I have read, if I remember right, reduction guides generally do not affect TNF values. Also, the tip guide weight would have an effect on TNF. Also there is a detectable difference in TNF values of stainless steel and titanium running guides.
I thought maybe using titanium runners for the first 2 guides on extra fast action, 3-4 running guides on fast action, and maybe 4-5 running guides on a moderate blank, might save some money by using stainless steel on the rest of the blank.
Thanks for your thoughts.

I think anything you add to the rod including any guides will affect the TNF. But the further out towards the tip you place them the larger the affect on the TNF will be.

Based on my experience testing TNF on a good number of rods of various powers and action, it depends. . .

Yes on one rod I saw a significant change in TNF from bare blank to SS tiptop to Arowana tiptop (titanium). I believe it was a pretty fast action.

Yes on many rods I can see the difference between SS and titanium size 4 runners. I think Mike Ballard is right on the area out on the blank-any weight added out there is going to slow the recovery speed. How much depends on how heavy. However. . .

On a couple blanks I saw no change in TNF when changing from titanium to SS REDUCTION GUIDES (Fuji KLH 20-10-5.5M). The SS guides are heavier, but not enough to affect TNF back there on the rod. I believe it was an X-fast action.

Yes, Gary, you have it exactly right as it is affected by the action. I believe with XFast actions the TNF number is "controlled" by the outer part of the blank, the part that's doing the most bending. And with slower actions, the weight difference farther back affects the TNF more than it does (if at all) on XFast actions.

I have not tested a full range of guide sizes and weights, but the difference between the Fuji REDUCTION GUIDES is enough to affect TNF on some rods and not on others. Since TNF is so easy to run, it's easy to check. I have made a couple rods with SS reduction and titanium running guides (Size 4 micros) just as Gary suggests.

With the way I make baitcasters this is not so much an opportunity since I use the RV first guide, and it's titanium. So going titanium on it, then a couple KB's in SS, then the rest KT's in runners should work. But it would save only the cost difference on two small guides. Since KB's and KT's are so small the titanium to SS color difference is really not apparent between the SS reduction guides and the titanium runners.

Good thinking , Gary!

I can believe that TNF has some value for comparing the sensitivity of bare blanks that match in length, action, weight range, and butt diameter. A higher frequency should respond to denser materials with less resin use and tighter wrapping, if all major variables are very similar. Once building starts, though, I have a hard time rationalizing how it can be useful. Even thread tension should have some effect with the same components. I would think that epoxy between the tip-top and the blank would have a different impact on frequency than the softer hot-melt adhesives. The further people take this analogy to sensitivity the less I think it’s likely to be meaningful. Still, I do applaud the efforts of anyone trying to figure measuring rod sensitivity out.

TNF is useful for the exact reason Gary asked about. Does it make sense to use expensive titanium guides close to the butt of the rod if they don't affect the speed of recovery from deflection? Most people believe that rods with higher recovery speeds feel crisper, cleaner.

Thread tension has no effect on TNF. The amount of thread (long wraps) could if taken to extremes probably due to the mass of the epoxy used to cover them. My KT wraps are about a quarter of an inch long, so thread tension would be insignificant. But , as stated before, on some blanks there is a significant difference in TNF between SS and titanium KT 4's.

By the way, the new NFC material was mentioned in another post- I have only one data point from someone else that indicates very high TNF. NFC says it is more sensitive than X-RAy. My data for X-Ray is limited, too, but what I have for X-Ray TNF is lower than that of the new material. Interesting. Correlation?

Many top rod designers tend to prefer use small guides on their rods, and lighter weight guides on low weight rods.

I've gone to smaller guides, and lighter single foot guides on my fly rods less than 7 wt. It also saves a lot of wrapping and thread epoxying time. I can't say I am sure I feel the difference, but a lighter fly rod always seems preferable to a heavier one.

Another reason that TNF is valuable is that it gives one confidence that his dollars for premium blanks are being well spent. And now and then a lower priced gem will be found. By gem I mean an unusually high TNF for the price point. it happens. Based on my testing premium blanks have higher TNF's and therefore higher recovery speeds than the cheaper blanks. You can see if you're getting what you paid for before spending a lot of time building.

