Hello, guys!

I'm reading a lot about the new Fuji KR Concept for guide placing ...

And now I'm thinking what is the alternative for that kind of guide placing?How have people chosen and placed the guides on rods before that?

Because if I go to our local tackle shop I can't see any rods being done by Fuji KR Concept. Why not?

Regards!

There are finished rods using KR concept; Bass Pro/Cabelas has some, or did have some. Johhny Morris Signature is one. I expect the reason you don't see more is about cost/pricing.
Here in the library is how I used to do it. [www.rodbuilding.org]

I find the Fuji software and the use of KR Concept//KLH/ setups so good that I don't even test cast any more. I just build with Fuji guides to the software dimensions for the reduction guides and they just work great

Using the KL H can be quite the journey. I went down to the river a couple days ago to do some test casting and was greeted 15 minutes later with a couple of guys using the latest and greatest store bought rods they could most likely find.

Both gents had at least 2 rods in their arsenal, All the rods were dated in technology by at least 15 years. New Concept Guide Train systems. By the 3rd cast one had his line tip wrap, no big deal. Most likely due to the product of braid.

I had just re aligned my guide train for the 3rd time and was looking at the placement and spacing.


I have now learned about the Oddball Reduction Train developed by some builders and highlighted in the Rod Builders Magazine. Will be testing it out today with my own modification (4th layout) and posting some results. This is not a scientific test to say the least, yet I wish to know how much I am sensing in improvement.

Efficiency would be the primary target,

Aesthetics directly right after.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2024 09:17AM by Chris Rosell.

Tolo,

I enjoy your questions and curiosity - two aspects of rod-building that are under valued. An open and thoughtful mind is a treasure.

There is documented history about the evolution of guide trains out there for you to research and learn. In my own journey, I have seen change from the Cone of Flight (COF), to the NGC, to the KR Concept (KRC). All related. All different. All applicable in certain situations.

Many of the changes in guides and concepts over history closely follow technological innovations in both rods and fishing lines, in my view. (Not to mention the corresponding marketing trends by manufacturers.) And things will keep changing into the future. (By the way, as I understand it, the KRC was specifically developed in partial response to braided line - a monumental innovation in fishing - and was found to have benefits with mono and fluorocarbon lines as well. It is a rather specific Concept for a specific range of line sizes and types the way I see it - not the be all end all of concepts.)

One factor that really came through to me this year more than ever when studying the KRC is that size and type of line is an important factor when setting up a guide train. This applies to any Concept - and why rods were made back in the day with the COF concept. (I have rods my grandmother fished in the 70's with #30 ring butt guides and #8 tip tops on 7-foot medium powered rods.)

Chris brought up a salient point for me: Tip wrap. This relates to guide trains AND the innovation of braided line in my mind.

The thinner and more supple characteristics of braid make it excellent for reducing line slap, rapid reduction to smaller and lighter guides, and overall "forgiveness" of imperfections in a guide train. However, these characteristics can also can make it easier to wrap around the rod tip - especially if hung up and "jiggling" the rod tip to free the lure. From my own observations and experience, the line can half-hitch itself around the rod tip more readily when the lightest and most supple braids are in play under some conditions (like brisk wind). In a boat, hung up, and the wind blowing away from the hang with a tip rapped rod can lead to some tense moments - and sometimes the loss of the rod tip.

I find this ironic and a rather humorous situation: Braid can be too much of a good thing - which can create other issues like tip wrap. (I'll take the benefits and deal with the liabilities of braid most any day.)

To solve the tip wrap problem with light braid for myself:

1.) I changed the way I try and free lures when hung up and fishing very light braid. I don't jiggle the tip anymore. (Windy days on the water here in Kansas play a factor in my view.)
2.) I now use #20 braid mostly because it is a bit stiffer than the lighter braids and has not shown such a tendency to tip wrap. It is still around #6 mono/fluoro diameter.
3.) I use a braid to leader set-up, so if I want the part that the fish "see" I can downsize the mono or fluoro leader as much as I dare.

This is a roundabout way of saying that I don't think tip wrap for me is a function of a particular guide train concept. It is a result of the characteristics of light braided lines and my poor, lure-freeing technique. (And I prefer the KRC these days.)

It is wise to read Tom Kirkman's article on proper handling, whichever guide train concept you choose! [www.rodbuilding.org]

Know all the concepts and their historical contexts. I wish you many A-HA! moments!

Chris Rosell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I have now learned about the Oddball Reduction
> Train developed by some builders and highlighted
> in the Rod Builders Magazine. Will be testing it
> out today with my own modification (4th layout)
> and posting some results. This is not a
> scientific test to say the least, yet I wish to
> know how much I am sensing in improvement.
>
> Efficiency would be the primary target,
>
> Aesthetics directly right after.


I developed that system and can tell you that it casts great but isn't practical in actual fishing use. The issue is getting good stress distribution along the entire rod blank when the guide sizes are as indicated.

...........

