Norman Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom, you and I differ somewhat on this. I do
> believe that reel height and line type and size
> are important in determining guide placement.
> However, I have no problems with the choke point
> being a movable point on a KR concept rod. When
> the KR concept first came out I did a lot of
> testing in order to better understand it. Using
> an invariant reduction guide length vs movable
> reduction guide lengths on various length (5.5’
> to 9’) rods using the same reel and braided
> line, casting distances were very similar.
> However, using an invariant reduction train length
> the extra guides in the tip section of longer
> rods, to me, gave a less responsive feel to the
> rod. I believe that choke point placement is more
> of a suggestion than a point that is fix in place
> and invariant. My studies firmly convinced me that
> setting up a KR guide train is very flexible and
> choke points can be moved in or out (within
> reason) with out affecting performance. I do final
> guide adjustments using the static test and
> looking at line flow though the guides.
> I also believe the 27x method you described is
> also a suggestion for choke guide placement. You
> determined it by averaging choke point positions
> obtained using reels having various upsweep
> angles, and spool diameters. As you already know,
> moving the 27X choke pt in or out to accommodate
> guide spacing makes very little difference in rod
> performance.
> As most of you know, I really like the KR concept.
> Once I started using it I never looked back.
> However, I freely admit that I use braided line
> almost exclusively on my spinning reels and braid
> is a very forgiving line to fish. It’s a
> personal preference, something that makes custom
> rod building custom.
> Norm


Rod length is not a practical factor in determining spinning rod choke guide location. Neither the reel nor the line know how long the rod is, nor is either affected by rod length.

For any given reel and line combination, there will be an optimum location for the choke guide. Beyond the choke guide, no further line gathering or reduction control takes place. Any rod length beyond the choke guide is of no concern in taming the line.

So if you are working with a reel and line combination and determine by trial and error that the optimum location for the choke guide is say, 40 inches from the reel, it will still be 40 inches from the reel regardless of whether the rod is 6 feet or 9 feet long.

Moving the choke guide further up the rod simply because you’re working with a longer rod means the choke guide is no longer in whatever its optimum location is. It also puts more weight further out on the rod which reduces rod speed and recovery. Whenever possible, you want it as close to the reel as you can get it, and this is particularly important on longer rods.

As far as the 27X method, that is a factor that gives an average that will work well on just about any reel or line type. Rod length is not a factor. Of course, to obtain the absolute optimum choke guide location for a particular outfit, trial and error with the intended reel and line is the only way to get it.

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

Les- Well stated.
Tom. - We certainly agree that rod length is not a determining factor in choke guide placement. I did state above that one can keep the reduction train length the same no matter the length of the rod. However, moving the choke in or out somewhat in a calculated way does not make a difference in performance, up to a certain point. For example, I have stated in the past that I’m critical of the KRGPS since, in my opinion, it gives too short a reduction train for very short rods and too long a reduction train for very long rods, and because of this I certainly adjust the length of the reduction train accordingly in these cases to accommodate the number of guides I want to use. However, within a certainly range of rod lengths using a calculating factor which moves the choke guide out with increasing rod length does not make a difference in performance, but does cut down on the numbers of runners needed. Also, using a calculating factor does not change the length ratio between the reduction guide length and choke guide to the tip top length, so the choke guide doesn’t move further out into the tip section with longer rods, it proportionally remains at the same location. As I stated before laying out a well performing guide train is quite flexible.
Norm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2023 03:01PM by Norman Miller.

Line type and size is the # 1 determining factor much more so than even spinning reel specs since I have tested spinning reels with huge diameter spools and spinning reels with much much smaller diameter spools and there is zero difference between them IF the line you happen to be using is supple braid 20 pounds and under.

Only when you use heavier less supple lines will spool sizes start showing a difference in guide setup and location . The many question we get on this forum about whether a size 5000 reel will work as well as a size 2000 reel with a particular guide layout are irrelevant . If you spool up with light braid it will make zero difference except line capacity .

Tom and Norman have it right , rod length has absolutely zero to do with optimum choke guide location . The proper number of running guides will also never be able to be pre determined based on rod length because nobody knows how flexible or stiff each individual blank will be without having it in your hands and doing a proper stress distribution test .

Thank you, Norm! I value you and your experience and research a great deal!

Chris -

I agree with you about line size as a big determining factor in a guide train layout! You say it is the #1 factor! Now you got me into the weeds.

Your experience makes sense to me in light of your important caveat: IF the line is supple braid and is 20 pounds and under.

