Oh no......... that is not a tiny change. The oddball thing is a MAJOR MAJOR change which is why it results in a MAJOR difference!!!

Taking one tiny guide and using it in a tiny bit taller frame is only going to make a tiny difference if at all. The Oddball set up is about taking a LARGE guide and stacking another of the exact same size LARGE guides in the 2nd position behind the butt guide. It is a HUGE change and results in a difference you can not only measure but see.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2024 10:35AM by Mike Ballard.

You might be surprised Mike. The KR concept really works great. I can feel and measure the difference between the KR concept and the NGC on the rods I build and use. Once I tried it I never looked back. However, I primarily use braided line and on some occasions very light mono or fluorocarbon line.
Much of what I’m going to say has been said before, but I think a quick refresher might be needed for some new builders and those who are confused. Although the Fuji KR concept is a modification of the Fuji NGC, they are different. The Fuji NGC came out when monofilament was basically the only line available, and reel and spool size were important parts in its design. Fuji was the one that introduced the term choke point, and defined it as the point where a straight line from the center of the spool intersected the blank. Fuji believed this intersection point was dependent on the upsweep of the reel. However, some reels had more upsweep than others and some reels had no upsweep. Thus, choke points were quite variable. Tom Kirkman developed the 27X method for calculating an ‘average’ choke point based on the diameter of the reel spool, and it worked quite well. With their NGC, Fuji introduced higher frame Y guides for use as reduction guides, and smaller low frame running guides, which at the time went as small as a size 6. The NGC had a distinct advantages over the old Cone of Flight guide layout. The KR concept was developed for braided line and the use of low profile micro guide runners (smaller than size 6). Braided line being stronger, thinner, limper, and smoother than mono allowed for the so called ‘choke point’ to be moved closer to the reel, with reel and spool size becoming much less important. Fuji research indicated that guide height was very important and developed matched sets of high frame small ring guides used in the reaction train, which were able to quickly and efficiently choke the line coils and smoothly feed the choked line to small low profile micro running guides. This concept worked extremely well, and made for a much lighter guide train especially in the tip section. They also found that the KR concept worked very well with mono and fluorocarbon line. Because of this Fuji developed a series of height matched guide combinations in the reduction train to give the KR concept more versatility. In some of the most recent Fuji publications, they got away from the term choke guide, and started using the terms belly guide and high belly as the end of the reduction train. Fuji also termed the other guides in the reduction train as choking guides. So as I see it the, KR concept reduction train consists of three choking guides and one belly/high belly guide. Fuji has changed their terminology for the various types of guides they use. The high belly guides, supposedly helps with longer moderate action rods. They also help with passing leader knots and when using stiffer mono and fluorocarbon line as well. In addition, the use of different reduction guide sets allows one to use more conventionally sized running guides if needed. So, the KR concept has now become more versatile, and allows for the use of both braid and other lines. Semantics have changed but the concepts have not.
Norm

I do not think you understand what I wrote. I am not talking about differences between different guide systems, but tiny differences within the SAME guide system. I have used the KR concept on dozens of rods. If I take any KR build and substitute a slightly taller guide for the same ring guide in a lower frame, the difference is going to be tiny. I doubt you could measure it. I have not been able to and I have tried all this stuff. Tiny changes result in tiny differences.

David,

I am following along closely to this topic because I have a similar build that I am considering the KRC + high belly guide layout (3+1).

I use braid to leader knots at times and wondered if the 3+1 might help that transition and rod performance. The rod is the NFC X-Ray 703. Since this will be a rig on the lighter side of the line/lure continuum, I'll use 4/15 Power Pro braid to #10 fluorocarbon leader or less. I could probably get away with the 'regular' 3 choking guides specification. However, I got this bug to try the 3+1...and I know it will be an excellent rod whichever way I go. I am considering both the KL-16H and KL-20H guide trains.

Have you tried this already on your build?:
Place your 3+1 reduction train guides so they all have the spacing and alignment you like.
Then, run a straight line through them, place your first KB or KT guide so it aligns with the RT guides the way you want.

If you tried this already, does it place the first KB or KT too far away (or too close) from the KL guide in your view?

I hope you will share with all of us your final guide train choices. No doubt you are learning a lot because you are trying many solutions to find the best one for you! Keep it Up! You a dog with a bone, bro. Ha!

Mike, sorry about that! You were referencing something completely different.
Norm

Les, in the opening post of this thread I mentioned what you're asking whether I tried running a line from the reel through the 4 guides and seeing where it intersects the rod blank as a position to place the next guide in line. I did, and where the line intersected the rod blank was 4.25" further down the blank from the 6L. I only have the 4 guides positioned on the rod right now, so I haven't started static guide placement yet. I may try placing my first running guide where the straight line intersect the blank but I think I'm going to try pushing it out a little further so it shallows up the angle of the line entering it.

