First off, which layout do you personally prefer?
Second, what would happen if one tried to use the KR concept layout using non-k series guides?
The literature I'm reading seems to suggest that the new concept layout is heavily influenced by spool diameter but also considers the upsweep angle. My understanding of the KR concept is that it suggests spool diameter is morw or less irrelevant and the angle is most important.
And for an interesting test, my next build will be a surf rod for my penn 750SS. I also have an 8500SS. They share the same frame and all internals, and differ only by spool and rotor. I have a spare spool for the 750ss that has the same 50# braid as the 8500SS. So if I build the rod based on the KR concept layout, in theory i should see no difference in casting distance between the 750SS and the 8500SS, right? This shouldn't be hard to test. The question is would this test be more illustrative with a heavy or light lure? I'm thinking light. Right?
Old spinners tend to be canted (upsweep angle) less than new spinners. Sometimes the axis of the spool will point to a spot on the rod that you know is just wrong.
It's a shame that everything we know about guides placement seems to come from the company that is selling us guides. I'm boycotting Fuji.
ditto... can't test reels canted different, w/ same rod
more important than spool diameter, IMO
diameter matters more for mono memory/coiling
Drastic changes in line angle always made me wonder what the rational was behind it. That's why I never bought into the concept guide theory with open face spinners. I've always used a standard setup with an appropriate size first ring (usually 30 or 25 on a UL) and placed the first guide so there wasn't a real sharp bend in the line dispersal, & then tapered the rest of the guides down to the tiptop. If that meant moving the first guide placement a little, so be it, as long as it is still in the approximate appropriate location. I have never broken a rod or had an issue with distance when casting unless casting into a stiff wind and nothing will help that other than keeping the bait/lure on a low trajectory. So I always figured why try to reinvent a wheel that rolls just fine. :)
Quote from: oc1 on March 25, 2021, 08:07:32 PM
Old spinners tend to be canted (upsweep angle) less than new spinners. Sometimes the axis of the spool will point to a spot on the rod that you know is just wrong.
It's a shame that everything we know about guides placement seems to come from the company that is selling us guides. I'm boycotting Fuji.
Steve is being too skeptical. Would Fuji be marketing the Concept guide system with the slogan "Infinite Reality" if they were just making s**t up? No, wait... I am joining the boycott!
But seriously, getting the guides exactly right for new guides with an old style reel will be a bit of trial and error. I would not worry about the guide series as much as the ring diameter, height and location. if you can measure casting distance and come up with a method to determine where guide and blank slap is occurring, you should be able to dial it in. Tweaking the reel seat location is also an option.
If you want to experiment with a new blank on something that might have a bit more dramatic effect, consider temporarily wrapping the butt with some cork tape, get a couple hose clamps, a play with the reel up vs reel down location discussed in some recent threads. Easy enough to pull off the tape and mount the grips and seat wherever you want when you are done.
The lower incline angle in the older Penns might actually be a bit of a benefit on a down mount. And a down mount would probably be a bit more tolerant of guide positioning and balance if you want to swap between the 750 and 850.
-J
Quote from: oc1 on March 25, 2021, 08:07:32 PM
Old spinners tend to be canted (upsweep angle) less than new spinners. Sometimes the axis of the spool will point to a spot on the rod that you know is just wrong.
It's a shame that everything we know about guides placement seems to come from the company that is selling us guides. I'm boycotting Fuji.
The question/statement is incomplete, what about the newer models from Shimano, that don't have any upsweep angle, they have a spool axis parallel to the foot/rod? Then the schemes totally fail, as the supposed 'choke point' is at infinity.................... :) :) :)
My 6500SSV is almost parallel. I actually shimmed the base of the reel foot a little bit and I think it's casting better as a result*
(*I can't rule out that my longer casts are a result of more practice casting a heavy surf rod, I'd have to test it)
The KRC is basically a development forwards from the slightly older NGC, both are Fuji's response to what they have found from their research and development. Fuji are perhaps the only company publishing such research, none appears from companies like PacBay, Sea Guide, ALPS or any others. Is that because it is cheaper to copy, rather than innovate through published research?
