Just an FYI for anyone interested. I have always exclusively used Fuji SIC single foot guides on my spinning rod builds because they're the best you can buy, they're very light and they're really not that much more expensive. Fuji SIC guide sets are getting a little tougher to find these days and I needed one set for the gaggle of rods I'm building. I saw a really reasonably priced eight guide set of un-named SS SIC guides on daBay and decided to give them a try even though I only needed six. When I got them I could immediately tell they were heavier than my Fujis. A six guide set of the un-named is 29% heavier than the exact same guide size Fuji set. The frames are a little bulkier therefore making them heavier. I went ahead and decided to use them. Because of the thicker feet they are the toughest guides to wrap that I have ever used. No matter how careful I am or slow I go once I transition up onto the foot it seems like about every fourth turn I get a thread lap. It gets really irritating having to back off a couple of turns to get things straightened out. I know I'll sure never buy another set of those things again! >:(
Quote from: Midway Tommy on January 31, 2020, 04:06:05 AM
Just an FYI for anyone interested. I have always exclusively used Fuji SIC single foot guides on my spinning rod builds because they're the best you can buy, they're very light and they're really not that much more expensive. Fuji SIC guide sets are getting a little tougher to find these days and I needed one set for the gaggle of rods I'm building. I saw a really reasonably priced eight guide set of un-named SS SIC guides on daBay and decided to give them a try even though I only needed six. When I got them I could immediately tell they were heavier than my Fujis. A six guide set of the un-named is 29% heavier than the exact same guide size Fuji set. The frames are a little bulkier therefore making them heavier. I went ahead and decided to use them. Because of the thicker feet they are the toughest guides to wrap that I have ever used. No matter how careful I am or slow I go once I transition up onto the foot it seems like about every fourth turn I get a thread lap. It gets really irritating having to back off a couple of turns to get things straightened out. I know I'll sure never buy another set of those things again! >:(
I use some high frame single foot direct from China guides I bought in sets from the bay (ceramic). I'll agree that they are heavier and the foot is a lot thicker (almost 2x's as thick on what I bought compared to my similar Fuji guides). I haven't had any problems wrapping them personally, but I do spend more time making sure epoxy soaks into the tunnels that are created under the thread where the foot and blank meet. It makes for a larger tunnel there that needs a little more attention in my experience. I will say this, I've used some for a couple of years now and they have held up surprisingly well...including the finish! I didn't know how they would do in use, but so far so good. They actually look nice too. I would buy the ones I got again, but there are definitely some things to be aware of for people looking into them. This was a good thread to start, it may help someone make up their minds!
Here is the kit I bought. Pretty nice for the price, but not Fuji quality.
Yours look different than the ones I purchased. Mine are advertised as "Gun Metal" finish. Size wise they are exactly the same as Fuji SIC Gunsmokes. I'm sure they came from China but were purchased from a USA company. The feet are fairly thick and when I ground the tips the finish flaked off on the bottoms. No big deal but it showed me that their finish may be subject over the long haul.
I've become really weight conscious about guides. If you put a heavy guide set on an untra light rod, you can immediately feel the difference. The weight of the guides increases the swing weight and seems to dampen the snappiness in the tip section.
These aren't SIC, they aren't Fuji, and they aren't even spinning guides. Pac Bay micro guides from Jann's Netcraft. They have stainless frames, stainless eye and are dirt cheap. I've put hundreds of hours on them and never bent, broke or grooved one with braid.
https://www.jannsnetcraft.com/pacific-bay-single-foot-guides/280542.aspx (https://www.jannsnetcraft.com/pacific-bay-single-foot-guides/280542.aspx)
These have titanium frames and zirconia (whatever that is) inserts. The insert is a little bulky so, despite the titanium, they seem to weigh the same or a tad more than the stainless ones above:
https://www.jannsnetcraft.com/pacific-bay-single-foot-guides/pac-bay-tfxzg-titanium-singe-foot-rod-guide.aspx (https://www.jannsnetcraft.com/pacific-bay-single-foot-guides/pac-bay-tfxzg-titanium-singe-foot-rod-guide.aspx)
The foot is thin so one swipe with a file will make a sharp edge.
-steve
Sounds good, thanks for the heads up!
I used to use a lot of Fuji guides but switched to Alps now. Quality is right up there with Fuji and easier on the wallet. They have titanium guides too, light as a feather
I'm somewhat with Steve, my main focus is on quality and overall weight.
I'm strictly a freshwater guy so my rods are clearly going to be on the lighter side. My preferences are 5'-6" UL to 6"6" in the Mediums. I only fish graphite, except for a couple of old Narmco & Heddon tobacco glass fly rods. All my graphite blanks are at least 44 million modulus or higher and preferably in the 65mm or higher range. My goal is to have a 6'-0" finished rod weigh in at 3.25 ounces or less. I try to keep every rod I build less than 4.5 oz. regardless of length.
Good info. here. Been years since I did a rod build from base components, but do haveta replace saltwater damaged guides alla time. Outta all the ones mentioned here any opinions on the most saltwater resistant?
I have not many years on rod building but soon I learned to stay away from no-name rod guides, I only use fuji, Pacbay and ALPS, within those 3 brands you can find everything you need from dirt cheap guides to really expensive ones.
is SiC significantly lighter than AlO2 -- the actual ring weight?
I understand it's stronger, harder, smoother, better heat dissipation, etc.
but even really old, pre-Hardloy Fuji AlO2 seems to be OK
after years of abuse from thin, uncoated braid & fine for my needs
not that I don't love me some Fuji SiC (esp., Ti-framed), but when wallet dictates
consider losing the SiC part of the equation, before you lose the Fuji part
I'm sure some NOS Hardloys could be found at bargain prices -- if you want taller frames,
look for "Match Guides"; figure out which alphabet-soup models are single-foot; then look for those specific models
...but look everywhere: I got some dirt-cheap pre-Hardloys ($3-$4 per 5-set) mis-categorized as Ice Rod guides
I've been using used Fuji SiC guides. I use a q-tip to see if there are any bad areas of the ring. So far everything has been okay. Good price, I've had to buy an extra guide each time to suit my needs, but I've been very happy so far
15 years of building rods professionally and commercially. Started with PacBay, but after 2 years we noticed some issues with longevity of their 'stainless steel' guides; the ceramib inserts were fine, but the frames were corroding.