And my final guide train choice is already made. I'll be using the 20H, 10H, 7M, 6L, followed by a KB 5.5, and then KT 5's the rest of the way out. I changed the guide spacing I am going to use as a starting point, as well. I brought the 6L in to 21.9 from the stripper. and repositioned the 2nd and 3rd reduction guides, so that the guides bullseye. I'll see how it casts and if it casts well, they'll stay there, and I will post the guide spacing for those 4 guides. And I am definitely a dog with a bone lol I just had to get of the comfy porch of using the KR software to lay out my reduction trains, to find it. LOL

As far as the thought that tiny differences in guide heights doesn't make a difference, that has definitely not been my experience. It may not make a difference if you use braid, but it definitely can make a BIG difference if you are using stiffer heavier lines. I have a casting rod that has a KW 8 as the butt guide. It casts 10 - 12# fluorocarbon line beautifully. Bump it up to 20# fluorocarbon and it's an entirely different story.

Use that 20# fluorocarbon on a rod with a KW 10 as the butt guide, and suddenly that 20# line doesn't present a problem. And those 2 guides are only 2 mm different in height. And it being a casting rod means that the line flow is much more controlled than the line flow in a spinning rod as it passes through the reduction train.

The height difference between a 6L and KB 5. is 5.7mm. That is definitely going to change the angle of the line as it enters the guide. With stiffer lines, or in trying to pass a leader connection knot, the more shallow the line is entering a guide, the easier the line is going to flow through that guide. To deny that, would be akin to denying that turning a sharp corner generates more G force than turning a less sharp corner, at the same speed.

And Norman, I appreciate you posting that information, as you alluded to, once again. Playing with this taller choke guide option has me understanding it more clearly. Thanks again sir !!!!

Norman, well said I like learning the history of this stuff. I gather Mike’s just in the never high belly guide camp. I’ve built one high belly guide rod and was sold… my next spinning rod will follow suit.

David, it certainly sounds like you getting a good feel for setting up a KR spinning guide train. It’s not that difficult to do once you realize there’s a lot of flexibility involved. The KR concept gives you the versatility to set up the guide train you want for the way you fish.
Norm

It seems to me that the more sizes of reduction guides one adds, the closer he gets to doing a cone of flight setup. It also puts a little heavier guide out farther from the butt. Which directionally by itself is negative. I agree with Mike Ballard; I doubt if it's significant.

The number of guides used in the reduction train has not changed. It’s still four - 3 choking (reduction) guides, and 1 belly (choke) guide. Nothing else has changed, except for versatility. Small improvements are still improvements.
I do agree the larger KB5.5 in the running train is probably not necessary; a KB5 would work just as well. However, the weight penalty is not great, so it’s still his call.
Norm

So now the reduction guides are being called "choking" guides and the choke guide is being called a "belly" guide. All the new terms that users plant into these systems onlly creates confusion and lessens the use of the systems as being too difficult. Same thing happened to the CCS. Why not just stick to the original terms?

Again, I'm with Mike Ballard.

Not my terminology, it’s Fuji’s and it’s their concept. Like it or not, terminology changes. If you think about it, the older term we used for a KR choke point is not technically the same as originally defined for the NGC. I’m sure we will still keep using the terms reduction guides and choke guide, but understand their meanings in the context of choking guides, and belly guide as synonyms, respectively. Now that we know what these terms mean, we should consider ourselves more informed and less confused.
Norm

The result is already the opposite.

I don’t think so, but that’s me.
Norm

I get the confusion over the terminology.

Have any of you read the article, "Demystifying The K-Series Guide" on the Angler's Resource site? This article was helpful to me in understanding the history and design considerations for the K-Series guides. It also lays some blame on Fuji for how it muddied the water with its terms and rush to production. (I don't know if Jim Ising wrote this article, but I feel like I hear his voice when I read it.)

A quote from that article: "KR Concept is, in simplest terms, the New Guide Concept for Micro (and braid) Rods." That tied things together for me.

In the Fuji KRC World, there are Four Groups of guides (as Fuji designed and named them):

Choking Guide Group (KL series) (Reduction)
Belly Guide Group (KL and KB series) (Runners with a wider, longer foot, and/or added height)
Tip Guide Group (KT series) (Runners with a shorter, narrow foot)
Top Guide Group (LG and MN series) (Tip-Top)

Different terms than I used for these kinds of guides before, for sure. The difference in terminology does not mean the Concept itself is confused. (And why are all these people speaking Italian when I am in Rome?!)

It is a beautiful and practical system in any language or by any definition, IMO. Like we ever stop learning, right?

David and Norm,

Thank you for your responses. This thread is a great resource to me. I was curious whether or not the NGC originally used the word "choke guide" or not. I like the word "synonym" used in this context.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2024 10:32AM by Les Cline.