I would believe that Fuji are looking to provide a service to the need for 'rules' in rod building, that seems an endemic requirement of modern life, while I do agree some starting points are necessary, a lot of folks get bound up in these being hard and fast; and that alternatives just don't comply. We looked into the KF concept for some of our long surf rods, but totally ignored the 'rules' defining the positioning of the first guide, given that the idea of rapidly reducing the effect or disruption of line flow, toward quicker straight running lines would/might yield more distance on our surf rods. The first KR rod we built was a single piece 15', with the first guide about 76" above the reel seat - a huge distance by 'conventional rules', these were KL-H guides. Rapidly going down in size from 25 to 10 (25, 16, 12 if memory serves me), followed by a string of single foot KT guides size 10. Surprisingly it did everything that it was suggested to do on the box, more distance, easier casting, more power from the rod, and more sensitivity. Obviously not all these factors came from purely the KR concept, but the combination worked well, even with the very high line speed we achieve with our long rods. The added bonus, is that the system never showed signs of throwing a line wrap around any of the guides.
The fragile nature of the KL-H single leg guides for our environment was a little bit of a worry, so next up was a change to using 3 Low Riders (straight faced guides with high but small eyes) 20, 12 & 10, followed by the same KT guides for the runners. More robust build, and pretty much the same results, so basically a hybrid of the original KR concept. We have since taken the sizes down one level to 16M, 10, 8 for the Low Riders and KT8 for the runners and the results are slight improvement on the performance of the rod in all aspects.
The system works, whether pure KRC or hybrid, but the only thing that we have changed drastically is this reel spindle aspect of the rules. Certainly looks unconventional, but out performs all of the traditional Cone of Flight designs and even rods built purely to the Fuji recipes for rod building; whether they use the larger KW guides or any others. We get a lot of customers bringing their rods that have been built with the KW guides to us complaining about lack of performance, and the 'quick fix' is simply to cut off the first big KW guide, instantly there is an increase in performance, without the cost implications of having the whole rod stripped and rebuilt.
A slight side issue that has readily become apparent from 'our design', is that it works on all the different reels our clients might put on their rods, from 35 year old deep angle Penn Spinfisher 750's to ultra modern Shimano Stellas with parallel spindle designs. Personally, I don't think the reel design is the big issue on the design criteria.
Quote from: Jeri on March 26, 2021, 12:30:36 AM
A slight side issue that has readily become apparent from 'our design', is that it works on all the different reels our clients might put on their rods, from 35 year old deep angle Penn Spinfisher 750's to ultra modern Shimano Stellas with parallel spindle designs. Personally, I don't think the reel design is the big issue on the design criteria.
Excellent post, thank you. But to clarify, are you saying that your layout is not reel-specific?
Also what I'm confused by, is that so much concern is about the line slapping the blank, but with so much space between the reel and the first guide, wouldn't that slap the rod... A lot? Clearly you're onto something I'm just not quite wrapping my head around that aspect.
8) I like this video . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDJiVBIC3Q0
The English version https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Y9d6TUsZ4c4
I can't understand anything after 1:30. The take-away seems to be that you need to buy 21 guides for each rod and it would be really cool to have a high-speed video camera. Thank you Fuji.
I have a lot of trouble watching for rod slap in the middle of a cast and never found a good way to do it. Do you think you could dust the rod with talcum powder before the cast to show where the line is slapping it?
Quote from: JasonGotaPenn on March 26, 2021, 01:21:00 AM
Quote from: Jeri on March 26, 2021, 12:30:36 AM
A slight side issue that has readily become apparent from 'our design', is that it works on all the different reels our clients might put on their rods, from 35 year old deep angle Penn Spinfisher 750's to ultra modern Shimano Stellas with parallel spindle designs. Personally, I don't think the reel design is the big issue on the design criteria.