This is an informative and thoughtful nuance that I appreciate!

Usually, when folks are talking about a 2500 size reel versus a 5000 size reel, I make the false assumption that the larger reel equates to a larger, less supple line size. You have treed my assumption like a possum with your pack of logic-dogs.You got me dead to rights on the concept of lighter, supple line on a larger reel!

So just shoot me already. I'm tired of all that barking down there!

As I read what you said, I realized that I have used larger diameter reels and spools for increased line flow, not increased line test! Or the opposite - used #2 to #4 pound test on a 2500 reel to gain an advantage in spool diameter versus line test for increased casting distance.

So, while #20 braid is #20 braid on a 2500 or 5000 reel, does reel height play any factor in your choice of guide sizes or where you place them? Does the 5000 size lead you to move the butt and choker guides differently than #20 braid on a 2500-3000 reel?

Also, with your focus on line size and type as the #1 factor, what is your #2 factor?

Les, in the past a larger reel typically did indicate a larger line size no doubt about it but these days things are so much different . As technology has advanced especially over the last 20 or so years braided lines have become extremely advanced compared to how they were when first introduced . I have been using lighter braided lines exclusively over the last 30 years for all my surf fishing regardless of reel size.

I remember being stuck with a Penn 706Z and that reel was never manufactured with braided lines in mind but I didn't have any of my other reels with me so I spooled 300 yards of 10 pound Fireline on it . I attached it to a surf rod with a guide layout that was definitely not matched for that size spool, the spinning rod was built for a reel that had a much smaller spool diameter but I'll tell you that setup casted like a rocket . It shocked me and it was an early indication to me that with extremely light and supple lines spool size makes little difference .


The suppleness of todays braids makes a significant difference compared to how things were a few decades back . If you're using a 5000 size reel with say 10 pound braid that 5000 size reel WILL cast approx the same distance as a 2000 size reel will cast with the same line . The larger spool reel will tend to have slightly less line loss at the spool lip on a spinner as the cast goes further and further but with braid that supple and light, line loss at the spool lip on a size 5000 spool or 2000 spool is going to be minimal . Gravity will come into play with whatever you attached to the end of your line before you will notice major line loss on spool sizes in this range . This is not the case at all with heavier lines including heavier braided lines , you will see a very noticeable difference at the spool lip when using heavier lines and the larger spool diameter is indeed a major benefit when using heavier lines as the line won't dwindle nearly as fast as if you were using a much smaller spool diameter .

As far as guide height , the spinners spool axle height off the rod determines transition guide height . I attach the reel to the rod and then flip it upside down and secure it with the spool removed . I then tie a taught string from the tip of the spool axle to the choke guide location I have decided on .
Guides get spaced depending on the angle of the taught line and it's 100% reel dependent , transition guide train only . Ring sizes are always chosen based on line size and type not spool diameter when using light lines .


Don't make the mistake many others make when choosing the best line . Most in the past have simply matched the diameter of what mono they used to what the braid equivalent was that they used so if you used 17 pound mono you would choose 50 pound braid because the box says that's what to do . You need to know that before braided lines most anglers with spinners even surf anglers were using line no stronger than 25 pound mono . The best braided lines today in the 10 pound rating have a breaking point of between 21 and 26 pounds , quality 20 pound braided lines have an average failure rate in the mid 40 pound range which is way higher than anybody was using in decades past before braided lines hit the market and monster fish were caught regularly .

As everybody knows abrasion resistance is braids biggest negative and price of course but imo the abrasion resistance factor is grossly overblown unless you fish in nothing but oyster beds . I very very rarely have a break in my line and if I do it's due to me missing a damaged area down near the leader after extended use . I started off with heavier braids also but I wasn't happy with the performance of my outfit so I started going lighter and lighter and performance greatly increased . Eventually I figured out a strength and line type that would allow me to horse big fish in so I could release them quickly but without having any fear of line failure . The performance increase, specifically casting distance increases astonished me . Hope this helps

I have an appt and really had to rush through this , please don't hold back if anything's not clear enough I'll have more time later.

I agree, braid was a game changer for me. Once I tried it I respooled all my reels with it and never looked back. Using a mono or fluorocarbon leader alleviated the problem with abrasion resistance and also added a stiffer line end for working certain types of lures better.
Norm

chris,

A few follow-up questions to get your approach and philosophy clear in my mind:

1.) Do you use the KR Reduction Train Guide Groups idea once you have determined your line type and size? (ie. for #10-#15 braid it would be a KL20-H; KL10-H, KL6L or 7L for a conventional, non-micro, rod.)
2.) If so, do you ever use the 4 guide reduction train suggestions for your longer rods?
3.) How do you decide the location of the Choke guide? In-line with spool axel? Cheat it in or out from the in-line intersection point with the rod? Rapid Choke concept - do you use it?
4.) Have you used the KR GPS calculator for guide placement starting points?
5.) What is your favorite kind of fishing? What's the optimum line size, and rig, did you discover works best for you?

