Hello all, new to rod building here and have a question regarding guide placement and the line angle.

It is my understanding that while doing a static load test by bending the rod to a ninety degree angle that you are supposed to place the guides on a spinning setup so that you minimize the angle of the line between the guide and the blank, trying to keep it as parallel with the rod blank as reasonably possible.

So my question is, where is the balance between too many guides sacrificing performance and too much angle sacrificing performance. I could place a guide every 2 inches and have little to no deviation from the blank, or I could place 3 and have significant angle.

Does the degree of angle really make that much of a difference? And where is that difference then felt? I wouldn't think its during casting, but rather while fighting a fish.

Thank you in advance.

Jason, Have you read the articles in the library above? It's in there with pics too. In a not shell to many decreases performance, blank response, balance and sensitivity. Not enough can blow up your blank under load.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2022 12:07AM by Spencer Phipps.

An old rule of thumb states the length of the rod + 1 + a tiptop, so a 7 foot rod would have 8 guides + tiptop. I almost always use + 2 and cannot detect any problems the extra guide generates, and I like the setup better. But there have been probably millions of rods built with + 1 or fewer.

Use the two line stress test described in the library or at anglersresource.net in the left column of sponsors. It is easier to use than a one line test in addition to being more accurate. It's easier because the guides do not load the rod so they stay on better and they may be moved without unloading the rod.

Jason Kraft Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello all, new to rod building here and have a
> question regarding guide placement and the line
> angle.
>
> It is my understanding that while doing a static
> load test by bending the rod to a ninety degree
> angle that you are supposed to place the guides on
> a spinning setup so that you minimize the angle of
> the line between the guide and the blank, trying
> to keep it as parallel with the rod blank as
> reasonably possible.
>
> So my question is, where is the balance between
> too many guides sacrificing performance and too
> much angle sacrificing performance. I could place
> a guide every 2 inches and have little to no
> deviation from the blank, or I could place 3 and
> have significant angle.
>
> Does the degree of angle really make that much of
> a difference? And where is that difference then
> felt? I wouldn't think its during casting, but
> rather while fighting a fish.
>
> Thank you in advance.

Stop worrying about the "angle" idea and just space the guides so that the line generally follows the curvature of the rod blank. It's the same thing but it's easier to view the curve of the line to the curve of the blank than trying to work with line angles from guide to guide.
......

Hi all,
I challange the need for using two lines to determine guide spacing (locations). The exercise of guide locations is very subjective anyway.
I see no difference between methods.
Prove it to yourself by using one line to determine guide locations. Mount guides, and then do the two line test to confirm. You will find that they match.

To make the job of static flexing guide placement MUCH easier is to buy an assortment of neoprene "O" rings to mimic guide openings.
When I static test a 9'0" fly rod I secure a line (flyline backing) at the butt section - mount 11 "O" rings - run the line through the "O" rings and tip top - secure the line to a weight on the floor -tension the line until the tip is almost tpuching the weight on the floor.

Then I slide the "O" rings back and forth until I get the curve I want. If I only need 10 guides (normally) I just place two rings touching each other.

I then mark the position of the "O" rings - usually with a small piece (2 mm X 2 mm) of tape. Or you can use a grease pencil. But I don't like to introduce that near a guide wrap.
Herb

That is a great idea Herb much quicker then taping guides on the blank. Do the O-rings stretch away from the blank some or do they fit pretty snug?

I attempted single line and found issues for my load tests.

I use o-rings on all my guides for all my builds. No tape. I do not have a mechanical setup for holding the rod so all of my static loads are done by hand.

With single line if the rod rotates even the slightest, the guides will rotate. If they have rotated even the slightest and you straighten the rod the line can touch blank. This leads you to a false belief you need more guides.

With two line the load is only on the tip top which is already fastened. The guides won't roll and doing the static test without mechanical help is more accurate. I use a 1/10 oz weight on my second line.

If I had a static load jig I may be able to get away with a single line. But I don't, so I use two lines, my wrist, and a cinderblock.

Tyler,
The rings/dental bands used for guide placement stretch tight and hold guides snug to the blank. I test cast with them all the time with no issues.

A.P.