Excellent post, thank you. But to clarify, are you saying that your layout is not reel-specific?
Also what I'm confused by, is that so much concern is about the line slapping the blank, but with so much space between the reel and the first guide, wouldn't that slap the rod... A lot? Clearly you're onto something I'm just not quite wrapping my head around that aspect.
Quote from: oc1 on March 26, 2021, 05:09:54 AM
I can't understand anything after 1:30. The take-away seems to be that you need to buy 21 guides for each rod and it would be really cool to have a high-speed video camera. Thank you Fuji.
I have a lot of trouble watching for rod slap in the middle of a cast and never found a good way to do it. Do you think you could dust the rod with talcum powder before the cast to show where the line is slapping it?
I've mentioned this before, when testing rods for line slap, if I think it might be occurring - I dust the blank between the reel and first guide with powdered chalk. Soon shows up, if any slap is occurring.
This whole KR design ties in with the reversing tunnel of small coils coming back towards the handle from the first guide. So, no line slap is likely to occur, because the tunnel is so small and centred on the high profile first guide.
We didn't just go straight out to 180 cm (or more) space for the first guide straight away. We started at the Fuji suggested 120cm, and that worked, but seemed to choke the flow of line, so we removed the taped guides and moved the whole issue up to 150cm, it was better, then 180cm. Subsequently we have built some at 210cm, and even 235cm - still no line slap.
In answer to OC1, we ended up using 3 guides to effect the rapid reduction, then 5 very small guides to effect the running train, even on a 14' long rod.
Quote from: oc1 on March 26, 2021, 05:09:54 AM
I can't understand anything after 1:30. The take-away seems to be that you need to buy 21 guides for each rod and it would be really cool to have a high-speed video camera. Thank you Fuji.
I have a lot of trouble watching for rod slap in the middle of a cast and never found a good way to do it. Do you think you could dust the rod with talcum powder before the cast to show where the line is slapping it?
"Ring size, and being a subject of much debate", as evidenced right here, sure rang a bell with me. It's an interesting study but I wish they would give some specifics about the improvements in casting distance & accuracy. It doesn't make much sense to me to add 6 or 8 guides, including the added weight, to gain 10 feet in distance.
Quote from: Jeri on March 26, 2021, 12:30:36 AM
I would believe that Fuji are looking to provide a service to the need for 'rules' in rod building, that seems an endemic requirement of modern life, while I do agree some starting points are necessary, a lot of folks get bound up in these being hard and fast; and that alternatives just don't comply.
+ 10
Quote from: Midway Tommy on March 26, 2021, 07:28:10 PM
"Ring size, and being a subject of much debate", as evidenced right here, sure rang a bell with me. It's an interesting study but I wish they would give some specifics about the improvements in casting distance & accuracy. It doesn't make much sense to me to add 6 or 8 guides, including the added weight, to gain 10 feet in distance.
For some it is worth it. But sometimes changing line used can do the same. More guides or less guides can drastically change not only distance but how the rod feels when playing a fish. A fella who has become good friend that I have built rods for, having retired with fat bank account, has me purchase two of the same blank wrapping them both differently. He buys one he likes & leaves the other blank to me.
While the taper of a rod can be changed a lot using different guide styles I dont like doing this. If left to my own devices I think its best to build with the taper of the blank in mind. Meaning I dont want the guides used messing with the action of the rod ... Random thoughts ... Jeff
Quote from: Midway Tommy on March 26, 2021, 07:28:10 PM
Quote from: oc1 on March 26, 2021, 05:09:54 AM
I can't understand anything after 1:30. The take-away seems to be that you need to buy 21 guides for each rod and it would be really cool to have a high-speed video camera. Thank you Fuji.
I have a lot of trouble watching for rod slap in the middle of a cast and never found a good way to do it. Do you think you could dust the rod with talcum powder before the cast to show where the line is slapping it?
