Whether a 1-4lb UL trout rod or a 100lb stand-up tuna stick, I ALWAYS perform a 2-line static load test to ensure that the guides are positioned at their optimum location along the blank, PERIOD. There is no other method, difficult or easy, quick or time-consuming, far-fetched or logical, and certainly NOT as precise as the tried-and-true 2-line static load test!!! I have never, nor will ever, use a “guide spacing chart”; those who do should consider simply purchasing an off-the-shelf, generic rod.
However, I have continually noticed very little, to no, need in moving the guides from my preliminary, progressive spacing prior to load testing. I am from the school of thinking that an extra guide is better than one too few. For a guides-on-the-bottom build, a 7ft rod will USUALLY end-up with 9 guides. For a guides-on-top build (which I don’t build very often due to spiral wrapping), possibly 1 or 2 more depending on the height of the guides.
So, using a 7ft example (and having to start somewhere), when setting-up for load testing, I temporarily mount the 9 guides with cut “bands” of surgical tubing on the blank and then measure and adjust for an EVENLY, progressive larger spacing from tip to butt (as an example, 3.5in, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 ect.). 50% of the time, 2-line static load testing reveals NO repositioning of the guides required. The other 50% of the time, ONLY 1, 2, or possibly 3 guides require adjusting, BUT LESS THAN .25IN!
While I suppose that using a minimal number of guides would change that ratio, the fact that predetermined, evenly progressive guide spacing often produces a result SO similar to 2-line static load testing is very interesting to me. Am I that good or just lucky lol. And action (AA) plays an obvious major role as well.
Have any of you experienced the same while determining guide spacing?
A notable quote from Mike Ballard who contributed to Tom K’s reprint of “Stand-up Rods” in volume 21, issue 3 of RodMaker magazine; “I’m almost embarrassed to say it, but if you just space your guides so that they fall something like 4 inches, then 5 inches, then 6 inches and so on until you reach your butt guide area, you’ll have a rod that works pretty darn good in most cases…Then do your your stress distribution test and you’ll probably find that everything looks good”.
While that statement may have been geared more toward heavy stand-up rods, I have found it to apply to rods much less substantial as well. Have any of you builders experienced the same? As always, I am here to learn.
In closing, allow me to (re)stress that my final guide position decision relies on the 2-line static guide load test. Nonetheless, I am intrigued with how close someone can come with a “good-looking progressive spacing”.

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

The more guides you use the easier guide spacing becomes. Of course, the downside is that each additional guide adds weight which is detrimental to rod performance. Fortunately we are in an age where guides have gotten so much lighter than they were a decade or two ago that adding one or two more guides doesn't create the same sort of weight penalty it once did.

...........

Since the only way I space running guides is with the two line method I don't know how close any other method will come. I do believe that rod blanks are a lot more forgiving than most of us think and that the spacing is not as critical as most of us think. I used to use single line and never have had a rod failure that wasn't due to damage not related to spacing, like stepping on one. I expect that Mike Ballard's comment is pretty accurate.

I almost exclusively build 7’0 rods. I also perform a static load test. I start off by placing the guides, generally speaking, at 49.75, which puts that guide around 21-22” from the reel seat, and work to the tip from there. I always use 10 guides and it’s very rare that I have to move more that one or two. And, those are usually no more than a 1/4” or so at most.

I think guide height probably has a lot to do with how critical static tests are. All of my 7’ rods use 8, 6, 5 (x8). I think if I were running 10,8, 6 (x8), it might not be as critical, but I still did the test the one time I used those sizes.

As I’ve mentioned many time before, there is a lot of flexibility in laying out a guide train. I always progressively place my guides, the static test allows me to fine tune if needed. I’ve never seen a blank that doesn’t bend progressively.
Norm

I'm like Michael in that I just use static load for placing guides. Casting rods I just put the butt guide at 21 1/2" from the reel face, and work towards the tip. Spinning rods I use the numbers from the KR concept software and just place the running guides using static load. I figure if I am going to do static load anyhow, I may as well just start with it from the beginning.

