Well this is a thread to be bookmarked! Thanks all!

David you are quite welcome, and I sincerely appreciate your thank you. I’ve been building rods for over fifty years and KR spinning rods for the past 10 years or so, almost since the KR concept was first introduced in the US. I spent a lot of time dissecting and experimenting with with the KR concept until I convinced myself as to how well it really worked. Since I almost exclusively use braid, I don’t very often use the high belly/choke guide KR layout. However, I have used it with a number of long salmon/steelhead spin rods, and on rods for people that still use mono and fluorocarbon lines. I found that the high belly/choke guide works great with almost any type of line. I have been a KR concept convert and advocate since the first time I tried it. I’m extremely pleased that my KR concept posts have helped people understand how to layout a KR guide train.
Norm

Well tis a journey for sure. It has been a good one, yet I am still looking for more on the 7th layout on a first time spinning build. Yes I do not wish to over think it but I believe there is still more in distance to get out of this steelhead build.

I got out to the local lake and did some casting from shore with the rod I built using the high belly guide option, and a rod I built using a standard KR concept set up, on which the choke guide is a KB.

The rod using the high choke guide option is built on an MB 724 X ray blank, using a guide train of KL 20H, KL 10H, KL 7M, KL 6L, KB 5.5, followed by 6, KT 5's.

The rod using the standard KR concept set up that I used for comparison is built on an MB 733 X ray blank. Its' guide train consists of, KL 20H, KL 10H, KL 5.5M with the choke guide being a KB 5.5, followed by 7 KT 4.5's.

The reel used for both rods was a Shimano Sahara 3000 FE, spooled with nice new 10# Seaguar Tatsu fluorocarbon line. The bait being used was a 3.5" Spunk Shad on a 1/16th oz Freedom Tackle Ned head jig. Great little jig head BTW. Awesome bait keeper if you aren't using Elaz Tech baits, and it has a great hook. Anyhow ......

I'll be honest and say that I forgot that the MB 733 rod had 4.5 KT's as runners. Had I realized that when pulling the rod out of my boat, I would have used a rod that I built on an RX 10 ETEC72M blank. It's a little more powerful than the MB 733 rod, but the actions are almost identical, and it has KT 5's for runners.

What I'm getting at is that the difference in running guide sizes may have come into play in the comparison of the two rods. The reason I say this is because at the time I was there doing the testing, the weather was a sunny, 42 degrees. Wind according to Accu Weather, ENE at 6 mph. I don't use braided line enough, or at the time of the year, to have discovered for myself whether or not air temperature affects its' pliability. I wouldn't think it would, but maybe it does. I dang sure know that air temperature has an affect on fluorocarbon line's pliability. Even in warmer weather, any time I have watched the line passing through the guides during a cast, there is always a little bit of coil left in the line as it passes through the first couple of running guides. The difference in ring size, although small, between a KT 5, and a KT 4.5, could have an affect on casting performance.

Ok with that out of the way, I didn't keep track of how many casts I made with each rod. If I were to guess I would say between 25 and 30 casts with each rod. I cast both into the wind, and with the wind. I used to shoot archery and bow hunt quite a bit when I was younger, so I'm pretty good at estimating distances.

Average cast into the wind with the high choke guide rod, 70', +/- 2'. Average cast into the wind with the standard KR set up, 55', +/- 2'. No one cast with the standard KR set up came close to going 70' I may have gotten a couple casts that went 60' with the standard KR set up.

Casting with the wind added about 10' to the casting distance of both rods. The high choke guide option rod cast quieter as well. While I would somewhat expect that, I have to think that the increase in noise I noticed with the other standard KR set up could be attributed to a couple things. One .... it could be because the lower KB choke guide increases the angle of the line as it enters the guide, causing an increase in noise, and a loss of casting distance. Or two ......the smaller running guides on the standard KR rod I used was adding noise and therefore friction to the cast resulting in a loss of casting distance.

But ..... with that said, the guides used in the high choke guide option versus those used in the standard KR set up, have larger rings. I watched the line traveling through the guides on several casts with each rod today, and the rod with the high choke guide option did not choke the line as quickly. In fact there were small coils left in the line all the way to the tip top. And while the same was true on the standard KR concept rod, the coils were not nearly as pronounced.

