Thanks fellas, I really appreciate your time and expertise.

Cheers,
Josh

Your layout will work just fine.. I think you will be very happy with its performance.
Norm

I like the path of the line to follow the curve of the blank very closely, so I always opt for at least 2 more running guides than what the KR software calls for. Honestly, I stopped looking at how many running guides the KR software recommends because it is not enough to have the type of line path I prefer. For all I know I could be using 3 more running guides than it calls for.

The only thing to really need to watch out for as far as the number of running guides you end up using, is to not have the blank over flexed between any of the guides.

Oh, and I have had non progressive spacing on two crankbait rods I built, and one that I simply replaced the guides on. I had guides that were further apart in the last 12" of the blank than I had further down the blank. 24" - 12" They were conventionally wrapped casting rods, using either size 4.5 or size 5 running guides. I needed the closer spacing further from the tip to keep the line off the blank.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2023 02:46PM by David Baylor.

Fuji's software is for reduction guide and choke guide recommendations only , I pay no mind to running guide recommendations at all and the reason for that is because Fuji's software doesn't know how stiff or soft a blank is . Comprehensive static guide testing is the only surefire way to know how many running guides a certain blank will require .

I know I'm with Norm on this one. First off, as Norm explained, one of the guys involved in the creation of this program recognizes that there likely are some limitations within it that preclude pure perfection without a little tweaking here and there. That alone is significant.

I'm not a "rod builder", but the ones I have put together over a span of over forty years or so have never let me down, and looked darn good in the process. I think the general consensus among people who are involved in this board agree that there are generally some accepted guidelines that we tend to follow to a certain extent, but in the end tend to throw away the cookie cutter and perhaps deviate a little here and there to achieve what may be as close to perfection as they can get. Is there any better example of this than laying out a guide train with a computer program?

As Norm has exhaustively tried to relate to people involved in this board, those programs do a pretty good job of getting one close to the goal line, but once you're on the one yard line, you've just got to assess the situation with your own brain and score the touchdown yourself. Unless I have assessed all the information I have gained over time regarding rod building, once you have used the programs and laid out (roughed out so to speak) your guide trains, your final step in the interest of attaining as perfect a result as you possibly can is to perform the two line static test. Often some tweaking is in order....move guides, add or subtract guides....whatever. Then on top of that, some guys go out and cast their creation just to additionally be satisfied. Again, they may make some changes to their original layout. All this is above and beyond the computer program that told you "exactly" where your guides should go. Really? Says who?

Norm states that anything other than progressive spacing bugs him to no end. I'm on his team. For starters, I don't think I have ever seen a two line static test result in anything other than what turns out to be progressive spacing. If the goal is to have the line follow the natural contour of a reasonably stressed rod blank, that's what you generally end up with. Function wise, this seems reasonable. Now, if some computer program was smart enough to have been able to analyze the ACTUAL rod blank that I am working with, and there was a deviation from a progressive guide train, I might be able to buy into the concept. But the way I see how rod blanks are manufactured, I firmly believe that under present standards and techniques, there are no two rod blanks created entirely equal. If this is true, then no computer program will be able to perfect a guide train for any particular blank. YOUR BLANK. The program will get you close as anticipated, and the rest is up to you. I dare say that this ability to deviate from the "specs" based on what you find with the actual components you have on hand is what makes someone a rod builder. Someone could likely teach a monkey how to add components to a rod blank. It's all the other subtleties that make what we do the reason we do it!
And for the record, I have been and perhaps still am in some ways one of those monkeys. :-)

Lastly, what bugs Norm also bugs me. Nothing looks more natural and cosmetic than a line running through a reasonably stressed rod with a progressive guide train. Isn't that what we do the static two line test for? And as Norm once again has tried to stress repeatedly over time, making small tweaks in a KR concept guide train with an intent to use braided line will make no difference in how the rod performs. Assuming this is so, why would anyone actually set out to deviated from a progressive guide layout? So you mean to tell me that after selecting a rod blank, determining a style (regular vs split grip), choosing the guides and the materials they are made of, choosing the handle materials, choosing the color winding thread, adding all your finishing touches such as trim bands etc., adding decorative decals and finally perhaps adding your name to the rod....you would actually build something without a nicely progressive guide train that looks like it was born with a congenital birth defect or perhaps built by someone who was drunk at the time? I may be one of those monkeys, but I still regard myself as one of the higher functioning ones.

I live in Florida, in an area where most of the streets are divided by numerous man made canals. Many areas are not necessarily lighted as well as they should be, often rendering many of those canals very difficult to see at night. Of course in this day and age, people have become essentially dependent on their various GPS devices for "safe and accurate" navigation. Unfortunately, closely following their navigation devices, poor unsuspecting motorists end up in those canals on an ongoing basis. Some live to tell their story, and some do not. Computers don't always help us exactly as we would have liked them to.

Re" I don't think I have ever seen a two line static test result in anything other than what turns out to be progressive spacing " I respectfully submit that you have not seen everything. It happens.