Tyler,
You want the neoprene "O" rings to deform (elongate). That way they hold tight to the blank by friction. I shoud have been more clear on my original post. The "O" rimgs I use are graduated - large at te butt and very small at the tip. You run into problems at te tip if you don't use very small "O" rings. They tend to want to slip down to the tip-top due to the tip of the blank being vertical.
Problem solved with very small "O" rings.

Aaron,
I think you misunderstood my method. I don't use guides at all for the test. Just NEOPRENE "O" rings to simulate guides.
Herb



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2022 03:27PM by Herb Ladenheim.

Herb,
I understood your method and was sharing mine. Just mentioning that I tried single line with guides, as I prefer it, and my experience.

A.P.

The advent of much smaller and lighter guides provides the modern rod builder with much more leeway in terms of how many guides are used. Going back into the 1980's or 1990's, the size and heft of even the smaller sized guides meant that adding even one too many could be felt in the hand and in how the rod performed. This isn't nearly as true today. The rule of thumb for one guide per foot of length, plus one, plus a tiptop was a good rule to follow, then. But sometimes you found yourself on the cusp of wishing you could add one more to get everything just the way you wanted, but were remiss to find that that one additional guide changed the way the rod felt and performed. This isn't true any more.

A recent 7 foot spinning rod I completed sports the NGC with 9 guides plus a tiptop, sports a guide set that is lighter than the 7 guides and tiptop set I was using on similar rods 15 years ago. And you can feel the difference.

At this point in time, I'd say any time you are on the fence as to whether or not add just one more guide to get things absolutely the way you want - do it. If you're using a modern guide system with small, lightweight guides, you won't undermine the rod's performance to the point that you can notice a practical difference... certainly not in the way you would have even just 10 or 15 years ago.

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

To Herb, I agree that the difference in the two methods' placements is insignificant, but I still think that most builders will find the two line method easier, especially with micros, because the guides do not load the blank. And can be moved without unloading the blank. And "O" rings can be a PITA because they have to be all loaded from the end of the blank, and they often cannot sustain the load of loading the blank with a one line method, and if you want to add a guide, PITA.

I heartily agree with Tom's last post. Good perspective for those of us who often, IMHO, way over-think things regarding rodbuilding.

I believe number of guides and line angle is way overthought. Lighter and smaller guides have changed everything. As Tom said; "with small, lightweight guides, you won't undermine the rod's performance to the point that you can notice a practical difference". Once you get more than one a guide a foot on the blank its going to bend, pretty much, where it needs to unless your spacing is completely messed up (static test). As far as angle, I always try to align the guides to where the line is straight as possible. Get the line straight, simple.

Jason,
While I have made reference to the “line angle through the guides” while static load testing, it is more about comparing the all angles achieved on that particular blank rather than an exact number in degrees. It is meant to be a visual aid, similar to observing, rather than actually measuring, the distance the line is from the blank midpoint between guides. CONSISTENT angles or distances are the concern.
You make a good point, “I could place a guide every 2 inches and have little to no deviation from the blank, or I could place 3 and have significant angle”. So what is the required, ultimate, prescribed number of guides? IT'S MAGIC!!! Lol While there might be an ultimate number for any particular rod, there is no required or prescribed number. Sometimes, old “rule-of-thumb” or “wives-tales” hold their credibility decades later. I feel such is the case here with the old rule of thumb “1 guide per the number of feet of the blank + 1 and a tip top” to be a minimum number as a good starting point although I usually end-up with “+2”. If you think +3 is better, then do it, but if you are contemplating +4, you may be approaching your “...guide every 2 inches and have little to no deviation…” syndrome.
I have developed a method for guide placement which is easy and effective, at least for me. First, I use surgical tubing cut into “rubber bands” to temporarily hold the guides and never mount the first guide further than 4in from the tip top. After the reduction guides are rubber band mounted, I progressively space the runners between the tip top and choke guide to visually look good. Then, 2-line static load test, both half and fully loaded. To be very honest, I rarely find the need to reposition a guide more than .25in.
Herb,
While I do not disagree with you very often, with all due respect I have to here concerning 1-line vs 2-line static load testing. The only way to achieve a NATURAL bend in a blank is to suspend weight from (and only) the tip. Such a natural bend distributes the stress progressively to a stronger portion of the blank depending on how much force is applied. That is why the tip begins to straighten while the major part of the flex occurs further down the blank when more load is applied. But applying a load anywhere other than just the tip FOOLS the blank into accepting an UNNATURAL bend to counter the erroneous weight. Splitting hairs? Possibly, but then why should static load testing be exempt while other, less important issues with rod building are not?

