Not wanting to possibly high jack another members thread, I figured I'd start my own on the subject. The height of a casting rods' butt guide was mentioned in a fairly recent running thread. It was mentioned that a Fuji RV6 and a Fuji KW 10 were interchangeable because the height of the bottom of the rings (the rings' ID) were the same. It was further mentioned that the total height of the guide wasn't so important.

I want to be clear that I respect the member who stated the above information, greatly. As do many other members, and for good reason. The man knows his stuff. And he knows way more than I do when it comes to rod building. Having only built 17 rods, I would still consider myself a novice, or at best, an intermediate when it comes to building rods. If I have anything going for me that may put me ahead of the game, it's that I feel I look at aspects that others may not consider when it comes to building a rod.

With that said, I want to start a discussion as to whether the overall height of the butt guide (the top of the rings' ID) on a casting rod, has more affect on casting performance, or if it's the height of the bottom of the rings' ID that has more affect on casting performance.

My thinking is that it is the over all height of the butt guide that one needs to be concerned with. versus the height of the bottom of the rings' ID. I say this based on my belief that it is the angle of the line from the reel to the butt guide, that makes the difference. If the butt guide is too short in comparison to the height of the reel's line guide, then it increases the angle of the line as it enters the butt guide. This increased angle adds friction to the line, and makes it more likely that any oscillations in the line between the reel and the butt guide, will cause a slowing of the line as it flows off the reel.

A bait casting reel, being a revolving spool reel, is not only having line pulled off the spool during a cast, the revolving spool is also trying to push line off the spool at the same time. If the line slows after leaving the reel and the spool of the reel isn't slowed down to correspond with the reduced line speed, you get the beginnings of a back lash. I now use KW 10's as the butt guide on my casting rods, but I used to use LN 10s. They're virtually the same height, with the LN 10 being .1 mm shorter than the KW. Now I have yet to use any other guide combination on a casting rod, other than the old school 3 double foot guide reduction train. I know it isn't needed, but it's what I do. I'm old school on some things, and this is one of them. I just like the way it looks. And I believe that they allow me to get away with one fewer guide than I would if I were to go the newer school KR concept for casting. Yes they weigh more, so I lose in that aspect, but they carry more height down the rod than a KB or KT would. That extra height, means one less guide.

Anyhow ... I have a question? On my rods and the way I build them, the line running from the reel to the butt guide touches the inside of the ring of the butt guide, at its' top. With the KR concept casting lay out and it's shorter guide ahead of the butt guide, does the line touch the bottom of the butt guides ring? Is the line pulled down that drastically by using such a short guide? And if so, is this why it is said that the height of the bottom of the butt guides ring is of greater importance?

I'm trying to learn here. I have tried using a KW8 as a butt guide. And because I believe the whole angle of the line thing I described above. I had to push the KW 8 about 4 inches further from the reel, than I would using a KW 10. I didn't like having that much uncontrolled line between the reel and the butt guide. When I test cast the rod set up with the KW 8 butt guide, it was the first and only time that I have ever knowingly experienced line slap with a casting rod.

So to keep from going any longer, what do you guys think? I'd love to hear the reasoning behind the guide you choose for a casting rod butt guide. And the reasoning you use for its' placement.

The RV 6 works. The KW 10 works. I place the RV6 at about 19 inches from the level wind guide of the reel and do a few test casts and move it in and out a little. I can't tell the difference. So I put it back to 19. And follow it with KB's and KT's, all the same size, usually 5.5. They work.

I think we have a tendency to overthink things and worry about inconsequential issues.

David you are correct in your thinking. Total height is of consequence, and me saying that it wasn’t was incorrect, and I apologize for that statement. I guess what I meant to say is that the RV6 and KW10 are interchangeable as a butt guide for the KR casting concept, even though the KW10 is a little taller overall than the RV6. So the total height difference between these two guides is not the important issue, it’s how they control the line that is important. Before the RV6 came into existence the KW10 was considered by Fuji to be the perfect butt guide when placed about 19 to 21” in front of the reel. High enough to prevent line slap but not too high, taller butt guides also work fine but are heavier, and really don’t improve casting that much, if at all. In other words a little over kill. Shorter, smaller butt guides are too close to the blank surface and allow for line slap occur, no matter where they are placed. The original Duckett micro magic rod had a size 3 single ft guide as it’s stripper, and they certainly did not prevent line slap from occurring. The more modern version of the Micro Magic has gone back to a larger butt guide moved closer to the reel, this version has less line slap. Many people like the looks of a small ring butt guide on a micro guide rod, and I think this was a reason the RV6 came to be, it is basically a small ring high frame guide, that helps to keep the line off the blank when used at the appropriate distance from the reel. Sorry for my misleading comment in a previous post. I hope I made my clearer this time around.

The height of the guide's ring at the lower extreme is really the important issue here insofar as how it affects keeping the line off the blank during a fish fight. The top of the guide or even the overall diameter of the guide ring isn't extremely important on casting rods where the line is being pulled straight off the reel, instead of in coils as would be the case with a spinning reel.

........

David,
Simply put, choose the butt guide that is the correct height and has the correct ring size, so that during a cast, the line really doesn't touch any part of the guide. Ify you do this, you will have a very free flowing line during the cast.

If the line is hitting the bottom of the guide, the guide height needs to be lower.
If the line is hitting the top of the guide, the ring size needs to be larger or the guide taller, unless it then causes the line to hit the bottom of the guide.

Easy to say, and easy to do as well.

Just keep a variety of guide ring sizes in various heights on hand so that you can do a final test on your best calculate butt guide, and if it all works out well - purchase the guide of your choice that meets the same parameters as your test guide.