The above has me thinking that with stiffer lines, the angle of the line as it enters the running guides, may play more of a role than actually having the line running as close to perfectly straight as you can, through the running guides.

Bottom line I guess, at least IMO is ..... the high choke guide option is the way to go if you use fluorocarbon line as the main line on spinning gear. And since I do, it's going to be the set up I'll be using from now on. In fact, I came home and dug out my KR set of American Tackle Ti guides and mocked up the reduction train to get spacings that I could jot down to save for my next spinning rod build.

Norman? You turning me on to picking up a 6M to try, ended up being the ticket. The spacing came together quite nicely, so again, thank you for that, and for your help.

OK, everyone, unload on me, but I really don't think all these minor guide changes/high belly/4.5 vs 5/ etc make a hill of beans difference. I just went onto the water and cast a rod I made with Alps Hi IVguides, no high belly, and I was amazed at how far it cast a lure. I expect part of its success is the line. Premium braid. But this reel and line didn't perform as well on another rod.

It is my opinion that yes, smaller running guides are better because they send the line out in a smaller "cylinder" of wind resistance, and if lighter, they contribute to faster recovery speed. The reduction guides, higher being better to best align with the reel, need to be set up in the "bullseye" alignment (not to worry about "progressive spacing" it is about alignment, not progressive). but that is about it.

Many have scoffed at TNF as being a significant measurement of blank performance, but the theory would lead one to believe that the faster the recovery from deflection, the farther the cast. Because the lure has been accelerated to a higher speed. And what directly measures the speed of recovery from deflection? TNF.

It has to be admitted that all of our casting "trials/tests" are subject to bias. Yes, mine too. To do a really repeatable/reliable/accurate casting distance test would take a highly sophisticated testing protocol that had no wind variation, no casting effort variation, no line differences, no reel differences, no rod differences, no lure weight differences, etc.

It is beyond any of us to do this. And in the end, does your rod/reel/line/lure cast far enough/accurately enough, to allow you to enjoy fishing? If the answer is yes, then you are THERE.

Fuji KL - 6L Height: 12.2 mm. Fuji KB 5.5 Height: 7.3 mm. That height difference doesn't result in a more shallow line angle as it enters that guide? And the guide that is 4.9 mm shorter being pushed 4.187" further down the blank isn't going to change the angle of the line as the line enters that guide? Or are those combined factors a doesn't amount to a hill of beans kind of thing?

Granted the difference in ID of a KT 5, and a KT 4.5 is only .5mm, but if you're trying to pass something that has a larger OD than either of their ID's, it's going to pass through the larger ID guide, with less friction. Less friction good. More friction bad.

As far as bias. Certainly I am biased in some of my beliefs as far what goes into building a rod that performs at a high level. I'm pretty biased in my belief about needing to balance the rod and reel combination if that combination's primary purpose is to be used for bottom contact baits. But aren't tests supposed to remove any bias one might have? Objective data, versus subjective data? Pretty sure I've seen people make that point more than a time or two.

As far as TNF being scoffed at. I don't think I've ever seen anyone scoff at the idea that blank recovery speed has an affect on a rod's casting performance. In fact, while I can't buy, without objective testing, that a higher TNF results in the lure accelerating to a higher speed, I can certainly buy that the quicker a blank returns to its' preloaded state, the easier the line will pass through the guides. Especially those little 4.5 size guides some guys use on some of their rods.

Now if you start talking about how TNF (a dynamic measurement) is directly related to how well an object at rest, say a graphite tube, transmits vibrations from one end of that tube to the other, well ........... then you might have some push back.

Anyway .... the way I see it, Fuji introduced the high choke guide option for the KR concept as an adaptation for anglers that are facing specific conditions. Passing leader to main line connection knots, and casting lighter baits, with more stiff lines. They're pretty darned good at what they do, and have been for quite some time. If they do something, they do it for a reason. And I don't believe that reason is simply to sell more naive and gullible rod builders, more guides. But maybe there are those that do.

