Is there a noticeable difference between hardaloy and silicon carbide as far as casting distance?

I believe there is. Harloy is rough in my opinion and can cost you a few feet. I know that I won't use them on saltwater rods. Too abrasive. The new Alconites are much better but SIC is still king!

Not in my opinion.

I think so on a fly rod. Both the weight and the roughness of the guides enter into the distance problem.

Get a glass and check the guides at 10x.

For practical fishing, it makes little difference, as most people won't fish enough (cast) over 10 years to make a difference.

Moreover, many people still prefer snakes and if anything will wear rough, they will.

Hardloy is improvement, Alconite is better. Whatever gets the line there ... I now use Alconites for TTs, however.

Might want to look at guide set at butt end for distance improvement...

R

It is storming here and I can not fish and I am out of components so board here I come!

I love the words "I think" and "I believe" when responding to a technical question. Seems like to me that the designers of fishing guides and the internal rings would have an idea of the roughness, hardness and the coefficient of liner friction for different rings and lines under normal casting loads.

I wonder from time to time even if the descriptive phrases and words like Hardaloy and silicon carbide have any cross over consistancy from one manufacturer to the next. At this point in time I honestly believe that components are just like blanks - no common standards. Most large market businesses most are required to meet specific standards. I have an idea the the rod building business is larger than most believe and it has been allowed to "fly under the radar" from a testing and control standpoint.

When people want to sell more products they typically list the "features" of the product. If a customer presents an attitude of skeptism then the seller is required to present a "proof source" that is acceptable to the buyer. I see plenty of "feature" listings for components but have seen absolutely no "proof source" material. There are standard ways to perform these tests and the only thing presently missing is an acceptable, i.e. no propietary bias, organizational structure and the funding to complete the required tests.

Since Tom Kirkman has absolutely nothing to do in his spare time, I nomimate him to head up this independent testing laborarory. I propose matching funds from the component manufacturers with a Federal Grant. If the demise of the sand darter, in the sands of Florida, can get approved I would think this would be an easy target the powerful rodbuilder's lobby.

Have a nice day!

Messn Rown!

Hi Jim,

You will get less friction with an SIC guide. How much does it affect casting distance? I'm not sure. Will it be noticeable? I don't know. I'm not aware of any definitive study on it. I wish there was one.

Logic would dictate less friction would mean longer casts. There is only one way to find out and do your own test.

The important thing is line wear and tear which is vital. SiC will extend line life and will reduce breakage. How many lures are lost on a good day of fishing due to line wear? That is expensive. That is why spending the extra money for a SiC or Titanium Nitride/Zirconia ring is the smart thing to do.

Warmest regards, Joe Meehan, American Tackle Co.

I'm going to take a stab here and suggest that the following affect casting distance, in order of importance (for a given lure weight):

1) Rod length
2) Rod design (action, etc.)
3) Line type
4) Technique
5) Lure design
.
.
.
15) Number/placement of guides
.
.
.
20) Kinds of guides

So, in my opinion, there is no "noticeable difference" in casting distance. However, as others have pointed out, there are other factors besides casting distance that argue in favor of SiC over hardalloy (which is why they cost more!!).