Kent Griffith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> honestly I would not even call the simple spiral
> wrap a spiral wrap because it is NOT spiraling
> anything like the 1909 patent shows in the
> drawings. Going from top directly to bottom is not
> a spiral wrap.


I gave this some thought last night and I have come to the conclusion that what I said above here is correct.

The term "spiral wrap" is given to a particular line flow SHAPE of a spiral through the guides. The line flows from top of blank to the bottom through a series of guides designed to keep the line off the blank without rubbing at all anywhere along the line flow path.

The idea of going straight from the top to the bottom without transition guides and without any spiral shape to the line and also for not keeping it off the blank, I have concluded that this idea now known as a simple spiral is not a spiral wrap at all and should not even be on the list of spiral wrap methods. And when some new rod builders comes calling about spiral wraps, in my opinion this method should not be suggested, advised, nor recommended as a substitute because it does not qualify.

So not only would I remove this idea from the spiral wrap method list, but I would also change its name to something else because this idea is giving spiral wraps a bad reputation clearly since it is noted in comments right here on this forum in very negative terms like "I have no faith in it" and "colossal failure" and "something does not seem right" and this does not include my own colorful descriptions of this method I cannot even type or print in trying to keep this discussion civil, but some choice 4 letter words are how some of us describe this fake spiral idea.

And after giving it some thought in how to solve this spiral wrapped bad apple, I believe the name should be changed to something that more matches what it is... how about the simple slide by method? Or, the simple drive by method? Anything BUT spiral!

This whole idea of what a spiral wrap is came from John Scanlan's 1909 patent 919778. And if anyone is interested in reading it and having a copy of the patent, here is a link to download the PDF file: [www.mediafire.com]

And since this patent is approved, filed and on record in 1909 creating the first documented spiral wrap in legal terminology and I quote the wording exactly here:

"The object of my present invention is to so dispose the guides for the line as to prevent contact of the latter with the pole at any time, said guides being positioned relatively to the reel so as to insure the direct line of travel of the line from reel to tip with the least contact with surfaces."

"The number of guides for the line may be obviously varied and their relative positions likewise varied according to their number. The essence of the invention lies in the provision of what I term an anti-friction run of the line whereby casting and general manipulation is rendered more free and convenient."

"I claim as my invention:

1)In a fishing pole, line guides disposed helically around the same..."

2)"...of intermediate line guides disposed helically around the pole.

Definition of helical: hel·i·cal: having the shape or form of a helix; spiral.

When we put all of this together it clearly shows us that us modern humans are making a mistake. A costly mistake. And because this idea of a simple spiral seems to be at the top of the list for recommendation, some newbies who try it don't like it at all and this can turn them off to spiral wraps for all time. We should not want a rod builder to build something he is not going to like and gives him a bad taste in his mouth for the idea of spiral wrapping. And so for this reason I would change the name and remove this idea from any and all spiral wrap method lists. The idea does not meet any of the legal definition of a spiral wrap that has been on record and law of the land since 1909. It is a protected idea legally defined.

And what the patent tells us a spiral wrap is, is a helical or spiral shape of line flow through guides around the blank without touching it. By the book definition. If your method does not meet these criteria, then it is not a spiral wrap.

The mistake we modern humans are making is in the thinking that just getting the line from the top to the bottom any way you can is a spiral wrap and this simply is not true and not the case at all. Whoever named this drive by method a simple spiral has done humanity a great disservice and an injustice to the quality of performance a real spiral wrap can deliver.

So the idea of the 'simple spiral' does not meet any of the physical criteria required to be a spiral wrapped fishing rod according to patented legal definition of it, and this idea should not be on the spiral wrap method list and, should not be first up for recommendation to any custom rod builders in my ever so humblest of opinions. If it is, then expect to keep reading the same pattern of disapproval from time to time as rod builders waste their time, money, and energy building something not even up to 1909 standards.

How can this be happening in 2021?