Finally, I like this quote from an Anglers Resource article, "Building the KR Concept Spinning Rod":

- "KR Concept is an extension of the New Guide Concept ....think of the KR Concept as a New Guide Concept for braided line." -

The only thing I would tweak about that quote is that the KR Concept is a New Guide Concept for BOTH Braided Line and Micro Rods. (Micro Rod is defined as a rod using guides below a size 6 ring, and not to be confused with super light rods like used in Bait Finesse Systems - casting rods for ultra light lures. A super powerful rod using size 5 ring runners could be called a "Micro Rod."

I can tell from reading many of your posts that you know your business with fishing and rod building. Curious how you use or don't use the KR Concepts in your builds.

Les



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2023 10:31AM by Les Cline.

Yes, I use the KR reduction train groups . For spinning I typically go KL20H - KL10H - 5.5M to size 5 runners .

I don't have any conventional setups so I won't comment on that . I never use 4 guide reduction trains even on longer rods and that's because there is zero need to with braid in the 15 pound and under range .

I follow what the KR concept suggests for choke guide location on my rods 8 feet or less . It's usually dead on . On my surf rods I always use the 27X method as a starting point and move the choke either back towards the reel a few inches or If I tend to use heavier line I'll typically keep the choke further out .

Yes, I have used the KR concept calculations for starting points and they tend to be great performing suggestions . I agree with Normans suggestions in regard to KR concept reductions trains . The only difference is I prefer the second transition guide to be a size 10 instead of a size 12 when the build starts with a KL25H .

Here is what you DON'T WANT TO DO . Do not choose guides where the ring sizes gradually diminish in size when using lighter braids ,for instance 25, 20,16,12 8 etc... that is the worst possible choice when using braided lines . You want to choose reduction trains where each guide choice has a dramatic effect on line management and control meaning if you start with a 25 go with a 12 or 10 for the second and then a 5.5 or 5 on out instead of an 8, 7 or 6 MM ring size .

The extreme suppleness of todays braids is completely lost when ring sizes are larger than necessary and that wastes energy .

I don't have any secrets Les , just one of the guys . As far as my fishing goes , well nowadays I just roam the N.C beaches and surf fish for a wide variety of fish and I'm a catch and release guy . What I enjoy the most these days is watching youngsters fish and help them any way I can by providing tips , giving them specific rigs that I know will work better than what they're using and even catching bait for them with my cast net . I'm also a bird whisperer in a way lol. Unfortunately I see seagulls and other types of sea birds even turtles get accidently tangled or hooked by mistake and I'm the first one to run and make sure the animals don't get permanently injured . You got to be very delicate and untangle them with extreme caution but when you hold them up and they fly away, (Not the turtle) the crowd roars with approval . Makes my day .

I have fished up and down the east coast, been tuna and shark fishing out in the canyons and fished 80% freshwater until around the age of 16 and then strictly salt . I was born and lived in N.J for more than 40 years but enjoy the N.C coast now . Still fighting to get inshore gill nets banned. Let me know if you have other questions .

Thank you, chris!

I especially took note of your experience with the "gradual diminishing size" of guide rings with lighter braids. Makes sense to get a supple line choked down ASAP and flowing down the rod in a straight line. Saves weight on the blank, too.
Funny how sometimes those old "intuitive" ideas like Cone of Flight can appear differently in the light of new information and innovations.

Like you and Norm, once I learned about KR I never looked back.

Thanks for the kind words Les . This forum is full of great helpful people who won't steer you wrong .

I don't know if anyone will read this at this point, but can anyone explain to me what the magic is in the KR Concept system? Is it the the structural design of the components? Is it the spacing theory of the components? Is it somehow a combination of the two? And because my understanding is that there are other manufacturers of guides similar to Fuji's KR Concept guides, one should be able to accomplish the same end result with other manufacturer's components. Yes?

And perhaps above all else, am I assessing this correctly? It appears to me that the whole Fuji line of KR concept components and the theory of guide positioning with said components is to provide a situation whereby once a cast is initiated and the line is set in motion, that line is directed in a manner such that its energy is concentrated along a mostly linear path with minimal deviation along that path, leading to a travelled distance farther than it would have had it not been set up in such a manner, assuming all other variables being equal. Is there much more to it than that?

