So,

I have a question regarding the guides of a rod.

If I have a lighweight rod and one builder adds 9x torizite eyes but the other adds 13x torzites How will this influence the performance of the rod?

The extra eyes(0.12g) will be added to the top (so less spacing).

Blank = Mitagi TR78 SUPER NIMBLE MINNOW

Depends - if it's not a casting rod - very little to no difference. If a casting rod - the extra guides will weigh it down and performance will suffer.
Is it a spinning rod - can get away with less guides. Is it a conventional rod?? probably need the extra guides to keep line off of blank.
Herb

The best course is to use the correct number of guides. What is the correct number in your situation? How many guides are required to obtain sufficient stress distribution along the rod blank?

Adding more guides than needed simply adds unnecessary weight to the rod, which reduces rod speed (slows response and recovery).

...........

There is a method of checking natural frequency of the rod without adding artificial weight to it, like CCF does , and all you need is a cell phone or Android tablet, the right free app, and a way to secure the butt. You can measure the natural frequency bare-blank and with both set-ups and see how much it gets slowed down. Significant or not? Probably significant unless it's a very heavy duty rod based on my experience. If you're interested , email me.

Then the question becomes "What does the reduction in natural frequency mean to rod performance?" Most believe that the higher the natural frequency, the higher the sensitivity. Certainly the lower the natural frequency, the slower the response of the rod.

The length of the blank is 7'8" with specs pretty typical of a ML-M (lure 3 g - 14 g or 1/8 oz - 1/2 oz and line 5-12 lb) powered freshwater bass or walleye blank. The rule of thumb that I use in this case is L in feet + 1 if the smallest guide size used is a 5mm or 6mm, L in feet + 2 if the smallest guide is a 3mm or 4mm guide. Therefore, I would expect that blank to require either 9 or 10 guides. Maybe 11 if using small guides and you aren't quite satisfied with the line path. Anything more than that is adding excess weight in a part of the rod where you want to add as little weight as possible.

Given the lure and line ratings, you will notice a significant difference in how the rod reacts and recovers comparing a 9 guide guide train to a 13 guide guide train on that blank. I would use the smallest guides that will pass any required connections.

Mr. Danek is spot on with his analysis.

All the responses about more guides slowing down the reaction of the rod are exactly right. You're adding weight, not just the weight of the guides, but also the weight of the thread and finish for those guides. While it may not seem significant, and I personally don't think it is, it is still adding weight, and weight slows the response of the rod.

My personal feelings are this ....... I am going to use as many guides as I need, to get the line path I prefer. I like the path of the line to follow the curve of the blank very closely, so I use more guides than others probably do. I don't care if it slows down the rod, or lessens its' sensitivity. For me it's all about line path. And you find the line path using the 2 line static load method.

Martijn,
Simply put, use just enough guides to cause the line to follow the shape of the fully loaded blank.

Too few guides and the line will not follow the shape.

Too many guides and the rod is simply heavier with no added benefit.

But, I tend to err on the side of too few, rather than too many.

When many rod builders begin to build rods, they make the mistake of putting too many guides on the rod because they incorrectly assume that the rod will be better. -- NOT.

Just use the correct amount and you will be good to go.

I also don't get overly concerned about putting the tiniest guides possible on the rod. Little to be gained by going to a tiny guide, but it may potentially create issues with knots, swivels, bobber stoppers or even threading the line through the guides, particularly if the eye sight is a bit poor.

Take care

Thanks for all the responses! I know enough now!

Martijn you never know enough especially about something your interesed in..lol..fo r me the size and number of guides make a custom rod custom..micro guides are the best thing to come along since sweet potato pie..lol..simply put it allows me to use more guides..try this, using one of your rods, ty the line to a door knob and step back about twenty feet and set the hook a few times..now run the line through every other rod guide, rety the line to the knob and make several hook sets again..ask your self if you prefer fewer guides or more guides..you will get amore solid, firmer hook set with more guides and the small guides allow you to use more guides..it,s not theory, it,s physics as Tom would say..lol. there are many other benefits you will see in using more guides.