Actually the reduction guides DO NOT need to be setup so it forms a bullseye alignment , that's just a myth . Take Tom's spinning setup that achieves extra casting distance by having two guide rings the same size one after the other employed in the reduction train . There are endless ways you can setup reduction and running guide trains that don't follow any of Fuji's recommendations that perform superbly . The ways are only limited to ones imagination .

As I've said a million times the line determines everything , light supple braid performs incredibly well even on poorly setup rod builds which is the reason to do final testing with line heavier than you plan on fishing with.

Let me phrase my opinion this way: I have never had a high frame/bullseye/micro setup that disappointed. I agree that the line is VERY important to the system.

Here’s some anecdotes from my recent experience with this KR concept. The 3+1 KR still has the same cone angle (correct term?) as the original 3 reduction guide KR concept, its simply rounding the corner more where the last reduction guide (high frame belly guide) transitions to the running guides with a slightly less aggressive angle (think of it as adding a fillet to that sharp corner). This softer corner doesn’t change the angle of the cone. So with that said, I believe that the KR 3+1 design should be different (sharper cone angle) than a reduction train following the NGC when it comes to cone angle. At least, it does when I layout the two concepts on the same rod blank based on my interpretation of the two concepts.

I have built (3) rods with this spec thus far, and I have fished with all of them over the last 3 months. I’ve noticed no line slap and a very quiet release of the line for the most part. What has me sold is the ease of casting a (properly sized/tied) leader knot through the guides. I keep ~12ft of fluro leader on my rods so the knot is coming through the guides pretty quickly. I also think the added weight of a belly guide vs another runner is negligible, especially a position that low on the rod itself.
Ive tried a few different layouts with similar length rods (all 7ft 2-3in). See below.

**NFC SB724
Butt to Spool axle (at mid position): 13”
Spool axle to 20H : 20 5/16”
20H to 10H: 9 5/16”
10H to 7M: 6 1/8”
7M to 6L: 6 7/5”
Running guides/tiptop: 5 ring size
Build notes: This was the first KR concept rod I built. I continued to target a bullseye configuration in the reduction train, while pushing out the belly guide until the rings were offset as a “final tweak” described in the fuji specification. On this rod, I laid out the first and 3rd guides with the KR concept calculator, and then tweaked them with a few test casts. I wanted to try pushing that first guide out a bit further in case the larger diameter fluro leader desired a longer distance from the spool to get optimum casting distance.
Casting Notes: This rod casts well with 10lb braid, but not with a 15lb fluro leader (FG knot). The running guides don’t like it very much. I could get away with 12lb leader no problem, but I hear the knot. 10lb leader (double uni) casts great and I may move to this eventually. This is a shaky head rod for me, and its great for that, I just don’t like having such light leader when fishing around brush/wood. In the beginning I was just looking for a fluke rod, and this will be great for that when Im fishing a weighted fluke with a big hook (5/0-6/0). I didn’t experience any line slap with 10lb braid and 12lb leader. I did notice that a lighter shaky head (1/8” w/ small shaky head worm) I could over cast it and make the line wrap around the first guide. In my opinion, this is user error, but if I wanted to fix that I could throw heavier braid or rebuild this with a ~19” distance to the 20H guide.

**NFC MB733
Fuji torzite Guides
Butt to Spool axle (at mid position): 13.75”
Spool axle to 20H : 19 3/4”
20H to 10H: 9 5/16”
10H to 7M: 6 3/16”
7M to 6L: 6 3/4”
Running guides/tiptop: 5 ring size
Build notes: This was the second KR concept rod I built and very similar to the first. I continued to target a bullseye configuration in the reduction train, while pushing out the belly guide until the rings were offset as a “final tweak” described in the fuji specification. On this rod, I laid out the first and 3rd guides with the KR concept calculator, and then tweaked them with a few test casts. That’s why the 20H is at 19.75 vs 20” they recommended. I tweaked them all until I was happy with the bullseye.
Casting Notes: I initially tried to use this rod for a light shaky head, but it just didn’t have a fast enough tip for me. For some it might be great, but I find it better for open hook or treble baits of a larger size. I plan to fish with this as a fluke rod once that bite turns on down here. Overall, it casts great with 10lb braided line to a 10lb fluro leader. I can hear the knot passing through the guides (double uni) but its not as bad as some production rods I own. Its also very light ~3.5oz, so that adds a great deal of sensitivity I haven’t found with my store bought rods. I will likely build this rod again using a similar layout but might eliminate the “final tweak” position of the belly guide, and go with 5.5 ring size runners/tip top for less leader knot noise upon casting.

