A question for the CRB/mudhole, batson/ALPS, and Fuji experts out there concerning guides for spinning rods.

The ALPS guide sets, the CRB elite guide sets and the Fuji guide sets (and anglers resource) are all supposed to choose the most appropriate guides so that I, the newbie rod builder, does not have to think about it. Yet, I have noticed the sets have different guide sizes.

I am certain that there is a good reason for each of the choices for these sets. I would like to know the rationale. If CRB and Alps choose different sets than what Fuji/anglersresource.net recommend why?

The differences are due to quite a few things, but primarily because the different manufacturers have different ideas or concepts on what is an ideal guide train. The company you didn’t mention is SeaGuide, who is very similar in height to the Fuji KR based one’s. I use the same layout process for both and it’s the one I most prefer. SeaGuide has titanium/silicon nitride options, that are very comparable in strength and rigidity, while being priced better. Other companies are still using “cone of flight” or other paradigms.

The Seaguide sets that I have seen basically follow the Fuji KR recommendations. For those of you who have built many a spinning rod (and do not use kits), do most of you follow the Fuji KR concept recommendations for spinning rods? Do you ever do anything different? If so, when/why?

Spinning rods are more dependent on reel size, line size, and line type, than a casting rod is. That's why you see so many different recommendations for guides for spinning rods, than you do casting rods. Also, as Kendall pointed out, there are different types of guide trains for spinning rods than there are casting rods. Reel size, more specifically, the diameter of the spool as well as line size and type, are major factors in spinning rod guide trains. I'm certainly not an expert, but this is my understanding of spinning rod guide trains ...

COF, cone of flight guide trains are based on a straight line from the reel to the rod tip, and will have different sized guides along the entire length of the rod.

NGC, new guide concept guide trains are different because they bring the line down to the blank before it reaches the rod tip, and use the same size running guides from the line's choke point, to the tip of the rod.

The KR concept, is basically a rapid choke version of the NGC. The KR concept uses taller guides with smaller ceramic rings to bring the line under control more quickly. The choke point, the point that the line is brought down to the blank is virtually the same in the KR concept, as it is in the NGC.

As far as which I think it better. The KR concept works better with more supple lines, versus more stiff lines. I pretty much use just straight fluorocarbon line as the main line on my spinning rods, and I feel the KR concept has advantages over the NGC which is more suited for heavier stiffer lines, than the KR concept. While casting performance suffers a bit in the KR concept because of the smaller ceramic ring sizes, line slap versus an NGC guide train is virtually non existent. So in my estimation, the lack of line slap with the KR is a wash with the loss of casting performance due to smaller ring sizes. Also, I prefer a KR concept guide train because KR concept reduction trains are lighter than an NGC reduction train. So I can some rod performance there.

I use the KR concept simply because setting one up is extremely easy. And that is because of the KR software available on Angler's Resource page linked in the left hand column of this forum. Without it I might still be fishing with factory spinning rods. lol But seriously, the articles in the library of this site explain the different type of guide trains very well. The great thing about the KR concept software, is that it tells you what size the reduction part of the guide train should be, and gives you their spacing. And it works so well, that one could go strictly by those numbers, and have an awesome performing rod. All you have to do is put the proper numbers into the software.

After using the KR system with either Fuji or SeaGuide products, the old COF system look and feel moose’ish.

Kendall, you mentioned the Seaguide titanium guides. I agree that they are competitively priced and lighter than steel. With the Fuji KR system using so many of the small micro guides, is there any meaningful weight difference? I fish freshwater in the midwest and don't need the extra corrosion protection. The Fuji, CRB and alps all seem like great guides (I am sure the standard Seaguide guides are also I just don't have any right now).

With the current sales I could buy a C6O2 blank for the same cost as titanium ....

For all of you with experience, if you were building freshwater rods for yourselves (not customers), would you spend the money to choose another blank to try it out or would you get the titanium guides?

Once you get the C602 you wont want to despoil it with anything but the best guide you can afford! They are truly an awesome blank.