I didn't design the KR system , so I don't know all the details, but I believe it's designed to most efficiently control the line, which is done by properly matching reel geometry with guide heights and ring diameters, and it gives different solutions for different line characteristics. What I do know for sure is that it works very well, so well that I don't even test cast any more. The software solution simply works.

I have read on here that one can pretty well match it with other brands, but I don't even try. The quality of Fuji guides and and variety of finishes and ring materials makes it not worth the effort to try, and possibly fail.

Mike...

You write..."What I do know for sure is that it works very well, so well that I don't even test cast any more". So now my question is...what is it that is working so well? What makes casting a rod using the KR system different from casting a rod that you built using whatever system it was that you used prior?

Ernie, I was referring to spinning rods. It works because it properly matches reel geometry with guide heights and ring diameters and gives different solutions for different line characteristics. As I stated in another set of posts, for casting most any first guide will work just fine. In my opinion. I have built casting rods that start with a double foot 10, a small micro, the RV6, and early on when I didn't have a good feel for building, I even built with about a size 20 first guide. That might be the only one that didn't work well, and I think it was because all the guides were too big and heavy, and slowed the recovery of the rod down too much. More important than the first guide, IMHO, are the weight of the running guides, the weight to stiffness ratio of the blank (blank modulus), and the matching of the power of the blank to the weight of the lure that is cast (proper loading of the rod).

Ernie - What is special about the KR Concept?

The Basic Elements of the KR Concept as I understand it:
* High Frame Height.
* Smaller Ring Size.
* Guide Groups (ie, 20-10-5.5) designed to work together as a group.
* "K" means the rings are sloped forward (for 'tangle-free' casting - hehe)
* "R" means Rapid Choke (I think)

The KR Concept was created by Fuji in response to two factors: Braided Line and Micro Guides (Micro Guides are smaller than a #6 ring, and Micro Rods are rods that use micro guides).

Braided line is far more supple than mono and fluorocarbon, and stronger for its diameter. These "thin" and flexible lines require less taming to get under control. Therefore, the size of the guide ring required can be smaller and lighter.

The problem was that smaller guides tended to be too low to the blank and did not prevent line slap. Fuji solved this by putting a smaller ring on a higher frame.

The main magic for me are the Guide Groups. There are three different groups for spinning reels based on line size. These Groups were specifically designed to work together to rapidly control the line as close to the reel as possible.

Reduced weight....and lighter at the tip section.
Rapid Choke....gets line under control as quickly as possible.
Clean and Straight Line Paths.
and, Easy to pick the right guides for a given line size.

It all adds up to a great system.

That's why it works better in my eyes.

OK guys, I do not think I'm beating a dead horse here. All those things you have thrown at me describing what Fuji has done with guide sizes, guide groups, line control, putting smaller rings on a higher frame etc...etc...does not answer the basic question....TO WHAT END? It seems to me that most people feel that what Fuji has done with the KR concept is genius. Statements like "It all adds up to a great system" and "That's why it works better in my eyes" doesn't tell me what the system does and what it is that's working better.

The Fuji engineers I assume saw a flaw in something or thought they could improve something by designing the KR system. Again, my question is...what is (was) that something that needed to be changed or improved upon, and does it in fact accomplish that goal? What has been improved by casting a rod blank set up with the KR system over casting an otherwise identical set up that some other, older fashioned guide system would have accomplished?

I can drive a nail into this board with my one pound hammer with ten strokes. What can I do to decrease the amount of time it takes to drive that nail? Hmm....I wonder what would happen if I doubled the weight of my hammer? I build a two pound hammer, and drive that same nail into that same board, but with five strokes instead of ten. Goal...to save time. How...build a heavier hammer. Result...I was able to drive the nail into the board in half the time. Mission accomplished, and yes it's better!

It's better because a KR guidetrain weighs less. Smaller ringed guides and smaller runners weigh less. Less weight in guides = better rod performance. But it probably doesn't improve casting distance. As noted several times above, with light braid nothing you do with the guides it going to make for better or worse casting performance. In fact, the fine folks at American Tackle make a guide set (microwave) the has the choke on the first guide and they cast just fine. Which is why there isn't really a precise optimal placement for the reduction train, because light braid will cast fine no matter what. I'm sure you could make an even lighter guidetrain by making a tall size 6 guide as the first guide. However, a guide with a ring that small and high might be funny looking and not durable. Pick up an old school size 30 spinning guide and note that it weighs about as much as an entire KR setup.

