When locating running guides on a long(11'), ultralight rod where casting power/distance is not as important as light swing weight, how would you balance a better static load versus using one less running guide and at least one less wrap on the tip half of the rod?

I am building the NFC LMX FANY1102-4. I used a guide spacing chart from another vendor's 11' 2 weight Euro blank since it was all I could easily find. With this spacing, I have five running guides on the tip section and four on the next section. I was planning on small ferrule wraps and would love to incorporate one of the running guides, if not two into the ferrule wraps if possible; but with the above spacing I have a guide four inches above and two inches below the tip ferrule. This then makes the guide spacing on the next section so that I don't have a guide near the ferrule wrap...

If I open the guide spacing by an Inch for the five running guides on the tip section, I can get that fifth running guide on the ferrule wrap. This then moves the guide spacing further down the next section in from the tip, making it so I can use one less guide and have a running guide land on the second ferrule wrap from the tip. This gives me one less guide and two less wraps in the tip half of the rod.

Undoubtedly the line follows the blank's natural bend better with five guides on the tip section and the sixth guide a couple inches below the ferrule on the second section as the chart recommends. But, the line follows even better than that if I move the sixth guide to the tip section ferrule making it six guides on the tip and three on the second section. I'm pretty sure six guides clearly falls under the "use only as many guides as needed" part of the static load placement when five guides work for people on similar rods...

The sensible part of my personality is telling me to use the chart, but the performance at all cost side of me can't stand having guides and ferrule wraps so close together when I can so easily save weight. Then I take that a step further and ask, should I ditch the ferrule wraps?

Another way to look at the problem is if I fail to see a take on the sighter, will I feel the fish on the line sooner with more guides holding the line closer to the blank or less guides on a lighter tip; and will the rod with less tip guides be more easily broken during normal fish fighting/landing loads?

thanks for the help
Harry

I would put the guides on temporarily where I want them, static test and proceed from there. I integrate with the ferrule wrap whenever possible. You might have a lot of flexibility in location compared to a chart.

Harry,
The tip section is S4. The butt is S1.
So, you're considering guides on S3 and S4.

Chart spacing is strictly generic - each blank will have it''s own proper guide spacing.
If it were me - I would go strictly by the static test method to develop the spacing for your particular blank.

The way I do it:
1. buy a bunch (at least 12-15) of neoprene "O" rings from 1/4" to 1/2".
2. install the tip-top
3. Mount the blank in a jig to hold it horizontal or slightly tip up.
4. Put ALL the "O" rings onto the blank - small near tip - large near butt.
5. Thread a line (i use fly line backing) through the rings.
6. Anchor the line near the butt.
7. Put a load on blank with the line to creat a serious bend.
8. Slide the rings up and down the blank to get the curv that you find satisfactory. You can double-up on "O" rings so two act as one if you want to use less guides.
9. Mark the blank at the ring locations.

The reason you use the neoprene "O" rings is so you do not scratch the blank with guides.

Remember - this is an exercise in compromise.

I also think you are over thinking the sensitivity issue.
Herb
CTS

I forgot to include that I have a dozen size 1 REC ultra light single foot guides attached with rubber bands, and a size 10 stripper about 26" from the butt of the rod. I have tuned guide position using the two line static load test with 10,11, and 12 running guides.

To my eye, the difference between 13 guides vs 12 guides is larger than the difference between 12 guides vs 11 guides. Based on my research, 12 guides seems most common for this blank.

Great tip on using neoprene rings. I haven't scratched the blank moving guides yet, but I have been extra careful after putting a slight scratch in the first rod I just built moving the hook keeper around.

Copy overthinking the sensitivity thing and compromise. That is why I tested and am kinda leaning toward the option with the least amount of guides and wraps since the static load still looks better than factory rods I have that work good...

Thanks for the help
Harry

After more consideration, I decided minimizing line sag between guides to be nearly as important as keeping the tip light.

Fortunately, I decided to test sag with a Euro Leader and not the braided line I had been using for static load testing. With the 10lb mono butt section, the line sag was too much with only 11 guides. With 12 guides, the sag was better, but still more than I prefer in S1 and S2; so I went to twelve running guides and a size 10 stripper positioned 26" from the butt of the rod...

I have the rod half wrapped already, and am hoping to get to fish it Friday if the stars keep aligning...
I'll post results...
Harry

Harry,
Just to be consistant with the lingo.
It's S3 and S4 you were concerned about.
Herb

I think we have success!
Although to be honest, I'm confident the rod would catch fish with either guide layout...