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

Mark,
Prove it to yourself - do single line static guide placing. Install the guides accordingly. Then do a 2 line static testing on the same blank with the same guide placement. You will see that the angles do not change.
Now maybe because I only build #8-#10 fly rods I don't see the nuances that may be presant on #3, 4 and #5 fly rods.
Herb

I have found the same thing Herb has found in that even when using the one line static testing you will find that when you attach a second line the best locations for the guides are exactly where the single line static testing method initially showed they should be. I do employ the second line just to verify however.

Now regarding much smaller running guides, I don't follow the one guide per one foot of rod length anymore because I have found that each individual blank can have widely varying bending properties and I let each individual blank tell me where and how many runners are needed . Some blanks are exceedingly stiff and fast and some are much less stiff and slower . Despite them being the same length there's no way I'm using the same amount of runners on each blank . The spacings on the transition train will most likely also be a little different .

In the beginning I went with the one guide per one foot of rod length principle but after much thought and long days field testing I found an added running guide or two was more of a negative instead of a positive . Specifically with my 11 foot surf rods . The rods are still fully supported down low and throughout the mid and upper ranges despite removing two runners . It is possible to overdo it but there is no question that it's best to have more than necessary than not enough . Know your blank and it's inherent characteristics before just adding a certain number of runners , little adjustments and subtle changes add up and is what really makes a custom rod custom .

I don't use size 8,10 or 12 runners on surf rods , all my surf rods builds use size 5 runners and perform incredible .

This is a great topic for me because I just set up and static tested an NFC DS6100 X-Ray blank for a spinning reel build. My initial thoughts and observations of this particular blank were to use it as a jerkbait rod for smallies here in Kansas.

For this light spinning rod, I went with the KR Concept "Guide Group" of K-16H: K-8H; and K-5.5 M Reduction Guide train. First, I put the stripper guide at 19 inches from the spool shaft tip. Second, I located the Choker Guide at 19 inches in front of the Stripper Guide (based on the Angler's Resource GPS system average range +/-). Third, I placed a KT 5 Running Guide 3.75 inches from the tip top guide. These were my three 'starting points.'

I expected to tweak the location of all these guides during the static test; letting the rod bend dictate the best locations.

So, how many MORE guides other than the (3) in the Reduction Guide Train, (1) Choker Guide, and (1) First Guide nearest the tip? Well, following the venerable rule of guide lore, I rounded up to the nearest whole number of rod length (6'10" rounded up is 7') and added one more to get my total number of guides plus tip top. These time-tested calculations said this rod deserved around Eight Guides plus a tip top. I added two more, for a total of Ten, thinking I could just leave them off if the static test showed I did not need them.

So, I put on 10 total guides, plus tip top guide, for the static test. I spaced the 'non-fixed' guides between the 'fixed point' guides by eye and by measuring tape seeking progressive spacing. Let the rod tell me where it wants help.

Finally, I ran a two-line static test....and, as Mark Twain said about picking up a cat by the tail, "I learned things I could not have learned any other way." Ha!

What I learned from the static testing of this blank:

While crisp in the hand as a bare blank, this rod has a buttery action under load. I am not saying NFC is wrong in their designation of this blank as XF, only that when I loaded it up in the static test, this particular rod mellowed with a graceful arch deeper into the blank than I would have thought at first observation. Not bad. Not good. Just reality.

I tweaked and sighted the guides, and adjusted my glasses. Then I did it all over again.

What I discovered is that this blank needs (3) Reduction Train Guides, (1) Choker Guide and (6) Running Guides for a total of (10) guides PLUS a tip top guide. That is what this blank told me. My interpretation of blank-speak, anyway.

Wow! I have some 8-foot rods that have that many guides! Is this right?! Well, to me and this blank, yes. Could I go with one less guide? Probably. Two less? Maybe. I am the one fishing it.....so, why try and convince anyone else? I don't like to fish with "Wish-I-Had-Of" rods. And hey, if this rod don't fish.....I can build a Generation Two version!