"Ring size, and being a subject of much debate", as evidenced right here, sure rang a bell with me. It's an interesting study but I wish they would give some specifics about the improvements in casting distance & accuracy. It doesn't make much sense to me to add 6 or 8 guides, including the added weight, to gain 10 feet in distance.
A very interesting and valid question, re what does it achieve?
That unfortunately is something that is exceptionally difficult to answer, except to say that 'It is worth a try'.
The scheme was originally designed for shorter spinning rods, and certainly not massive length heavy weight surf rods. However, I had a period of time, when I broke my hip, that thinking and smaller projects were all that were available - test casting new ideas was out of the question with a pair of crutches.
In asking the question of Fuji, the answer came back - why not try it, so we did and the results were impressive, good friend did the test casting, and with heart in mouth that those tiny single leg guides would all be ripped off first cast was certainly there. It didn't, and side by side comparisons with the same blank built to previous standard were amazing.
Perhaps the single biggest element was that we 'found' power, which is the wrong expression, as the power was always there, just masked by previous builds with double leg guides, especially in the top third of the rod. Subsequent builds and developments with the scheme, we have even taken those original size 10 guides down to size 6 in some cases, but still using the same 35lb braid and 75lb knotted braid casting leader, and still not a single guide ripped off the blank. The next 2 big things that we noticed were, the ease of casting to achieve distances and the near silence of the whole system when casting the braid through some serious power casting. Comparing this to some factory built models of same blank using the older idea of Cone of Flight (progressively smaller guides - starting with a big guide), even built with modern Fuji KW guides - the factory schemes were more difficult yo cast and significantly more noisy.
So, in answering the question, there may be more distance, greater ease in casting and perhaps less noise. It is worth a try.
Quote from: Jeri on March 28, 2021, 02:09:34 AM
Quote from: Midway Tommy on March 26, 2021, 07:28:10 PM
Quote from: oc1 on March 26, 2021, 05:09:54 AM
I can't understand anything after 1:30. The take-away seems to be that you need to buy 21 guides for each rod and it would be really cool to have a high-speed video camera. Thank you Fuji.
I have a lot of trouble watching for rod slap in the middle of a cast and never found a good way to do it. Do you think you could dust the rod with talcum powder before the cast to show where the line is slapping it?
"Ring size, and being a subject of much debate", as evidenced right here, sure rang a bell with me. It's an interesting study but I wish they would give some specifics about the improvements in casting distance & accuracy. It doesn't make much sense to me to add 6 or 8 guides, including the added weight, to gain 10 feet in distance.
A very interesting and valid question, re what does it achieve?
That unfortunately is something that is exceptionally difficult to answer, except to say that 'It is worth a try'.
The scheme was originally designed for shorter spinning rods, and certainly not massive length heavy weight surf rods. However, I had a period of time, when I broke my hip, that thinking and smaller projects were all that were available - test casting new ideas was out of the question with a pair of crutches.
In asking the question of Fuji, the answer came back - why not try it, so we did and the results were impressive, good friend did the test casting, and with heart in mouth that those tiny single leg guides would all be ripped off first cast was certainly there. It didn't, and side by side comparisons with the same blank built to previous standard were amazing.
Perhaps the single biggest element was that we 'found' power, which is the wrong expression, as the power was always there, just masked by previous builds with double leg guides, especially in the top third of the rod. Subsequent builds and developments with the scheme, we have even taken those original size 10 guides down to size 6 in some cases, but still using the same 35lb braid and 75lb knotted braid casting leader, and still not a single guide ripped off the blank. The next 2 big things that we noticed were, the ease of casting to achieve distances and the near silence of the whole system when casting the braid through some serious power casting. Comparing this to some factory built models of same blank using the older idea of Cone of Flight (progressively smaller guides - starting with a big guide), even built with modern Fuji KW guides - the factory schemes were more difficult yo cast and significantly more noisy.