The best rods tend to have faster recovery times. I would be interested to see the TNF numbers for an Epic G blank, a Douglas Sky G rod, or the new NFC Carbon Air or Batson X10. Or say a Loomis Asquith or the top Taylor rods. They all employ the latest high tech carbon fiber and resins that enable rapid recovery, which is basically the stopping of tip oscillation, which can only enable better casting accuracy and perhaps sensitivity. Mick, the physics of this are beyond my knowledge base, but I presume it a function of the scrim/resin used in concert with the capabilities of the rod designer, which I think is beyond just the factor of how high is the rod's modulus or overall stiffness.

As Aleks pointed out, there are a lot of rod variables that most likely affect TNF (and everything else). Yes, it is not all about modulus. However, keep in mind that generally the blanks/rods that manufacturers describe as high modulus and more sensitive have very high TNF's compared to similar rods described as RX6 or 7.

Weight a set of #5 running guides, Fuji KT alconite to Fuji KT torzites. You will find the weight difference to be indistinguishable (low 1,000’s of an ounce) for the entire train. I don’t see how there would be any measurable or noticeable performance difference.

A set of 10 torzite spinning guides (including the significantly heavier KL16) weighed .007 oz., the exact same set in cc alconite weigh .011oz., a difference of only .004oz. The single KL16 stripper was .003 of the difference alone!

John Santos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Weight a set of #5 running guides, Fuji KT
> alconite to Fuji KT torzites. You will find the
> weight difference to be indistinguishable (low
> 1,000’s of an ounce) for the entire train. I
> don’t see how there would be any measurable or
> noticeable performance difference.
>
> A set of 10 torzite spinning guides (including the
> significantly heavier KL16) weighed .007 oz., the
> exact same set in cc alconite weigh .011oz., a
> difference of only .004oz. The single KL16
> stripper was .003 of the difference alone!
You are correct especially for micro guides. The difference in the stamping of #5 or #4 can change the weight between stainless and titanium. You can actually get a lighter SS guide than Ti in those sizes of single foot, plus with Aconite, the ring material is lighter. If the rod balance with the reel and it heavier near the butt, you may not even notice a difference with heavier guides. It is all about the tip, feeling lighter with less effort to move it.

Anyone who doubts my numbers and conclusions is free to run the tests themselves. I'm not going to debate. By the way, I've never tested a torzite guide.

I got me a new toy, so I figured I'd post some weights of the same guide trains, in two different materials .Guides are Fuji T2, which are blank titanium frames, with SIC rings, and BC grey which are stainless steel frames, with Alconite rings.

The guide trains are KR concept guide trains using KL-H 20, KL-H 10, and KL-H 5.5M reduction guides. a KB 5.5, and 7 KT 4.5's. Tip top for the titanium is a KG with a 4.5 SIC ring with a 5 tube.. Tip top for the SS guide train is an LG with a 4.5 Alconite ring, with a 5 tube.

The weights of the 3 guide reduction trains . T2 titanium framed guides 3.454 grams BC grey SS framed guides, 5.649 grams.

The KL-H 20 with the SS frame and Alconite ring weighs 3.971 grams on its' own, which is heavier than the entire reduction train with titanium frames.

Weights for the KB 5.5. T2 titanium frame .118 grams. BC grey SS frame .208 grams

Weights for the KT 4.5 T2 titanium frame .066 grams. BC grey SS frame .105 grams

Weights for the tip tops. KG titanium .182 grams. BC grey SS .237 grams

Weights for what would be considered the running guides which include the KB, 7 KTs, and the tip top. T2 titanium frames .762 grams. BC grey SS frames 1.18 grams.

The weight of the entire guide trains including tip tops. T2 titanium framed guides. 4.226 grams. BC grey SS framed guides, 6.829 grams.