Old myths die hard. It's happened because it works. It dispenses with old common ways of thinking and provides a straightforward means of providing an inherently stable rod. What you wish to call it is not really anything more than semantics.

There are many types of spiral wrap methods. Each one has its strengths and weaknesses and it is up to the individual rod builder to decide which method works best for his or her particular use.

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

I agree Tom, but the idea recommended is not a spiral wrap. That was my whole point. It should not be called a spiral wrap when it clearly is not. And because it rubs the blank which is contrary to the definition of spiral wrap.

Can we please change the name of this idea? It is causing harm for spiral wrappers that is noted right here on this forum in their honest comments about it. Can it be called something other than a spiral wrap?

I will not refer it to as a legitimate spiral wrap method any longer. For myself and other spiral wrap rod builders who seek to advance the craft, we do NOT want this idea of a fake spiral injected into our discussion of more advanced spiral wraps. It does us no good. We are not going to even consider such an idea after advancing far past it.

Try having a discussion about the F-18 when some people keep dragging it back to hot air balloons and the 1800's pre-patent level.

The term "simple spiral" indicates more than is delivered. It may be simple, but it is surely not a spiral.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2021 07:52AM by Kent Griffith.

Kent, it does have another name..it,s called a "Simple Spiral" wrap..it,s a variation of the spiral wrap..why so much drama? we,re just talking about fishing rods not nuclear war..lol..

I missed some fun last night. I have read through and here is my worthless $0.02

When I started rod building not quite a decade ago I aligned to spine. The only reason I did was because the instruction I received (from Mudhole) said to. After looking at data presented in the link from Tom I started to think logically about it for myself. I stopped spining. I started building on straightest axis tip up. The reason is because like others have said, I cast many different ways and with both hands. There is no way that I can repeatedly backload the axis directly on the spine every time. So I have shaved time off my process (about a minute) and have a straighter rod.

If anyone wants to build on spine that is awesome. Go for it! No one should stop you. We make custom rods tailored to specific people, techniques, and yes even beliefs. If you believe it makes YOU or your rod recipient more accurate then spine. Just please don't share something as gospel whilst trying to dispel someone else's beliefs. If my studying of Forhan has taught me anything it is that we, as custom rod builders, are never the same. We will always have members outside the box and pushing the envelope. There is no perfect formula for a magic wand. Whatever works for that specific build is what is right.

Ask yourself what makes Mr. Loomis stand out in popularity from other legends in the custom rod industry? The answer is marketing. He sold his name. He did it very well too. I am willing to bet had he proposed the simple spiral, Shimano would have a special line all built in simple spiral. It would be extremely popular.

Now my favorite part. The analogies.

1. Firearms accuracy. This is 100% false. I gunsmith, ammo smith, and am a lifelong avid shooter. Firearms in combination with their ammunition are not accurate. They are consistent. It is the shooter who is accurate based on the skill of operating the firearm. The firearm just holds a certain tolerance of consistency in combination with the proper ammunition.

2. F-18. This aircraft is antiquated. The analogy made me laugh. Thank you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2021 08:55AM by Aaron Petersen.

Aaron Petersen Wrote:

>
> Now my favorite part. The analogies.
>
> 1. Firearms accuracy. This is 100% false. I
> gunsmith, ammo smith, and am a lifelong avid
> shooter. Firearms in combination with their
> ammunition are not accurate. They are consistent.
> It is the shooter who is accurate based on the
> skill of operating the firearm. The firearm just
> holds a certain tolerance of consistency in
> combination with the proper ammunition.
>

In the first sentence you say it is 100% false, but in your last sentence you admit: "The firearm just holds a certain tolerance of consistency in combination with the proper ammunition."

So tighter tolerances means more accurate and less tolerance firearms shoot less accurately because they hold certain tolerances of consistency...

So it is not 100% false. Your last sentence says it is 100% true.

