As I selected components for my most recent build (9 ft medium power rod build on a steelhead blank), I learned that a guide with a stainless steel ring is not necessarily lighter than a guide of similar size with a ceramic ring. I had originally planned on using Fuji KR concept guides for the reduction train and tip top (16H, 8M, 5.5L, 4.5KG, 4LG) with SeaGuide MKGs in size 4 with stainless rings as runners. Out of curiosity I ordered 10 Fuji KTs in size 4 and weighed them on my jewelers balance against 10 of the size 4 MKGs. Despite looking lighter due to the thinner rings, the MKG's were actually heavier than the Fujis. 10 SeaGuide size 4 MKGs weighed 0.89 grams, while 10 Fuji size 4 KTs weighed 0.73 grams. Not a huge difference obviously, but I was surprised.

Looking up the density of aluminum oxide (The Fuji guides were all Alconite), the density of that ceramic is much lower than the density of stainless steel. Hard to say how much that difference in density factors in due to differences in frame design, but it definitely makes me a bit more wary of the stainless ringed guides out there. Of course lots of folks use them, including high-end rod manufacturers, and plenty of fish are caught on rods with stainless steel rings...

The major difference in weight between stainless steel ring guides and ceramic ring guides is in the reduction guides. The Fuji KR reduction train guides have more substantial frames than the SeaGuide HLG or PacBay Minima M guides, which makes them heavier and more durable. Once you get to the small running guides, weight differences become a wash.
Norm

Maybe 15 years ago the people at PacBay set up 3 sets of match guides as I was laying them out on steelhead rods. They strung them together and handed them to me, match ceramic, match Minima SS, and match Minima titanium. Each was easily descernible from the others just by holding them in my hands, no scale was needed.

Where all of the guides PacBay guides, so the frames were identical?

If anyone wants to know how different guides affect the recovery time of a blank/rod the True Natural Frequency evaluation can show it.

All were Pac Bay, identical frames, identical guide sizes and amount.

Found that out a while back and also noted that Fuji SS frames can be lighter than the Ti with the same ring material. I think it is because of the accepted tolerance for the frame stamping. My jewelers scale quit working, so if you get a chance, weight the new REC Cerecoil guides and see how they compare to equivalent sized Fuji KW, KB and KT guides with SIC rings. I started making a spread sheet but it is still incomplete.

Emory Harry did some testing and wrote an article in Rod Maker quite a few years ago.

Eric
That was very informative thank you for the effort. If I understand the comparison, the size 4 stainless ring is .016 gm heavier than the size 4 ceramic ring guide.

Would you please go into more detail as to why this finding made you "a bit more wary of the stainless ringed guides out there".

Again thanks for sharing this information

One of the purported advantages of SS ring guides is the belief that they are lighter than ceramic guides. If untrue, it is of value to know that. But I expect all ceramic ring guides are not of the same mass, nor are all SS ring guides.

All of us understand that at least for running guides, the lower the mass, the less they slow down the blank. If the goal is to have the fastest recoverying, the most sensitve rod, then it is significant.

And to repeat, the influence of the guide design/mass can now easily be measured.

Hi John, I think Michael Danek summarized my response pretty well. People choose to optimize various things in their build, and might prioritize some goals above others. For this particular build, and indeed for most of my builds, I prioritize reducing guide weight so as to preserve as much of a blank's action as possible. Because I prioritize this, guide weight matters to me a lot.

In the past I assumed (because so many other people assumed/claimed) that a stainless steel ringed guide weighed less. I assumed this in part because when you look at a SS ringed guide next to a ceramic ringed guide in an identical frame, the SS ring is a lot slimmer so the idea that the SS ringed guide was lighter was easy to buy. And then I sat down to measure it, and was surprised to find an instance where this was not true. Hence my post.

This, with the caveat that Fuji's KT frames are not identical to the frames that SeaGuide uses for its MKG guides, so my measurements do not quite compare apples to apples.

