Why is that, if non progressive spacing is better? In my opinion, there is no need for non progressive spacing.
Norm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2023 09:02PM by Norman Miller.

I thought about this some more after reading all of your additional posts.

My initial reasoning for leaving the non-progressive spacing in place for my HS760 was because I was unaware of any glitch factor in the KR GPS software at the time. I thought it was just the correct spacing for the specs I entered into the calculator. I thought, "Well, Fuji knows more than me, so I'll go with what they say."

Today, I read what Norm said about the GPS really not being from Fuji, but from Angler's Resource using Fuji's data. I get how computer models can account for a majority of variables, but not all of them - and certainly may be "off" when dealing with the extremes (in this case, very short rods or very long ones). My rod was neither, so I wonder if the glitch was really a glitch...or did I make a mistake?

Practically speaking, when I did the two-line test, the line flow looked really good even though the spacing was "off." Robust stress-bends of the blank did not show any strange or out-of-proportion line angles. It seemed okay. The line was following the natural curve of the blank. Besides, I'm not going to be max stressing this rod deep into the RT and Choker area - and even if I did, it is a relatively thick part of the blank and seems to be bending the way it was made to do when I flex it harder than I would on a fish.

Does it make any sense to think that the KRC guides have TWO jobs to do in two distinct groups? Does the spacing in one group (RT) HAVE to work in the same progressive spacing ratio as the other group (RG)?

Job #1 is the RT group to get the line under control quickly and efficiently. Rapid Choke. This group of guides look different than the rest of the guides because they serve a different purpose. They are sized and spaced accordingly.
Job #2 is the Running Guide Group which also includes the Choker. These guides are all the exact same style and size because it is their job to convey the tamed line from the RT to the end of the rod.

Two kinds of guides for Two kinds of jobs. Can the RT guides have one set of spacing and the RG's another? As long as the line flow is straight and follows the natural curve of the blank...?

On the other hand...The fact that all of Fuji's published guide spacing charts show progressive spacing from butt to tip means something, too! It probably is best to maintain progressive spacing if you respect Fuji's R&D like I do.

Just thinking out loud. I like progressive spacing, too. That HS760 is the first rod I built that doesn't have it from butt to tip...but it does have progressive spacing in the RT Group and separately in the RG Group.

I don't think I've ever come across a blank where perfectly progressive guide spacing ended up being the best possible layout in the end . There are always locations on blanks where a guide or two or even three will not fit the perfectly spaced progressive look that most want in the end IF ones goal is a truly perfect guide setup . There may be sections in a blank that may require two guides to be closer together than some other guides are because that section required them to be closer for the best possible casting or fish fighting performance. What the majority will do is find a way to avoid that issue by moving a few guides out of their truly most beneficial position in an attempt to get the rod to look as progressively spaced as possible especially if one is building for other people . Even when moving a guide or two out of it's truly optimal location the new location based on getting the look of a perfectly spaced rod will not negatively affect the rod in a big way . It will effect it but it will rarely be enough to compromise the rod .


Each of us space guides for excellent performance but just as importantly we space them based on how they look . Most want a progressively spaced look but in most cases the best possible performance for a blank will have guides spaced where the blank is telling us they are needed the most and if you look at the entire layout after you perfect the guide placement by repeated testing you will find that those locations are rarely if ever perfectly progressively spaced . That's when the majority of us start to adjust the spacings in an attempt to get that perfect progressively spaced rod look.

I have a few surf rods that have a guide or two that does not look right when viewing the rod as a whole , it's not blatantly obvious but they are not perfectly progressively spaced but that particular blank told me those locations were where the rod benefitted the most .

It would seem to me that if the non-progressive spacing were an error in the program that the guides located by it would not be aligned in a "bullseye" fashion. I have not noticed that. Regardless, we have those who use the exact placements of the program and those who alter it slightly, and they all seem to work just fine.

Given that the line flows off of a spinning reel spool best if it flows to a point directly in front of the spool, you cannot do any better than Tom K’s original method of using the upsweep of the reel to determine the choke point. All that is left to figure out is height and size of your reduction train.

The caveat is for reel brands that have long stems and/or little upsweep. Compromise is needed to reduce he need for larger guides toward the tip, and bringing the choke point toward the reel in those instances can be beneficial.

It seems to me that little discussion is given to the “reel” part of the equation when building spinning rods, yet the dimensions and construction of the specific reel to be used plays a significant part in the casting efficiency of a combination. For what it is worth, I prefer Daiwa reels for their short stems and angle of upsweep.

Real choice definitely makes a difference. My latest spinning rod I substituted a Shimano Stradic FL 3000 to mockup the guides while waiting on the Daiwa Procyon LT MQ 3000 that will be used on that rod. I used the manual steps for the KR Concept to place the butt guide and the angle difference between brands moved the butt guide about 1 1/4 inches up the blank, moving the rest of the reduction train with it.

Spool diameter isn’t used for the KR Concept, it goes off of the spool shaft angle. New Guide Concept is the one you’d use the spools diameter.