We then investigated Fuji direct from the importers, and have not had a single problem for the last 13 years. Have used their Aluminium Oxide, Alconite and Sic, All of them have performed faultlessly. In my humble opinion they are the best out there, why change?
Buy cheap, buy twice was an adage passed on to me by an old time engineer...................... :)
Big difference between a professional builder and someone who builds for personal use IMO. I can afford to experiment, a pro has a reputation to uphold.
I always try to make that distinction when I do my videos about rod building where I'm trying something out of the norm.
I personally like trying out new things and new ways of doing things. It is like mad scientist stuff :D
The one rule we must adhere to is quality. After that do not let your mind be a closed box. Play. When I was fishing in NV a couple years ago I caught a large number of nice sized trout on part of a broken rod that I extended the butt on to make it 53 inches long. Put some SS twisted wire light guides on it and I could lift a bottle of water with it. That little rod catches bass in NY now. I build a lot of my personal fresh water sticks from broken blanks that shippers break. I call them Franken rods.
Dwight
I mostly use fiberglass because it is just better for the type of fishing I do. I do a lot of rebuilds of older rods because there are a lot of good quality older glass rods still out there for very little money at flea markets and thrift stores. Some of those older ultralight glass blanks are so nice!
I am also a Fuji alconite fan and consider weight very important. In days gone bye i used 2 mm stainless steel wire guides that weighed a ton, but then also a Tadler 4 reel that weighed more then 2 lb.🙄
What i dislike is when guys ask me to replace a broken guide with an old one that is still functional. It's too much work an cost to have to do it again 2 month later!
Quote from: The Fishing Hobby on February 01, 2020, 04:02:15 PM
Big difference between a professional builder and someone who builds for personal use IMO. I can afford to experiment, a pro has a reputation to uphold.
I always try to make that distinction when I do my videos about rod building where I'm trying something out of the norm.
I personally like trying out new things and new ways of doing things. It is like mad scientist stuff :D
It is not just about reputation, it is about passing on best quality to the customer, knowing that it perhaps cannot be improved. The biggest issue these days with lots of folks using braid, is that you want to respect their purchases of braid, as well as the rod. Fuji do an exceptional job with the quality of their ceramic inserts, and you can make 1000's of casts without the braid turning into 'fluffy string', because they pay the money to have their inserts finely polished, unlike a lot of much cheaper options that some companies use.
Being a professional builder does prevent you from experimenting with new schemes and ideas for better performing rods, probably 50% of my 'thinking time' is dedicated to understanding fully how lines and guides and blanks interact to get a fuller understanding of how to improve the overall performance of the rods on a given blank. One particular blank that we worked with and have sold very many as it has proved so successful, was first built with Fuji LV single leg spinning guides, we then found we could get better distance with Fuji KW and KL guides, further experiments found that a combination of Fuji LG and L guides further increased performance; ultimately through experimentation Fuji LC and very small KL guides are proving even better than all the earlier iterations - all on the same blank. Our clients accept that there are going to be improvements, because as professionals we have the choice to experiment and improve, while commercial builders or hobbyists haven't.
thanks - these cheap China sets remind me of the first Fuji guides, with shock rings, big and heavy..
the SIC guides are priced out of my range anymore..
I was eyeing a new glass build, planned to use a couple of the Fuji K-series double foot with Fazlite whatever that is, and the Fuji Concept aluminium oxide single-foots for the rest. That prices out to about $15 for a full Fuji set. I'm confident I cannot tell the difference between this and SIC in actual fishing..
I used to be a Fuji fan. The Fuji Kool-Aid goes down easily. My favorites were the KWAG series. Here is a size 10 KWAG:
(http://www.raingarden.us/snap/guidewt3.jpg)
The weight is in grams.
This is the size 10 Pac Bay I am using now.
(http://www.raingarden.us/snap/guidewt2.jpg)
As the ring size of the guide is increased, the weight increases exponentially. This is a size 12 KWAG.
(http://www.raingarden.us/snap/guidewt1.jpg)
If you made two identical rods with the only difference being the type of guide, you would immediately feel the difference when you waggle the pole or swing it around like you are casting.
You can even predict the difference mathematically before you start. On paper, get your guide placement and then weigh each guide. Multiply the weight of each guide by the distance the guide is from the reel arbor or pivot point. You can use feet and pounds (like on a torque wrench) or any units you like as long as it's consistent. Now add together all the foot-pound numbers. The larger the number, the more rotational force or torque the guides alone create. The torque of the guides, plus torque of the blank itself, plus the thread/finish, minus the foot-pounds of torque from the handle and everything below the pivot point is basically the swing weight of the rod.
You'll be surprised by the difference. It is not about brands, it is all about weight. I think the guide manufacturers and sellers should give the guide weight for each size and style.
-steve
QuoteYou'll be surprised by the difference. It is not about brands, it is all about weight. I think the guide manufacturers and sellers should give the guide weight for each size and style.
I do too, Steve. Right after American Tackle came out with their single foot TI Series with Nanolite rings I thought I would try a set because they were advertised as the lightest guides available. I asked Mudhole how much a set of those weighed and how much a set Fuji SICs weighed. They wouldn't tell me, they said they didn't know. I went ahead and bought a set and they are nice guides but not quite as light as Fuji SICs. A couple of my early rod builds had Hardloy guides. :( I find it amazing how clumsy those rods feel compared to my SIC builds. I never tried Alconite because I could compare them with SICs on St. Croix factory rods. I could easily feel the difference.