Spacing usually ends up being progressive, but not always. I have two crankbait rods where the spacing is closer together deeper into the blank than they are out near the tip.

And I get what Tom says about guide weight detracting from the performance of a rod, but ......... there are different kinds of performance. Durability is, at least in my eyes, a rod performance factor. If an extra guide or two gives you piece of mind that you'll be less likely to break a rod, then it's not a detriment to rod performance. Plus a higher number of guides, to a point, helps to utilize more of the blank's power.

At least that's how I see it.

I am completely out of my depth here but ....... The only thing I might add is that a very wise man explained to me how it was easier to get good progressive spacing using the metric system ( cm / mm ) rather than to worry with inches and fractions of inches . The metric tape measure didn't cost much at all and has been one of the best investments I've made . That and the other things he taught me have made a world of difference to me . The few rods that I have built were all 2-line tested and I might have moved 2 guides and then only very slightly . Still , I totally agree with Mr. Talmo that the 2-line test is mandatory .
Ron

Norman, I've also never (in my short time of being a rod builder) had the spacing work out to anything other than progressive.

David, I'm curious as to why you place all of your butt guides at exactly 21 1/2"? Most of mine end up anywhere from 21" - 23". The variation is generally do to the length of the handle. That said, I have an off the shelf rod (Favorite White Bird) that I REALLY like for cranking and the butt guide on it is close to 24" from the reel seat. I've load tested it and it's fine. The only thing I can figure is it has larger guides. I haven't measured it, but if I had to guess, I'd say the butt guide on it is probably a 12, maybe even size larger.

As far as whether or not load testing is a must, I look at it like this. I'm not necessarily convinced it's a necessary step. But, why not do it? That's the nice thing about building your own rods. You can go the extra steps and take your time to make sure things are to your liking.

Daryl, I'm curious as to why your rear grip length would affect your distance to your butt guide? I could see if you were using a shorter or taller reel, but not for a change in rear grip length? Not saying it's wrong, just wondering why?

Anyhow ....all of my reels, except for maybe two, have the same distance from the bottom of the reel's foot, to the center of the reel's line guide. IMO that height is the determining factor for the size guide one would use as a butt guide. I use a #10 either KW or LN guide (they're almost identical in height) as the butt guide on all of my builds, except for one. I've settled on 21 1/2" because it gives me the angle of the line as it enters the butt guide, that I like.

If I were to bring the butt guide in closer to the reel face, the angle of the line entering the butt guide increases. If I were to push the butt guide further from the reel face, the angle gets too shallow, at least for my liking. I want a little bit of friction between the line coming from the reel, and the top of the butt guide ring. I think that little bit of friction helps with line control during the cast. I have a couple of rods where I've got the butt guide at 20", and they cast very well, but they're shorter 5'6" and 6' long rods that I don't use for making long casts.

Oh, and the one casting rod I don't have a #10 butt guide is my newest jerkbait rod. I have a KW 8 for a butt guide with a Shimano SLX 70 MGL reel on it. I haven't measured that reel's line guide height yet, but it sure seems shorter than the other 150 and 200 series reels on my other rods. The butt guide on my jerkbait rod is 21" from the face of the reel. That rod is 6'1" long



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2023 06:47PM by David Baylor.

David, it’s not something I intentionally do. It just seems to vary and since most of my guide spacing (due to testing) usually is the same, I attribute the difference to the handle length.

I am an adherent to the two line guide placement process, but I often wonder, what is the actual effect of guides misplaced!

Have we had rods break, or casts less effective, or fish playing more difficult?

Never heard of a break because the guide was in the wrong place.

Thanks to all who have replied thus far; I am learning!
While the majority of rod builders may be inherently guilty of “hair-splitting” and may proclaim more than they actually practice, I am still intrigued with how a mechanically produced, good looking, progressive guide spacing layout can mimic that of a technically achieved 2-line static load test. Yet again, I ultimately rely upon the 2-line static load test (until proven otherwise), but I find it quite interesting and intriguing that simple progressive guide spacing can, comparatively, produce such similar results.
Considering one of the replies, will static load testing eventually be relegated to “has-been”, old-school status similarly to “building on the spine”?!?!