Take care

The rod I am most impressed with it’s ability to “out punch it's weight class”, with lures that don’t necessarily fly well, features an RV6 guide out 20.5 inches from the reel’s line guide. Would this rod lose distance at 19.5 or 21 inches? I’m not sure that these changes would be measurable.

David,
I, too, am here to learn. To the seasoned veterans who have been-there-done-that, will a RV-6 or KW-10 spaced 19in-21in from the spool of a typical, modern low-frame casting reel produce a straight-line path for the line or will either cause a “line angle” as it passes? Obviously, it depends on the placement of the next guide forward of the butt guide, but I am concerned with “typical”, prgressive guide spacing.

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

I have built with the KW #8 as a butt guide on lighter rods placed anywhere from 20 to 21" out depending on the low profile reel. I take video of casting tests with my go pro to ensure line feed is good. On cast and retrieve rods this works. On flipping or pitching and short presentation rods it does not because the line does not flow out as evenly in those smaller casts and the smaller/lower KW #8 doesn't keep the line high enough for potential slack in that cast. I typically use KW #10 at 19-20" for the pitching and flipping/ worm/ jig rods.

This in combination of a request for minimal guide size is what leads me to recommend trying the KW #8. The #8 butt guide has worked for me in some applications.

After learning of the RV6 in this application I will most definitely be attempting to use that over the KW #10. It looks to be an improvement over the KW #8.

Wow guys, thanks for all the responses, some great stuff.

I'll start with what Mark asked about concerning a KW 10's height in relationship to a modern low profile casting reel's line guide. As mentioned in my initial post, I use a KW 10 as the butt guide on my casting rods, and with the butt guide placed 21.5" from the face of the reel, the line touches the top of the ID of the ceramic ring. So yes there is an angle to the line as it enters the butt guide. But isn't severe. I should say that all of my reels are Shimano reels. Either Curados B's, D's, I's and K's, or Castaics. The original version, as well as the Super Free version. There is a slight difference in the height of the reel's line guide (from the bottom of the reel's foot, to the center of its' line guide) on the two different versions of the Castaic, As for the Curados, as best as I can measure, there is no difference in height on any of the Curado reels. The older B's are the same height at the line guide, as the newest K series reels. I'm talking the 200 size reels. I have yet to purchase (but will be soon) any of the 70 or 150 series reels, so I have no idea about those.

What Roger brought up about the line not touching any part of the butt guide's ring, is something I noticed in a video of the casting version of the KR concept. The line did not touch any part of the butt guide's ring in that video. In fact it went almost dead center through the ring of the butt guide, which was a KW 10. The first guide the line came in contact with was the next guide up from the butt guide. I believe they said it was a KW 5.5. I thought that was odd. It's something I have never seen before. Even the factory rods I used to own had the line touching the top of the ID of the butt guides' ring. And those were #12 guides. All of my factory rods were advertised as having Fuji guides on them, and my guess is that they were LN guides. If I were to shoot for not having the line touch the butt guide at all, I would have to do one of three things ...... go with a larger size butt guide, push the KW 10 further away from the face of the reel than I do now, or use a 5.5 KW as the next guide up from the KW 10 butt guide. Using the KW 5.5 as the next guide up would probably pull the line down enough so that it wouldn't touch the ring of the KW 10 butt guide. Of those three choices, using the KW 5.5 as the next guide up is the only one I would consider. The other two are no go's. At least for me personally.

Aaron, I'm curious as to what type and size line you're using where you find the KW 8 as a butt guide, satisfactory? My guess is that it was a lighter or more supple line? I tried it on a flipping/ pitching rod that I built on a NFC MB 709 IM blank. I use 20# Tatsu for the majority of my flipping and pitching, and that is was I was using when testing with a KW8 as the butt guide.

And last but not least, Norman. Thank you very much for your response. I wasn't trying to call you out for that post in the other thread. I started this thread because I thought I may have been wrong in my beliefs that over all height of the butt guide played a role in casting performance. I just wanted to be sure that my line of thinking had some merit, and your most recent post to this thread has confirmed that for me. So once again, thank you, I really appreciate it.

Well, It looks like I am going to have to give the KR concept casting version at least a test run on my next casting rod build, just to see how I like it. I'm going to be building a new jerkbait rod. I'll be putting one of the new Curado MGL reels on it. Most likely in the 150 size. Anyhow, thank you again everyone for your responses, I truly appreciate them.

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Aaron, I'm curious as to what type and size line
> you're using where you find the KW 8 as a butt
> guide, satisfactory? My guess is that it was a
> lighter or more supple line? I tried it on a
> flipping/ pitching rod that I built on a NFC MB
> 709 IM blank. I use 20# Tatsu for the majority of
> my flipping and pitching, and that is was I was
> using when testing with a KW8 as the butt guide.

I am using the KW8's with 8-15lb InvisX mostly. I use it on "medium" power or lighter moving bait presentations mostly. I first tried a KW8 on my Lamiglas SI734 that I built for small jigs in our water willow and around docks. I ran 20lb AbraisX or InvisX on it. I found that when pitching with the KW8 the line would slap the blank. I am not 100% sure what the impact to performance was for short range pitching. I am building a NFC X-ray MB7108 soon and plan on using KW10 as a butt guide for it. I might band on an RV6 and see how it performs first. That might make for an interesting guide train. RV6, KB5, KT5's and see how it performs in testing. Not sure I can afford that fancy Tatsu line for rubbing against laydowns though. haha.

A.P.

I would think if the line were not touching a guide, that guide may be eliminated.