Hi, all. I'm a relatively newer builder having been at it seriously since early 2020 and just a handful of rods prior. I have only built spinning rods to date and only for myself and friends. My goal is almost always to build something for a specific purpose. The build I'm working on now is an 8'+ spinning rod that is specifically designed for casting #14 rapala husky jerks (a 5.5" minnow/jerk bait that weighs 5/8 ounce) as far as possible while still doing an excellent job of working the bait and fighting the fish (medium-large walleyes being the target). I've built three rods for this so far. The best one is my latest build, which is a 7'9" NFC blank that is extended to 8'4" and has a 13" rear grip. It looks more like a steelhead rod than a walleye rod, but it's great. My question is about using the New Guide Concept theory to maximize casting distance.

I've read and watched everything I can find on New Guide Concept layouts. I've built more than a dozen or more rods using it. I regularly use the KR Guide Placement Software website to start my layout. From there, I try to position the reduction guides to achieve the bullseye when I look down the blank, with the choker guide slightly above the reduction bullseye, as shown at the bottom of the KR GPS website. Then I layout the running guides (almost even spacing between guides for moderate action rods; progressively more space between guides the further I get from the tip on fast action rods) and finalize that using a static load test. More often than not the GPS software + my initial layout for the running guides need little if any adjustment.

I'd like some feedback from builders who have considerable experience building and testing NGC layouts. My latest build - the 8'4" with the 13" handle, which has a 16/8/5 reduction train - did not produce the bullseye with the reduction guides using the layout provided by the KR GPS website. For whatever reason, I got all the guides wrapped (but not epoxied) before I noticed this. It seems like the reduction train is too short, which then positions the choker too close to the reel, which then changes the running guide layout to the point that I might want six running guides instead of seven. When I look for the bullseye the second and third guides are too low. But here's the thing: I test casted the rod, and it's great. It out-casted every other rod I've built for this purpose by several feet, at least. That might be due to the length, or the longer handle, but clearly the guide layout is "good enough."

My question for the guys who know more than me about NGC layouts is, could it be better? Should I re-wrap the guides to get the bulleye (and make the subsequent necessary adjustments)? Or have I stumbled onto a great layout by accident? For this rod, truly every foot of casting distance matters. If the experts believe there is more casting distance to be obtained by improving the layout, I'll do it. But I do want to avoid re-wrapping all the guides and find out that it casts the same (or worse). Thank you for your thoughts!

Line is flexible so things don't have to be absolutely perfect to work well. It's good to shoot for perfection, if you can achieve it. Before wrapping the guides you can try some different sizes and/or placements to see if you can achieve that perfect bulls-eye through the rings. Generally you can do it, and then take it out and cast it and see how it compares to your original set-up. There might be a slight increase in distance, but maybe not. Only one way to tell.

If you've already wrapped the guides then you'll have to decide if redoing things is worth it to you. Yes, you might see a slight increase in distance, but it'll likely be minimal at best. But if you feel things are good enough, that's that. They might very well be.

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

There is a lot of flexibility in setting up a guide train, especially when using braid. If you are happy with the way the rod casts, then leave as is. You can certainly move the choke guide and/or the butt guide in or out to get the spacing you like. You mentioned you are using the New Guide Concept, but using the KR GPS for guide spacing. What guides are you using?
For me, an easy way to check your line path is to run the line from the reel through your guides, then tie on a light weigh and let it hang from the tip. With the rod held horizontally push the line against the bottom of the reel spool. What you should see is a straight line from the bottom of the spool to the choke guide and then another straight line from the choke through the runners to the tip top with the line touching the bottom of each guide. A slight angle entering the butt guide is OK.
Norm

This is helpful, guys. Thank you. I'm using Fuji KL guides in the reduction train (with a KB choker and KT running guides). My understanding of the new guide concept is that it isn't necessarily the same as Fuji's KR concept guide trains, but that the KR concept guide trains might be the best implementation of NGC?