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

Frankly, I think the story pole method is just as relevant, but sometimes not as progressive as far as spacing.

The word Tolerance comes into play for guide spacing for me.

As others have mentioned, I define my tolerances and optimal spacing ideas through the two-line static test. At this time, the two-line static test makes the most sense to me.

Good Looks, Charts, and Mimicry: I think of Guide Spacing Charts as a good-faith effort by blank manufacturers to stream-line the building process to keep rod-building fun and rewarding for the new builder. Charts work because they were developed by thoughtful and intelligent people. Is my assumption that the chart-makers Never considered nor performed static testing in the making of their charts? Maybe, outcomes and inputs are related? If only the chart makers were explicit about their methods for developing their charts, like in scientific journals where testing methods are an essential part of the conclusions drawn from the experiment. So we often have to Guess about what they are doing and why...like I am right now. (NFC is one example where the maker k maintains some direct communication with the end-user community. Not as much as we want all the time, but it is there. Jim Ising ran Angler's Resource with the heart to educate us all about Fuji products and the engineering concepts they developed....and I always felt like he was very sincere about wanting us all to have the best experiences fishing and building rods.)

The Fuji KR Concept Guide Placement Calculator (found at the Angler's Resource link) is another type of chart - only in a more specific format. I've used it and it does correlate to static testing very well. I could probably make a Story Pole of these measurements for a particular blank and be very happy. My Guess is that if I hired a tubular-composite materials engineer to test all these specs, she would say the lay outs were within tolerances for that blank's particulars. Again, just a guess, but hopefully an educated one.

This sounds like I am advocating Charts versus Static Line Testing. I trust two-line static line testing more than charts. Yet, why do charts and calculators give similar results? My Theory is that maybe the charts themselves were created using static line testing at some stage of their development.

Les brings-up some good points and questions, particularly “I trust two-line static line testing more than charts. Yet, why do charts and calculators give similar results? My Theory is that maybe the charts themselves were created using static line testing at some stage of their development.” Even so, no two blanks, even if from the same “run-batch”, will be identical; more hair-splitting?!?!?
And the “story pole” concept is indeed interesting and intriguing. While I have not tried the method, it is obvious that progressive spacing will be inherently achieved due to the parabolic bend of the blank.
And then, every rod builder confronted with ferrules of multi piece blanks has had to compromise, to some extent, on the location of the guides; the more sections = the more difficult consistent guide spacing becomes.
With all the possible deviations from the “optimum” guide spacing, what are the real-world consequences? As many have mentioned, I too question how CRITICAL 2-line static load testing is to evenly distribute stresses on the blank; is it REQUIRED or HAIR-SPLITTING? In the meantime, I will continue to employ the confidence of the 2-line static test on all of my builds even if proven unnecessary; it is still the optimum with no downside.

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

Daryl, you must be working from the tip in?

I work from the butt guide, out. As I described above, on casting rods I let my reel's line guide height, and the height of my butt guide determine where I place the butt guide. I place all the other guides on a casting rod using static load. If it's a spinning rod, I use the KR software on the Angler's Resource site, and follow their measurements for where the reduction train guides, and the choke guide should go, to a tee. The remaining running guides are placed using static load.

Here is the way I see it. The folks at Fuji know there stuff when it comes to guides and guide trains. Fuji made the RV6 guide a specific height, for a reason. That reason being that the guide's height to the inside top of the its' ceramic ring, works very well with the line guide height on most casting reels. I'd even go as far as to guess that its' height is based on the line guide height of most low profile casting reels. If they in fact did make the RV 6 the height it is, for the reasons I just laid out, then it must have something to do with casting performance. Seems like a logical assumption to me.

I don't see static load guide placement as having anything to do with casting performance. Once you get the line running straight, I would think it would take a major difference in running guide spacing to have any affect on casting performance. I've missed running my line through a running guide in my time on this Earth. And the only way I noticed it, was when the rod was under the load of a fish. It didn't fight the fish as well, but it cast just as well missing one of the guides, as it did with the line running through all of the guides.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2023 05:06PM by David Baylor.

