Right. Orient the rod so that the stiffest axis is to the fish. Put the guides where they would be appropriate in that orientation.

..........

If this keeps up, I may reach those pearly gates sooner than expected! Way back Dale Clemens thoroughly confused me also. (is the spine the stiff side or the soft side) Lol

It will keep up as long as folks respond....... like me.

If the horse isn't dead it is surely staggering.

Did I mention that I build on the straightest axis?

Have fun

So, I just got a blank with 2 curves. Which one do I base the straightest axis on?

@DEAN I think your only option at this point is to get appropriately sized bearings for where the guides will go and attach the bearings to the blank. After the bearings are attached to the blank you need to attach the guides to the bearings, this way all of the guides will freely Orient themselves to the spines axis.

Or you can use it to cast


Really big spells like a giant wizard

Building rods in MA, daydreaming of fishing in CA

Dean
I never had a blank with two curves, If these curves are so pronounced you can't eyeball along the blank and see a relatively straight line I would insist on returning the blank.

Have fun

After this I don't know what to do. Everyone that reply to my question are advanced rod builders. Why don't people vote on it after all there is mixed opinion on this matter.

Most expensive blank I ever bought had two curves in it.

Sam Kirk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After this I don't know what to do. Everyone that
> reply to my question are advanced rod builders.
> Why don't people vote on it after all there is
> mixed opinion on this matter.


Just curious, was the rod originally a casting rod or spinning rod?

Sam Kirk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After this I don't know what to do. Everyone that
> reply to my question are advanced rod builders.
> Why don't people vote on it after all there is
> mixed opinion on this matter.

Go with the people who offered facts. Opinions won't get you far.

My thoughts:

Expensive blank with two curves, I would send it back or not buy from that maker again.

Spine or straightest axis? I would go with straightest axis unless you wish to delve into frequency analysis or flat line oscillation of the blank, for which there exist minimal current measuring devices. If you wish to look into blank frequency, email Michael Danek, a member of this forum.

The more sections to your rod, IMHO, the less likely axis orientation will make a performance or visual difference. Example: A four piece quality fly rod blank is typically pretty straight. The most significant curve, if you have one, will likely be noticed in the tip or second from tip sections. Rarely ever in the butt section or second section if a quality blank. But the reality is that all blanks have some curve or curves to them, though some are quite small.

If you are making a rod for a customer, they will likely sight down the rod for straightness. People tend to do that. So make it straight to look down and you will have a happy customer, and straightest axis will do that. They also tend to wiggle a rod, which basically tells one nothing. About as useful as kicking the tires on a car.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2023 11:51PM by david taylor.

I expect when St. Croix sends me a SC-5 blank with 2 curves in it, they send them to a lot of people. MLXF 7-6, They get pretty skinny way out there, must be very hard to make a straight one. Thing casts like a dream. All credit goes to the builder!

All things good with the rod are the result of the builder, it's bad points the result of the blank producer! I'll buy that!

If it casts like a dream then the curves may not have mattered at all. Personally I'd be a little disappointed in the QC depending on how much the blank cost.

"It casts like a dream", St. Croix made the blank but you made the rod and you cast it. Any faults or short comings in the blank is compensated by the way you built the rod and how you handle it.

I have built a number of rods using the same model blank and components and after completion and handling discovered that each rod exhibited its own individual attitude.

My experience is you build a rod the best you can and hope it meets your expectations.

To modify a line from movie clip "There's no crying in baseball!". I say, "There's no voting in custom rod building!"

Have fun

For those who are tempted to build based on opinions that a rod will recover faster from deflection based on the orientation of the guides/grip should consider that the only data that has been presented is the TNF data that shows little to no difference on 6 blanks of three different model bass blanks. The only way to know if there is a significant difference with your particular blank is to test it yourself. Test the blank with different orientations and see for yourself. While you're at it check the CCS at various orientations to come to your own conclusions as to whether that makes a difference in your build decision.

I had a boss one time who said "Only God can come without data. Everyone else has to have data." Except for the CCS Data Log, we are getting tons of opinions but no data. When it is stated that data exists to support conclusions without the data itself and its details/conditions then in my opinion the conclusions are suspect. Those discussing the issue may be assuming conditions that are inconsistent with the tested conditions. It's human nature.

I am of the opinion that if blanks have the same numbers (CCS, weight, length, TNF) they will perform the same. The differences will be the differences in our individual opinions on that performance.

By the way, my rods don't cast like a dream. They cast a mile. :-)

Funny that you mention CCS on different orientations. I had a similar discussion on another forum about this very subject matter.

I tested the MHX SJ842. Built as a spinning rod and i spines the rod, placed the guides on the inside curve. I typically do a few CCS tests on each blank and take the average to eliminate error.
I did two tests with the guides oriented down so the weight is being applied against the softest axis.
1st test: IP 550, AA 79.3
2nd test: IP 551

then I did one test with the guides oriented up (weight applied against the stiffest axis)
3rd test: IP 583, approximately 33g and a 5.4% difference.

I also tested a RodGeeks C266MLF (spinning) twice and had much more favorable results
1st test with guides oriented down: IP 358
2nd test with guides oriented up: IP 361, only a 3g, 0.1% difference

Whether that’s common or uncommon, i do not have that answer with just testing two blanks for variance. I have only ever built rods based on spine orientation, spinning on inside of the curve, casting on outside. I plan on performing tests on other builds to see if the spine and guide orientation would affect power



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2023 08:35PM by Evan Cobb.

One reason why one would expect a larger variation test to test on higher power blanks is that any error in measuring the deflection will result in a higher difference in IP. It is much more important on the typical bass rod with IP's often in the high 500s or more than with rods like fly rods with IP's typically less than 200. The "spring rate" is much higher.