the others have their place as well.

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

i really love the simple spiral and don,t use the bumper so that i can swing the line around to the other side of the rod in case i get a line build up on one side of the reel spool..i simply run the line from the reel straight to the first 180 guide..