I was definitely most concerned with S3/S4 and keeping the weight light in those sections. To that end, I tried to reduce the number of guides by increasing the spacing between them and landing guides on the ferrule wraps of S4 and S3. With a running guide on the ferrule of S3, I was had to remove a running guide from S2 to maintain consistent spacing. The two line static load looked acceptable with two less running guides and I was almost convinced saving weight was my primary concern.

Luckily, I decided to see how the rod cast before wrapping and I immediately noticed too much line sag between guides in S1 and S2. The tip spacing was ok, but not great in terms of line sag. It only took a couple of test casts to confirm the sag would be a deal breaker with lighter nymphs...

So, I went with the most common guide layout I could find, with five runners on section S4, four runners on S3, three runners on S2 and a stripper 26" from the butt on S1...


I did notice a small scratch near one of the guides I was moving around. I imagine the rod will fail near this scratch sooner or later, curious to see how long it lasts...

I just picked up a bunch of neoprene o rings to hopefully avoid this issue in the future, thanks Herb... My one question about using the o rings instead of guides is: does the height of the guide off the blank change the dynamics of the static load?

I wouldn't think so, since the load is coming from the tip not the line running through the guides, but I'm having a hard time visualizing what difference guide height may play. The more I think about it, the o rings may give a more accurate static load test since the line is as close as it can get to start, highlighting any deviations...


Any advice on deciding between an 11' Affinity and 10'6" Euro X, Herb?


thanks for all of the help
Harry

Harry,
I buy "O" rings of various diameters (allowing for distortion under load) to mimic guide height.
Also remember that you can put more "O" rings on the blank than you will need. This gives you the option of visuallizing various spacings. If you will use less rings (guides) just "sister" two rings at the same spot. i.e. two rings will act as one guide.

I don't think that using the "O" rings will distort the test.

I doubt that the blank will fail due to a scratch. It's purly cosmetic.
The beautiful part of using the "O" rings is that you can fine tune the spacing without scratching the blank - but more importantly, you can make "micro" corrections much easier that moving guides.

The CTS Dedicated ENing blanks were developed with help of guys and gals who do this type of fishing. It was decided, by these people, that the 11'0" Affinity-X #2 or #3 was suitable for that purpose without modification. Also, there is a design for the 11'0" Afffinity-X #3 with a depowered tip of one line weight. So, is an Affinity-X #3 with a #2 tip blended in.

So, one's option are:
1. Affinity-X #2 and #3 that are considered to be excellent ENing blanks - albeit not dedicated.
2. The Affinity-X #3 with a #2 tip. So, this is really a dedicated ENing blank
3. Dedicated ENing blanks - 10'6" #2 and #3. The original 10'0" Affinity-X's were consuidered too stiff for ENing - so the Dedicated 10'6" blanks were born.

Harry, If you ARE cnsidering a CTS blank - don't forget that I have special pricing for Members of RB.Org.

Hopes this helps.
Regards,
Herb
CTS



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2023 11:55AM by Herb Ladenheim.

Harry,

I will be building that same NFC LMX FANY1102-4 rod in the next few months. Would you mind sharing the measurements you ended up using?

What are these neoprene "O" rings you guys are referring to? (Feel free to add a product number)

I apologize, I didn't realize that I wasn't subscribed to my own topic...

I am really happy with the way the rod fishes and handles line. The size 1 REC ultralight single foots are plenty big enough to shoot any Euro style line I would be running on this rod. I am using the Diamondback reel with all four weights, a cigar grip, and a downlocking reel seat with fighting butt...

Here are the guide positions I used:
Tip
4 1/8
8 7/8
14 1/2
21
27 7/8
35 3/8
43
51 3/8
60 5/8
70 5/8
82 1/8
94
106 3/8


Here is a neoprene o ring set that looks similar to what I had laying around from another life: [www.theoringstore.com]

Thanks for posting the spacing !

Hi Harry,
I can`t find the original NFC guide spacing on their site.
Do you have the NFC reference ?

Thx


Harry Sandoval Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I apologize, I didn't realize that I wasn't
> subscribed to my own topic...
>
> I am really happy with the way the rod fishes and
> handles line. The size 1 REC ultralight single
> foots are plenty big enough to shoot any Euro
> style line I would be running on this rod. I am
> using the Diamondback reel with all four weights,
> a cigar grip, and a downlocking reel seat with
> fighting butt...
>
> Here are the guide positions I used:
> Tip
> 4 1/8
> 8 7/8
> 14 1/2
> 21
> 27 7/8
> 35 3/8
> 43
> 51 3/8
> 60 5/8
> 70 5/8
> 82 1/8
> 94
> 106 3/8
>
>
> Here is a neoprene o ring set that looks similar
> to what I had laying around from another life:
> [www.theoringstore.com]
> _page=product_info&cPath=175_500&products_id=18562

I couldn't find a guide layout on the NFC site... I did find one for an 11' Euro rod on the Proof site.