I have little doubt that rod recovery speed, TNF would be affected by the .418 gram difference in the weights of the two different running guide and tip top combinations. Sure you can measure it. But would a human be able to tell the difference? That is highly debatable. I would have to think that on lighter powered rods, the difference would be more easily detected, but that doesn't mean it would be detectable. But I will say this, and I know it doesn't really count because it's only my opinion, and opinions don't really count unless you have verifiable data to back it up, but ........... I have a particular rod that is very light in power, that at one time I had the exact same T2 guide train I just outlined above. And I replaced those guides with the exact same BC grey SS frame guide train outlined above. And my opinion is that I could feel a difference in the rod. Was the difference huge. No, it was simply discernible.

But as I said, this is a very light powered rod, with a very soft tip. I highly doubt there would be any discernible difference in higher powered rod. Say a rod with an IP of 560 grams or higher. Again, that too, is just my opinion.

The reason I did all the weighing that i mentioned in the previous post, is because the topic of this thread is about mixing guide frame materials in different parts of the guide train in search of a faster recovery speed of the rod. A faster recovering rod is believed by some, to be a more sensitive rod. I happen to believe that it is, but as I alluded to at the end of my previous post, can that difference be felt?

In trying to give an example that people may be able to relate to more easily, and because I have the day off and am doing around the house things, and to play with my new toy a bit more. I weighed a Q Tip made with the cardboard shaft. One Q Tip weighs .410 grams, which is almost the exact weight of the difference in weight between the two running guide tip top combinations mentioned above,

So if you want to get an idea of how much difference in feel the weight difference would cause, tape a Q Tip to your rod.

I just taped a Q Tip mid way between the KB choke guide and the tip top on a rod I have built on an RX10 ETEC72M blank. It has Fuji T2 guides for its. guide train. The only difference is I used KT 5's as the running guides and a tip top with a size 5 ring. When dragging a bait across the tile floor in my kitchen, I couldn't feel a bit of difference in sensitivity, and there was no discernible difference in the balance of the rod. I then taped the Q Tip to the very tip of the rod. No difference in feel, and an ever so slight visually discernible difference in the balance of the rod. At least I think it was discernible.

I balanced the rod on the edge of a piece of 1/4" thick PVC sheeting and let the rod become motionless. I used a tape measure to measure the distance from the tip, to the floor. Then I taped the Q tip to the tip of the rod and performed the same type of measurement. My eyes aren't that good even with the 3X glasses I use when wrapping guides, but if there was a difference in measurements, I sure couldn't see it. Part of the problem was bumping the rod tip while trying to get measurements.

Anyhow .... would mixing frame materials in the running guides result in a difference in TNF. Sure. Would you be able to feel the difference? I'm thinking no. At least not on a rod like the one I performed the experiment with. It has an IP of 567 grams. In the above post I mentioned that I could discern a difference by switching to guides with different frame materials. I switched the entire guide trains on that rod, not just the running guides. I can only believe that the reason I could discern a difference, is the result of the 2.195 gram difference in the weight of the reduction trains of those guide trains.

So while guide weight in the running portion of the guide train may have more effect on TNF, it doesn't IMO, have as great of an effect on feel, as the total weight of the guide train. At least not feel while you're simply holding the rod.

So now that I've bored anyone that may be reading this, I'm going to get going. If I don't get my around the house stuff done today, I won't be able to fish as long tomorrow, And as tomorrow may be the last really beautiful day of the year, I dang sure want to get this house work stuff done. LOL

An interesting blog post on fly rod guides:

[www.stickmanrods.com]

The human sensory system is very capable of noticing minute differences is weight and the balance of weight, which has been proven in a number of sports over the years in a number of empirical and anecdotal ways. Ted Williams would reject a large amount of the custom bats made for him. Was he a Diva or could he feel the difference. Well, he hit .406 one year and has a lifetime average of .344. But I would love to see the bats he rejected measured with modern equipment vs. those he preferred. Tiger woods can tell the difference in club head weight in his irons by as little as 1-3 grams, and with modern technology his clubs can be exactly measured, so they are custom-made to very exact specs for him. Hmm. GOAT. Tom Brady seems to prefer the football at a certain inflation pressure. GOAT. 6 Super Bowls. Jack Nicklaus back-weighted his iron shafts (added weight to the butt end of the shaft) as he preferred the feel of a lower swing-weight club (even when total club weight increased), but did not like to achieve that by reducing mass from the club head.