Another factor that can important is the actual opening size. The ss #4s have a larger opening than the ceramic ring #4s. So if that is important you would have to compare ceramic #4.5 or #5 to ss #4.

Jeff, definitely a factor. Especially if you are passing leader knots, or fishing in freezing weather conditions.

My interpretation from forum posts is that any non –functional weight should be avoided because of the adverse effect it may have on the rods performance and that is reasonable. However the reality is that we can only control the building process but not the real life occurrences.

I plan to present a little satyr. So I have to set up some conditions.

A drop of water weighs approximately .05 gm.

There is .016 gm difference between two types of guides.about 1/3 of the weight of a drop of water.

Keeping this in mind and here goes.

The project is over and I built the “perfect” rod. I trimmed down the weight enough to make a NASA scientist come to tears. I picked a good quality reel and line and now it is time to put the rod to the test.

I went to my fishing spot, I prepared for the first cast, and I swished and swayed and send the lure majestically to its destination PERFECT! I retrieved the lure and prepared for the next cast. I lined up the target and let loose, alas, the lure did not go where I intended, the rod felt different the performance was off, what happened?

I continued to fish and made many casts and with each cast I had to make a slight adjustment until I was able to predict where the lure will land.

I had fun for the rest of the day, caught some fish and was quite pleased with the rod, but it still nagged at me how the rod behaved after the first cast and how I had to “work” or “tweak” the rod after each cast to have the lure hit the target.

I was taking a shower (where all my good Ideas come from) and it hit me, I realized why the rod became so erratic. For each cast the state of the rod changed, when I retrieved the line it became saturated with water, it wicked on to the guides and blank, at one time I had ice crystals form on the guides, eventually the reel and the grip became saturated, and weeds, vegetation and slime got on the rod and handling the rod with wet hands did not help either, and as a result, all these things must have added critical non-functional weight which influenced damping and hindered the performance of the rod.

It was crazy after each cast there was more or less water more or less slime and crud and it didn’t help when I put the rod under my arm and let the tip dangle in the water while I retied my lure. Sometimes I would over compensate or under compensate like a dog chasing its tail but I managed to get the lure on target. Bottom line, I had fun, I caught fish and became very fond of the rod after I “bonded” with it.

Now I am in a conundrum. The next time I go fishing do I continue to make minor adjustments after each cast as a result of the change in the condition of the rod or do I, prior to each cast stretch out the line and wipe it down along with the reel, guides, grip and blank to bring the rod to the original condition for the next unimpeded cast.

I decided that was too much work, so prior to each cast I will make sub-conscious adjustments and enjoy my fishing experience..

I know this is may be an exaggeration but it does happen and if we are willing to quibble over the effects of fractions of gram of weight then above factors have to enter in to the equation, but for some reason it never does.

It is obvious that I do not take some of these issues seriously and as I said a little satire, no offense intended,

Have fun
John

John, that’s pretty funny.
Norm

^^ Touché!

Was it a Bait caster or a Spinning reel?

Keep in mind that a faster recovering rod will recover faster than a slower recovering rod given the same weight of water on them.

While one may argue, and may be right, that the hair splitting going on here is inconsequential, I think there is only one of us who has actually measured the response difference between titanium and SS running guides (KB/KT) and reduction guides (KLH 20 vs 16 titanium vs SS). If you are not the one who has measured, then you are just guessing.

I imagine the inside diameter of running guides, the type and diameter of line used, and the ambient temperature have an appreciable influence on how efficiently a guide train functions in casting, but most guide train recommendations stick to laboratory tests and don't consider fishing environments.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keep in mind that a faster recovering rod will
> recover faster than a slower recovering rod given
> the same weight of water on them.
>
I agree 100%, but a individual rod covered with water ( a temporary change in weight/mass) regardless of power/action will respond/recover at a different rate than when dry and I/we for each cast sub-consciously compensates for it. .

The practical side of me places guide weight reduction low on my list of priorities. To those who prioritize reducing guide weight so as to preserve as much of a blank's action as possible, I apologize for my skepticism.

John