Many of the new higher cost rods are using the KR concept or a variation of it. I believe the KR system was introduced in 2019 so prior to KR was NGC? KW guides.

The original New Guide Concept was initiated in the mid 1990's.

.........

According to Anglers Resource the New Guide Concept was introduced in 1995, and the KR Concept was introduced in 2011. Both are an improvement over the old traditional Cone of Flight guide layout, which has been around for a very long time and is still being widely used today. Traditions dies slowly.
I’ve mentioned previously that both the Fuji NGC and KR concepts are all about line control and are dependent on reel size and line type/size. They both control the line coils coming from the spinning reel and choke them down so they run smoothly through the running guides. This line control and choking are influenced by the height of the butt and the reduction guides. Once the line is controlled and choked running guide size is not that important. The KR concept was developed as a braid modification of the NGC. Because braid is thinner and limper then mono or fluorocarbon, high frame small ring reduction guides were found to effectively control line coils and that these coils could be choked faster, allowing the choke point to be moved closer to the reel, hence the term rapid choke. The KR concept also allowed for smaller micro running guides to be used. For stiffer and thicker line, larger ringed NGC butt and reduction guides work better for controlling and choking the line coils.
So basically both concepts have their place. In my opinion, when using braid, the KR concept is a real performance enhancer.
I should also mention that although most companies make NGC guides, and several companies are now making KR-like guides, none explain the theory behind them or how to use them. Fuji is the only company to do the required research for explaining how to use their guides. Think of what it would be like if these guides were thrown on the market without any explanation on how to use them.
Finally, the Fuji K series guides are designed to help prevent annoying line wraps and tangles.
Norm

Fuji's new guidelines for their KR concept guides are a little nuts lol. Their recommendations were very sound and reasonable until they added braids up to 50 pounds.

Now I know Fuji's goal is to sell as many guides as possible but 50 pound braid has no business being paired with a single foot KL25H , it's not the height or size of the ring that's wrong . Fuji got those things right, it's the fact that , that particular guide is simply not robust enough and I should know I built an 11 foot surf rod with KR single foots starting with a KL25H but after extensively testing and fishing it I wouldn't even use 30 pound braid with it let alone 50 . If using braids in the 30 pound and up range they should be paired with Fuji's double foot RV KR concept guides not the single foot KR concept guides .

Now Fuji specifically mentions (Micro Rods) which means different things to different people . There are braids in the 50 pound range that feel and act much more like lighter braids but those are very expensive but in general terms I would go with stouter guide frames if planning on spooling up with heavier rated lines. If choosing KR single foot concept guides stick to braids 30 pounds and under and preferably 20 pounds and under for best performance which is what Fuji originally recommended .

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chris Rosell Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > I have now learned about the Oddball Reduction
> > Train developed by some builders and
> highlighted
> > in the Rod Builders Magazine. Will be testing
> it
> > out today with my own modification (4th layout)
> > and posting some results. This is not a
> > scientific test to say the least, yet I wish to
> > know how much I am sensing in improvement.
> >
> > Efficiency would be the primary target,
> >
> > Aesthetics directly right after.
>
>
> I developed that system and can tell you that it
> casts great but isn't practical in actual fishing
> use. The issue is getting good stress distribution
> along the entire rod blank when the guide sizes
> are as indicated.
>
> ...........

Thank you Tom for you insight, I may have forgot to mention that the stress distribution is also what I am looking at. Now I am heading into a 5th layout. Adding the extra KL M guide did result in a better cast.

Casting into the wind today 5-10 mph showed no line wrap, tip wrap, getting the extra distance improved yet I was watching the spinner catch the wind as always limiting the cast. A size 5 French Blade alway will start to act as a "kite". and hamper distance.

I added into TKLTG 8M to the following taking the #3 position and moving the 6l out one position:

TKLTG 20 H
TKLTG 10 H
TKLTG 6 L


Thoughts? other than rod stress distribution?

Chris,

Seems like you are bumping up pretty close to the KRC 4-guide specification:

20H - 10H - 7M - 6L

I have been playing around with this very guide train lately. A starting-point layout I found that is pretty good looks like this:

20H: 19.5 to 19.75 inches from spool face.
10H: 8.75 to 9 1/8 inches from 20H.
7M: 6.25 to 6 5/8 inches from 10H.
6L: 5 to 51/8 inches from 7M
KB belly guide: 4.5 inches from 6L
Additional KB and KT guides progressively spaced to the tip top as needed for good stress distribution.

I offer this merely as a place to START your own tweaking process and preferences. (The KRC Calculator and Norm's posts helped me when I was first into this concept.)

I learned a great deal moving these guides around and watching the effect on the line path and spacing. To test line path and layout, I used Norm's method of mounting the reel and clipping the line on the bottom of the spool. The line runs through the guides and a light weight attached (a small, metal washer in my case) to keep the line taught. I rotated the spool to top and sides at times to check all the angles.

By all means, keep trying out different layouts! (I found that the best ones for me grouped around a certain range of spacings and were not that different from each other.)