The beauty of static testing, and playing with guide trains with every blank before I build it, is that, in this case, I am seeing this blank/rod as a beautiful early spring crappie jig rod instead of the jerkbait rod I thought it might be.
Awesome blank! Love it! It will be perfect for some techniques I use often. And I will still test it in the field for jerkbaits. However, I will also have my NFC 721 X-Ray rod ready to go for a jerkbait test. That blank is a whole different cat to pick up by the tail!

I just pulled a drop shot rod off of my dryer yesterday. I struggled with this same question during it’s build. I hadn’t built a spinning rod since about 1990, so I had all sorts of mental rust. I used the Anglers Resource Guide Placement System and found that I only needed to move the first reduction guide about 1/4 of an inch for all the reduction guides to align perfectly. Their algorithm certainly matches their guide heights. The blank is the Rainshadow RX10 Eternity 6’10” drop shot rod. I finally went with the four suggested running guides even though my baitcasting, conventional, and fly rod centric mind and eyes kept telling me to use one more. The static testing showed that the visually uneven gap between the choker and first running guide just wasn’t experiencing much of a bend on this extra fast rod. The resulting balance is exactly what I wanted. The extra guide would certainly make the rod look better but probably not fish better.

I agree with Mark that static testing is most accurate with tip loading only. I seldom go for the full 90 degree bend as my barometer, however. I often use lines on the lighter side of the increment a blank is weighted for with lures that are one size down from the maximum lure weight in that rating increment. I just like the way this ratio of line and lure weights work relative to rod characteristics. This means I don’t use really heavy drag settings very often. In western waters, the typical lack of heavy vegetation allows this to work really well. The bonus is really long casts and enhanced sensitivity and working depths. I might have to reset my thinking if I ever fish southeastern tape grass. That stuff looks difficult.

More guides (to a point) and static loading combine to add power to the hook-set and the ability to move fish. It's not a huge effect, but it's there,

The above responses just go to show how subjective the number of guides used on a rod can be, from one builder to another. I'll use Kendall's first post as an example.

I have a drop shot rod I built on a Rainshadow Eternity 2 ETES610MXF blank. The Eternity 2 blanks were the RX9 version of the RX10 Eternity that Kendall referenced. Technically, the choke guide is a running guide, but since Kendall separated the two, I will as well. I have 7 running guides on the rod I built, versus the 4 running guides that Kendall used. I don't know that it matters on a spinning rod as much as it would on a conventionally wrapped casting rod, but I used 4.5's as my running guides on this particular rod. I have 11 guides + tip top on my rod.

I used the number of guides I did because of my preference for the line's path to follow the curve of the blank, very closely. That preference is influenced by my wanting to protect the blank. Now this is, at least IMO, a very light powered blank, and not a blank that I would even think of trying to horse a fish with. So while I am certain I don't need to protect the blank with a higher number of guides like I would one of my heavier power casting rods, I still follow that same philosophy. This is a blank that weighs 1.35 oz. So while it hasn't proven to be delicate, its' dimensions to me, indicate that it could be.

Could I have gotten away with 1 fewer guide. Yes I could have, as I was leaning in that direction when I did my static load set up. But I went with the extra 1. Would I go with the 4 running guides that Kendall used? No way. For me, that kind of guide spacing is taking a chance at over stressing the blank between guides. It's also not fully utilizing the power of the blank IMO. Is the rod Kendall built more sensitive and responsive than the rod I built? Based on how lightly powered the rod is, and the number of running guides each rod has, I would say yes. Is it markedly more responsive and sensitive? Could be, but I will never know as I prefer a different line path than he.

I'm not saying Kendall is wrong. We just have a difference in the line path that we find acceptable. It could also have to do with how we fight and land fish. I'm not one that really plays fish all that much, so I am going to make sure my rods will stand up to the added pressure I may put on them. It's a performance versus durability sacrifice I am willing to accept.

Addition: Jim's post came in before mine, and I totally agree with him. I would even say that the difference is more pronounced than one might think.

Oh, and I am with those that say the two line static set up is the way to go. The results may not end up any differently in the end, but there is no doubt that it is easier to reposition guides while the blank is loaded. For me, after I place my guides, the rod is going on the wrapper. I'm not taking the guides off or measuring where I had O rings placed on the rod so I can then place a guide at that location. It just doesn't make sense. At least not to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2022 10:25AM by David Baylor.