Ernie, if you want better information than we have provided, I suggest you ask Fuji.

But I'll give it another try: To what end? Casting distance. From two perspectives.

First is line control. While I agree that braid is pretty forgiving of guide set design, guide set design does make a difference, especially as the pound test increases. And not all braids perform the same. Premium braids with 8 or more strands cast better (farther) than most 4 carrier braids. The Fuji system handles braids better than some other systems.

Second: The Fuji runners are very light and because of that they don't slow the rod's recovery speed as much as heavier guides. Because it recovers faster (you can measure this with the True Natural Frequency process) it theoretically will cast farther, probably is more sensitive, feels cleaner and crisper, and doesn't "wiggle" as much at the end of the cast. TNF with some blanks can measure a significant difference between SS and titanium runners and tiptops.

Mike,

You have given me your answer as to why the KR system is better in your opinion...improved casting distance. You also suggested that if I want to know why the KR system is "better", I should ask Fuji. Well...the LAST people I want to ask are the people from Fuji. I want to ask people like you. Fuji wants to sell a product that they claim is better for any number of reasons perhaps, and people like you and I can either buy it lock, stock and barrel, or put it into play and make that most objective determination ourselves. Interestingly enough, Pete Yawn suggested that the KR components are lighter which results in better rod performance (whatever that means). BUT...in the next sentence, he also suggests that the system "...probably doesn't improve casting distance"!

In your paragraph describing the second reason that the KR system helps increase casting distance (and it may), you write "Because it recovers faster (you can measure this with the True Natural Frequency process), it theoretically will cast farther, probably is more sensitive, feels cleaner and crisper, and doesn't "wiggle" as much at the end of the cast." If you're (Fuji) marketing a new product to me at considerably increased cost that is supposed to improve a certain parameter or parameters, and use words like theoretically and probably, or feels cleaner and crisper (purely subjective), I may not be totally convinced that the means actually leads to the intended end. It's guys like you and others on this board that likely have the ability to say as an example... "I used to do such and such and it worked well, but when Fuji came out with the KR concept and I tried it, I found it to be far superior in that......." and then be able to bang out the reason or reasons that you find it superior. And they shouldn't be the reasons Fuji tells you it is superior, it should be the reasons you actually find it superior...or not.

And as far as guide weight is concerned, I don't discount for a second that there could be a huge mathematical difference in the weights of one system vs another, but from a practical stand point, is it really that significant? Unless one is built like the princess of the "Princess and the Pea" fame, a few grams here and there one way or the other I don't think exactly adds up to a sore arm the next day for the average person.

Just curious...has anyone ever taken two identical (as identical as can be), considered reasonably good rod blanks and built them with two different guide systems...one KR and one some other...and then put them through some casting exercises? Regardless of whether you might be a terrific caster or a mediocre one at best, I would imagine that if there was a significant difference in the equipment, it would or should be reflected in the casts from one rod to the next no matter what your skill level may be.

Ernie, a lot of people have tested the Microwave and Fuji and other systems in the way you mention, but it's not as easily accomplished as you might think. What line? Type/ pound test/brand/etc What power and action rod? What blank material? What lure characteristics (a spinnerbait casts much different than a spoon, for example. just do it with a lead weight? They would be consistent but don't represent any real world lure), then to rigorously do the test with no bias, that's pretty tough to do. Most people don't even realize their biases, or that they have them.

TNF is an objective, accurate test that compliments CCS very well, AND it clearly is a measure of recovery speed. If recovery speed does not translate into higher tip speeds and higher lure speeds coming off a loaded rod, then I'd like to see someone prove simply that. I don't think it can be done. My testing has indicated that the higher modulus blanks yield the highest natural frequencies, and these blanks are advertised as being more sensitive, crisper, and in some cases longer casting. And yes, there is a significant measurable difference in TNF between size 4 KB/KT runners and tiptop SS vs titanium. As light as the tiny SS guides are, they still slow the recovery more than titanium. Many builders say they can feel the difference between SS and titanium. It all fits.

But I've given you all I can. I suggested Fuji so they could at least tell you WHY, or as you put it, TO WHAT END. Even if you didn't believe them they could tell you what it's supposed to accomplish.

I'm going to let this one go now. I will only add that if you are interested in doing your own testing, coming to your own conclusions, then set up to test CCS and start running it and TNF on all your blanks and completed rods. If you do this you will learn a lot. Good luck.