Get rid of the 7 and use the KW 10 followed by the 5.5 (kw or kb) then the rest 5s or 4s. You can replace the KW 10 with the RV 6 if you have the inclination to. You just want the height so you can keep the line as straight a path as possible from the reel. It doesn't have to be difficult.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2023 02:55PM by Lance Schreckenbach.

Re" You can argue all you want, but with a 100,000 casts, the line wears less with a size #10 -"

I doubt very much if I have ever subjected any line I've used to anything close to 100,000 casts. If I ever see any evidence of line wear, I'll go bigger. Until then, it's RV6 on all my casters.

Michael,
The saying goes, "a Muskie is the fish of 1,000 casts."

So, if you make 100,000 casts, you should have caught at least 100 muskies.

Best wishes.

Les, as far as rod building goes, I had only ever considered line type and size, when it came to spinning rods. And that's really just a result of my using fluorocarbon line as the main line on spinning gear. So to answer your question as to whether or not I build my rods for specific line types goes .... for spinning gear, the answer is definitely yes. I only use fluorocarbon line on spinning gear. When I put my numbers into the KR concept software. I choose a line size based on how I think that line would compare in stiffness, to the line I will be using on the rod. For me, that means a max line size of 10# test Tatsu fluorocarbon line. If I change line size on spinning gear, it's always to a lower pound test, Never higher. Because the line is going to be more supple, the guide sizes I use aren't going to hinder casting performance.

But I change line sizes on casting gear way more often. One rod may have a reel with 10# fluoro on it one day, but the next time I go out it might have a reel with 20# fluorocarbon on it. It just depends on where and what I'm fishing, or on what I'm trying to make the bait do. As far as the results I mentioned when I changed reels on my jerkbait rod, it's not really a revelation I had. It's more of a why haven't I been considering line size and type, when building a casting rod? Especially a jerkbait rod, where changing line types and sizes are a great way to really dial in how a jerkbait performs.

While I definitely consider line size and type with spinning gear, the jerkbait rod I've referenced is really the only casting rod I've built with using a specific line type and line size in mind. At the time I was planning the build there was a thread going on about the KR casting concept. The KR casting concept calls for a KW 10 as the butt guide, but there were a few talking about using an 8, and even a 6 KW as the butt guide instead, So I figured since I wasn't planning on using larger than 12# fluorocarbon or 14# mono on the rod, I could get away with using an 8 instead of just using a 10 as the KR casting concept calls for. I can't really say that doing so was a mistake, because the rod works beautifully with the lines I had in mind when building it.

I've always used either an LN 10 or a KW 10 as a butt guide on the casting rods I've built. I even put the butt guide the same distance from the reel face on all of the rods I've built, regardless of how long they are. I've never experienced a casting difference like I did on my jerkbait rod when changing to different line sizes. But I will say this ..... I did move the butt guide an inch and a quarter closer to the reel face on my jerkbait rod. I did that because of the reel I have on my jerkbait rod. It's a size 70 Shimano SLX MGL and is a little shorter than the 150 and 200 series Curados that I use on my other rods. So guide size may not be the only contributing factor in the casting difference I experienced. It could be butt guide placement as well.

I don't know ..... it's as I said earlier, I really only commented in this thread because some of the replies were ..... I don't know ...... a little too basic in nature? The OP was talking about going from a 10 to a 7. I saw a difference in going from a 10 to an 8, and a 7 is even shorter than an 8. I just think line size and type needs to be considered when you're talking about that kind of departure from the norm.

Thanks, David!

I feel like you gave me a hundred dollar bill when I asked for a fiver.

What I gleaned:

a. In the past, you only considered line size and type with Spinning Rods (Tatsu Fluoro mainline, MAX #10...maybe a lower test, but never higher). So your spinning rods were built/designed with this line type and size in mind.
* Seems like you have this really dialed in because you are using a relatively small range of line size and type. KL 20H to KL 10H to KL 5.5M guide train to cover up to #10 fluoro? What do you use these rods for?
b. However, you did not consider line size and type with Casting Rods as much because you often switch reels for the same rod; and vary the line test (ie. from #10 to #20 fluoro) depending on your fishing needs.
* This would be harder to dial in too specifically due to the wider range of line size. Makes sense to go with a KW10 or LV10 butt guide as this size can handle a wider range of line sizes and types.
c. You made an observation (had a realization) that line type and size made a difference with a particular Jerkbait Casting Rod - dialed in on #12 fluoro to #14 mono.. You also noticed how a lower profile reel played a part.
* This lead you to move the butt guide from it's 'normal' position and downsize from a 10 to an 8 butt guide.