I thought the Alconite guides were supposed to be lighter than the SIC guides?!? Maybe that isn't true, but I'd read that in the past somewhere I thought. I use aluminum oxide Fuji guides a lot. They catch fish too ;D
Quote from: The Fishing Hobby on February 04, 2020, 05:16:22 AM
I thought the Alconite guides were supposed to be lighter than the SIC guides?!? Maybe that isn't true, but I'd read that in the past somewhere I thought. I use aluminum oxide Fuji guides a lot. They catch fish too ;D
Yeah, they say Alconite is 7% lighter compared to the exact same SIC setup. I sure couldn't feel them as lighter in the rods I compared. My set of 6 Fuji SICs, 30, 20, 16, 12, 10 & 8, weigh 0.35 oz. While my touch & feel is pretty sensitive I'm not sure I can feel a 0.02 oz difference. Maybe the blanks were a little different weight, or different balance? IDK ???
Quote from: The Fishing Hobby on February 01, 2020, 04:02:15 PM
Big difference between a professional builder and someone who builds for personal use IMO. I can afford to experiment, a pro has a reputation to uphold....
I guess I'm not understanding. I'm always experimenting. How can one ever expect to get better at a craft with out doing just that. I have in fact built rods for paying people that were up for trying something new. However I think to your point, I wouldn't build an extreme lite rod, for line class for some one with my having no clue how it might work out.
Personally I see no reason for SIC guides on an ultralight. To me SIC guide inserts are for hard running fish where there may be heat from line friction. None of my personal rods have SIC guides they are all Alconite.
SIC inserts are slicker & harder than zirconium. Zirconium is harder than Alconite a high grade aluminum oxide. Find Zirconium to be the best all around but Alconite is tuffer & more chip resistant. Fuji Alconite are inexpensive, lighter & I see no noticeable improvement of performance for my fishing using the prior two.
All of the materials used today for guide inserts are good. Ring size, guide spacing & weight of guides will have a far more profound effect on how well a rod fishes than anything to do with ring material. If I was building an 80 - 130 line class rod with a single roller tip every guide below the tip would have SIC inserts. This would be at a level where one could see some benefits using SIC guides.
Or if a fella may be after a lite line class record SIC guides would be a great choice here also
VICKER'S HARDNESS SCALE:
Stainless Steel (SS): 200
Chrome: 800-1000
Aluminum Oxide: 1200-1400
Alconite: 1700
Zirconia: 1400-1800
NANOLITE: 1800
SiC: 2200-2400
By experimenting I mean trying off brand (cheap) components. You can't do that for a customer because you have a reputation you have to protect. I can build a rod with cheap components, see if they are junk or not and not worry about it because I'm building rods for personal use. I had mentioned that I had found some cheap Chinese high frame guides that I have been using for a couple of years that are holding up well so far. The rings are still looking good and polished and the finish of the frames are still perfect. If I were building for someone else, I wouldn't have used them.
Quote from: oc1 on February 03, 2020, 06:41:04 PM
I used to be a Fuji fan. The Fuji Kool-Aid goes down easily. My favorites were the KWAG series. Here is a size 10 KWAG:
(http://www.raingarden.us/snap/guidewt3.jpg)
The weight is in grams.
[...snip]
If you made two identical rods with the only difference being the type of guide, you would immediately feel the difference when you waggle the pole or swing it around like you are casting.
You can even predict the difference mathematically before you start. On paper, get your guide placement and then weigh each guide. Multiply the weight of each guide by the distance the guide is from the reel arbor or pivot point. You can use feet and pounds (like on a torque wrench) or any units you like as long as it's consistent. Now add together all the foot-pound numbers. The larger the number, the more rotational force or torque the guides alone create. The torque of the guides, plus torque of the blank itself, plus the thread/finish, minus the foot-pounds of torque from the handle and everything below the pivot point is basically the swing weight of the rod.
You'll be surprised by the difference. It is not about brands, it is all about weight. I think the guide manufacturers and sellers should give the guide weight for each size and style.
-steve
Interesting on the weight difference change by guide size. I think that the lighter the rod, the more difference guide weight makes. And the effect probably needs to be compared at each guide location (I think).
Applying my faulty memory on physics: Torque is rotational force/distance, not mass/distance. Force on a moving object is caculated by multiplying mass by acceleration. The guide is not affecting the blank unless it is moving. So you have to know how quickly the guide is going from stop to full speed, and then back to stop during a cast.
The closer the force from the accelerating guide is to the amount of force it takes to bend the blank at the guide location, the more effect the guide will have on casting performance. The further the guide from the fulcrum, the faster it will be accelerating/deaccelerating during the cast. If we made a blank that did not bend, the effect of the weigh of various guides would be negligible. A very bendy blank would have the opposite effect.
While I am quibbling with the math, I do agree on the basic point, but would also add that how fast the portion of the blank is accelerating will have a multiplying effect on force from the weight of the guide.
In other words, a long/ light rod being cast with high acceleration would be most affected by by guide weight, increasingly toward the tip of the rod.
That is why fly rods use such tiny snake guides. But the amount of force it takes to bend a bigger saltwater blank means that the guide weight is generally not going to generate enough force to make as dramatic a difference until the guides get really heavy.
----
From what I have read, generally the harder the ceramic insert, the smoother but also more brittle. Ceramics are already so smooth relative to the line being cast, it is hard to see how insert performances changes casting performance much. Guide weight, especially toward the tip of the rod is probably a much more critical factor.
-J
Quote from: oc1 on February 03, 2020, 06:41:04 PM
If you made two identical rods with the only difference being the type of guide, you would immediately feel the difference when you waggle the pole or swing it around like you are casting.
so I actually did this experiment - on a 8'6" fly rod blank built up for ultralight spinning. Started with those old red/white ceramics which were very ugly, and I thought the weight was affecting the casting performance. Replaced those with light stainless wire guides and the difference was a lot less than I expected. The swing weight and flex was noticeable but casting performance was not much if any different. When those wire guides were grooved after five years or so, replaced with the early Fuji singlefoots that have a shock insert. Here I didn't notice any difference.. Those Fujis have lasted thirty years so far, made me a convert.