And when I double check with the experts found online they also agree I was absolutely correct in saying that high quality rifles DO shoot more accurately than cheap rifles:

[www.google.com]

"Rifle accuracy depends first and foremost on the barrel. The inside of a rifle bore. Rifle accuracy depends first and foremost on the barrel. Everything else matters: sound bedding, concentric action-to-barrel mating, consistent ammo, well-cut chamber and crown, and good bullets." Feb 14, 2011

Case closed. Next?

> 2. F-18. This aircraft is antiquated. The analogy
> made me laugh. Thank you.

Well so what if it is? It is my use of it in comparison to other air machines that makes the point valid as I wrote it. You were supposed to laugh. Glad it worked.

Aaron Petersen Wrote:


> link from Tom I started to think logically about
> it for myself. I stopped spining. I started
> building on straightest axis tip up.

So you stopped spining yet still build on the tip up method, and according to Gary Loomis, guess what? You are actually still spining rods. You just choose to believe you are not but you are. So rather than choose a findable spine, you choose to find some straightest axis and build tip up. Same thing as spining. I do believe Gary Loomis has nailed this one to the wall and I am so glad he did!

If Gary is in any way right on this, then all that is going on on this forum is a bait and switch while doing darn near exactly the same thing and trying to pass it off as something completely different when the number one rod maker on the planet says so,.

> The reason is
> because like others have said, I cast many
> different ways and with both hands.

> There is no
> way that I can repeatedly backload the axis
> directly on the spine every time.

I disagree on this.

I spent decades learning and training myself to backswing into the sweet spot. I can raise and lower my arms the same way endlessly until I can no longer do it. And when I backswing into a cast my brain is receiving signals on where and what rotation my arm and hand is in and adjusting it so my backswing power loads the rod right into the sweet spot on just about every cast. I may not hit it 100% every time, but my efforts in that direction keep me in upper 90's most of the time.

It can be learned.

Kent, one way to find the straight axis is to roll the blank on a table and observe the tip..when the tip rotates to a tip-up position thatis the straight axis for me but your saying it is also on the spine but if i flex the rod, the spine is off to the side..please explain further and please when you say something silly don,t keep blaming it on Gary Loomis..lol.

Consistency is not accuracy! Rifles cannot be accurate they can only be consistent. That is a 100% true statement. A definition from Google is not validation. This is not even semantics. Rifle accuracy is not a thing. Rifle consistency consists of so much more than just the barrel. The twist rate for example will determine which weight of ammo it stabilizes and to which distance it is stable for. Ammunition plays as much a role as the barrel and there are several components to it. The description even mentions consistent ammo. If I lay gun on a bench and aimlessly pull the trigger it will not find the target. Finding the target is accuracy. Only the operator can find the target, hold it, give an even trigger pull, and hit what the rifle is aimed at.

How does one straight load an axis in a roll cast? The rod will not go straight back and straight forward. There will be some swing to it.

Aaron Petersen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Rifle
> accuracy is not a thing.

It is.

If I took a $5,000 rifle and locked it into a vise and did the same to a $100 rifle... both side by side locked into a vise aimed at a target using the same bullets. Now, I don't care where the bullets hit, what I care about is the measurable spread of at least 6 bullets fired through both rifles locked down tight with zero movement of the barrel.

Are you going to sit there and try and tell me the $100 rifle is going to shoot a tight spread of bullets equally as well and equally as accurate the expensive rifle? If you do I won't believe it. I've done this test myself. My old landlord is a gun dealer and trainer on firearms and does some gunsmithing and reloading. We went the range on a regular basis to try out firearms for accuracy in comparison with others. I've seen the differences of the bullet spreads on the targets. I KNOW there is an accuracy difference between them and I believe you do as well because of your admission "The firearm just holds a certain tolerance of consistency."

Right. And the expensive firearm holds a tighter tolerance of consistency than the cheap rifle exactly as I said. The locked down spread results speak the truth.

>
> How does one straight load an axis in a roll cast?

Seriously? What's next- asking how it loads up for pitching and flipping too and maybe for trolling as well? This is diversion tactics that serve no useful purpose since we all KNOW already that spine is useless in certain application- as useless as straightest axis theory is.