Eric, it depends on what I was building the rod for, as that would have a bearing on the blank I would choose. If I were building a rod for moving baits, I wouldn't necessarily be looking for a blank based on its' reported sensitivity. Rod and reel combination balance doesn't really come into play when fishing moving baits, either. I wouldn't totally disregard overall rod weight, but it wouldn't be something high on my list. Therefore, I would for go using expensive guides, and use the extra money most likely for a new reel, or perhaps a better reel than I had originally planned on using on the new rod.

If I'm looking to build a rod for bottom contact baits, then I'm going to buy the best blank I can afford, and put the best guides I can afford, on it So that means titanium framed guides. Especially if I'm building a spinning rod. Spinning rod guide trains weigh substantially more than casting rod guide trains. At least in the size guides I use, they do.

As an example of the difference in weight between a spinning rod guide train using Fuji SS framed guides, with Alconite rings, and the exact same guide train but in titanium frames with SIC rings. A KR concept guide train with SS frames and Alconite rings for a spinning rod using the following guides: KL-H 20, KL-H 10. KL 5.5M, KB 5.5, and (7) KT 5, with an LG tip top 5 tube and #5 ring, weighs 7.025 grams. The same guide train, except for a KG tip top instead of an LG, with titanium frames and SIC rings, weighs 4.226 grams. A difference of 2.799 grams.

Just the three reduction guides with SS frames and Alconite rings, weighs 1.423 grams more than the entire guide train plus tip top, with titanium frames and SIC rings. Now I know that 2.799 grams is not a lot of weight. But guide train weight is leveraged weight. The weight difference between the running guides for each set is minimal. Less than .1 gram per guide. Those guides are further from the reel seat and their weight is more leveraged. I'm not smart enough to figure out what the leveraged weight would end up equaling, and it's probably a pretty insignificant amount,

Checking some numbers I have. there is a 2.195 gram difference in the weight of the reduction guides for the two guide trains, and there is a 2.799 gram difference in the weight of the entire guide trains .... so that means that the weight difference of just the running guides and tip top between the two guide trains, is .604 grams. Like I said .... a pretty insignificant amount. Anyhow ............for one, the difference in weight is going to show up in rod and reel balance. And two, the weight is going to show up in blank recovery speed. From a rod recovery speed standpoint, I highly highly doubt I could tell a difference in how the rod fishes. The rod with the lighter guides might feel a touch more sensitive, but I honestly doubt it. Where I can definitely tell the difference is in rod and reel balance. The rods with lighter guides have lighter tips, and feel better in that respect, when fishing them. I am a firm believer in a lighter tip weight on rods used for bottom contact baits, makes it easier to detect bites.

I don't have the weights for a casting guide set in SS with Alconite rings, so I can't say how much heavier they are than titanium framed guides of the same size. What I can share, is the difference in weight of the same exact guide sets, for a casting rod. Both with titanium frames, but one with SIC rings, and the other with Torzite rings. Guide sizes are as follows: KW 10, KW 5.5, (3) KB 5s, and (7) KT 5's both with KG tip tops 4.5 tube, and #5 ring. The set with SIC rings weighs 1.937 grams. The set with Torzite rings weighs 1.640 grams. For a difference of .297 grams. I can't tell a bit of difference in any kind of rod performance, between the two guide trains. But I can feel the difference in my wallet. LOL

While I am certain the difference in weight between SIC and Torzite rings in a spinning rod guide train would be larger. I honestly doubt that I or anyone else could tell a difference in rod performance between the two. I've got two more MB 725 C6O2 blanks to build on, and I have Torzite ring guide sets for both of those rods, but that is ONLY because NFC had the Torzite guides on sale at 40% off. Otherwise I would have used Fuji T2's .... black titanium frames, with SIC rings.

Okay ..... after that I'm out of breath LOL Anyhow ...... RX10, X ray, and especially C6O2 X ray, are all getting titanium frame guides. Just because the blanks are that good. And somewhat joking when I say, it may actually be morally wrong to put anything but titanium framed guides on any C6O2 blank. LOL



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2024 06:34PM by David Baylor.