**NFC SB722
Fuji torzite Guides
Butt to Spool axle (at mid position): 13.5”
Spool axle to 16H : 19 1/8”
16H to 8H: 8 7/8”
8H to 6M: 6”
6M to 5.5L: 4 13/16”
Running guides/tiptop: 4.5 ring size
Build Notes: This was my 3rd rod, and I decided to keep the bullseye configuration in the reduction train vs trying to push out that last belly guide to achieve the offset Fuji calls “final tweak”. I positioned the first two guides based upon the KR concept calculator, and then positioned the last two reduction guides via bulls eye positioning. The reduction guides were placed based on a static load test.
Casting Notes: This is the lightest (3.1oz) rod I own, and by far the best casting with 8lb braid/8lb fluro leader. I cannot hear the knot (double uni) come through the guides, and it casts effortlessly with a 3/16oz-3/8oz bait. This rod has a great tip for small treble hard baits, which is what I use it for (spybaits). I will be building this rod again with no changes.

Sorry for the long post, I just wanted to give some of my 2 cents on this since I have 3 rods built with the 3+1 KR concept and put some fishing time in on them. Open to everyone’s feedback on these recipes. This is a great thread and a ton of learnings I wish I knew prior to starting these 3 builds. Oh well, I will just have to build a few more!

Sounds like 3 + 1 KR concept is almost cone of flight using tall reduction guides?

The 3 + 1 is not even close to a cone of flight guide train. It's more of an NGC with smaller ringed reduction guides.

As far as the 3 +1 having the same cone angle as a standard KR set up, I'd have to disagree. In the 3 +1, you're increasing the height of of the second reduction guide, (the 3rd guide in line) as well as the choke guide. You've now pushed the point of where the line comes to the rod blank out an additional distance from the reel spool. The angle of the line from spool to where the line comes down to the blank, has changed. Is that change drastic? No. But it's a change, and when you're dealing with stiffer line, any lessening of the line angle as it enters a guide, is beneficial when it comes to reducing friction.

The above is evident on casting rods where you have the line coming off the spool in an entirely different fashion than on a spinning reel. You can get away with a shorter butt guide, or a closer to the reel face butt guide when using more supple line, than you can when using stiffer, more heavy line. The stiffer line is going to start stacking in front of the butt guide, which can lead to line control problems as it's coming off the spool.

We're talking stiffer lines, or passing leader knots. Brent is dealing in a way, with both stiffer lines with the leader sizes he is talking about, as well as passing leader knots. If you're having a reduction in noise in the guide train, as he and I both described when using the 3 + 1 set up, you're having line or leader knots pass more easily through the guide train. The easier the line passes through the guide train, the better when it comes to casting performance.

As Chris said ..... with spinning gear, the line is the major factor. From what I have experienced in using fluorocarbon line exclusively on spinning gear for at least 15 years, and probably more than 20 ..... is that I see a marked improvement in casting performance with the 3 + 1 set up, over a standard KR set up.

That’s good feedback David, and I may be doing something off the beaten path in regards to the 3+1 layout. My 1st and second guides don’t change between the KR 3 guide train and 3+1. I just keep the bullseye configuration and tweak the belly guide (sometimes) to get the offset ring Fuji says improves performance. As I said above, I’m using the KR calculator as a starting point on the first 2 guides and then I take it from there. With the first 2 guides in place my cone angle is set and drives the location of the other guides.

With that being said, my cone angle is the same between the 2 concepts (right or wrong), but I would be interested in learning why they would be different. I called Anglers resource and spoke to a gentlemen who sort of led me in this direction on the 3+1 setup.