As a new builder I appreciate this thread and the feedback provided by the more experienced. A couple of related questions for you all:

1. In what sequence do you do Test Casting vs. Static Line Testing? To me I'm thinking I would get my prelim guide layout done using KR GPS (or regular GPS) and them some type of progressive spacing that feels right. Then go out and test cast and tweak the reduction train if needed. Then do 2 line static testing for final adjustments of running guides. What sequence do you all do?

2. Say you are doing a spinning rod that has a moderate action that bends a good bit down into the reduction train. When static testing it shows some adjustment to the reduction train guides needed. Would you ignore those adjustments and keep the reduction train optimized for casting or make those adjustments? For me I think it would depend upon the line I was planning to use... If using Braid I'd probably go ahead and tweak reduction guides for optimal two line static testing (since braid so forgiving when casting). For mono/flouro would probably leave the reduction train optimized for casting in that scenario.

Anyhow, good topic and discussion.

When I first started building, I would do test casts. But only on the casting rods I've built. The only time I saw any marked difference in casting performance while test casting was if I brought the butt guide closer than 20" from the reel face. Or if I pushed it 23" or more, from the reel face. And I didn't notice the difference in casting distance. I noticed it in line control before the line left the reel. Meaning I'd start to feel a birds nest forming under my thumb. Could there have been other factors causing that? Sure. But I never had the problem if I kept the butt guide between 20 - 22" from the reel face. I don't feel I need to do test casting anymore. I've settled on 21 1/2" as the distance from the reel face to the butt guide because that seems to work the best for me and the line type and line sizes that I use.

I use 12 - 20# fluorocarbon line, or 12 - 17# nylon mono on all but one of my casting rods. I use 65# braid on that one other casting rod.

As for spinning rods, it's as I said above. I go by the numbers the KR concept software provides. I've never test cast a spinning rod that I've built. I use fluorocarbon line on my spinning rods as well. With it being more stiff than other types of line, tweaking the reduction train guide spacing may help a bit with casting distance, but I can cast as far as I'd ever want to with a spinning rod, with the guides placed according to the KR software. There is one thing I do with a KR spinning rod guide train that I do because I use fluorocarbon line, and that is to use the same ring size for the choke guide, that the KR software calls for the 3rd reduction guide. For me and the line and reels that I use, that means I use a KB 5.5 for my choke guide instead of the normal thing to do, which is to make the choke guide the same size as your running guides. I think the slightly larger ring ID helps the more stiff fluorocarbon line, (to use Fuji's words) "turn the corner" a little better.

I don't have numbers to back up anything I've said. All I know is that it works for me,

Kevin,
To be honest, between static load testing for the runners and Norman’s slightly modified GPS for the reduction train, I find no benefit in test casting anymore (unless it is something weird / out-of-the-norm like Tom’s “oddball” reduction train. It just plain works, each and every time.
David’s comment concerning no difference in casting distance even though the line was not threaded through one of the guides supports the findings discovered with my test and post “Precisely Measuring the Difference of Misaligned Guides”.
”[www.rodbuilding.org]
Personally, I would hesitate to do any “tweaking” of the reduction train with the exception of the choke (which is either the last reduction guide or the first running guide). The choke can be moved 1in in either direction IF required to help with progressive spacing. After the butt guide position is determined (19-21in from the spool lip) and the choke guide ~23in further up, the other reduction guides are positioned to form a straight bullseye through the rings. Rarely have I needed to “tweak” the reduction guides even though I static load test through ALL the guides.

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

I normally do static testing on guide trains that I first spend quite a bit of time setting with progressive based calculations. Like Mark stated in his original post, guides barely need adjusting. I use ten on seven foot casting rods. There are an increasing portion of builds that I am comfortable with skipping the static testing, though. These are ones that are informed by several previous static tests on similarly calculated trains. Math and physics do harmoniously meet on blanks that bend in fair curves. I don’t see 90 degrees being the magic, end all bend angle for testing. It’s the maximum bend we normally want so I understand those in its camp. I am fine with going a little less for personal rods as I prefer to be even gentler to rod blanks.