So, it makes complete sense that you design your rods the way you do to accommodate the variables in line size and type you employ. Because you switch reels and line tests frequently, the guide sizes and placement must be able to work well with a wide variety of line types and sizes. The exception is with your specific Jerkbait set up which has a more narrowly defined set of line sizes and types used....and the tweak of moving a smaller butt guide closer to a specific reel is very custom indeed.

Did I get that all correct more or less?

This all relates to the OP's question and discussion, IMO, because it revolves around a general purpose approach versus a dialed in approach with regards to line size and type.

Les, I was reading back through posts and realized I didn't share how I factor line types in my actual fishing. Nothing really revolutionary to share on that.

I prefer fluorocarbon for bottom contact baits because it's more dense, so I feel that it helps keep a straighter line between the bait, and rod tip. It's thinner and heavier than nylon mono filament of the same breaking strength, so it sinks faster. That faster sink rate helps the bait fall more vertically. Because it sinks faster, it also means that I can get away with using a slightly lighter weight to get and keep the bait on the bottom. Lighter weights are smaller in size, so they can come through some kinds of cover more easily. In some types of cover, rocks in particular, there is kind of a trade off with smaller sized weights. Smaller weights can hang up more easily, but because they're lighter, they may not hang up as much.

Then there's always the line diameter game that you can play with any type of line. You may need a heavier weight to get you down into the cover you're fishing. But you may need a slower fall, so you bump up the line diameter to slow the fall. Or change from fluorocarbon to a nylon or co polymer mono filament. If you need a faster fall, a line size or line type change can do the same thing as going to a larger weight, would.

If I'm throwing a spinnerbait, chatterbait, or crankbait and want to fish the same bait deeper, I use fluorocarbon. If I want to fish it shallower without increasing retrieve speed, I switch to a nylon mono. If I want to fish it slower and still keep it deep, I use a larger size fluorocarbon. Faster and keep it shallow, a larger size fluorocarbon. I am a huge fan of fluorocarbon line, so for other than topwater baits where the line is going to lay on the water, I use fluorocarbon line the majority of the timet. For topwaters where the line is going to lay on the water, I use what a lot of other people use, and use regular old nylon mono. Different sizes based on the size of the bait I'm throwing.

I'm not much of a braid user. I use it only when I think it's a must.. Which for me is pretty much only when fishing hollow bodied frogs. At times I'll flip with braid when the fish are in the middle of willow bushes or heavy wood cover, and I need to get them up and out over top of that cover. But not very often. Oh and I've used it as the main line when fishing a Carolina rig, But again .... no very often. It definitely has its' advantages though. But like any other line type, it has its' disadvantages as well.

Anyhow ..... I definitely put thought into line sizes and types when fishing. Most days it may not make any difference at all. But some days it can make a big difference. So the way I see it .... why not plan as if every day is going to be one of those days it can make a difference.

Les, evidently we were typing at the same time. lol

Yes, I have always considered line size and type, when planning a spinning rod build. Yes on the reduction train I use on my spinning builds.I use my spinning rods pretty much exclusively for bottom contact baits. Tube baits, shaky head jigs, and drop shot. Rarely anything over 3/8 oz total bait weight.

As far as casting rod builds go. The jerkbait rod I mentioned, is the only casting rod I have ever built where I considered what line I'd be using on it. It's only casting rod that I didn't use what I consider to be a normal casting rod set up. Meaning 3 double foot guides for the reduction train. A KW or LN 10, 8, and a 6, with either 5s or 4.5 running guides. I didn't choose that combination because I thought about, and thought it would be a more versatile set up. I used it because that configuration is what I was used to with factory casting rods. Versatility in changing line size never entered my mind.

And you're right ..... the OP is probably talking about a general purpose approach. But doesn't even a general approach require more consideration than as long as the line doesn't touch the blank between the reel and butt guide under load, you can put it anywhere you want, regardless of the guides size and height?

I think it does.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2023 01:22PM by David Baylor.

Seems to me you could just use an SV style guide to get your height and be able to use any material and color combos you want, at a much better price.

David - Your comments about how you choose your lines and for what purposes is excellent and covered my questions. Thank you! I learned from you and am going to build some #10 max braid only rods for the techniques you mentioned. I love to throw tubes for smallies.

