Greetings,

I'm about to lay out my first rod. Building on a NFC blank, model FW 662-1(IM). After researching I bought guides according to the Fuji Guide Positioning Software and the recommendations of wise contributors to this forum. I've got:

- KR 16H, 8H, 5.5M
- KB 4.5 belly guide
- 4x KT 4.5 running guides
- LG 4.5 tip top

I'll be using a Diawa Fuego LT 1000 and 5 lb braid.

I'm a little confused about the spacing suggested by the GPS. It gives:
Stripper Position beyond spool axle tip: 19"
Stripper to Second Reduction Guide: 7.84"
Second Reducer to Third Reduction Guide: 5.8"
Third Reducer to Choke Guide: 6.94" <---- more space than previous??

All my rods have guides spaced progressively closer together moving toward the tip. The KR Concept bucks that trend? Just want to make sure this checks out with you experts.

Josh

In my opinion, the non progressive spacing is due to a glitch in the GPS program. Just switch the last two measurements around and you will be fine. Jim Ising the person involved with developing the program, agreed with me.
PS - The GPS tends to under estimate the number of running guides needed. So you may need and extra runner. In my opinion, you are borderline between using 8 or nine guides total.
Norm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2023 03:01PM by Norman Miller.

I build exactly as the program specifies and the rods always work just fine. AND, I get the bullseye when sighting down the guides. The issue with non-progressive spacing is not one of function, but "form." The guides are so small you hardly can detect it anyway.

It is my opinion that the issue stems from the heights of the respective guides. A slight adjustment of the heights would give both progressive spacing and the bullseye when looking down through the guides. But would take a little tooling money.

Joshua, do exactly as Norman suggests and switch the last two measurements.

And with that kind of spacing between the third reduction guide and the choke guide, it definitely is a glitch. Hard to say what the glitch is tied to, reel size, line size, rod length, etc .... but it's definitely a glitch. Like Michael said, I go exactly by the numbers the KR GPS spits out, and looking at the paper I've used to record those measurements for almost all of the spinning rods I've built and while for various reasons the measurements aren't the same as yours. The difference in spacing between each guide is pretty much the same.

If you switch the last two numbers as Norman suggested, that difference in spacing falls in line with the numbers I've gotten.

And Norman is dead on about the GPS calling for too few running guides. Add at least one, and possibly 2. Personally I would order 2 more, and if you need 2, you'll have it. If you don't need it, you'll have extra that can go towards your next build, or have one to replace one that may break some time down the road.

That extra spacing is because that’s where the line is supposed to “turn the corner”. Yes, it looks odd, but they even go so far to say the you could optionally increase that gap even MORE for more performance. I stick to the program and my spinning rods casts farther than they ever did.

There is a lot of flexibility in setting up a KR guide train. The GPS gives you a suggestion for good starting position, it’s not written in stone. Spacing will be determined by the number of guides you are using and the static test. Don’t be afraid to move the choke point in or out to a achieve good progressive spacing. Non progressive spacing bugs the heck out of me, and it certainly isn’t needed. With your rod I would use 9 guides spaced tentatively as listed below with distances given in centimeters from the tip top:
9, 19, 30, 42, 55.5, 70.5 (choke), 87, 105, 124.5
This progressively spaced layout places the butt guide about 19” in front of the spool and the choke guide about 21.25” in front of the butt guide. It should give a good static test and cast great. You would fine tune the spacing by doing a static test. I’ve used this exact layout on several light spinning rods and it worked great. If you use eight guides total you will need to increase the length of the reduction train in order to get a suitable progressively spaced layout. If you have any questions, just ask.
Norm

I didn’t see a diagram for a 6’6” rod but this diagram may help a little.

- OR -

Check out the link below for the KR concept explanation on how to layout the reduction train, choke, and running guides… first couple pages.

[www.guidesnblanks.com]

I steer more toward Michael in guide layout, the object from my reading and experience is to get the bullseye, I have not read or experienced anything mentioned in the NGC or GPS that guide progression has anything to do with it or was even considered. I am working on a guide blank today that has a pronounced bend in the tip 25% back that requires more guides to follow it correctly, either side is much straighter, do I add guides unnecessarily just so it looks progressive or go the smaller, fewer, lighter option to get a lighter, livelier tip?

Another method to consider is:
1. Set your stripper guide at 19"
2. Set your 5.5M guide 13.64" from your stripper. (7.84+5.8=13.64)
3. Set your choke guide to get the offset as noted in the bullseye picture of the website. I do this next to allow an easier sight line to the choke guide.
4. Set your 8H guide in between the stripper and the 5.5M guide to complete the bullseye.
5. Set your running guides based on a stress test.
I find this the easiest way to get the bullseye with the choke offset, my main objective. I've used this method numerous times and it always comes out fine.

Hmmm ..... gonna have to retract what I said in my first post. I just spent about 30 minutes putting in different rod lengths, reel sizes, and line sizes, into the KR software. Only when I went to 10 - 14 lb mono, did I get a distance between the 3rd reduction guide and chokie guide, that was smaller than the distance between the 2nd reduction guide and the 3rd reduction guide.

I use fluorocarbon line on my spinning rods, so I always input 10 - 14 lb mono as my line choice. Despite only using 8# fluorocarbon on my spinning rods (occasionally 10# ) I input the larger mono size because of fluorocarbon's higher stiffness. Evidently, and it makes complete sense, but evidently those super supple lines are way more forgiving.