We argue about guide weight for fly rods too.. at a discussion on stripersonline, one of the guys did go and weighed snake guides (https://www.stripersonline.com/surftalk/topic/677092-ceramic-guides-old-subject/?do=findComment&comment=11894191) to compare with the light Fuji singlefoots:
QuoteJust weighed 5 running guides which would be the number installed on the tip section of a 4 pc rd.:
5 X SnakeBrand (chromed stainless) DF snake, #4 = 0.8 grams
5 X REC Recoil DF snake, #4 = 0.5 grams
5 X Fuji TLSG SF, #7 (equivalent in ring size to a #2 snake)= 0.8 grams
5 X Fuji TLSG SF, #8 (equivalent in ring size to a #3 snake)= 1.3 grams
Worst case difference is 0.8grams. I am certain I could not tell the difference of 0.8grams of guides on the end of a fly rod. Also, in this case there is the question of double or single wrappings. The extra thread and finish required for a double foot wrap on the wire snake guides, adds nearly as much weight as the difference between the guides alone.
From the cane rods forum (http://classicflyrodforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=50399):
QuoteI did a test last year by wrapping a Snakebrand #2 guide on a 3/8" dowel, Size A thread, 5 coats of varnish, enough to get the build-up. The weight gain of wrapping and finishing one foot was 1.2 grains. That means the total weight of the single foot ceramic is essentially the same as a double foot snake, finished.
So I use single foot ceramics on all my fly rods, except for the old splitcane rods. Those get the Snake Brand snake guides, and that's mostly a cosmetic consideration.
For heavy fly rods I'll tend to pony up for the SICs as the lower friction is a help when making long casts and/or using shooting heads.
On spinning rods, use the Fujis. I think about sizing and spacing first, cost second, weight is last.. though I do default to single-foots for the most part based on weight. I don't care for the looks of a rod that uses singlefoot throughout though, so again cosmetically will often decide on using double-foot for the first/second guide. I guess I'm just fundamentally shallow ;-)
Wow! :o What I intended to be informational bulk & weight comparison between off brand Asian made SS SIC and Fuji SS SIC 6 single foot LV style guide sets turned into quite an informational discussion. ;D
Yes sir, good info here for people to think about.
On my conventional rods I'd almost always used # 20 or # 25 for a stripper transition down to #8 for my salt water caster rods. The last year or so I've switch to a # 16 with a tall frame transitioning down to #6 single foot guides. Maybe it's mental but I'm getting more distance it seems like and the rod feels more responsive. I originally tried to reduce weight with the single foot guides on a few light rods and like the results so carried it over to the heavier 30-40 lb stuff. To me the decrease in weight was noticeable too on the balance of a 10' rod
The only downside so far is the single foot guides aren't nearly as durable but no big trick to putting on a new one
Quote from: The Fishing Hobby on February 04, 2020, 11:51:44 AM
By experimenting I mean trying off brand (cheap) components. You can't do that for a customer because you have a reputation you have to protect......
Right on ! That makes perfect sense... Jeff
Quote from: Swami805 on February 04, 2020, 10:56:42 PM
On my conventional rods I'd almost always used # 20 or # 25 for a stripper transition down to #8 for my salt water caster rods. The last year or so I've switch to a # 16 with a tall frame transitioning down to #6 single foot guides. Maybe it's mental but I'm getting more distance it seems like and the rod feels more responsive.
It's not all in your head. Single foot guides allow the rod to bend & load much better. The high frame 16 begins to get your line coils from spool under control much sooner than say a KW 20 or 25. I no longer use 25 guides on any of my conventional rod builds.
A 20 guide will work better on most reels. I've yet to build a rod for a 50 size reel. A 25 might be better here. The high frame in a 16 just seems to work very well with a lot of reels of different size for a stripper.
The rod will feel noticeably better. You could in some cases see easier casting using the same type lay out you for a lite conventional or casting reel...Jeff
There seem to be two distinct discussions going on here, one on the virtues of various grades of ceramic insert, the other on weight of guides; and how these effect the performance of a rod.
SiC over lower grades is a matter of heat dissipation, they are just so much better at dealing with heat generated by friction of fast moving lines, whether that be during casting or fish running. It is a matter of material density and the ability to get a microscopically fine smooth surface. Add in a economics factor, in that time spent in a diamond grit polishing machine will add to the overall component cost.
Lower grades, and I only mention Fuji components, Alconite ( actually reinforced Aluminium Oxide), Fazlite and hard Aluminium oxide are all progressively weaker in the friction and heat dissipation stakes, but progressively cheaper in cost – hence the attraction – in part.
What we have found to be an aspect of the range of ceramic inserts is their effect on the longevity of the lines being used, especially braids. The microscopically smoother the guide insert, the longer the braid lasts, which in some commercial instances can be a factor in what is optimal to use on any given rod. Obviously, for cheaper products with little concern whether the client is using braid or nylon, then cheaper, lower quality guides are popular.
What we have also found is that in some instances with our powerful surf casting rods the quality of the ceramic insert can have an effect on reliable distances being attained. During a 'power cast' line is travelling through the guides at approaching 100 mph at times, and this will be influenced by friction and heat dissipation, small, but measurable, so there is virtue in considering the lowest friction components.
On the weight of guides, again in our experience with surf rods, we have found a significant improvement in casting performance by simply switching out the guides on the upper third of a rod to single leg, over twin leg guides. But, this cannot be done in isolation, as the guides earlier on the rod need to be working in harmony with that concept. Which is where we have worked with the Fuji KR Concept to achieve strong line control over the braids during the cast (no wind knots) and then having the line travelling over the upper third of the rod in a near straight line – no spiral coils. What we have achieved through our experimentation is a hybrid KR scheme of guides, heavy and robust where they do not impact on the performance of the overall product, but light and small on the area most likely to be influenced by the weight of the guides. To the point where we are using size 6 & 8 for the upper guides, even when we are using 50lb braid and 150lb braid casting leaders – to no ill effect.