I guess the good news is, it works well for me. As others have stated, that’s what’s so fun about this hobby. We get to take a guideline Fuji created and tweak the end result until we are happy with it. From what I can tell, the real benefit of a quick reduction train is weight savings on the upper end of the rod giving you more sensitivity. We just have to balance that with cast-ability.

Got to LOVE the KR concept; a lot of versatility. Braid, monofilament, fluorocarbon, big reel, small reel, long rod, short rod there’s an option for you that will work.
Norm

Some great info in this thread. I'm generally running fairly long leaders so may give it a try to do a little compare/contrast to the normal 3 guide reduction train. I'm working on a couple right now that have the typical 16-8-5.5 with a 5.5 kb then KT 5's for runners. First time I've had larger KB than remaining runners. Not a significant difference but hopefully will allow my leader knots to round the corner a bit better. Anyhow great thread here. Some things to play around with on some future builds.

Brent, just making sure I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly on my end. When you say 1st and second guides, are you calling the 1st guide, your butt guide? Or when you say 1st guide, are you referring to your first reduction guide? (Second guide in the line)

The way I am reading what you're saying is, that you're following the KR software to a tee? The same three guide sizes the software calls for, and the tweak of the belly guide's position? If what I just laid out is what you mean, then that is what I refer to as a "standard KR set up". The 3 +1 nomenclature being used here, to my knowledge, is just a nickname that Les, this thread's originator. coined. Perhaps not, but I have only seen Fuji call it a high choke guide. The high choke guide being the "+1" in the 3 +1.

As far as the cone angles being the same between the 2 concepts. No, Because the heights of the 2nd reduction guide (3rd guide in line) and the choke guide (a KB in the standard KR set up) change. They're taller in the 3 + 1 versus a standard KR set up, which shallows the angle of the line. When I first started messing with the high choke guide option, I shot for perfect bullseyes on all 4 guides, but I was never able to accomplish that and be comfortable with the guide spacing it required when using the guide sizes I saw recommended be used in a high choke guide, guide train. If that makes sense. lol

I read two different web sites that had two different recommendations for guide sizes. The butt guide and the first reduction guide were the same sizes on both web sites, but each site had different guide sizes for the second reduction guide (3rd guide in line) and the high choke guide. It didn't matter which guide recommendations I followed, I still wasn't able to perfectly bullseye all 4 guides, and be comfortable with the guide spacing. Norman has said time and again that there is versatility in the guide spacing, but being a fluorocarbon line user, I was reluctant to vary much from what the KR software calls for. It wasn't until I let loose of being so rigid in following the software's guide spacing, and the calling for perfect bullseyes, that I was able to get this high choke guide concept to work. At least for me.

As Chris said above .... the guides don't have to perfectly bullseye in order to have a well performing guide train. Because the guide heights of the 3rd reduction train guide, and the choke guide's height change from the standard KR set up, you can't, or at least I couldn't, get all 4 guides to perfectly bullseye, and still be comfortable with the guide spacing. When I'd bullseye all 4 guides, I had IMO, some seriously wide guide spacing, and some seriously close guide spacing. So to get spacing that I'm comfortable with, I get the 3 guides past the butt guide to bullseye perfectly, with their position in the butt guides ring being towards the bottom of the ring. Bottom with the guides upside down. I then do the KR software tweak with the KB, (the 5th guide in line) and place the remainder of the guides, KT's, using the two line static placement method.

And I have definitely learned a lot by delving into this high choke guide option. I don't know which I'm more happy about ......... the fact that I gained some knowledge about spinning rod guide trains, or the better casting performance with the type of line I use.

For posterity below is a link to a folder with three PDFs that I believe have been mentioned/referenced in this thread and others. [www.dropbox.com]

Hey David,

Sorry for the confusion. I’m referring to the butt guide as guide 1 or “first guide”. So in my situation, building a rod with a16H-8H-6M-5.5L reduction train, I’m placing the 16H and 8H the same locations in both the 3+1 and the original KR 3 guide concepts. The two guides give me my cone angle. The taller 6M simply falls closer to the 8H guide because its are taller than the 5.5M used in the original 3 guide design. This is what allows me to maintain bullseye configuration. I agree with you that the cone angle would change if I used the same 3rd guide location between the two concepts, but that’s where I tend to diverge based on your explanation.