So, in answering the question, there may be more distance, greater ease in casting and perhaps less noise. It is worth a try.
I think this is why more/smaller runners could theoretically help:
Smaller low profile frames/rings (especially on the bottom side of the blank) means that the path of the line is closer to the loaded blank, and therefore following the curve of the blank more accurately. Smaller means lighter, so the small single foot guides can allow you to add a guide or two extra without adding weight or compromising flex. More guides means that the path of the line can more accurately follow the natural bend of the blank. This can affect the loading phase of the cast.
Once the cast is released: the closer the guides are together (and the smaller the rings), the less amplitude of any waves in the line forming between the guides. Remember from earlier in this thread that the impact force of the line whacking the frames and rings, and to a lesser extent the blank is what is the rod is contributing to energy being robbed from the cast. The larger the wave, the greater the whacking. Friction on the rings is a much smaller factor. If you have optimized the spacing and are still getting some waves forming, an extra guide or two might help.
How much it will help going from a size 7 standard runner guide to a size 5 single foot low profile and adding an extra guide or two is going to vary for each blank and layout (and how hard you are casting). It may not be a huge difference for some rods. I would not be surprised if a long soft blank like the old fiberglass that Steve favors would be more forgiving than a modern faster taper casting blank that might store more energy if you can manage to fully load the blank as designed.
Selling an extra guide or to per blank is also a bonus for Fuji :)
-J
There's a 13' daiwa sealine rod for sale semi locally semi cheap. If I can get my hands on it I may do a a full strip down and try a Jeri style build. In fact I really want to now. I already got the guides.
Quote from: JasonGotaPenn on March 28, 2021, 05:29:52 AM
There's a 13' daiwa sealine rod for sale semi locally semi cheap. If I can get my hands on it I may do a a full strip down and try a Jeri style build. In fact I really want to now. I already got the guides.
You will have to learn to release the line with your left hand, if you are going to put the reel down the bottom............... :)
Quote from: Jeri on March 28, 2021, 12:49:24 PM
Quote from: JasonGotaPenn on March 28, 2021, 05:29:52 AM
There's a 13' daiwa sealine rod for sale semi locally semi cheap. If I can get my hands on it I may do a a full strip down and try a Jeri style build. In fact I really want to now. I already got the guides.
You will have to learn to release the line with your left hand, if you are going to put the reel down the bottom............... :)
I'm not that old of a dog yet. I can still learn new tricks. Plus I'm actually left handed, I just fish righty.
Also if I'm not throwing super heavy weight that would require my hands further apart, couldn't I just cast it like a normal rod?
Quote from: JasonGotaPenn on March 28, 2021, 01:51:41 PM
Quote from: Jeri on March 28, 2021, 12:49:24 PM
Quote from: JasonGotaPenn on March 28, 2021, 05:29:52 AM
There's a 13' daiwa sealine rod for sale semi locally semi cheap. If I can get my hands on it I may do a a full strip down and try a Jeri style build. In fact I really want to now. I already got the guides.
You will have to learn to release the line with your left hand, if you are going to put the reel down the bottom............... :)
I'm not that old of a dog yet. I can still learn new tricks. Plus I'm actually left handed, I just fish righty.
Also if I'm not throwing super heavy weight that would require my hands further apart, couldn't I just cast it like a normal rod?
Firstly, we do consider our rods to be 'normal', it's yours that are different.............. ;D
We use the reel down design for tods even down as far as 2oz sinkers or lures, it effects more power through the rod, and allows for such extravagant guide spacing from the reel seat. I'm a pensioner, and can still launch a 3oz sinker with our 12' rod built 'our' way - over 130 meters (400 feet).