Having developed this scheme on our long rods of 14-15' long, we have taken the same scheme parameters and used them on 12' and even 9' rods, and have found the performance gains to be consistent. Only then do we look at the end user aspect to decide whether to go for Fazlite, Alconite or SiC. We haven't done the work with titanium frames or Torzite inserts as the very robust environment of fishing in Africa, doesn't warrant such levels of expense, but feel sure that the advantages of the scheme would be present.
A footnote on closing, Fuji have recently introduced a 'slim' version of the SiC inserts to further offset the weight of the earlier designs.
Quote from: Swami805 on February 04, 2020, 10:56:42 PM
On my conventional rods I'd almost always used # 20 or # 25 for a stripper transition down to #8 for my salt water caster rods. The last year or so I've switch to a # 16 with a tall frame transitioning down to #6 single foot guides. Maybe it's mental but I'm getting more distance it seems like and the rod feels more responsive. I originally tried to reduce weight with the single foot guides on a few light rods and like the results so carried it over to the heavier 30-40 lb stuff. To me the decrease in weight was noticeable too on the balance of a 10' rod
The only downside so far is the single foot guides aren't nearly as durable but no big trick to putting on a new one
We have gone down a similar avenue with our long surf rods for fixed spool (spinner) reels, now using a hybrid set of guides for 50lb braid and 150lb braid leader which consists of LC16M, LC10, LC8, KL6x5, works a dream and almost silent during the cast, which hopefully indicates less friction. Long since abandoned the idea of big guides on spinning rods, as the performance gains have been so significant.
Jeri was very generous with his time and advice on guide layouts with me when I started looking into this, thank you. Opened my eyes to what was possible. That's the beauty of this site, people willing to share their hard earned knowledge
I don't doubt Jeri's experiences (he probably builds and tests more rods in a month than I have in my lifetime), but there is a difference between correlation and causation. The manufacturers' claims for causation seem dubious to me.
There is so much energy lost from the coils wedging on the spool, turning the spool (conventional) lifting line over the lip of the spool (spinners), coils slapping guides and blank, etc., that it seems hard to believe that differences in ceramic guide surface coefficient of friction is going to be great enough to make a noticeable difference. The cynic in me is calling shenanigans when the manufacturers make claims but do not supply the data.
Sliding friction is a function of coefficient of friction (smoothness of the two mating surfaces) and force (how hard the two surfaces are pressed together). Note that velocity does not matter for most materials (friction is weird). There is not much force from the line on the insert surfaces after the release of a cast (the rod is not bending), so the effect of coefficient of friction is minimized on the cast. How fast the line is moving at a given point in time should not affect the amount of friction. Line slapping against the front of a guide is a different story - here we are using impact force which is a function of velocity. But the insert type does not affect line slapping. Also damage from line slap should have an effect on line wear, so attributing line wear to insert materials if the frames are differently shaped or located is probably not accurate.
Re heat: heat is the result of friction in this situation- but I am claiming that there is not much friction on the insert surfaces during the cast. Here is a test: Take the cheapest chrome plated stainless guide, and the fanciest high end SIC guide, check the temperature on the ring surface before and after a cast with an instant read thermometer. This would show if there was any significant heat dissipation going on. If there is enough heat being generated to damage the line, the stainless guide would have to get hot. Also note that nylon and UHMWPE (the stuff braid is made from) are not easily damaged by heat - these are plastics that can be melted to be reused. The line could elongate a bit if it got up over 200F or so. So the heat thing seems unlikely.
Moving the line across the insert at high drag seems to be a more reasonable argument for heat effect, as there is now force on the inserts which has a multiplier effect on friction, but I would like to see the same heat test (or a wear test. This could be done pretty easily with a big game reel, a guide clamped in a vice and a power drill, or similar to de-spool. Take a couple hundred runs under load and compare the before and after on the line breaking strength and surface.)
I could never find coefficient of friction data on the insert material from any of the manufacturers (makes me suspicious :) ), but there is hardness data.
Hardness is a key contributor to resistance to wear. While all ceramics grades are very resistant to normal wear, surf casting with braid might be a different story. Fine grains of sand will get trapped in the braid (maybe worse with coated braid ?), and winding the line in under even marginal load would be like rubbing sandpaper on the insides of the guides. Here, a significantly harder surface would better resist getting rough scratches. These rough scratches are the sort of thing that will fracture the braid fibers at a rate much higher than even a badly polished surface. So this is a possible argument for SiC for surf casting.
And I think it is important to note that smaller differences in guide weight or smoothness will not even have a chance to be an issue until you are trying to cast a rod for maximum distance. A tiny bit more effort on shorter casts to achieve the same distance is probably not noticeable. And on every rod, guide placement, ring size, and height will probably make a much greater difference in both casting and fish fighting ability. There was a good thread on this topic not too long ago with lots of interesting viewpoints from Jeri and others.
For me, the best guide is the most durable. I value a reasonably long cast, but I am not competitive casting. The low end Fujis (hardloy/aluminum oxide) have worked well for me for the type of fishing that I do. I don't do much freshwater fishing, so lightness is not as big a factor on my conventional rods. Improved corrosion resistance would be nice, but not at the expense of insert durability.
On fly rods, any kind of ring guide is at a large disadvantage when it comes to clearing tangles in the fly line (happens more often than I would like to admit when clearing the line on fast running fish), so only my (wire) snake guide rods get any use for the type of fly fishing that I do. No chance for ceramics here.
-J
Morning all.
While some of the knowledge Jurelometer shows on friction is a very welcome and valued contribution, I believe that he may have overlooked some of the forces present in his evaluation, specifically on lines during a cast with a fixed spool (spinner) reel. The line has a very strong circular force acting upon it, which does contribute to the friction experienced on the guides of a rod during casting. The number of guides that experience this friction element' can be reduced significantly in some layouts, in others it might well be across all the guides in a train. Here the offset in design compromise is between taking all the circular forces out over 2 or 3 guides or spreading it out over 6 or 7 guides, but it is still a factor.
'Line slapping' is basically a function of a poorly designed rod, and while what might be happening is valid, it has little bearing on theoretical performance as it is just not right in the first place. We have seen rods of this type brought to the workshop for an upgrade, and on completion seen clients gain 15-20% improvement in performance and line slapping removed completely.