> The rod will not go straight back and straight
> forward. There will be some swing to it.

Of course there will be. Nature of the beast. But it is also nature of the beast for a rod to bend into the easiest bendable spot on its own even with some off axis force, the rod will follow its path of least resistance into the rod's natural bend like a funneling effect. The science of it all that has been standard of the industry for decades, more than half a century or longer.

If a findable spine is discovered, why is it so wrong to use it our advantage?

I don't understand the deniers of spine who claim straightest axis is the new best way while the number one rod builder on the planet says straightest axis is spining a rod. No difference. How logical is that?

The only way straightest axis can hold water is for its believers to distance themselves from spining as we see happening here by saying the curve of a rod does not happen at the thin spot in the blank as Gary Loomis claims. But that does NOT make it right or the best science to use.

A sad side story... a friend of mine I use to fish with loved his rods too. But one day he thought he came up with a brilliant idea to install rod racks on his ceiling so rods hung above over his head horizontally. If he built on the spine or the straightest axis would not matter. He left the weighted lures on his rods hanging off the tips so they would be ready to go next time he grabbed them. Only he discovered he had cancer and spent over a year not fishing and the next time he grabbed his rods off the rack, every one of them was permanently bent down or up depending on which way it was stored.

Guess he now prefers tip down.

And this is another issue that defeats the straightest axis theory. Some right here on this forum have stated they build tip down. So straightest axis is double edged sword ready to cut both ways and does because the "science" is not well known apparently, even here.

I like debating this issue. Just think if I were not here supporting spine theory, you guys would have this spine debate all locked down one-sided!



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2021 10:40AM by Kent Griffith.

ben belote Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kent, one way to find the straight axis is to roll
> the blank on a table and observe the tip..when the
> tip rotates to a tip-up position thatis the
> straight axis for me but your saying it is also on
> the spine but if i flex the rod, the spine is off
> to the side..please explain further and please
> when you say something silly don,t keep blaming it
> on Gary Loomis..lol.

Gary Loomis said it was the same as the spine. Its in the video. Just listen carefully at 1:33 mark to 1:40. Gary lays it out there and I agree with him.

Here is the link again: [youtu.be]

Gary also raises another concern for using spine which is rarely mentioned on this forum.

Towards the end of the video Gary says the spine is important to rod building because the science he has seen shows the rod will settle down or dampen quicker when built on the spine and this most definitely lends itself to casting accuracy as Gary continues to explain in the video.

Do you have any statistics on how straightest axis affects the rod from settling down so the cast is more accurate with less tip swing?

Gary says the weight of the guides on the stiff side help to straighten the upwards curve down, and that weight using the spine angle helps to reduce rod vibrations quicker so the rod can deliver a more accurate cast delivery. So why would I move away from this even if straightest axis is mere degrees away?

Truth is spine works. It has been proven and time tested and to this day MOST of the fishing rod tackle industry still uses spine theory on their rods. And for those who claim to not spine and use straightest axis, Gary Loomis says out of his own mouth they are one and the same thing.

My words and comments here are merely an echo of his lifetime efforts.

To me, Gary Loomis is God. U.S. made rods rule.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2021 10:48AM by Kent Griffith.

Kent, if, in your mind, Gary Loomis is the number one rod builder on the planet I do think you need to meet a few more builders.........now I might agree that he is among the best salesmen on the planet, but rod builder??

Kent, if, in your mind, Gary Loomis is the number one rod builder on the planet I do think you need to meet a few more builders.........now I might agree that he is among the best salesmen on the planet, but rod builder??

HAHA. Who set them in the vice. Who adjusted the vice to put the crosshair on the intended target? That is the accuracy. In bench rest shooting you measure the consistency of your group not the accuracy. You my friend are out of your area of expertise. Some may incorrectly call it accuracy by ignorance.