I need to give fluoro lines another shot because the first ones I used a few years back were quite stiff and springy-coily. I know there are some better brands out there these days with better technology involved. I'll have to give Tatsu a run. Ever try SunLine brands? Right now I mostly run braid to leader (which has its pluses and minuses), or straight braid. Just for kicks, I'll take my old Shimano Calcutta 50 GT out for a drive spooled with my old favorite Trilene XL #10. Ah, the memories...

And I agree that a general purpose approach does not and should not mean the details do not matter! Quite the contrary, in my view. The general-purpose rod must do many things well - and that means it must have the smoothest guide train, precise guide sizes and spacing, and a design that accommodates a variety of reels, lures, lines, techniques, etc. You can't be good at everything if you are sloppy with anything, right?

Back to the OP, on that rig, I would want an RV6 or a KW10 and KW5.5 butt guide to keep open to re-purposing that rod from time to time. Just me.

Spencer - I agree that the SV could work, too, with the right height (similar to KW10 and RV6 height, IMO).

Thank you again!

Is there conclusive evidence that a tall 6mm guide wears line more than a 10mm guide. It stands to reason that there is a slighter larger contact surface with the smaller guide. This could either cause more wear because of surface area or less because the pressure is spread-out more. I’d be surprised if it’s a meaningful difference either way. I make many hundreds of casts over a season with 10lb fluorocarbon and RV6 guides throwing crankbaits for hours a day. I’m maximizing distance on most casts. I don’t see visual signs of wear outside of the first few inches of line that stays outside of even the tip-top. Fluorocarbon weakens from stretch before I see it get surface wear. I have one rod with an RV6 casting Sufix 131 braid. I’m not seeing any unusual fraying or loss of color.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2023 10:27PM by Kendall Cikanek.

The RV6 only comes in titanium frames with either SIc or Torzite rings, which are two of the smoothest and slickest ceramics available. Their properties significantly reduce friction and thus line wear.
Norm

Norm and Others -

What's your process for choosing a butt guide for a casting rod?

It makes sense that Guide Height is important to spool-guide height for a smooth and direct line flow to the rod and the running guides. Fuji's KR Concept videos show this clearly. There's also the fact if you hold your rod by a foregrip, a taller butt guide leaves room for your hand to fit under it.

Outside of Guide Height, does Guide Ring Size play a major factor in your view?

That is, in the case of the OP, I think a size 7 guide is plenty big.....but may be at a less than optimal height (if it is at a 'standard' guide height)....my thinking.

The Fuji videos also made me aware of the side to side movement of the line as it is pulled off the spool and into the spool guide. As the line moves back and forth, it changes the angle of the line entering the spool guide - and this angle change can create tiny shock waves that disrupt line flow. The point of the video evidence seemed to be that too small of a ring did not handle these small amounts of line turbulence as well as a larger ring.

So, I can see that the KW10 followed by the KW5.5 was the concept choice for Fuji (at least initially) because you needed a 10 ring for the height (not necessarily the ring size). The RV6 has the height and smaller ring - and seems to sit in that sweet spot between tall enough for line path and large enough to manage the 'turbulance' from the reel.

Was the RV6 originally designed to be a reduction train and running guide for surf rods, not a butt guide? Or was it conceived and designed to be used as a butt guide from the get go?

The RV6 was specifically designed as a butt guide for casting rods. That’s it only use, and it works great.
Norm

That answers many questions for me, Norm.

Then, according to Fuji, the RV6 is at the optimum height and ring size for the butt guide for a KR Concept casting rod as far as Fuji sees it ....Others will have, and are welcome to, their opinions and experiences. The RV6 is a guide especially designed, engineered, and tested for this purpose.

Therefore, the KW10 was chosen for the butt guide, in the first iteration of the KR Concept for Casting rods, because of its height, not necessarily the ring size itself and alone.? I think so now!

I agree, the RV6 works great! I have started using them on all my casting rigs.

I assume if someone wanted to build a rod with #7 ring runners, they could go to the KW10, or even a little larger, depending on the height of the reel. There are also LRV7's thru 12's, yes?

Thanks all!

