I wonder at the request for information about guides without any mention of the type of line being used, the diameter of the line being used, or the ambient temperatures where the rod will be used? These considerations DO make a difference in the performance of the rod/reel/line combination. This is an integrated, interdependent unit and the choice of each of its components should take into account the other two elements (rod or line or reel) - unless the rod is being built for display rather than fishing.

Heres one for you Phil. I tested 25# mono vs. 50# PowerPro. The guide spacing used was to mfg specs.

First test 25# mono with Fuji MN/alconite guides 40,30,25,30,16, 8 tip
Results: 108 feet.

First test 50# PowerPro same fuji guides and sizes
Results: 118 feet

Second test 25# mono with the fuji guides 30,20,16,12,10, 8 tip
Results: 105 feet

Second test 50# PowerPro same fuji guides
Results: 128 feet

I set up a tape measure in the street and made 3 casts for each test, then took an average.

It might help sometimes to use the right terms to help with the type rods involved. Not just on this post but others in the future. Casting and spinning rods do not have "stripping" guides. You do not strip line on those type rods. You cast from the reel. The first guide from the reel on any casting or spinning rod is simply a "butt" guide. Now the first guide from the reel on a fly rod is a "stripping" guide and called that because you hand strip the line from the reel to cast it. Not a big deal but as rod builders at least WE should be using the correct terms.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2022 10:37AM by Mike Ballard.

Without resorting to a tape measure I would have to guess which rod/reel/line combination casts the longest - except for casting a fly line. Do most spin-casters get out a tape measure and actually measure the lengths of their casts or do they just estimate cast distances? Are the "increased casting distances" being discussed here a matter of feet, yards, tens of yards, or estimates?

Whose "MFG specs" do you refer to? The maker of the rod, or the guides, or the reel, or the line, or some combination of these four elements? I suspect each of these elements plays an important part in a scientific examination of casting distances, including of course whether the line and guides were wet or dry?

I bought two Black Hole 8' blanks for tuna. They build a rod with their specs. They gave me the build sheet upon request that included Fuji guide part numbers as well as the Fuji reel seat and the EVA grips. They sell their build for over $600. I've got under $350 in the same rod.

I used the guide spacing provided on the sheet and after seeing this post decided to test a smaller ring size guide train. The test revealed that the smaller guides not only gave me more distance but are also less expensive. No brainer.

No amount of speculation or faith will replace actually measuring the performance of a rod/reel/line combination. Reports of improved performance without measured proof are cause for doubt.

Phil for the love of God why don’t you do these tests you continuously ramble on about! Quit whining, get off your south side and start doing some work!

Tom: One of the best services this site could deliver is to reveal the Actual Performance of rods and blanks in feet and inches. Instead, we get blanks/rods panned (or praised) with faint words: adjectives (not numbers). I'm certain rod builders would rather have solid information in FEET and INCHES about the performance of rod blanks and rod components rather than have to buy each rod blank and rod component and test each for him/her self. The manufacturers, retailers, and advertisers won't do this. Forget the ERN or RNA and reveal both distance and accuracy in feet and inches. Why must we buy rod building products knowing only the hype, not the actual performance of the product? You might be surprised how many rod builders understand and appreciate knowing measurement (in numbers, not abbreviations) of the dynamic (not static) characteristics of rod blanks - like stiffness, harmonics, hoop strength, tracking - and how fast others come to understand the utility of these numbers BEFORE they buy a blank or rod. [And YES, Louise, most fishermen ARE smart enough to understand dynamic, physical measurements/facts.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2022 11:15AM by Phil Ewanicki.

Phil ,

So let me get this straight, what you are saying is the only thing that is important to rod builders and fishermen is feet and inches??? Seems as though something isn’t measuring up

Dang, I almost had it right. If only I would have included the inches............

Mark: Your information, featuring real measurements, were a breath of fresh air. Tom: If measured casting distance and accuracy of blanks and builds are not with mentioning what IS?

We need one of our mechanical engineer board members to create an "Iron Byron" similar to the contraption that the PGA uses to measure ball and club parameters. Maybe we could call it the "Phiberglass Phil" ;)

Mark: It appears rod builders (unlike golfers) are chiefly interested in looks, not performance. That would seem to be the distinction between a sport and a passtime?