So perhaps a better question would be: which level of blanks need titanium guides"?
NFC Xray, Rainshadow eternity and NFC xray C6O2: people with experience building rods so far favor titanium, check
What other blanks do people think should also only be paired with titanium guides: Rainshadow RX8 immortal?, rod geeks C4/C5?, MHX elite?, Point blank? Rod Forge? Bushido? Stryker? Others? There are so many.....

Thank you for your excellent responses. In fact, it made me think of another question which I also posted: The question of measurable benefit from weight reduction in guides

Eric ...... no blank "needs" titanium guides. I choose to put them on the higher tiered blanks, because they offer a bit better performance. From a sensitivity standpoint, I'm not sure I'd be able to tell the difference between titanium and SS guides. From a casting performance standpoint, I'm almost certain I wouldn't be able to tell a difference between the two.

As I said earlier, the only difference I am certain that I can feel, is in rod and reel balance. And I am only certain about that, on spinning rods.

I just weighed a set of guides I took off one of my rods that broke a few years ago. They are SS Fuji LN double foot, and L single foot guides, with Alconite rings. and I think in it's an FCAT tip top. Guide sizes are, LN 10, LN 8, LN 6, (8) L 4.5s, and the tip top. which is a 5.5 tube with a 4.5 ring.

Those guides weigh 2.502 grams. So about .6 of a gram more than the SIC casting guides I mentioned above, and about 1 gram more than the Torzite guides I mentioned above. If can't tell a difference between the SIC and Torzite guides, even in rod and reel balance, then I'm not going to feel a difference between them and the SS guides I just weighed.

So why do I put titanium guides on my X ray and C6O2 casting rods? Because if I am building on a top tier blank, I want top tier components on them. Even if I can't tell a difference in how they fish. And even if I couldn't tell a difference with spinning rods, I would use them for the same reason.

Anyhow ......

Hi Eric,
Yes, I believe there is a meaningful difference in how a rod feels and performs with lighter titanium guides verses SS framed ones. Additive to this is that both SeaGuide and Fuji Torzite guides come with thinner silicon nitride rings. To quantitatively access the felt weight difference one would multiply the weight of each guide by the distance it is from the fulcrum point of the middle of the angler’s had, and then summarize these values for each different setup. Small differences 5.5 feet out start to become meaningful.

I mostly use titanium when I build for myself. I’m only building freshwater rods for myself on Rod Geeks C5, Rainshadow Eternity, NFC C6O2, and rarely a Point Blank. Occasionally, I go for a technique rod that isn’t going to get a lot of use and doesn’t need to be premium in performance/light in weight. It might be a Rainshadow Immortal or a Rod Geeks C3 to C4 and get Fuji Alconite. The list you have for what blanks match with titanium frame jives pretty closely with what I do. I think blank and components should fall within the same relative price/performance strata’s. I can’t see buying a C5 blank and then putting steel guides on it. Conversely, I can’t see putting titanium guides on a graphite two or three blank.

The smaller the guides the least difference in weight for each, get into the micro guides and you would be hard pressed to feel the difference as we have had to use groups of twenty guides of each to get a repeatable, reliable weight difference on scales designed to measure such things. As far as I am concerned CRB guides are not in the same league as Fuji and Alps, not even close. Not saying CRB isn't serviceable, just not the same quality.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2024 12:54AM by Spencer Phipps.

Circumference equals 2 X pi X radius (C=2?r), and larger diameter guides tend to have thicker rings. Thus, a 6mm guide contains quite a bit more material than one that’s 4.5mm. This becomes multiplied by the distance from the anglers hand to the guide as the rod becomes a lever arm. It used to be normal to use 8mm running guides on even medium-light casting rods. I’ve got some higher end G Loomis and Lamiglas rods from the ‘90’s factory built this way. A 5.0 will pass any appropriate freshwater knot or bobber stop short of the big musky, catfish, or sturgeon stuff (and often then with good choices). A 4.0 will still handle a wide range of braid to fluorocarbon knots for common bass/trout/salmon/steelhead uses. Smaller guides often require less thread and epoxy. Prep them well so you can climb up on them in a couple or so turns. It’s odd how often you see up to a half inch of thread in front of guides on what could have been a more functional build. I underwrapped a UC79Mega blank and was surprised how much different it felt, before guide installation, than the raw version. If it’s in front of the reel seat, I especially want it light.