Quote from: Jeri on March 28, 2021, 05:29:59 PM
Firstly, we do consider our rods to be 'normal', it's yours that are different.............. ;D
I do believe that speaking relative to where I'm sitting, you're currently standing almost upside down. But I digress... ;D
Quote
We use the reel down design for tods even down as far as 2oz sinkers or lures, it effects more power through the rod, and allows for such extravagant guide spacing from the reel seat. I'm a pensioner, and can still launch a 3oz sinker with our 12' rod built 'our' way - over 130 meters (400 feet).
I mean that's the whole reason I'm interested. I am always trying to cast a bit further. Even if that means learning a completely new technique. However that rod sold before I could get it (it was only $40 with tags still on, I'm not surprised I missed it) so I may have to develop some patience if I still wanna go that route. What's the shortest rod such a layout would be reasonable on?
Out of curiosity, what's the farthest thrown cast you know of from one of your builds (either you or a customer throwing)? The longest I've ever managed was about 150yds and that was with a favorable tail wind and a bit of luck.
Shortest rod we have built to date with true KR concept and guides, was 9'-6", used on the Okavango, by a shore based lure angler for Tigerfish - casting 2oz lures well over 100 metres.
Have a project consultancy coming next month for a 2 piece rod for spinning in estuaries and Tigerfish, which is just 7'-2"long, to be built reel up (pr traditional in your sense) - for use with 15-20lb braid.
Longest casts by clients with our rods on our test field (desert), were over 200 metres, we stop measuring past that pole in the field. Personally, 165 metres, all based on slight head wind or no wind.
After all this has rattled around in my head for a while, ive arrived at what may be a realization.
The KR concept system is based on rapidly reducing the line's cone, where the new concept type layout is more gradual.
And I find myself wondering if the KR concept shines brightest when casting with a bit of weight, because the lure has plenty enough momentum to pull the line through the aggressive reduction train, and any minimal loss of momentum from the guides is overruled by the aerodynamic benefit of a tighter coil/near straight line flying. And maybe the more gradual reduction is more appropriate for very light lures where theres less initial momentum because that initial loss becomes more significant.
Thoughts? I'm sure some testing is in order, and I may have missed something important.
Further thought that likely doesn't warrant its own thread: been having discussions lately about why long casts matter so much. And I realize the answer is related to why one would want higher drag capability despite not having any intent of using it: I want 30# of drag, even though I'll likely only fish at 15 max, because if the reel maxes out at 15 then it's probably jerky as heck. Where a reel that maxes out at 30 but set to 15 is likely butter smooth at 15.
If your rod can only cast 60 yds max on a good day, you likely cant cast accurately at 50 yds. You're giving it all you got to just get it out there. But if your rod can cast 100 yds easily, odds are you can cast to 50 without having to go max effort, and can possibly sight cast reasonably accurately at that range (if you're a person who can cast accurately in general, its a rod not a magic wand).
KR Concept is an evolution of NGC, which ultimately is derived from the very old (1960's) Omura Theory.
Currently working on a 2 piece 7'-2" light spinning rod, which is casting 1/4 - 1/2 oz lures, and excelling at distance with KR Concept scheme of guides. Distances we are getting don't warrant investigating other options as the line flow during casts is faultless and silent.
The more salient points are spool diameter, line weight (size) and the distances to the first guide. Little to do with weight of the lure.
Just our findings.
When I say "light" I mean like unweighted soft plastics. My idea is based on the idea that beyond a certain level of momentum, the aggressive reduction isn't a factor because the forces pulling the line up and out are far greater than the centripedal forces of the line exiting the spool (we're talking spinning rigs here). But on a lighter lure, that momentum isn't there.
The other thing to consider, and I may be talking more to myself because it may be obvious to everyone else, is that there's a certain logical limit imposed by physics for how far one can throw a lure that weighs 1/16th of an ounce. A rod/reel combo with utterly perfect geometry and action will likely take you up to that limit, but the max distance a 1/8th oz lure can fly is likely substantially less than the max distance an 8oz lure can fly. I'm a physics nerd, so this shoulda been obvious a while ago. but sometimes it takes me a sec to put 2 and 2 together.