When I setup both concepts on a rod blank, the last reduction guide in the original KR concept ended up between the 3rd and 4th reduction guide using the 3+1 setup. That made sense to me looking at the size of the guides and the fact that the cone angles were the same.

I have t had many issues keeping the first 3 guides in the 3+1 in a bullseye configuration. I just followed the Guide size recommendations in the document Kevin just posted in Dropbox named “fuji_kr_concept”. The spacings I noted above worked out pretty well so give them a try if you’re still wondering about having all 4 bullseye (see my SB722 build above).

Brent, okay, gotcha. Sorry for the confusion on my part. People have different names for some things, and I just wanted to be sure. It's like counting from 0 to 100. Is zero the first number, or is 1 the first number. For me, zero is the butt guide, and the next guide in line is the first reduction train guide. I know that can be confusing, which is why when I mention a specific reduction guide number, I put in parenthesis .....2nd guide in the line, or 3rd guide in the line, etc.....

Because I use fluorocarbon line I input 10 - 14 pound mono as my line size and type into the KR software, and 3000 series reel, which gives me the 20H reduction train guide group. 20H, 10H, 5.5M, and a KB as the choke guide. There is a line angle change from that set up, to the high choke guide set up.

The first thing I saw giving guide sizes for the high choke guide option was from Angler's Resource. It showed a guide train of 20H, 10H, 6L, 5.5L, with the 5.5L being the high reduction guide. In my earlier post when I mentioned trying to bullseye all 4 guides and having super wide spacing, and super close spacing in the same train of guides, it was that combination of guides. Then I saw the PDF that you mention in your most recent post, and in there it shows the same 20H, 10H, but with a 7M and 6L. When I went with that combination of guides, I was able to get spacing that I was more comfortable with.

One thing I wanted to try to do with my spacing, is to keep the choke guide as close to the position that the KR software called for in a standard KR set up. The choke guide position in the KR set up is close to what the choke guide position is in an NGC guide train as far as its' distance from the tip of the rod. To be honest I can't really remember the calculation. I think it's rod length x .45 gives you the distance from rod tip, to choke guide in the NGC, and I think I remember Norman saying that the KR concept uses .42 as the multiplier. I may have that reversed. And I may also be wrong about rod length being part of the equation. Hopefully Norman is keeping up with this thread and he can correct me, or anyone else that has the knowledge can correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyhow ..... if I wanted all 4 guides to bullseye, I ended up with a longer total reduction train length. I can't remember exactly how much it was, but I believe it was in the neighborhood of 2.5" The guide spacing with the 7L and 6M, because like you mentioned their being taller, brought the guide spacing in closer, effectively shortening the total reduction train length. Because I am using stiffer line, I didn't want to shorten it, so I moved the 10H out a bit and just bullseyed the remaining 2 guides with it. When I say the 10H doesn't perfectly bullseye in the 20H, it isn't off by much, but it is off.

A question for you in your reference to the last reduction guide in the original KR concept. Are you referring to the last guide being the choke guide, which would be a KB in the original KR concept, or are you referring to the 5.5M, the third guide in the line in the original KR concept? The reason I ask .... in the original KR concept, the choke guide (the KB) is included in the total reduction train length. I'm just trying to see if you pushed your high choke guide (5.5L) further down the rod?

I like this kind of conversation as it gives me more ways to look at things. I just wish some of you guys were fluorocarbon line on spinning gear guys. I wouldn't feel as alone LOL

Great additions to this thread! This is going to help with the 3+1 learning curve.

In my mind, several things can be true at the same time regarding the 3+1 specification:
* It is an excellent system for a wide variety of spinning rods of various lengths and powers, not all of them in every circumstance.
* The 3+1 specification shares commonalities with the 3-guide specification, the NGC, and even Cone of Flight - and is also quite unique.
* While dialed in to some specific parameters, there is a good deal of flexibility in setting it up successfully.
* This layout may not cast as far as other layouts (such as the Odd Ball), however, it balances many important elements of overall rod performance like guide weight and load distribution.
* Modern braided lines have made many things easier for laying out a great guide train, so true! And some like to use straight fluoro or mono anyway. The 3+1 covers them all - including the 'hybrid' of braid to leader.