Being the rebel that I am, I am going to build my rods differently. I have concluded hat there is no convincing evidence that I have heard or read that would give any benefit to titanium microguides outside of bragging rights in freshwater fishing. Since I mainly fish spinning reels, I can see how the a titanium (with a lighter ceramic ring) may give a benefit for fatigue, but not sensitivity and only if you are chugging lures all day. The benefit of these high end ceramics has nothing to do with hardness but it does allow smaller rings so the real benefit is weight.All the extra thread for designs and winding checks are all for show and will nullify the benenefits of trying to minimize weight. For a split grip the smallest butt the better. I can't find a reason for thick epoxy coats, you just need enough to cover what is needed. The only truly important component to upgrade is the tip top but not because it is sturdier. The tip top is important to get the lightest weight which I think is the only meaningful component to affect sensitivity. Everything else is just for show. I will put bling and personalization on the cheap blanks when I an not paying extra money for performance.

Thus, on a high quality blank, I will consider a titanium stripper and maybe also a titanium second guide, but definitely a titanium torzite or Sic tip top. All the other microguides will be standard and just picked to look like they match whatever stripper I use. I doubt any of the seasoned anglers could tell the difference using it compared to one using an entire set of titanium guides (outside of visual inspection). I will save $50 or more per blank and use the savings to try out new blanks. I work for a non profit in rural America, I don't care about prestige or showing off my artwork for my personal stuff. I am more practical by nature.

Now I just have to figure out which reel seat is the most comfortable for me personally and I'm set.

So, for titanium spinning guides, Kendall likes Seaguide. Everybody trusts Fuji. Any body have any thought on any other brand for a titanium stripper guide? I believe I see ALPS and American tackle titanium guides out there also. They are trusted brands and from previous posts, I am told the guides will likely outlive me.

Happy Thanksgiving everybody!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2024 05:37PM by Eric Hernandez.

Remember Eric, that there are other important parameters to a spinning guide other than weight and durability. The Fuji and SeaGuide ones are very snag and tangle resistant while fitting a state of the art system for casting and sensitivity performance. I’m going to error towards spending the extra Torzite money on the most select few spinning rods that I am either going to predominantly use or use in remote areas. It’s not that I mistrust either product, it’s just a little extra peace of mind that the industry standard instills when spending money on a combination of airline, ferry, and float plane fares. I’ve had great luck with SeaGuide in just this scenario on multiple trips, though. If the extremely unlikely event happens that either brand fails an hour from my house, I won’t really care. The furthest out running guides on a rod are most of the way to the tip. The physics are nearly the same for felt weight.

Eric, the tip weight of a rod is the sum of all of the parts of the rod. They all play a role. Building the lightest possible rod, does not guarantee a rod with a light tip weight And it's not just the weight ahead of the reel seat that plays a role in tip weight. It's the weight of the grips as well. Grip weight can and does act as a counter balance to the weight ahead of the reel seat.

You say you can see how titanium guides can be a benefit as far as fatigue, but not sensitivity, and only if you're chugging lures all day. By saying "chugging lures all day" I take it to mean that you're referring to casting and retrieving lures like a spinnerbait, chatterbait, crankbait, etc ..... ? Tip weight, other than affecting rod recovery speed, and thereby casting performance, has little to nothing to do with fishing cast and retrieve lures. You're reeling in a bait which puts weight on the rod tip. Weight values that change constantly during the retrieve.

Tip weight comes into play when you're fishing baits on a semi slack line. Where you're holding the rod more vertically, and trying to feel a bite, or sense what is going on with your bait.