Don't doubt the abilities of the human body to discern differences. But rely on science or measurement to try and prove the observations correct, as what we think or say we like is not always correct due to our inherent biases.

David, I have no doubts that some people have better sensory acuity than others. Perhaps they actually have higher performing nerve endings, or perhaps a greater degree of mental acuity that help them to detect subtle differences in feel, or perhaps their bodies aren't as beat down by life, as other persons bodies might be.

As for the examples you gave concerning the athletes you mentioned. Tom Brady isn't the GOAT because he liked the ball slightly deflated, and it isn't because he is a physical freak of nature. He's the GOAT because of what he has between his ears. His knowledge and recognition of what's happening on the field, and his ability to mentally react quickly to it. That's why he was so good.

In fishing, some bites are easily recognized through the sense of feel, while others aren't. And even if you can feel even the subtlest of bites, you have to recognize it as such Sometimes ..... even more often than sometimes, it's just as much if not more, about mental acuity, than it is sensory acuity. IMO, that's what makes a truly good angler, good

But yeah ..... some people can feel things that other people can't

Don't doubt the abilities of the human body to discern differences. But rely on science or measurement to try and prove the observations correct, as what we think or say we like is not always correct due to our inherent biases.

Yes.

To run TNF on a blank or rod takes seconds. With nothing more than your wrapping machine or other way to hold the butt and an Android device. (And a calculator to do the arithmetic)

David Baylor:

Yup, GOATs also have tremendous focus and the ability to perform under pressure, and are very consistent. And they tend to be specific about equipment and technique, but not always.

A more sensitive rod will not necessarily make a better angler. An angler's greatest asset is his or her ability to focus on being in the moment and attuned to the situation and water. For such an angler a better or more sensitive rod is going to be an asset, though they will also catch plenty of fish with a broomstick.

Sensitivity in fly fishing is critical in nymph fishing, less critical in dry fly or streamer fishing in terms of feeling the bite. But sensitivity can also relate to casting, mending, etc. All is interrelated.

Much of a rod's magic or performance capabilities rests with the designer, who takes the carbon fiber/resin and designs a specific taper that takes advantage of the materials. Stronger and lighter carbon fiber has tended to make better rods. Not always, but that has been the trend.

David - thanks for posting the weight comparison between Ti and SS. Been wondering how significant a savings we are talking. All my builds thus far have been with SS and alconite rings.

That helps put it in perspective. Good stuff.

Kevin, no problem. I enjoyed doing it.

And glad that it helped. It was an eye opener for me as well. And definitely brings the cost effectiveness question into play. With the spinning rod guide trains I outlined above, the cost difference is $103 and some change.

And for a casting rod guide train using a KW 10, KW 8, KW 6, (2) KB 5's, (6) KT 5's and a 5 ring 5 tube tip top, the difference between SS and Ti is $82 and some change.

Is the difference in cost worth the difference in peformance? And when I say performance, I mean does it translate to feel. Heck ..... I don't know.

As I said above when speaking about the one rod where I swapped the entire guide trains from Ti to SS ..... I could feel a difference in the feel of the rod in hand. But because I was so disappointed in the power of the rod, I didn't fish it very much while it had the Ti guide train on it. It may have felt quite a bit more sensitive than it does now (and it's a very sensitive rod now) but because of my disappointment with the power, my focus wasn't on how sensitive the rod felt. It was more on " I can't believe I spent this much money on a ....a ..... a pan fish rod. LOL

And even though I can't really be sure of their cost effectiveness .......I'll still keep using titanium guides on blanks like the X rays and RX10's if for no other reason than to tell the NRX and MB Destroyer guys ... "yeah well my rod has titanium guides on it too". LOL

Just kidding .......... sorta LOL