Fairly basic physics, as my interpretation goes. The thing on the end of the line will have a given kinetic energy (Ek), 1/2 Mass * Velocity^2.
That energy is being shed, primarily by friction between the line and the guides/spool lip (or within the spool bearings in the case of a conventional) and friction between the object being cast (and also to a small extent the line itself) and the air. When the Ek hits 0, your cast thing has stopped.
Assuming there is a more or less hard limit on what you can get the velocity to, the only way to increase Ek is by increasing the mass.
Isn't this the very problem of trying to create rules and generalisations, they just don't apply or can be wrong or faulty in certain situations.
As Boon has suggested, to increase kinetic energy through an ultra light situation, either more mass or more speed is necessary - so. would a much longer rod generate more speed in the lure and line, so challenging your generalisation?
Quote from: Jeri on June 17, 2021, 07:51:23 AM
Isn't this the very problem of trying to create rules and generalisations, they just don't apply or can be wrong or faulty in certain situations.
As Boon has suggested, to increase kinetic energy through an ultra light situation, either more mass or more speed is necessary - so. would a much longer rod generate more speed in the lure and line, so challenging your generalisation?
Agreed that other than the laws of physics, most generalizations, like some casts, fall short. I'll be the first to agree with that. However if you lengthen the rod on one it's not an apples to apples comparison, but if you lengthen both, the original question reappears.
Though based on everything I've learned thus far, K series guides do seem to favor longer rods. But based on your own description you build from the top down, you're not lining the spool shaft up with the edge of a table and going from the bottom up like Fuji is suggesting, or you'd end up with your bottom guide a lot closer to the reel seat. So that begs the question of are you technically building a KR concept, or are you building a different concept using K series guides? Not saying that negatively btw, clearly it's working. I'm just seeking clarity.
So I guess a better way to phrase the question is: for a low weight lure, which layout has a greater effect on (or is a greater detriment to) initial momentum?
dang, this is getting too much technical for my pay grade :-\
since you are a physics nerd, I would suggest a bit f light reading. There are tons of papers on the physics of fishing rod casts, especially fly rods, but much of it is relevant to spinners. It is a favorite subject for grad students who can't come up with something useful :)
Most of these papers are accessible (free) and easy to find if you still have a .edu email address. You will find more structured arguments, and some basic descriptions of what is going on in a cast from a physics standpoint.
The problem here is that we are starting with a premise (different guide styles are more effective for some combination of cast weight a distance desired) without either any observations of this phenomenon, or any articulated theory about why this might be true.
Jeri and Boon make good points.
I think the following would help frame a potential debate:
Fishing rod guides have two independent effects during the cast.
A) First in the during loading/unloading (casting stroke) phase. The dimensions and locations of the guides can effect how energy is stored and released in the blank by changing where the load is concentrated. In addition to distance potential, this can to a lesser extent potentially affect ease of use and accuracy.
B) Next is the post release phase. The cast is released, and the initial trajectory and velocity of the projectile has been established. The blank has mostly finished any oscillating generated by the casting stroke. At this point, no guides are probably the best option. The guides are fundamentally an impediment to distance. Mostly this is due to the effect of impact ( the line smacking the guide frames and a bit on the blank). The dimensions and locations of the guides will affect the amount of energy robbed from the coils and waves in the line whacking the guides and to a lesser extent the blank.
The problem is that optimizing for loading/unloading negatively impacts optimizing for post release guide impacts and vice versa. So the guide designers and rod builders are executing a compromise to acheive the best outcome for a certain use case, which involves a bit of experience/trial and error.
From at least a marketing standpoint, the newer guide systems are focused on optimizing the post release phase, although placement and size are still factored in for loading. But my guess is that these folks are betting that the biggest gain comes from paying more attention to the post release phase.
My take on your premise:
1. I would argue that combinations of slower rod action (c-curve) lighter line, lighter weight, shorter desired distance, makes all of this less critical. A slight bit more effort on a short easy cast with an easily loaded road may not even be noticed. In other words the lower the demand for distance and payload, the less all this matters.