No doubts tip weight plays into the fatigue factor of a long days fishing, But it also plays into bite detection. There are a myriad of factors that go into detecting a bite, And the tip weight of a rod is definitely one of them.

And since you're mentioning that you're leaning towards using just a titanium stripper and tip top, with the rest being non titanium frame guides on your spinning rods. There is no doubt in my mind that I would be able to feel the difference between the type of guide train you're proposing, and one composed of entirely titanium frame guides.

Yes I said I use titanium guides as a bragging factor. But I also said that I use them on spinning rods because I can feel a difference. A difference in the tip weight of the rod. And the tip weight of a rod definitely plays into the sensitivity of that rod

Eric, I see that the SeaGuide Titanium single-foots are 40% off on their Black Friday sale. You can give a full titanium train a try at an awesome price point.

David and Kendall (and all who have contributed to the above thread) thank you for all the great advice.

David,
Yes, I agree the tip weight is only one of several factors determining sensitivity, but since I was talking about guides at the time, I was only focusing on guides. I don't even want to look at my other thread it's like 3 pages long at this point... Sometimes I think that people don't seem to understand that energy can change forms from one medium to the next and both a lever effect and vibration component to a rod's sensitivity can coexist...I swear I said both played a role in my original post. Sadly, I hope only you and Kendall are the ones looking at this thread at this point ... I digress.

I agree with you, I think of sensitivity as when you can tell something is happening on a semi-slack line and you don't see the tip of the rod move at all. I do not think of a sensitive blank as one where I can see the oscillations of the tip of the rod (where one can see the spring like action of the tip moving back and forth) as the force applied to it changes due to a cadence of resistance as the friction of water applies varying amounts of resistance based on the exposed profile of the lure which is moving through the water based on the lures shape and where the motile force is being applied (and for a velocity that is constant the difference is the amount of force necessary to maintain speed thus the movement observed in the rod). Heck, I can see that with my cheap old, insensitive fiberglass rods.

I used the term chugging specifically to emphasize the physical exertion of casting. But you are correct, I meant casting repetitively and holding the rod off the ground which requires some level of physical exertion. One day I will get to feel the difference 2gm makes. I was doubtful initially but some people online said it helped their elbow tendonitis if they are on the water all day so it seems to make a difference if nothing else than decrease their pain, and I can appreciate that.

I apologize if I the way I explained my rationale was misleading. I do believe that titanium (or at least lighter weight) does change sensitivity, just certain guides and the tip top are far more influential than others. Would changing the titanium microguides to the SS version instead of the titanium for a total savings of 0.3gm (I used the Seaguide numbers -- 0.051gm/titanium guide x 6 TiXOG guides = 0.306 gm vs 0.10 x 6 = 0.6 -- published Seaguide weights from an earlier post) really change anything if the true hole diameter was the same (yes, I know different ring ceramics will have different thickness, and I am assuming same size of ring hole for line flow)? If the entire build were crazy light at just 1 total ounce (28.3495gm), that would be a difference in weight of 1 percent, with most builds realistically being significantly heavier. Granted, this may be most important in the post vertex weight percentage which I will get to in a moment.

I did not mean any personal attack on bragging rights. I am just not a "brand name" person. I was making a more general comment on a feeling in society that just because one thing is expensive, everything else has to be just because otherwise somehow it is in some way a waste or disservice. And that if other people have done it that way it must always continue to be done that way.

Kendall,
Yes, I agree, the quality of the microguide is important so I will not have to deal with guide failure as well as other qualities such as anti-snag. I would never want a guide to fail especially with a fish on the line or on a trip. It is the concept that if one guide is titanium all of them have to be a titanium guide (or even that they have to be from the same manufacturer) in a non-saltwater environment, I am just not yet convinced. I truly appreciate all the advice in both your and David's last posts, In fact, I purchased a set of Titanium guides as a result which I plan to eventually put on a high-end blank (Thanks for the heads up). However, by nature I am a skeptic and like to test ideas. I will test it against a rod with the first 2 stripper guides and any micro guides past the vertex and tip top as titanium (of course the blank will have to be the same to be a fair comparison which will be expensive, so it will almost certainly be a while).