Re the comment: "You would actually build something without a nicely progressive guide train that looks like it was born with a congenital birth defect or perhaps built by someone who was drunk at the time? " This comment is clearly the opinion of one person. Not everyone sees things the same way. But that does not make them people who appreciate "congenital birth defects". I have built many non-progressive rods, and I have never been drunk at the time. I think this comment is clearly inappropriate.

While it is true that you're unlikely to see any differences in minor guide spacing differences when using light and supple braided lines that's not the case at all when using heavier braids and other types of lines. It's the main reason I always use a heavier line to test guide spacings because light braids will work very well even with mediocre at best layouts and will not reveal area's that can be improved upon where a heavier line will .

As I've said in the past I have yet to come across a blank that has perfectly progressive guide spacing along it's entire length , if you're looking for the best possible support for a blank then there is always going to be locations along a blank where the guide spacing is less than perfectly progressive but as builders and especially manufacturers that sell to the masses adjustments are always made to get guide layouts to look as progressive and close to perfect as you can get and that will require you to move guides off of their ideal location to a more appropriate and pleasing to the eye location . The adjustments are typically very slight but they are adjustments nonetheless.

Will you notice a difference ? Not when using light braided lines like what is typically used with the KR concept system you won't .

Seems this has become a debate concerning progressive and non progressive guide spacing. More in the running portion of the blank than in the portion of the blank where the reduction guides would be placed. At least I am talking about the running portion of the blank.

Isn't the idea of static load guide placement, to put the guides where they need to be in order to distribute the stress on the blank, evenly? I'm curious ..... for those that say there should never be anything but progressive guide spacing, how much load do you place on your rod when using two line static load to place your running guides? Personally, I don't go through the procedure as it's outlined in the library of this site. I just load the rod as if I were doing a CCS test for rod power, and place my guides from there. I also start towards the butt of the rod,. Either from the choke guide on a KR concept spinning rod guide train, or from the butt guide on a conventionally wrapped casting rod, and work my way towards the tip. If I'm going to leave out a guide, and I never do, but if I were to, I'd rather leave it out on a part of the blank that is basically straight when under a full load. And that means the tip of the blank.

The reason I say I never leave a guide out, is because I'll add that extra guide towards the tip because the load on a rod isn't always coming from 90 degrees while fighting and landing a fish, like it is when you're using static load guide placement. It's also the reason I prefer the line to follow the blank very closely, and is the same reason that I use just as many running guides on a spinning rod, as I use on a conventionally wrapped casting rod. Where the guides are on a rod, on the top of the blank, or on the bottom, IMO shouldn't have anything to do with guide spacing. For me, it's all about the path of the line as it relates to the curve of the blank under load.

And finally, If you prefer progressive guide spacing because it looks right, I totally get that. I've built all but one of my casting rods using three double foot guides of different sizes. Not because it performs any better, but because it looks right. If I or anyone else that uses two line static load to place their guides has ended up with non progressive guide spacing, it's because the line path looks right. And I would go so far to say, that with some rod blanks, it is right.

Joshua Soneson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>... 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)
>
Ah...kudos for using metric.
One thing I like to do is look at the "difference" between the guides.

In your case above:
Spacing: > 9.5 - 10.8 - 12.1 - 13.3 - 14.6 - 17.0 - 20.0 - 24.5 (cm)
Differences: 1.3 - 1.3 - 1.2 - 1.3 - 2.4 - 3 - 4.5

I like the difference to be either the same or progressive , but never less like the difference between 12.1 - 13.3 = 1.2



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2023 08:34AM by Chris Catignani.

Chris Catignani Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Ah...kudos for using metric.
> One thing I like to do is look at the "difference"
> between the guides.
>
> In your case above:
> Spacing: > 9.5 - 10.8 - 12.1 - 13.3 - 14.6 - 17.0
> - 20.0 - 24.5 (cm)
> Differences: 1.3 - 1.3 - 1.2 - 1.3 - 2.4 - 3 -
> 4.5
>
> I like the difference to be either the same or
> progressive , but never less like the difference
> between 12.1 - 13.1 = 1.2

12.1 - 13.3 = 1.2

12.1 - 13.1 = 1

Chris ..... you just got the math wrong .... I missed an entire variable. LOL


You caught it !!! LOL good man !!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2023 08:35AM by David Baylor.

Chris Catignani Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Ah...kudos for using metric.
> One thing I like to do is look at the "difference"
> between the guides.
>
> In your case above:
> Spacing: > 9.5 - 10.8 - 12.1 - 13.3 - 14.6 - 17.0
> - 20.0 - 24.5 (cm)
> Differences: 1.3 - 1.3 - 1.2 - 1.3 - 2.4 - 3 -
> 4.5
>
> I like the difference to be either the same or
> progressive , but never less like the difference
> between 12.1 - 13.3 = 1.2

Sadly my ruler is imperial (there was some roundoff error in converting to metric). In inches my differences are indeed same and progressive:
0.5 - 0.5 - 0.5 - 0.5 - 0.95 - 1.2 - 1.75