Les, to your question as if I've ever used Sunline brand lines. Yes I have. I've used both Sniper, and Shooter. I used to use Sniper before I switched to Tatsu. Tatsu is more supple and IMO handles a lot better on spinning gear than Sniper does. Tatsu definitely ties knots better, and is more abrasion resistant. And it's hard for me to say for sure, but I think Tatsu has a bit more sensitivity. If you're looking for ultimate sensitivity from a fluorocarbon line, Shooter is the line you want. It is the closest fluorocarbon line to braid. in sensitivity. IMO it's strictly a casting gear line though, as it is extremely stiff. Even in the smaller sizes that one might use on spinning gear. I also found it to be very temperamental when it came to knot tying.

As far as butt guide placement on a casting rod. I go by the angle of the line as it enters the butt guide. Again this is based on my use of fluorocarbon line,to I look for it to have a slight angle as it enters the guide.I want a little bit of friction. But not too much. I've settled on 21 1/2" from the face of the reel, to the ring on the guide as the distance I set the butt guide. But I have butt guides anywhere from 19" - 22 1/2" from the reel face, and they work just fine. I will say I can tell a little bit of difference in the one rod I have that has the butt guide at 19" from the reel face. But it's definitely workable.

Those measurements are for rods with either a LN 10, or a KW 10 butt guide.

As far as Fuji thinking a #6 ring is the perfect size for a casting rod. I'd personally have to wonder about that. Personally I think the #6 ring is a weight saving thing, and it's the height of the guide that Fuji finds important. I think they chose that height because it works well with the height of the line guide on the reel, of many different brands low profile casting reels. No proof of what I think is going on, but it at least seems to have some logic behind the thought.

I have one friend that is strictly a Daiwa guy, and another that has a couple Lew's and Abu's. Maybe I'll measure a couple of their reels, just to see. Or maybe not. It just might be one of those ignorance is bliss kind of things? LOL

Joe,
I hope it’s not too late but I think everybody’s saying to use the 10

Norman Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The RV6 only comes in titanium frames with either
> SIc or Torzite rings, which are two of the
> smoothest and slickest ceramics available. Their
> properties significantly reduce friction and thus
> line wear.
> Norm

Along with this, it stands to reason that the butt guide is far from being a substantial wear point for line. The guide on the reel’s level wind is always in a higher friction mode with lateral forces. The tip-top has to be a much higher friction point as well. Line under the pressure of lures and/or fish is being bent and run at an angle at this point. This angle is almost always going to be greater than the few degrees of contact angle at the butt guide. The Torzite or SiC materials with the rounded “arowana” shape has to help quite a bit.

From my experience and studies it seems that braid would be the only line type where wear at the reel and rod could even be a consideration. Fluorocarbon seems more likely to fail from repeated or heavy stretching before being worn out by surface wear. It’s not rare for perfect looking braid to fail under slight loading. At some point, stretching dynamics made it very weak. It’s wears really well, but it’s not very elastic.

Nylon based monofilament lines suffer from UV exposure and water absorption issues. They don’t wear as well as fluorocarbon, but they naturally age at a much faster rate. Vital strength components also continually off-gas as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s) leaving them more brittle. They degrade even in dark, dry storage. Even with their moderate wear resistance, it’s time to replace them well before anything but the terminal couple of feet wear visually.

Braid doesn’t rely on elasticity to remain strong as it barely stretches. It also ages really well when salt crystals aren’t cutting it up from the inside-out. It has little wear resistance, however. It’s the one that is most likely to first be rendered non-functional by wear, especially in freshwater.

No Michael, everybody is not saying to use the 10. I only use the RV6, and I believe some others have stated they also use it, although maybe not exclusively. It simple works. As does the 10.

Lots of good discussion! I'm still going with the 7 for now...I had it tied on and lined up, and I just need to get this thing glued up before my trip. Good news is I will get a lot of good testing in with it.

Like I said, while testing, compared to the 10 I really couldn't tell a difference. I should mention I was testing with a hookless 1oz daredevle. so not the best choice for numbers to numbers testing. It has inconsistent flight and would catch wind and flare or dive from cast to cast. I built this rod to throw this exact lure though so that is why I was testing with it. Without getting into a more controlled test, there wasn't a measurable difference. I'm not arguing the 10 would not throw further, I'm just saying the difference is so small on a pike rod like this that I'm willing to try the 7 for now. I would probably go to the RV6 before the 10, had not heard of it before.

I'll be throwing this on straight 30 lb braid, though I'm not prescribing to the line wear consideration. I agree that there is more friction with the 7 but the increase is indiscernible and not worth considering from my perspective. I change or reverse my braid often enough that I don't really care about the "increased" friction.

Rational, well-considered decision, backed by some data, IMHO, Joe.