Now, your comment on guides greater than 5.5 feet away being most influential made me start thinking and I now believe that any weight past the vertex of the parabolic bend of the rod ("action") has a far greater effect on sensitivity than weight more proximal to the reel seat. Where did you come up with the 5.5 foot number by the way?

The rationale for my hypothesis that weight for any hardware mounted past the vertex of the parabolic shape of the rod based on the "action" of the rod has a greater effect on sensitivity is as follows:
The lever is a direct multiplier based on distance and thus half the weight at twice the distance should have an equal effect IF that were the only factor. The weight of the microguides is far less than a 10th of the stripper but the strippers are not 10x the distance from the fulcrum and yet they seem to have more of an effect than that. I think that the weight after the vertex of the parabola ("action") of the tip is probably more the issue. For any force/energy applied to the rod through the line, the energy will cause a movement that will be influenced by the mass of what is being moved (mass of the blank/hardware being moved), the stretchiness of the line (the more the line stretches, the more energy it uses up and less that is transferred to the tip which is why line choice is also so important) and the physical properties of the blank (diameter and material). The magnitude/amplitude of the movement is less when the amount of mass is higher for any set amount of energy/force i.e. move twice the mass half as far. The mass being moved is really not the whole blank for subtle nibbles. In fact, sometimes it may actually be a tiny bit less force if the fish lets the bait/lure sit in its mouth or when the bait/lure hits bottom. For these tiny bites the rod is not moving like a lever, certainly not at the fulcrum where our hand is. But there is a tiny displacement of the tip mainly past the bend point/fulcrum of the parabola (action). I think of the very end of the rod as having a spring like function. Any force applied will translate into an opposite force until it equalizes. The "stronger" the spring, the less the movement. the more the mass, the less the movement for any given force/energy applied. More force applies movement in one direction, less force in the other (thus, sensing when the lure reaches bottom). That tiny displacement/movement reverberates down the blank with a frequency and amplitude based on the physical properties of the blank (diameter, mass, composition which determines its physical resonance properties) until it gets to the sensory receptors in our hands. If the amplitude and frequency of this signal is strong enough and in a range that the tactile receptors in our hands are designed to pick up, then we feel it. Although I think of this as tiny vibrations since this activity has an oscillation with amplitude and frequency (even if short lived), apparently vibration is a bad word in the rod building world. With experience our brains learn to tell the difference in sensory patterns between a strike, weed, lakebed, etc. Long story shot (too late), I think that gram for gram the weight past the vertex of the parabola making up the bend curve is more important than the more proximal stuff.

Anyway, to me part of the enjoyment in rod building is to try stuff that I can't buy already pre-built (and, ideally, pay less for it). Can I do it cheaper and as good if not better? What is meaningful vs what isn't? Innovation does not happen without questioning and asking can it be done better? One day I will get to the point when my skills are such that I will be building on better blanks and I can test the above hypothesis. Until that day it is all just conjecture and building my set of skills.... It is who and what I am.

I hope everybody had a Happy Thanksgiving!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2024 10:27AM by Eric Hernandez.

Eric, first let me sincerely apologize for turning your other thread that you referenced, into what it became. Which was a personal back and forth between Tom and I. In your opening post of that thread you mentioned feeling vibrations with your rod, and in the post immediately following your opening post, Tom said what you feel when you retrieve a lure, isn't vibrations.

Tom and I, and others have discussed whether what we are feeling with our rods are vibrations or not, in a number of earlier threads. They always had the same outcome. Honestly, I would have left it alone, had it not been for the his comment about opening your tackle box and watching your lures until they start vibrating. The absurdity of that comment triggered me. And off I went. I alone was responsible for that thread being side tracked, and again, I offer my sincere apology.