The comments on surf casting and braid with fine sand entering the equation, misses the obvious issue in fresh water that has any silt components – we are not all fortunate enough to fish in crystal clear streams, so any murky river systems equally have the problems attributed to surf sand. However, being part way through an investigation into the use of uncoated braids (white, unadulterated microfibre), we are initially finding better wear characteristics from these braids over coated variants. But, there is nothing definitive at this time, as the whole investigation has been made slightly more complicated by the introduction of un-coated hollow braids for casting. We are fortunate enough to have a 'braid weaving' company that is prepared to experiment with different options of braid – so watch this space............... 😊
The comments about using the lower grades of insert in guides would be fine, and I would agree for all nylon monofilament applications, we used to use a lot of BMNOG and BMNAG guides for our surf rods when we were focussed on multipliers (conventional) reels and nylon, however our market place has considerably changed in the last 7-8 years to almost entirely fixed spool and braid. Our first investigations showed that 'O' series guides were quite abrasive on coated braids, and were soon dropped from our build systems. @a' series guides from Fuji were significantly better, and had the benefit at the time of being the first 'A' series to have the more advanced guide frames, which significantly reduce the issue of popping the insert out of the frame. Subsequently we looked at possible benefits from SiC, being the first to have the new frame design, and the slightly lighter/slimmer insert. It has been an evolution of design, because we have embraced newer concepts of guides used in a different manner, to gain performance optimum performance from any given blank, whether they were for social anglers or competition anglers.
The question of lighter guides on the upper third of the blanks, with the use of single leg guides, rather than twin leg guides has been equally significant in producing an increase in performance as well as ease of usage. I've commented before on the development of a light surf rod we build, which being just 12' long and designed for just 3oz sinkers and small baits, and the development of that blank from achieving 90 metres in test casts on traditional single leg guides, to then 100 metres+ using KWAG guides, and then 130 metres with a mixture of Low Riders and low single leg guides to our current evolution that uses the Fuji KR system but slightly changed to accommodate our local conditions, which is now frequently casting over 140 metres on our test ground – this rod now uses 6 tiny size 5.5 KLAG guides – through all this evolution, the blank has not been changed at all. One aspect that did stand out in all the various incarnations of this rod, were that progressively the noise of the braid travelling through the guides became less as to the point where with some of the SiC models, they are silent – might one equate the lack of line noise with friction?
Ultimately, there is no single element that improves performance on any given blank, but a combination of factors which all work together contributing small but significantly to the overall performance of the rod, and within that scheme grades of guide inserts do have a part.
There is no definitive answer to all fishing rod designs and applications, we just need to experiment a little more and challenge what are 'accepted' theories, so we can improve.
Cheers from sunny Africa
I don't buy any casting rods (multiplier and spinning) anymore with eyes other than fujis of the appropriate design for the reel. It is an expensive mistake, changing the eyes cost a fortune, even just knocking one out requires taking the rod in for repairs and sitting without it for ages and that alone can cost quite a bit of money. I got a very nice phenix 9ft spinning rod I liked a lot, alas, it was a poor caster and had no name brand eyes on and it cost me a packet to have it changed to fuji anti tangle guides and it now is an absolute pleasure to use. A friend of mine bought a cheap surf spinning rod with fake low ryder eyes, it is simply horrible to cast and I doubt he gets 70m with enourmous effort, even using a bionic finger, so he gets no advantage from using an expensive spinning reel with braid. The layout of the eyes is totally wrong. To me that is simply a complete waste of money. I still have two rods with Pac Bay zirconium eyes, but I am very careful with them, they are very prone to breaking. When or if they need a refurb they will get much smaller fuji eyes and I am pretty sure the casting distance will go up a lot. As it is they both can belt a sinker pretty far.
Allow me to drop some quick outlines of the key terms involved in this debate:
FRICTIONis the force that is resists the motion of one object against another (or through a fluid such as water or air). For two solid objects, friction generally comes from all the pockets, nubs and ridges on the two objects engaging and impeding motion. These imperfections can be plainly visible or even microscopic. This amount of force required will change based on the smoothness of the object surfaces (coefficient of friction), and the amount of force pressing the objects together. it will NOT change due a change in velocity or surface area. This is counter-intuitive, but it is a scientific fact.
COEFFICIENT OF FRICTIONThis is a unitless number that describes the combined smoothness of the two mating surfaces. Both surfaces matter- there is no such thing as a coefficient of friction for only one surface. Multiplying the force pressing the surfaces together by the coefficient of friction gives us the amount of friction (in lbs, kilos, grams, etc). If you also know the amount of distance this friction is occurring, you can calculate the energy being lost due to friction. Note that it is not just the raw materials that determine the coefficient of friction, but also how the surfaces are treated, polished and/or contaminated.
IMPACT FORCEDescribes the force of one object striking another. It is a function a the mass of the object and the velocity of the object (note how this is different from friction where mass and velocity is irrelevant). I have a (less than) rudimentary understanding of of how impact affects materials, but the basic idea is that if the collision is fast enough, the materials will be less elastic than normal during the collision, and therefore more likely to fracture fracture instead of stretch. This is why hammering a nail will drive it into wood more effectively than pressing on the nail with a hammer with the same load. It is also worth noting that braid fibers are stiff (this is why braid is hard to knot) and probably susceptible to impact damage.
---------
Why this is important for our discussion:
When the line is being cast, it is passing through the guides, but not in a perfect straight line, Some of the energy in the cast will be lost to to the line sliding over the rings (friction), and some will be lost to coils or waves in the line striking the guide or blank surfaces (impact).
Friction will generally not be high during the cast, as there is little force pressing the line against the guides. The materials involved will have a very low coefficient of friction (e.g. UHMWPE (braided line) over polished aluminum oxide (ceramic insert). Impact forces will be highly variable depending on the reel used (spinner vs conventional) guide location, height and ring size, and the stiffness/memory of the line used.