Now I’m really confused. Fuji KL guides don’t come in a size 8 or 5. Furthermore, a KL16 (26.2 mm) is much shorter than a KL16H (43.3 mm). Thus if you are actually using a KL16 for the butt guide, it may not be tall enough to prevent line slap. It may also be possible that you are using mismatched guides, and this prevents you to bullseye the reduction train. Check your guides again to see what exactly you have. In addition, what size reel and line type/size are you planning on using? If I were building your rod I would do a KR concept vs a NGC. Depending on the reel size and line type/size I would use either KL16H, KL8H, KL5.5M, or KL20H, KL10H, KL5.5M for the reduction train followed by KB/KT runners in the size of your choice. For your rod length I would use 10 to 11 guides total, not counting the tip top. If you need more specific information let us know.
Norm

I'm sorry for creating confusion. I am using KL-H reducer guides (in my previous post, I said KL when I should have said KL-H). I also said 5 when I should have said 5.5. The reduction train is the one you described: KL16H, KL8H, KL5.5M.

Norm, you said that if you were building this rod you'd "do a KR Concept vs a NGC." I thought that a KR Concept layout was essentially a type or style of NGC layout, but I must be missing something?

John Nesse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sorry for creating confusion. I am using KL-H
> reducer guides (in my previous post, I said KL
> when I should have said KL-H). I also said 5 when
> I should have said 5.5. The reduction train is
> the one you described: KL16H, KL8H, KL5.5M.
>
> Norm, you said that if you were building this rod
> you'd "do a KR Concept vs a NGC." I thought that
> a KR Concept layout was essentially a type or
> style of NGC layout, but I must be missing
> something?

[anglersresource.net]

This page explains how to setup a NGC layout and how to modify that into a KR concept. There's a picture about 3/4 way down the page that shows the difference pretty well and is a lot less confusing than the text description.

They are similar, but are slightly different. The NGC was developed around 1995, and so it came well before the KR concept. Very basically, the NGC was designed for monofilament line and introduced the concept of a choke guide, whose position was determined by reel upsweep/spool size. The KR concept was developed specifically for braid and employed high frame small ring reduction guides to more rapidly choke the line coils to small low profile micro running guides. So for a given guide height the KR guide will have a smaller ring size or, in other words, for a given ring size the KR guides are higher. In general, the KR concept is for braid or light mono, and the NGC is for mono or heavy braid. In addition, KR guides are also lighter than NGC guides, making the rod lighter and more responsive.
Norm

Thanks again for these responses. The anglers resource link explains that KR Concept is an evolution of NGC which totally makes sense. Because I'm using KR Concept, I should have only mentioned that instead of NGC.

One thing I noticed on anglers resource is the mention of a four guide reduction train of KL20H, KL10H, KL7M, KL6L. I'm wondering if this would make sense for an 8'4" spinning rod with a 13" rear grip? When would you choose a four guide reduction train vs. a three guide reduction train?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2023 01:02AM by John Nesse.

Heavier or less supple line can benefit from more reduction guides, but even then rarely would you need more than 3. Otherwise, you can get down in 2. Rod length is not a factor - neither the reel nor the line will ever know how long the rod is.

...........

Long flexible rods might benefit from using 4 reduction guides, just remember the fourth reduction guide is used in the choke position. In your example, the KL6L would be the choke guide. Also remember the longer the handle, the shorter the rod length in front of the reel.

Norm

I went ahead a reworked the layout on this rod three different ways. The first time I eyeballed it to get the bullseye pattern. It casted fine, but seemed to take a bit off the distance from the first layout. The second time I adjusted the choke guide position which resulted in no change. The last time I grabbed a similar length rod that I had previously built - it casts well. I placed the guides almost the same as that rod. The bullseye pattern is there, but the second reducer is a little low if I want the third reducer to be in the center of it when I’m looking down the guides. As a result, when I look down the guides and center the second reducer the third reducer is a bit high. The choker guide is half-way in the sight of the third reducer. This layout casts really well. I don’t think it casts any better than the layout recommended by the KE GPS website (which didn’t produce the bullseye) but it’s at least as good. In the end, I made several adjustments and wasn’t able to produce a noticeably better result than what I had with the exact layout from the KR GPS website.

Not sure there’s a moral to this story other than 1) the KR GPS website is a great starting point and you probably shouldn’t mess with it unless you do casting comparison tests; and 2) either way, there is a lot of value of testing different layouts before you epoxy the wraps.

Thanks again to those who responded to me original questions!