Norman? I'm curious .... are you saying it's a glitch because it's not progressive spacing? Because as I said, I tried I don't know how many different combinations, and I didn't get progressive spacing for the 3rd reduction guide to the choke unless I put in a heavy line. Reel size didn't seem to matter. Probably because the line had already been choked down after exiting the 3rd reduction guide. Line size and therefore stiffness, seems to be what affects choke guide placement. At least that's what it seems to be to me.


Anyhow ..... I don't really know very much about spinning rod guide trains. I've never experimented with them. Every spinning rod I've built I've used the KR software, and I have placed the guides exactly where they say to place them.

If you add up the numbers in that Fuji alignment diagram, you will notice that the distance from the butt guide to the tip top is 124.5 cm. Exactly the number I came up with based on Joshua’s input into the KR-GPS. So the Fuji layout would also be valid for Joshua’s 6’6” rod. The handle length for the Fuji diagram is either longer than Joshua’s or they placed the butt guide further out from the reel spool or both. The Fuji diagram has a reduction train length of 55.5 cm or about 21.85” compared to my 21.25” compared to the KR-GPS’s 20.6”. So the choke point is a movable points I’ve stated before. it should also be noted that the Fuji diagram shows progressive spacing. In fact, no where in that Fuji publication do you see non progressive spacing. As I’ve mention before laying out a KR guide train is very flexible and quite tolerant to changes in spacing.
Norm

Have you ever seen a rod bend non-progressively? Ever since I can remember guides have alway been placed progressively to accommodate the smooth progressive bending of a rod. Using non progressive spacing probably won’t make much of a functional difference, but it’s certainly not needed. Anglers Resource under the guidance of Jim Ising commissioned development of the KR GPS, Fuji was not involved in its development. Jim mentioned to me on a several occasions that the GPS was not perfect, but it gave a very good starting point. That’s as much as you can ask for.
Norm

Keep in mind that the reduction guides don't really get into the stress test for most blanks. Do the reduction guides exactly as the software says, then put the running guides in place according to the stress test, add one or so if you want, and you will have a great rod. Don't worry about "progression".

That’s fine. If you don’t mind using non progressive spacing then do it. It just makes no sense to me, it’s certainly not necessary, and it aesthetically doesn’t look right. So, I definitely won’t do it, but that’s just me.
Norm

I put a straight edge from the center of the reel spool through the middle of the 3 reduction guides until it hit the blank. The straight edge hit the blank exactly where the GPS program said to put the choker guide. Maybe it doesn’t make a difference (though my GPS rods casts really well), but my purpose of building is for function, not asthetics, so someone would have to prove to me changing is better and the reason can’t be that it “looks better”. Just my opinion on it.

Norm - Does your suggested guide layout listed above produce the Bullseye Effect between the butt guide and choke guide? I'm not saying that it needs to do so, merely wondering if it does.

Braided line is very forgiving....and allows for a more rapid choke with less memory and friction than mono or fluorocarbon lines (pound for pound). How much of a Bullseye is really needed with light braid do you think?

These KR Concept threads are always interesting to me.

I’ve mention this before in past posts that I look at the line path as an easy way to bullseye the reductions train. I put the reel on the rod and run the line through all the guides and tie a light weight to the end of the line and let it hang from the tip. With the rod held horizontal, I press the line to the bottom of the reel spool and look at the line path. What I’m looking for is a straight line from the bottom of the spool to the choke guide, and another straight line from the choke to the tip top, with the line touching the bottom of each guide. Sort of mimics the bottom of the line coil though the guides. Very easy to do and gives good results. The line path for the layout I gave should look very good, as would the path for the above Fuji diagram layout. A lot of flexibility in laying out a very well performing guide train. Mock up all of the these layouts including the GPS generated one and see what the line path and static tests look like, and then test cast to see if one outperforms the others. I would predict they all would perform very well. Experimentation really does help with understanding the ins and outs of guide placements. It’s not that hard to do..
Norm

Thanks to all for the information. After studying your kind replies and the Fuji guide spec chart (thanks for the link Michael) I modified the spacing to account for being short one runner. I came up with spacing:

3.75 - 4.25 - 4.75 - 5.25 - 5.75 - 6.7 - 7.9 - 9.7 (inches)
9.5 - 10.8 - 12.1 - 13.3 - 14.6 - 17.0 - 20.0 - 24.5 (cm)

with 19" to the spool axle and 11" to the butt this totals my blank length 78" and preserves Fuji's recommended spacing of the reduction guidetrain. I get the bullseye with choke guide off-center by 2-3mm.

I performed a static load test and it looks ok to my untrained eye; smallest angles occur at the choke guide and the neighboring two runners. The angles at these three guides are similar.

I'd rather get on with the build than wait for another runner to arrive. What is the risk in omitting the recommended fifth runner?

Josh

Build it! 8+1 is enough guides for a 6’6” spinning rod.

I'll bet Anglers Resource developed KR software after the guides were tooled and the existing guide heights resulted in the slight non-progressive spacing that shows up. Giving up a little "progressivity" to get the bullseye. If the guides were developed in conjunction with the software development I doubt if you would get the non-progressive spacing.

But as stated before, it's really a personal preference in how one builds and performance-wise, a moot point. Both layouts work just fine.

By the way, the slight non-progression in guide spacing does not prevent the rod from bending progressively.

I agree with Michael Tarr, you have it nailed, build it.