My theory is that most of the improvements in modern ceramic guides comes from decreasing impact forces vs. decreasing the coefficient of friction on the inserts. The practical value of this point is that modern guide frames with lower end insert could be as effective the same frames with high end ceramics, while being more durable (less brittle inserts) and cheaper. But right now these modern frames are focused on the high end market (with the more expensive inserts) with some movement toward the midrange.
And now some replies to Jeri's comments:
Quote from: Jeri on February 06, 2020, 07:32:15 AM
Morning all.
While some of the knowledge Jurelometer shows on friction is a very welcome and valued contribution, I believe that he may have overlooked some of the forces present in his evaluation, specifically on lines during a cast with a fixed spool (spinner) reel. The line has a very strong circular force acting upon it, which does contribute to the friction experienced on the guides of a rod during casting.
I believe that you are describing impact force and not friction. The coils are whacking the edge of the ring. While the reduced coils might be providing some additional pressure (force) against the insert surface, I would think that this would be minimal relative to the effect of impact(s). Whack, whack, whack...
Quote
The number of guides that experience this friction element' can be reduced significantly in some layouts, in others it might well be across all the guides in a train. Here the offset in design compromise is between taking all the circular forces out over 2 or 3 guides or spreading it out over 6 or 7 guides, but it is still a factor.
'Line slapping' is basically a function of a poorly designed rod, and while what might be happening is valid, it has little bearing on theoretical performance as it is just not right in the first place. We have seen rods of this type brought to the workshop for an upgrade, and on completion seen clients gain 15-20% improvement in performance and line slapping removed completely.
I may need to be more accurate here: by "line slapping" I am referring to the effect of both coils and the waves that can form in the line as it passes from the reel through the guides. With the new design you are minimizing both by choking the coils down in the first guide or two, small ring sizes, proper guide height etc. The slapping now occurs on a much smaller scale now, which is reducing the energy lost to impact force, and decreasing damage to the line during the cast.
Quote
The comments on surf casting and braid with fine sand entering the equation, misses the obvious issue in fresh water that has any silt components – we are not all fortunate enough to fish in crystal clear streams, so any murky river systems equally have the problems attributed to surf sand. However, being part way through an investigation into the use of uncoated braids (white, unadulterated microfibre), we are initially finding better wear characteristics from these braids over coated variants. But, there is nothing definitive at this time, as the whole investigation has been made slightly more complicated by the introduction of un-coated hollow braids for casting. We are fortunate enough to have a 'braid weaving' company that is prepared to experiment with different options of braid – so watch this space............... 😊
Good point! I assumed that silt with its finer grain size would be less abrasive than beach sand, but just realized that I have no data to back this up. Dragging the line though the material (surf casting) will expose the braid to more material under force, but silt often contains some amount of clay and it seems to stick to some materials more than sand. I would like to go with my gut and claim that typical beach sand is worse, but I can't take off my science hat just when it is convenient. :)
BTW - I am not conceding that insert surface degradation is a real world problem. There are lots of things that can damage braid other than insert abrasion.
Less dirty braid would be a good thing no matter what.
Quote
The comments about using the lower grades of insert in guides would be fine, and I would agree for all nylon monofilament applications, we used to use a lot of BMNOG and BMNAG guides for our surf rods when we were focussed on multipliers (conventional) reels and nylon, however our market place has considerably changed in the last 7-8 years to almost entirely fixed spool and braid. Our first investigations showed that 'O' series guides were quite abrasive on coated braids, and were soon dropped from our build systems. @a' series guides from Fuji were significantly better, and had the benefit at the time of being the first 'A' series to have the more advanced guide frames, which significantly reduce the issue of popping the insert out of the frame. Subsequently we looked at possible benefits from SiC, being the first to have the new frame design, and the slightly lighter/slimmer insert. It has been an evolution of design, because we have embraced newer concepts of guides used in a different manner, to gain performance optimum performance from any given blank, whether they were for social anglers or competition anglers.
So the problem here is that you are trying both the new frames and the new inserts at the same time. I understand that you don't have a choice.
But there is an easy test to get a ballpark idea on the change in the amount of friction. Take a rod, turn it upside down so that the guides are facing down, String a section of the braid that you plan to use through all the guides. take two test tubes or similar containers, fill one or the other with salt, tungsten powder or whatever, until both weigh the same. Tie one to each end of the line. Now add powder to one of the tubes until it is able to pull the line through the guides. The difference in weight of the tubes is your base static friction. Repeat the same experiment, but this time start with the tube moving and determine how much weight must be added to allow the tube to keep moving. This is your dynamic friction, and will be less than your static. Repeat on both ends of the rod and see if you are getting consistent numbers. Now repeat tests with rod using different type of inserts. If you are using two rods with the same number of guides, the frame shape shouldn't matter too much for testing with light weights .
This will show the difference in friction but will not tell us how important the difference is. BUT there are more fun tests. Use different braids, coating worn off, dirty braid etc, and see how much difference the line makes. I would not be surprised to find out that the difference in friction from changes in the braid is much greater than the difference from ceramic materials or quality of finish on the insert surface.
I expect that Fuji and other big manufacturers have done more sophisticated versions of these tests, and have found it in their best interest not to share the data.
Quote
The question of lighter guides on the upper third of the blanks, with the use of single leg guides, rather than twin leg guides has been equally significant in producing an increase in performance as well as ease of usage. I've commented before on the development of a light surf rod we build, which being just 12' long and designed for just 3oz sinkers and small baits, and the development of that blank from achieving 90 metres in test casts on traditional single leg guides, to then 100 metres+ using KWAG guides, and then 130 metres with a mixture of Low Riders and low single leg guides to our current evolution that uses the Fuji KR system but slightly changed to accommodate our local conditions, which is now frequently casting over 140 metres on our test ground – this rod now uses 6 tiny size 5.5 KLAG guides – through all this evolution, the blank has not been changed at all. One aspect that did stand out in all the various incarnations of this rod, were that progressively the noise of the braid travelling through the guides became less as to the point where with some of the SiC models, they are silent – might one equate the lack of line noise with friction?