What IS "the performance of the rod"? Casting accuracy? Casting distance? I too am eager to have a rod that performs well, but I have Never seen any actual measurements of distance or accuracy achieved by different guide numbers, different guide sizes, or different guide brands. It seems this is a matter of a rod builder's faith rather than facts.

Phil,
Copy that comment with respect to the number of guides.

The normal theory of rod building - correct or not - is to use the fewest guides possible that will still insure that the line on a loaded blank follows the contour of the loaded blank.

Particularly for a spinning rod, where the line is under the blank, one can effectively use the same number of micro guides on a rod as with a larger guide and still have comparable line flow.

However, in the case of a conventional casting rod - if one wishes to insure that the line does not rub, or go under the blank on a loaded blank, one needs to use more smaller and shorter guides than larger and or taller conventional guides.

But, simply put - your build, your choice.

Also, be aware of marketing hype verses actual on the water performance and on the water fish catching ability with one rod verses a different rod.

Build the rod that works for you and or your client if custom building such that either you and or your client is happy and forget about what marketing pitches say, or what someone else says about a particular rod and rod setup. If you and or your client is happy with the rod, you have built a great rod. If you are your client is unhappy with the rod for some reason, either change the rod build or live with the unhappy results.

Best wishes.

Martin,
You have opened up a can of worms here, you are going to get all kinds of intellectual theory about rod guides, placement and amount. It would be best to know what type of rod you are building and what blank you are using. With that information I can tell you (and most of us on this forum) exactly how many guides I would use and why.
Best Regards,
Lance

Lance is right, this question has opened up a can of worms. lol For instance ..... one builders "too many guides" may be another builders, "the right number of guides".

I fear any post presenting objective measurements (numbers) comparing different guide and guide train performances would upset the roadbuilding community - and the guide making and guide marketing folks too. Probably best to continue to wax eloquent and continue to avoid proof and evidence.

And I thought I was getting old ......

I respectfully submit there is no can of worms. The OP asked a legitimate question, and "perfomance of the rod" is clearly understandable to knowledgeable builders-it involves all aspects of performance: power, action, recovery time, casting distance, sensitivity, weight, and probably more that I don't remember right now. Good for those of you who chose to answer the question.

Phil, isn't it about time you quit preaching and get real? Some aspects of rod performance are easily quantifiable with objective values, and some are much more difficult or impossible to define with objective values. But they are still important even though the variables affecting them are almost infinite in number. And the opinions of experienced builders and fishermen are of value. Continual sniping from a personal unrealistic agenda is not of value.

Michael: Asking for physical measurements of "rod performance" hardly qualifies as preaching. When I pay for a product I prefer facts (feet, inches, pounds, etc.) to testimony of feelings (smooth, powerful, fast, etc.). BTW - I don't mind those who prefer adjectives to numbers, but I want to see the recovery speeds and casting distance of banks in measurements, not just adjectives. Feet per second and yards would be wonderful, and others might like and use objective information in addition to enjoying descriptive rhapsodies.

Much of what you are asking for has so many variables involved that it is impossible to attain. If it is not impossible, then here is a business opportunity knocking at your door. Do it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2021 07:18AM by Michael Danek.

I own several fly rods the will cast 100 feet with the right line in the hands of a competent flycaster. I also own several rods that won't do this. A 100 foot fly-cast is seldom necessary, but given a choice most fly casters would rather know the physical capabilities of a fly rod than be told their fly rod casts "smoothly" and has a "soulful" action. Precious few fly rod ads even state the weight of the rod!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2021 09:53AM by Phil Ewanicki.

Phil,

I think the main problem you're having is that you're taking your argument-request to the wrong people. You need to be talking to the people who make the blanks and rods. Griping here isn't going to get you the information you want. Griping to the manufacturers may not either, but at least they're the people who have the ability to get you the information you want.

..........