As far my comments in this thread, and particularly my prior post to this thread, I mentioned that there are a myriad of factors that go into fishing rod sensitivity. I did that because there have been many times in other threads where there are those that seem to look at factors of rod sensitivity less broadly than I do. I don't fault them for that, and it wouldn't matter if I did. I've been just as guilty of not seeing the forest because of the trees, as any other person.

And no need to apologize if I misinterpreted part of your posts. That's on me. And definitely no need for you to apologize for, or explain the whole bragging rights thing. I didn't take it in a negative fashion at all.

As far as ways to figure out how different weight guides affect at least the tip weight of a rod. I'm a big proponent of having a rod and reel combination that is tip light, when I am fishing bottom contact baits, because I believe that a light tip helps in bite detection. Because of that, if need be, I counter balance my rod and reel combinations I use for bottom contact baits, by adding weight to the butt of a rod. It's a topic of some contention on this site, so a while back I posted the results of an experiment I did, meant to show how weight behind the reel seat, affects the physical tip weight of a rod and reel combination. Below is a link to that outlines the procedure I used for the experiment, as well as my results, I would think setting up a similar experiment, and just changing the guides, might show similar results.

[www.rodbuilding.org]

I edited my post because in reading through the experiment I did, I see that my math was off when speaking of the differences in tip weights between the different set ups. It's pretty obvious, but if needed, I can point out the mistake I made.

If you have a sensitive enough scale, I'd imagine that you'd even be able to see how much leverage adds to the weight of each individual guide. No doubts it would take quite a bit of time to perform such an experiment. But it might be something to undertake when you're bored? lol

Oh, and using guides of different materials in different positions on the rod, as you're contemplating doing, has been discussed on this forum in the past. The consideration was based on a spinning rod build, so it fits right in with this discussion. The general consensus of thought from those that were a proponent of the idea, was that because of their position on the rod, they would use SS frame reduction guides, and titanium frame running guides and tip top. Totally logical thinking because of leverage factor involved with the weight of guides closer to the tip.

Personally, I questioned that thought process because of the far greater weight difference between SS frame reduction train guides, and titanium frame reduction train guides. As I mentioned in an earlier post to this thread. the SS frame stripper guide I weighed, weighed almost as much as the entire titanium frame reduction guide train. One guide, versus three. Doing the types of calculations you proposed at the outset of this thread, would definitely shed a light on the concept.

And finally, right? lol As you mentioned near the end of your response to Kendall. Guide weight in the tip area of the rod has a lot to do with the crispness of what we feel with our rods. When I first started building, crispness wasn't something I considered, or even thought mattered a whole lot. It wasn't until I actually built my first rod with titanium guides, that I realized it made a difference. Prior to that I thought it was ridiculous to spend $140, just on guides. Heck, you can build a dang nice rod for right around that amount. But now, if it's a rod I will be using for bottom contact baits, I find it difficult not to use titanium guides.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2024 07:42AM by David Baylor.

Oh, it set me off also. Not so much the comments of inanimate lures not vibrating, that was just a bad and inaccurate comparison that you nicely countered by the way. It was the joke about the truck which set me off. Like when a person makes fun of somebody who does not understand something. That triggered my emotional response. Suddenly rod building and fishing were no longer the relaxing pastime for stress relief, but rather a source of contention and conflict. Not sure which of us started writing our rebuttal first, but I read yours after I posted mine. Thank you for the defense.

Without yet looking at your post on counter balance, it makes inherent sense from a lever/seesaw rationale (I just imagine a weight scale with sliding counterbalance). However, it would not compensate for the spring like impact from the bending of the tip alone. Even so, by using several counterweight measurements, you could actually get a sense of the impact of the bending of the tip since the bending of the tip would account for any discrepancy. But what would be the measurement and an objective way to quantify it? An angler trying it out will have subjective bias.... Of course, does it matter since the feeling of enjoyment is entirely subjective and biased anyway?

Thanks again for all the insight and advice!

I'll have to look at your post. My reading list is getting longer and longer....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2024 10:21AM by Eric Hernandez.