The friction surfaces are so smooth that I would expect that they generate little noise. I would bet that the decrease in noise is coming from decreasing impact. Easy enough to test in the shop if you care.
Quote
Ultimately, there is no single element that improves performance on any given blank, but a combination of factors which all work together contributing small but significantly to the overall performance of the rod, and within that scheme grades of guide inserts do have a part.
There is no definitive answer to all fishing rod designs and applications, we just need to experiment a little more and challenge what are 'accepted' theories, so we can improve.
Cheers from sunny Africa
Thanks for sharing your hard earned knowledge! Hope you don't mind me challenging a few of the accepted theories myself.
-J
Morning Jurelometer,
No problem with your comments, my life in engineering was in a different discipline, so you sharing your knowledge and point of view is perfectly acceptable; and gives me more insight to use terminology correctly.
Our own challenge to the accepted theory is that the first guide in nearly all of the trains we have developed is more than 50% up the effective length of the rod, when related to the reel position. This we believe is the most significant factor. Especially when considering guide layouts for reducing extraneous power/energy losses in casting, along with using increasingly smaller guides.
Having got to a point where we are reasonably satisfied with the guide issues, we are now looking at the braid side of the equation, and un-dyed braids and even hollow braids are yielding some encouraging results. But the work continues to build the better mousetrap..... :)
Cheers from sunny Africa.
The river here is all sand. I gave up using coated braid. The beach I fish in Texas is worse at times with certain braids picking up micro debris more so than others.
Quote from: Rivverrat on February 07, 2020, 05:55:44 PM
The river here is all sand. I gave up using coated braid. The beach I fish in Texas is worse at times with certain braids picking up micro debris more so than others.
Does the 8 strand braid help? Seems like the braid would be tighter with more strands and maybe it wouldn't pick up or hold as much. I don't really have that problem in the places where I fish, just thinking about your situation and wondered if the number of strands would make any difference.
You know I'm not sure of the effect strand count would have. I've only ever 12 & 16 strand... Jeff
Quote from: Jeri on February 07, 2020, 09:21:13 AM
Morning Jurelometer,
No problem with your comments, my life in engineering was in a different discipline, so you sharing your knowledge and point of view is perfectly acceptable; and gives me more insight to use terminology correctly.
[snip]
I have to fess up. Not my discipline either. Just learning as I go to improve my projects. Take those definitions with a grain of salt. Probably OK for building rods, but definitely not for building dams, bridges, aircraft, nuclear power plants... ;D
BTW - really enjoyed this thread! Hopefully we haven't wandered too far from Tommy's original post.
-J
Quote from: jurelometer on February 07, 2020, 09:45:12 PM
Quote from: Jeri on February 07, 2020, 09:21:13 AM
Morning Jurelometer,
No problem with your comments, my life in engineering was in a different discipline, so you sharing your knowledge and point of view is perfectly acceptable; and gives me more insight to use terminology correctly.
[snip]
I have to fess up. Not my discipline either. Just learning as I go to improve my projects. Take those definitions with a grain of salt. Probably OK for building rods, but definitely not for building dams, bridges, aircraft, nuclear power plants... ;D
BTW - really enjoyed this thread! Hopefully we haven't wandered too far from Tommy's original post.
-J
I didn't need many of those terms building bridges, dams or power stations. Soil mechanics chaps might have had some need for friction issues, but above ground we pretty much worked on other stresses.
Thanks for posting this info. Love these kinda threads. Even though I gotta read some paragraphs 2-3 times, the physics stuff is very interesting, as well as good brain calisthenics.
Love this thread too. Some serious mad scientists here.
sooo, at the end, which are better fuji SICS or PacBay hialoy? that was the only thing I was interested to know ::) ::) ::) ::)
just kidding guys, really an interesting read, but I had to stopp when I saw smoke comming out of my head trying to understand all the mad-science on the last 3 pages.
Quote from: The Fishing Hobby on February 07, 2020, 07:23:46 PM
Quote from: Rivverrat on February 07, 2020, 05:55:44 PM
The river here is all sand. I gave up using coated braid. The beach I fish in Texas is worse at times with certain braids picking up micro debris more so than others.
Does the 8 strand braid help? Seems like the braid would be tighter with more strands and maybe it wouldn't pick up or hold as much. I don't really have that problem in the places where I fish, just thinking about your situation and wondered if the number of strands would make any difference.
Lines with the same numbers of strands (carriers) can vary in the tightness of the weave (pic count). Most brands do not publicize the pic count. It would make sense that a looser weave would have a greater chance of grabbing grit when the gaps close as the line goes from slack to tight. Hollow braid could also trap grit on the inside, but I think that hollow braids usually have a tighter weave.
I am with Riverrrat on coatings. The coatings that I am familiar with are on the waxy side, and I envision grit getting embedded in the coating. If I had to guess, I would lean toward coating being the main factor. Sandpaper works well as an abrasive surface because of the adhesive that holds the grit in place on the paper. Jeri's experiments with untreated braid should be enlightening.
Quote from: steelfish on February 12, 2020, 05:27:01 PM
sooo, at the end, which are better fuji SICS or PacBay hialoy? that was the only thing I was interested to know ::) ::) ::) ::)
just kidding guys, really an interesting read, but I had to stopp when I saw smoke comming out of my head trying to understand all the mad-science on the last 3 pages.
Here is a more straightforward analogy (don't try in real life ;D ) :
Imagine rubbing your forehead on a smooth concrete wall very lightly (friction on guides during casting), then rubbing your forehead harder on the wall (friction on guides when winding under load), and finally banging your forehead hard on the wall (impact from line coils and waves hitting the guides). Which is going to damage your head the most, and how will that damage be different? And how important is the smoothness of the wall if you are both rubbing and banging your head?
We are mostly trying to separate out the relative contribution of rubbing vs. banging to casting distance and line wear. There are some simple experiments described in this thread - if anyone is interested in trying (braid and guide tests, NOT forehead and wall :) ).
-J