Brent -

Thank you for sharing your experiences and detailed notes on your three builds. This is the kind of nitty gritty detail that is great to have archived with this thread.

To me, you highlighted that the very purpose of the High Profile Belly Guide (HPBG) in the 3+1 is to help "turn the corner" from the first three guides to the running guides (tip group). Fuji built "the corner" into the HPBG itself. Rather brilliant in my mind. Do you see this the same way?

Your method of placing the first two guides where the GPS says to do so, and then using those first two guides to set up a bullseye (angle) with the next two guides is a little different than the way I laid out my 16H group. Seems like using the first two guides to set up a bullseye with the rest of the guides worked well for you. Good to know! There is that flexibility again. Since these guide groups are made to work together, it makes sense that they almost line themselves up with a bit of tweaking.

On your third build (16H group), I saw progressive spacing between your guides. You mentioned that you did not push out the Belly guide to "turn the corner" like on the other two builds. You also mentioned this was your best casting set-up. What makes this layout your best do you think?

When I first looked at the 3+1, I misunderstood it as a Four reduction guide group instead of as a Three reduction guide group Plus a high frame Belly guide. Once I made this mental shift, it made more sense to me in both concept and placement. Did this throw you at first, too? Curious.

My own experiences with leaders of various sizes is the same as yours: There is a sweet spot of what seems optimal. You also noticed how quietly leader knots move through the guides - minimal to no knot chatter. Quiet was loudest with my very first cast, to be honest. Because it was so quiet, I knew the line was flowing efficiently down range.

Finally, I find it interesting that according to Fuji, the size of the running guides also play a big part in the line size recommended for both K-R specs....not just the butt guide. I went with 4.5's on my 16H rod because I wasn't planning on going too big with the line test, #10 at most for the SJ 703. I know I could get away with #12 if I really wanted to, but I would probably go up to 5mm runners if I was going to fish #12 straight....as well as the 20H group.

There are a lot of physics involved in casting and fishing a rod, eh?!

Kevin -

The PDF's are much appreciated as a resource for now and the future! (As our CCS archivist, I thank you twice!!)

The Anglers Resource’s KR GPS calculates the KR reduction train length (I.e. - the distance from the butt guide to the choke/belly guide) to be approximately 0.42 X the distance of the butt guide to the tip top. Fuji uses approximately 0.45 as the multiplier to calculate the KR reduction train length. I use the term approximately since the final reduction train length can and will be adjusted. In fact, one of the Fuji publications suggests to initially place the choke/belly guide about half way between the butt guide and the tip top and to adjust the spacing from there. Similar but different. In all cases, the longer the rod the longer the reduction train. In addition, Fuji also suggests pushing the butt guide further out from the reel with longer rods. The KR GPS does not do this. The bottom line is that both Fuji and Anglers Resource are giving suggestions for a starting point, with the final layout being customized by the builder, which will be dependent on the blank, line, and reel parameters, coupled with size and number of guides one needs or wants to use. Versatility comes from the selection of one of the different reduction train guide groups available, which may include a regular or high choke/belly guide. It is clear from all of this that the butt and choke/belly guides can be moved in or out to get the spacing you want, without using an excessive number of running guides. As I’ve mentioned many time before, there is a lot of flexibility in setting up a well performing guide train. Don’t get in the mind set that the suggested butt guide and choke/belly guide positions are locked in stone, they are merely suggestions. The fact is, they are movable giving you the flexibility to set up the guide train you want. In general, initially set your butt guide and choke/belly guide positions. Then place your other two reduction/choking guides between them to get your progressively spaced bullseye. The running guides are placed between choke/belly guide and the tip top and fine tuned via the static test. Both the butt and choke/belly guide can be moved in or out to get the spacing you like. Don’t over think this, once you realize the built in flexibility, it’s not that difficult to get a well performing KR layout. Just my observations and thoughts on this.
Norm