2. The shorter the desired distance, the more likely accuracy is important. The best way to get an accurate rod is to keep the blank length as short as possible, and have most of the loading occurring toward the tip. Blank selection to accurately match the payload is very important. I suspect that there has to be a reasonable number of properly located guides for the tip to load and track straight, but the new guide systems should be compatible with this.
3. Projectile mass and speed will effect the coil size coming off a spinning reel (and more importantly impact force on the guides), and a slower speed /lighter projectile cast may actually result in larger coils (more time for the coils to expand, less forward force pullingthe coils tighter. So the benefit of rapid reduction guide systems may or may not scale evenly based on usage model, but I don't see how a benefit suddenly becomes a disadvantage.
All of this is a long winded way of saying that for casting, the more you care about distance, the more you have to pay attention to both blank selection and guide style and placement, including focusing on the post release phase. The more you care about accuracy or ease of use, the more you can focus on just blank selection, and not worry so much about guide systems.
A quick side note on friction: sliding friction from the line rubbing on the guides is much less of an issue, as the compressive force of the line against the ring is neglible -another reason not to shell out for high dollar inserts :) . I think that line being pulled through the air is subject to a different set of friction equations. Since air is a fluid, the surface area of the line is now a factor. The farther the cast, the more line is out, the more friction slowing down the cast - thinner/limper line is your friend here.
-J
Quote from: JasonGotaPenn on June 17, 2021, 01:52:32 PM
Quote from: Jeri on June 17, 2021, 07:51:23 AM
Isn't this the very problem of trying to create rules and generalisations, they just don't apply or can be wrong or faulty in certain situations.
As Boon has suggested, to increase kinetic energy through an ultra light situation, either more mass or more speed is necessary - so. would a much longer rod generate more speed in the lure and line, so challenging your generalisation?
Agreed that other than the laws of physics, most generalizations, like some casts, fall short. I'll be the first to agree with that. However if you lengthen the rod on one it's not an apples to apples comparison, but if you lengthen both, the original question reappears.
Though based on everything I've learned thus far, K series guides do seem to favor longer rods. But based on your own description you build from the top down, you're not lining the spool shaft up with the edge of a table and going from the bottom up like Fuji is suggesting, or you'd end up with your bottom guide a lot closer to the reel seat. So that begs the question of are you technically building a KR concept, or are you building a different concept using K series guides? Not saying that negatively btw, clearly it's working. I'm just seeking clarity.
So I guess a better way to phrase the question is: for a low weight lure, which layout has a greater effect on (or is a greater detriment to) initial momentum?
I'll be the first to admit, I'm not using all the aspects of the conventional 'rules' of the KR Concept, and if you had to put a name on it, I would say 'KR Hybrid'.
I use the idea that rapid reduction of the guide eye sizes and ignoring numerical progression to achieve the reduction. And apart from using small single leg KT guides, I ignore traditional KW type guides, and occasionally use KL guides. Though having found issues with the rigidity of KL guides in getting optimum performance, have reverted to using LC guides for the reduction section of my designs - more rigid and can use smaller guides than an equivalent KL in the same position. The concern with these guide designs is not the sloping guide face, but the height of the overall guide eye.
However that said, on very light applications I will revert to KL guides to achieve the rapid reduction, but again will ignore various 'rules' for positioning the first guide, as the 'rules' don't work should you use say a Shimano reel with a zero offset shaft - for then the first guide would be placed at infinity - as the shaft in those reels is parallel to the blank. I'll ignore the architecture of the reel, and concentrate on the effects of the line coming off the reel, and the energy therein when it approaches the first guide, to accommodate that to achieve better line flow and line speed. I find that the conventional schemes induce an element of 'choking' of the line flow, and hence by pushing the first guide distance out, I can reduce or eliminate that aspect.