Aaron Petersen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HAHA. Who set them in the vice. Who adjusted the
> vice to put the crosshair on the intended target?
> That is the accuracy. In bench rest shooting you
> measure the consistency of your group not the
> accuracy. You my friend are out of your area of
> expertise. Some may incorrectly call it accuracy
> by ignorance.

Google search "rifle accuracy depends on what"

Every hit basically contradicts your claims.

Barrel is said to be most important to rifle accuracy.

Better made barrels. More accurate or more consistent is your word for it. Cheap barrels a lower accuracy or consistency.

All I need to see is the diameter of the spread from each rifle on unmarked plain white paper or cardboard to see one shoots more accurately or more consistently than the cheap rifle.

Not hard to get. Google gets it even if you don't. And it may not be my area of expertise, but a side by side comparison of rifle "consistency" or accuracy is indeed in the barrel as stated by numerous "experts" on various website google pulls up.

This is not your brain against my brain. This is your comments versus your claims not matching up and getting caught.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2021 11:04AM by Kent Griffith.

And there you go --- you have "spine theory" which just that... a theory. On the other hand there is data and research and numbers behind using the straightest axis to build on. And even that is only for maximum strength, not casting accuracy. When you get some numbers to back up your "spine theory" you can come back and enlighten us.

Mike Ballard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And there you go --- you have "spine theory" which
> just that... a theory. On the other hand there is
> data and research and numbers behind using the
> straightest axis to build on. And even that is
> only for maximum strength, not casting accuracy.
> When you get some numbers to back up your "spine
> theory" you can come back and enlighten us.


Hahahaha! Laughing hard here. Thanks!

So let's take a look at what theory means before you say something like that.

[www.fieldmuseum.org]

"A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.

And when you get some numbers on how well straightest axis theory settles a rod down come back and enlighten us. Until then, I shall go with industry standards, not some ideas found floating around in the data clouds from faceless keyboard cowboys bronco busting forums.

When Google becomes a firearms expert let me know. Comparing deltas to zero is not accuracy. Think of a target. Accuracy is bullseye, consistency is grouping. The rifle provides the grouping. You can be accurate without consistency and you can be consistent without accuracy. You can also be both.

But you won't see the light so just trust the internet and live how you want to live. I have no problems admitting when I am wrong. But accuracy vs consistency I stand by.

Grant Darby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kent, if, in your mind, Gary Loomis is the number
> one rod builder on the planet I do think you need
> to meet a few more builders.........now I might
> agree that he is among the best salesmen on the
> planet, but rod builder??

I have! But I am leery to name on here because some of them are paying sponsors here.

How ironic two of the world's largest well known custom rod building companies in the world are right here in central Florida minutes away from me and BOTH of them teach and recommend spining of all their rods they make and sell.

Now, after having said I have met other rod makers, I have decided personally that Gary Loomis is top dog for me all the way down the line since LCI rods and I especially follow Gary's old Partner the secretive man who actually built his rod blank factories is a favorite of mine. I actually collect his rods more so than Gary Loomis because he is the man behind the factories through which Gary worked his magic.

This man is also responsible for numerous other U.S. rod blank factories from Oklahoma, to texas to California, to the northwest. And it is his rod blank science I actually dig more into than Gary Loomis. Gary springboarded off someone else as a partner. To me both are top of the list and no one else even comes close.

In my rod collection are numerous rare examples of their lifelong work efforts going back to Loomis start.

You cannot sell me on foreign made rods, especially those made in China. Shame that is where most of what is "sponsored" here comes from. Many of us around central Florida like to call it China tackle! It is a shame when a well known U.S. rod maker has his legacy held hostage because ALL of his rods are made in China while he works stateside and has no direct hands on role in the making of his rods. Yeah not for me. Makes him an angry person to even mention the name of Gary Loomis around him because of pure jealousy! It really @#$%& him off to hear people say I will not buy Chinese rods... which is why they hide it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2021 11:37AM by Kent Griffith.

no one forced him to sell out his name..