David, no, I have not touched the Black Maxx since bringing it home over two years ago until tonight, but I'll definitely give it a whirl tomorrow (getting ready to lock the office up for the night). As far as guides, I'm with you on more is better. The least I've used thus far on my builds is 8 and that was on a 6' spinning rod. I've put 10 on all of the casting rods (all 7' rods) I've built so far.

@David and Daryl do you find the need for additional guides if you spiral wrap your rods?

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

I mathematically place my guides and then do a static test before wrapping. This seldom results in guides being moved. The old guide tables usually listed seven guides for a 7’ to 7’6” baitcasting rod. This makes placement to where the rod bends fairly critical. Nine to twelve guides is what you now commonly see for that same length. I usually put the stripper or first guide between 20-21 inches from the reel’s guide, Then, I put the running guide closest to the tip at 2 5/8‘ths to 2 7/8th’s inward. Then, I find the percent increase I need between each guide until they all fit that spacing ratio, from tip to stripper. It’s usually between a 12 to 14% increase. Here is an example for a 7’8” inch rod, starting from the tip. The stripper is 21 inches out from the reel guide.

2.625, 5.591, 8.943, 12.731, 17.011, 21.847, 27.312, 33.488, 40.466, 48.352, 57.263 (1.13 increase)
2 5/8, 5 9/16, 8 15/16, 12 3/4, 17, 21 7/8, 27 5/16, 33 1/2, 40 7/16, 48 3/8, 57 1/4

I believe I first learned of progressive spacing from Clements’ instructions. I hope I’m properly giving credit. Combined with a greater number of guides, it makes it really hard to miss the bend area of most modern rod actions. Visually, it’s pleasing. I find casts are longer with more guides and titanium, single footed guides add little weight. The extra guides are runners, which are the least expensive ones. With a spinning rod I use the KR guide placement up through the choker, adjust to a straight-edge, and then switch to this same methodology for the runners.

El,
Excuse me for interjecting my thoughts to your question. Simply due to the guides being on the bottom of the rod, substantively fewer guides will be required compared to a guides-on-top affair. But that is merely breaking the surface of the benefits of a proper spiral wrapped rod.

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

@MArk my understanding was such that less guides are needed, that's what drove my curiosity about when they mentioned they have no problem using extra guides. From what I've read of spiral wraps I'm sold, but I'd still really like to hear more of what about it causes your enthusiasm for it. I'd be happy to talk about it more through email or take it to the recent spiral wrap thread.

@Kendall I'd also love to hear more about the math and calculations you use that result in a static load test that requires no guide placement adjustments. I'm absolutely fascinated that there is a mathematical process that can create results as reliable as a physical test. What exactly are the steps you take for how you place your guides?

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

El, I use just as many guides on my spinning rods as on my casting rods. How closely you want the line's path to follow the natural curve of the blank is what is going to determine guide numbers. At least running guide numbers, and in the sizes I use.

Spiral wraps are about eliminating rod torque due to guide location.

EI, I don’t do spiral wraps so I have no opinion on guide placement for them.

The math isn’t magic, it just parallels the real physics that are in play. Tom states, “Action is progressive. Even fast action rods will bend all the way back into the butt area as you put more and more load on them. So the arc the rod forms with a slight load is not going to be the same arc it forms as the load increases.” I agree with this. If you use progressive spacing and two to three additional guides, you aren’t likely to be far off anywhere as your first four guides are going to be about 3 to 4.25 inches apart. It’s only going to be extreme actions, such as slow ones or extra fast ones with a sensitive tip that are likely to missed in this zone of the rod. With a few static loads followed by trial and error work on a calculator you can learn about where the last (closest one to the tip) runner guide’s increment from the tip and the percent increase should be to fit a particular actions progressive bend.

The last runner guide’s increment to the tip controls the rest of the spacing the most. It’s the base number that everything progressively builds off of. Small changes in this placing actually affects what the percent increase will need to be by quite a bit. At the other end of the train, I set the stripper guide to where experience has produced great casts, at about 21” inches from the reel guide for the RV6. On the 92 inch rod posted above, the reel guide is 13.75 inches from the butt. Adding 21 inches to that leaves the stripper guide 57.25 inches from the tip. I find ten guides great on 7’ to 7’4” rods and eleven on 7’6 to 7’9” rods. Those old St. Croix tables and my old St. Croix rods with seven to eight guides have some wide and wonky increments. The new Rainshadow build tables are 13-15 guides for rods of this length, which seems excessive. The elite/premium, Mudhole tables are 10-11. Thus, eleven is pretty reasonable number. I’m going to find the starting number from the tip and the percent increment that hits close to 57.25 in eleven iterations. This sounds difficult, but is pretty easy, without even finding a formula.

A smaller percentage of increase means the last runner guide’s spacing to the tip has to be just slightly longer. It puts the guides furthest away from the tip at a closer increment, though. This is going to be the right direction for a more moderate action rod and the opposite relationship between percentage of increase and last runner guide spacing will be better for a fast action rod. The range for choices isn’t actually that wide as small changes really add up when multiplied and added eleven times. I find thirteen percent about right for moderate/fast action rods in this weight range for the number of guides I’m using per distance. I static loaded to less than 90 degrees to get to this as I prefer to avoid getting to a 90 degree bend. Then, I just start at 2.5 inches and go in 1/16th increments until eleven iterations hit close to 57.25 inches. If I miss quite a bit in the beginning I’ll skip increments. There is a formula, but I feel like I learn a little each time I work the process.