Phil
Explain to me EXACTLY what makes a blank “accurate”. Is it in the layup, the resin, temp at which cured, overlap of material while on mandrel. How do YOU measure this “accuracy” of a blank, since none of the manufacturers will do it for you. I guess they are being lazy by not racing to your every whim of which you complain about. How can a component such as a reelseat affect accuracy? Where are your measurements, what is your proof? Or is this YOUR marketing HYPE?

Last I knew, how accurately a lure, fly or any other fish attractor was placed is all on account of the INDIVIDUAL utilizing the rod.

In my effort to understand your ridiculous claims of accuracy I took five different rods, all baitcasting (all different length, reel, lure, line, guides,handles and reelseats) and cast them at an object I placed 50 feet away, the diameter of the object was 6” and I was able to hit that object every single cast ( 5 made with each and every setup…. That’s 25 casts in case you are confused)…….. your claim of accuracy is @#$%&! You know it! So quit wasting our time and whining about manufacturers not giving you what you want to see…..
You don’t like it and see a problem CREATE A SOLUTION!!!!!! Enough with your garbage! It sickening, tiresome and of absolutely of no use.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2022 05:25PM by Thomas Kaufmann.

Phil, let's get at the testing you want. How many blanks do we have to test, of the thousands out there? Better test them all. How many reels? Probably more thousands. How many lines? Probably more hundreds if not thousands. How many ambient temperatures? At least 80 on the conservative side. How many casting techniques and preferences? A hundred? Don't forget the wind! Some combinations may do better than others in the wind! Wind velocities? 50 different ones. Wind directions? Some may work better upwind than down. Another 4 at least. How about lure weights and air resistances? You know spoons cast better than spinner baits. Another 100 ?

Get the picture? Guessing 3000 X 1000, X 1000 X 80 X 100 X 50 X 4 X 100 = 4.8e +17 tests.

Your demands for testing would probably take more resources than the country's gross national product. I think the country and all the manufacturers and their evil advertising departments can spend their money more wisely elswhere.

Don't you think it's about time to face reality?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2022 07:09AM by Michael Danek.

I only threw in the accuracy to placate rod makers and advertisers, and contributors to this site who speak of accuracy and rods in the same breath. You know they exist, and in significant numbers. Distance remains a legitimate consideration in rating rods. Yeah, there are other factors that influence casting distance, but the rod still plays a major role. I believe serious anglers and serious rod builders remain interested in a rod's distance-casting performance, although only recently have I seen a Single, Measured Citation with Numbers of a rod's distance casting performance on this site?! Look and see. Don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.

In my opinion, casting distance and accuracy measurements are a waste time for comparing blanks from different manufacturers. Both of these measurements are completely dependent on who’s doing the casting. For example, there are fly rod casters that can throw a fly line over 150’, most other mortals can’t come close. There are surf rod casters that can throw a 150 gm weight over 900’, most other mortals can’t come close. How far some else casts a given rod tells you nothing about how far you will cast that rod, or how you will personally like a given rod. In my opinion, you are better off comparing the measurable physical attributes of the rod, such as length, weight, butt diameter, tip diameter, intrinsic power, action angle, and frequency. There is no way a person will determine how much they like a given rod until they personally try it.
Norm

I agree with you, Norman. There's so much more to casting distance and accuracy than the hardware involved. Besides, with the kind of fishing I do most, getting an extra 5% distance plays a very small role when designing a rod. As has been stated, guide placement, and the proper type/size/height used to efficiently get the line moving in a straight path down the blank, will go a long way toward making maximum distance and accuracy possible. The rest is up to my abilities, or lack of them.

When I think about it: The rod will tell me what it likes best if I pay attention to what is going on. That's why I see testing (static line, CCS, and TNF) as a conversation between my build and myself. We get to know each other that way.

I test cast at a state park boat ramp 3 miles from here. Trailer spaces are on 11ft. centers, 25 spaces per row, 4 rows. Stand on the white line and cast straight down the row. 8 spaces = 88 ft. Love it!