I am very happy with the way this rod has been fishing. I have two weights in the Diamond Back Nymph reel and may be able to get away with only one weight after some more testing...

I just received the 10'6" CTS Euro X I am hoping to build as soon as the stuff to make a grip arrives...
I will post a comparison after I can fish both for a few months, even though they aren't really in the same class in terms of price...

Harry

Thanks a lot Harry!

Since you ordered the O-rings I presume you did a static load testing to find the "ideal" positioning of the guides?

I am really looking forward to hear your comparison between the NFC - Diamond Back and the CTS. I know they're very different but I'll still be curious to hear your feedback.
If you ever happen to be near WA state or British Columbia, let me know.

Hey Ben,

I did the static load test with 11, 12, and 13 guides. I felt like even with 11 guides, the static load was at least as good as some factory rods I tested to establish a baseline.

I really wanted to like the rod with 11 guides, and am positive it would've fished fine, but I couldn't stand the way the line sagged between guides with that setup. It's probably just me, but I can't tolerate the line bowing out between guides instead of shooting out of the rod tip. Weighted nymphs normally eliminate any sag, but I want to use this rod to cast dries with mono when needed and felt like better line flow was worth the weight penalty...

The 12 guide setup wasn't bad in terms of sag, but the difference between 12 and 13 was one less guide on S2. I switched back and forth a couple of times, test casting in the yard between with no flies, just .011 nylon. I prefer the way the line flowed out of the tip with 13 guides. If I can get my sighter out of the rod tip, I can cast out as much line as needed to rig with just a flick of the rod. With less guides, I got the bow between guides trying to extend line.

Probably not the most scientific or performance driven approach, but since I was building it for myself I figured why not make it exactly how I wanted it.
If I could have taken a guide off the tip section and still had decent flow, I feel like that guide would have been worth loosing, but to accomplish that, the spacing got too large and the bow was a problem for me...

So far in rod building, the actual building part has been easiest. Deciding which components to use and getting them delivered in a timely fashion seems to be the challenging part...

Is anything fishable in the Seattle area around Christmas or is Rocky Ford the deal this time of year?

Hi Harry,

Thanks for the details. Your approach is good, you did the load testing and then went with the "how it feels".
It's quite challenging to make an 11ft super light nymphing rod that has some versatility to be used as a dry rod. I would have gone down the same path of adding the extra guide as long as it helps with how the lines flows through.
Would have been interesting to weigh the rod at 11 guides and then at 12 and 13 as I would think it doesn't add much.

Having said that if you go with the even lighter rods and start adding guides to the tip section or S2 , also opting for a few snake guides then it would make a difference. I've walked away for all those snake guides top section... I actually wonder if we will ever see the 2 pieces blank again.

As you said deciding on the components and hoping they are in stock or waiting for them is a challenge. I had to wait almost 9 months for carbon handles and decided they wouldn't do it for me.

I have never been to Rocky Ford, it's too long of a drive and from what I was told the hype and change in hatchery management got the best of it so it's no longer what it used to be.
Everyone in the Seattle are is likely out and about chasing steelhead.

Hi harry,

I am going down the rabbit hole of Euro rods and have 4 NFC blanks to build on. I am starting with the NFC 1102-4 and really appreciate the guide layout that you have posted here. I have received the layout from NFC but I am thinking yours is better for the application intended. I am curious on the guide sizes that you used on this build. I have read and have had some people tell me to go larger guides for knot pass and others say go smaller to reduce weight and maybe prevent line sag on these set ups. Would you be willing to share the sizing that you used with this spacing.

Thanks,

Mike Dove

Hey Mike,

I used a size 10 double foot casting guide and then the size 1 REC ultralight singe foot guides all of the way to the tip. In hindsight I will use a size 10 single foot, instead of the double.
I easily pass the needle nail knot connecting .013" leader to .022" fly line in all situations with ease.
I am able to shake off any line wrapped on the tip pretty much every time unless I have one of those crazy knots from the line recoiling off a break.
I personally would not hesitate to go a size smaller on the guides if REC would make them.

I have experienced zero line stick; I think the unsanded blank may eliminate this.
I have not seen any evidence of the blank bending around the Stripper guide when fighting a fish or during two line static load testing, as Joe Goodspeed says his layout combats:
[youtu.be]

I think the way I built my 1102-4 gave me a rod that is at least as light as anything I can wiggle in the shop. I'm pretty sure it is lighter than some well reputed rods that are a little shorter, but that is only based on test wiggles, not a scale.

Harry