Many tables are fairly close to what this process yields. One could argue that static loading is more precise or that my approximately 75 degree bend approach is arbitrary. I wouldn’t try to refute either point. Tom’s point that the curvature changes with loading means that if you are close with coherent spacing you are catching it somewhere in a reasonable range. I can’t usually see where I am far enough off where minor adjustments would get me closer to following the bend. Maybe some people see that better than I do.

Clear as mud?

Kendall, we both end up with similar amounts of guides on the type of rods you mentioned and I also learned thru Clemens. I am now in touch with more advice from some great builders on this forum. Guides and guide trains have changed drastically from those days, and we with them. When you start on mathematics you lose me. Lol. I sometimes don't end up with progressive spacing, but I have them where I think they're needed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2023 07:37PM by Lynn Behler.

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spiral wraps are about eliminating rod torque due
> to guide location.

David
Sure that part of it, BUT, I really can't say I've ever fished a traditional casting rod (bass rods here) and thought man this rod is really torqueing and wants to roll over. For me, it about being able to use less guides and still follow the blanks bend, especially with the smaller guides we are using nowadays. Spinning I have rarely had to deviate from the 1 guide per ft plus 1guide plus tip. Casting on top can need 2 or 3 more guides. But FME spiral casting can eliminate a couple guides.

I was talking to a guy theother day who was building a BFS rod on light powered blank and was coming up with 13 guides on a 7ft blank with static test. I reccomended he try a spiral and he messaged me last night saying "thx, I was able to eliminate 3 guides by going spiral wrap".

I kind of take the words "static testing" at face value, I don't start any place special on either end of the rod, the blank tells me where to put the guides, that said I'm more inclined to put a tip guide at 4 1/2 to 5 inches simply because the blanks tell me that it's where the guide should be "statically", tips simply don't bend much in the first few inches. I put the rod under its natural curve than add guides till I start seeing the rod reproducing that curve fairly closely, when adding guides doesn't improve the results, I back off to the point of best curve to guide number. I size the guides to control the line, not add guides to control the line. Looking at the posts made here I think the rod building community is in good hands going forward.

I don’t think there is a right or wrong here unless too few of guides are placed in a way to have the line path really deviate from the loaded rod bend. In reality, the fishing situations where I most get concerned about line path don’t involve a vertical pull on a rod bent at 90 degrees. It’s when a salmon, steelhead, or big smallmouth is diving under the boat. The pull is at an acute angle and the bend is not going to be close to the position derived using the standard methodology. Boat flipping isn’t even going to be the same bend as you usually get the fish up as you sweep towards the boat while lifting. Maybe, the static test loading method splits different situations as good as any while seldom fitting a single one. I don’t lock down drags and mostly use, in freshwater, the smooth Shimano and Daiwa reels that don’t go beyond 10lbs. My saltwater reels are mostly old Penn Senator 4/0 Specials and smaller Avets that don’t have hefty drags. I’d make rods to sell using greater bends than those I make for myself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2023 02:19AM by Kendall Cikanek.

Matt, I can understand you having never felt a conventionally wrapped casting rod wanting to torque over in your hand. It's not something I had ever really felt either, until ....... I have mentioned an old 5'6" pistol grip rod that is a favorite of mine, in past threads. Years ago I had someone replace the guides on it because they were getting shoddy looking. That person put on running guides with taller frames than the guides that were on it. Afterwards, that rod would want to torque and flip in my hands even if I had only a 2 lb bass on.

I know the taller framed guides were to blame for the change, but also a contributing factor is the length of the rod. A shorter rod is more susceptible to rod torque than a longer rod, because the twisting is taking place over a shorter distance. With the rods I build now, the running guides are so short that the torque while still being there, is greatly reduced. Even on the rod I referenced above. I changed the guides out myself and now the rod is back to being as sweet as it was when new.

And as far as the number of guides I use, it's as Kendall mentioned. It's not for the 90 degree bend, it's for the greater than 90 degree bend my rods sometimes get put into. When you have to get a big fish out of heavy cover, the rod isn't always going to kept in a position that is safe for the blank. That's why I choose the line path that I do. I can take my conventionally wrapped casting rod, turn it upside down, and the line path it shows is the exact same as it would be if it had been built a spinning rod.

A spiral wrap would not reduce the number of guides I use.

Personally, even though I know my conventionally wrapped casting rods torque, whether I can feel it or not,, I won't ever try a spiral wrap. I would end up bending guides putting them in and taking them out my rods out of their rod tubes in my rod locker.

I also see no need for spiral wrapped bass rods. I have 3 (high end Bass Pro Shops rods) I rebuilt as spiral a few years ago and I may change them back.

I was explaining the reasoning behind spiral wrapped rods to a gentleman today and rod torque came up in the conversation. I went on to explain that from a purely functional standpoint, with regards to torque, a spinning rod has the advantage over a casting rod. He stated he's never heard of rod torque or felt it and he's fought 300 pound tuna. I gave him a demonstration by handing him a spinning rod and reel combo. I told him "Lay it in your hand with your hand flat and don't grad the reel". Then I flexed the end of the rod. Of course, the rod remained stable. Then I told him to do the same thing with a casting rod/reel combo. The rod, predictably, immediately flipped upside down before I flexed it. I explained to him the reason you don't feel torque is because you're exerting more force on the rod holding it than the fish are on the other end. That said, I don't know anything about catching some 300 pound Moby Dick, lol, as I bass fish so I must confess I was a bit surprised to learn he doesn't feel any torque when catching something that size. But again, I have zero experience with anything that size so can't comment on it.

I love this ^^. I have a very similar process using metric.

I think Kendall was spot on in that I don't think there is a right or wrong unless your using too few guides.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an always gotta spiral wrap guy. I think they have their time and place. I 100% agree on the rodlocker thing!