In the now infamous thread "Has NFC gone downhill?", there was some discussion by some pretty experienced people regarding the preferred placement of guides on a blank. As is often the case, there was also some disagreement among the participants in the discussion related to this. Because it has been bugging me, I decided to address it.

First off, I agree with Ed Rose who in the discussion suggested the use of concave and convex in place of the underside/topside of the blank was a more accurate way to go. If I sight down the long axis of a blank, I might consider the half of the blank facing the floor at that moment to be the bottom or underside of the blank. If I maintain that axis, but rotate the blank along that axis 180 degrees, might I now have redefined the bottom or the underside of the blank to the other half? It's a matter of reference. But if the blank had a gentle arc built into it, we could now compare it to a bowl whereby the "inside" of the bowl is the concave side, and the "outside" (or bottom) of the bowl is the convex side.

Tom Kirkman suggested orienting a blank in the "...butt and tip up" position (concave side on top), and aligning the guides along the convex (bottom) aspect of the blank. His reasoning for this is that when fighting a fish, the rod is going to put up more resistance in that plane than in the opposite plane and give the fish a headache. I agree. However, when it comes to casting strength and ultimate distance, it seems to me that the opposite would be true.

On the other hand, in that discussion and in one of his responses, Gary suggested "...if casting, place your guides on the outside of the curve, and if spinning, on the inside." Although there is no explanation for his preference, it is clear that his idea of ideal placement and Tom's idea are directly opposite each other.

So yes...I am curious. Although many will immediately jump at the opportunity to state that there is no right or wrong way to approach this for fear of starting a controversy or taking sides, that should not be an issue or a deterrent. The issue is whether one technique might actually have some merit over the other, and why. Is there any scientific evidence supporting one philosophy over the other, or is it all just opinion and personal preference?

It is opinion and personal preference. I have most always put the tip down especially on fly rods. Because the bend on the blank is so mild (I would send a severe bend back) I have found no difference that I could perceive. The consensus seems to build on the straightest axis of the blank. If your blank is really straight then build using the spine as a reference, that would be tip up or down, again a preference.

The merit of one method over the other depends on one's personal preferences/priorities. I've done it both ways, and now cannot even tell when I pick up a rod which way it was done. Of course I could tell if I checked it. The differences are pretty small. If a blank has no noticeable bend in it I might consider the spine. If it has any discernible bend I build on the axis that least shows the bend. I really have had no problems with bend. One blank I questioned, then built it, and don't even notice it.

Ernie Blum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Tom Kirkman suggested orienting a blank in the
> "...butt and tip up" position (concave side on
> top), and aligning the guides along the convex
> (bottom) aspect of the blank. His reasoning for
> this is that when fighting a fish, the rod is
> going to put up more resistance in that plane than
> in the opposite plane and give the fish a
> headache. I agree. However, when it comes to
> casting strength and ultimate distance, it seems
> to me that the opposite would be true.

Ernie,

You might put the guides on the top if it's a casting rod and on the bottom for spiral or spinning. But the blank orientation would be the same. Insofar as casting strength and distance, you will never load the rod on a cast to the extent that you will fighting a fish. That's the really important issue. If you want to test your idea as to casting strength and ultimate distance, try it both ways. You won't find any difference but please go out and give it a go for yourself.

I would never build so that the blank/rod started off with a tip droop towards the water. It's a slight difference but having the belly down and tip up on any type of rod gives you the greatest deadlift capacity and a tiny bit more responsiveness as the blank is just a tiny, tad bit more stiff in that orientation.

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

Ernie,
For myself, I have always put a slight bend in a rod blank such that the tip bends down.

As far as I am concerned, a slight bend is not going to make much difference with respect to strength or ability to land a fish, or affect the casting distance or sensitivity of the rod blank

I just prefer this orientation, because the appearance pleases me more than a tip up build.

Best wishes.

Ernie as you can see from the above posts it’s a matter of personal preference. As Tom does, I always build on the straightest axis with the tip up. Thus, for a spinning rod the guides will be on the bottom (convex side) and for a casting rod the guides are on the top (concave side) unless I’m doing a spiral wrap then the runners will be on the bottom. Just the way I do it. It also seems to me that the weight of the guides may help to minimize the bend. So my reasons for doing it this way is to increase dead lift capacity and responsiveness, as well as helping to minimize the bend.
Norm

Thanks for your replies.

Tom...Because I likely misunderstood the concept right from the get go so many years ago, I must admit that I have built many rods "incorrectly" if you will. What I used to do routinely was this. Assuming that the blank was pretty darn straight (and I think I have had many more than not that were pretty darn straight), I worked with the spine of the rod. Again, not understanding the concept, I found the spine of the rod (which is the weak aspect of the rod so to speak), and I found the strongest aspect of the rod by rotating the rod about 90 degrees from the spine. THIS is aspect of the blank that I aligned my guides on.

So, in essence, I have built more of my rods than not on the strongest aspects of the blanks. And in hindsight, I don't think it hurt me one bit.

I can remember one proposed reason NOT to build a rod that way is that the blank will always try to find its way into that "spine position", in essence constantly trying to fight you while you're utilizing it along its stronger aspect. For me personally, I do not think I have ever been able to appreciate such a phenomenon.

There's not really a wrong way to do it. Rods are supposed to resist bending so if you can get the strongest axis (the straightest) in play, you're getting all it has to give. Something we need to remember, however, is that none of us cast on the exact same plane every time and no fish pulls from directly below our rod position (close but not exact) so you have to broaden your idea of what actually goes on out there on the water. It's a lot different than our work in the rod shop.

Do keep in mind that guide orientation will always overcome any spine tendency. If you put the guides on top of the rod, it'll try to twist and/or torque under load no matter what axis you build on. If you put the guides on the bottom of the rod, it'll be inherently stable no matter how you orient the rod blank.

..........

I have to admit that I have changed from building on the spine to building on the straightest axis...tip up.
Some of this reasoning revolves around a rod having more than one "effective" spine.
By that I mean that the spine on a rod will orient itself differently depending on where the blank is bent.
That, and (as Tom mentioned), we tend to cast on different plans.
So...for ascetics..I build on the straightest axis, tip upwards.
I have a grid I drew on my rod stand to help find that point.
As I rotate the blank...you can easily see the tip rotate (if it had a curve)

@TOM not to pick at semantics but you had me following your direction with misunderstanding- any creature that bends creates an arc over their belly, so when you said belly down I deduced that meant as the rod bends towards the ground. Belly up (rod on its back I think would be another very easy to imagine metaphor) would put it in the orientation you seem to mean.

But @ERNIE - when you say Gary said "..." you mean Loomis? Because he very clearly has stated the he believes all rods should be built on their spine and not on the straightest axis regardless of the bend in the rod (if there is one and it happens to not line up with the spine which he said is often the case anyway). He claims a there is a physics and engineering reasoning behind that.

I'm not sure there is any data out there that anyone has put forth anywhere to support either side with empirical data, if there's a difference I would imagine in the entirety of the rod, reel, and line system it is close to negligible and would likely be difficult to discern a difference as a human. A machine might be able to identify the casting distance reduction by fractions of a percentage or impacts on accuracy by fractions of a degree (although many claim the caster compensates naturally and calibrates their casting according to their set up by the end of the day anyway) or figure the difference in the amount of friction, but I don't think there's enough there to say the same rod built both ways (would yield noticeable real world differences to the human senses.

I usually say, belly down, tip and butt up.

In the meantime there is data to support building on this orientation - [www.rodbuilding.org]

..........

@TOM thanks for sharing, i appreciate the data.

From what I've seen on the board and elsewhere on the internet I think that most of the discussion is that the spine or straightest axis will impact casting distance and accuracy, I don't think I've bumped into any threads where people are concerned about deadlifting in regards to spine/axis.

On youtube Gary Loomis says building on the spine will produce a rod with greater accuracy and casting distance than on the straightest axis. If a person's main concern is pulling 25 pounds worth of fish or weeds straight up from below them then they should build straightest axis given that data, and according to Gary if you're concerned with accuracy and distance then build on the spine. But I'm curious if the difference in that regard is measurable or even meaningful in application, plus the user of the rod will eventually learn to cast according to its preformance and compensate either way.

El...for the sake of clarity...

"But @ERNIE - when you say Gary said "..." you mean Loomis? Because he very clearly has stated the he believes all rods should be built on their spine and not on the straightest axis regardless of the bend in the rod (if there is one and it happens to not line up with the spine which he said is often the case anyway). He claims a there is a physics and engineering reasoning behind that."

Yes, I most certainly refer to Gary Loomis. If you will go to page 1 of the "Has NFC gone downhill?" thread, and see the 5th post from the top (by Aleks), you will see "Here is Gary's reply." Hit that link and find a letter written by Gary which was a response to the situation. The first full paragraph holds the quote by Gary as to where to place the guides on a blank with a gentle arc to which I referred.....word for word. Did I miss something?

No, the spine has no effect on casting accuracy. Nor does it affect distance. It's also worth mentioning that few people cast on the same exact plane every cast, which renders the idea of better accuracy or distance from the spine just that much more remote.

I think if you watch and listen enough, you'll also find that Gary is actually talking about the underside of the straightest axis when he uses the word "spine." Not the weakest axis, which is actually the spine.

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

@ERNIE - my guess is he was speaking specifically in that context, when he explains placing guides he advocates for on the spine. I'll post a video below

@TOM - in the video below Gary in no uncertain terms explains how accuracy and distance are impacted by building on the spine. There is no room here for him to potentially mean straightest axis as he is holding a blank on its spine and explaining, even mentions if a blank is bent its 90% of the time on the spine anyway.

[youtu.be]

The spine can't affect accuracy or distance. A fully loaded rod is a fully loaded rod. And the lure goes where the tip goes. Show me the data otherwise.

The "natural bend" is rarely the spine - it is the straightest axis. And he talks about orienting the guides to help straighten the natural bend (straightest axis). He is indeed talking about the straightest axis even though he doesn't use that term. If you don't believe this, prove it to yourself - get out a blank and find the spine. Then find the straightest axis. They'll be anywhere from about 90 to 170 degrees apart.

I would never build a rod so that the guides are on or opposite the spine. Straightest axis for quickest response and greatest deadlift capacity. No issues with casting accuracy or distance.

...........

Ernie Blum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I can remember one proposed reason NOT to build a
> rod that way is that the blank will always try to
> find its way into that "spine position", in
> essence constantly trying to fight you while
> you're utilizing it along its stronger aspect.
> For me personally, I do not think I have ever been
> able to appreciate such a phenomenon.


Ernie,

You are correct. Guide orientation overcomes spine effect by a wide, wide margin. This is why spiral and spinning rods are inherently stable no matter where you put the spine.

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