Out of curiosity, how many of you use static guide placement? This means, loading the rod, positioning the guides where the angle entering and exiting the guide are equal for all guides at full load and partial load (it's a balancing act)? I used to wrap rods this way, it looks different, and not many people like the looks of the guide placement because it wasn't like what they were used to (conventional guide placement). The comments I got even though I showed that this will make for a better fish fighting rod lead to me stop wrapping rods. Has anyone else used static guide placement or were there versions from the conventional guide placement?
Conventional guide placement is where the guides were spread such that they were positioned progressively closer as guides were placed from the striper guide to the tip top.
I know exactly what you're talking about Bryan. Most rods are "over guided" as well but that's gotten better over the last decade or so. I recently sold a factory high end 8' rod with 11 guides plus the tip, 8 would have been plenty. Old habits and ideas die hard especially with fishermen. If you want to sell a rod you need to give them what they want
You know what you're doing,,,,, ;) but there's always closet experts,,,,, >:( you can't tell them nothing and there not going to be happy with what ever you do anyway,,,,but just keep doing what you doing because it's the right thing,,,,,,, ;D
We have a similar problem with all the 'closet experts', with our long surf rods. Conventional thinking is lots of the K series guides starting with a 40 or 50 - to cope with the big coils coming off the spinning reels.
Over the course of 6 years we have consistently proven that a radical placement of Low Rider guides and the a mixture of Low Rider guides and low single leg guides gives better performance with regards to all aspects of the rods' final use. We get no wind knots, better distance, more rod action and ultimately better control over the fish during the fight. But, the 'closet experts' still chatter that we are 'wrong'!!!
I was taught to lay out the guides so that the line will not touch the blank when it is bent (with conventional guides on top). Static placement. But, nobody ever explained how much bend or what angle the rod should be. I would always end up needing a zillion guides and it looked funny. Now I just use progressive placement with six guides and tip-top on a nine to eleven foot rod.
The number and weight of guides can have a big impact on balance and swing weight. Fly fishermen are really into balance and reducing swing weight. Look what they do.
-steve
Quote from: oc1 on December 12, 2019, 07:52:18 AM
I was taught to lay out the guides so that the line will not touch the blank when it is bent (with conventional guides on top). Static placement. But, nobody ever explained how much bend or what angle the rod should be. I would always end up needing a zillion guides and it looked funny. Now I just use progressive placement with six guides and tip-top on a nine to eleven foot rod.
The number and weight of guides can have a big impact on balance and swing weight. Fly fishermen are really into balance and reducing swing weight. Look what they do.
-steve
The rod butt held horizontal with the tip strait down (90 degrees). That is the maximum non-insane bend. As for number of guides, modern braided line under tension will cut into the blank ( it happened to "this guy I know"), so it is more important nowadays for the line to clear the blank under load [CORRECTION- light braid rubbing probably not a big deal under lighter loads - I changed my mind later in this thread -J ]
The spey/two hander fly rod maker Bob Meiser has a logical guide spacing technique that I like to use: Clamp the butt against something and bend the rod until the tip is pointing away at 90 degrees (the very final end of the blank will be nearly straight exactly at a 90 degrees angle from the blank at the butt). Draw a set of equidistant lines parallel to the butt (usually about 4 inches apart), starting at the tip. Wherever a line crosses the blank is the center point of a guide, until you get to the point where the rod is not bending much.
If you favor less guides, just use a larger spacing. Meiser built a special wall rack for this, but I jut do it on the shop floor with some clamps and masking tape.
It sometimes takes a bit of tweaking, but it provides a pretty good starting point for both fly and conventional rods for me. The bottom guides are usually the ones that need a bit of tweaking to accommodate the reel and guide height.
Compare the shape of the original blank while doing the Meiser bend to the bend with the line threaded from the reel through the guides. Staying closer to the original bend on the lower half of really improves the fish fighting ability of the rod, as it will load up sooner in the bend. If the guide placement shifts the load toward the tip, the rod will have less backbone. Staying closer to the original shape on the top half improves the ability to load up the rod when casting.
I only build a couple conventional and /or fly rods per year for myself or friends, so you can take this with a grain of salt. I don't do spinning rods, but the basic theory should be the same. Spinning rods will always have some difficulty loading the bottom part of the rod, due to the extra guide height required to accommodate the distance from the spool to blank.
-J
I always start out with the conventional guide placement, then I check it with a static test. Usually, it's pretty close, but sometimes I'll have to add another guide so I don't get any sags in the carry. This method has worked fairly well for me.
Quote from: jurelometer on December 12, 2019, 10:04:00 AM
The rod butt held horizontal with the tip strait down (90 degrees). That is the maximum non-insane bend. As for number of guides, modern braided line under tension will cut into the blank ( it happened to "this guy I know"), so it is more important nowadays for the line to clear the blank under load.
The spey/two hander fly rod maker Bob Meiser has a logical guide spacing technique that I like to use: Clamp the butt against something and bend the rod until the tip is pointing away at 90 degrees (the very final end of the blank will be nearly straight exactly at a 90 degrees angle from the blank at the butt). Draw a set of equidistant lines parallel to the butt (usually about 4 inches apart), starting at the tip. Wherever a line crosses the blank is the center point of a guide, until you get to the point where the rod is not bending much.
If you favor less guides, just use a larger spacing. Meiser built a special wall rack for this, but I jut do it on the shop floor with some clamps and masking tape.
It sometimes takes a bit of tweaking, but it provides a pretty good starting point for both fly and conventional rods for me. The bottom guides are usually the ones that need a bit of tweaking to accommodate the reel and guide height.
Compare the shape of the original blank while doing the Meiser bend to the bend with the line threaded from the reel through the guides. Staying closer to the original bend on the lower half of really improves the fish fighting ability of the rod, as it will load up sooner in the bend. If the guide placement shifts the load toward the tip, the rod will have less backbone. Staying closer to the original shape on the top half improves the ability to load up the rod when casting.
I only build a couple conventional and /or fly rods per year for myself or friends, so you can take this with a grain of salt. I don't do spinning rods, but the basic theory should be the same. Spinning rods will always have some difficulty loading the bottom part of the rod, due to the extra guide height required to accommodate the distance from the spool to blank.
-J
Thank you J. That helps a lot.
-steve
Quote from: Bryan Young on December 11, 2019, 09:40:02 PM
........ I used to wrap rods this way, it looks different, and not many people like the looks of the guide placement
Im with my compa Sheridan, if you want to sell the rod then you must offer them what they want, you might find a guy that is not like the 90% of them and would like to try something new specially if its better, on my experience that its 80% restoring old rods sometimes I find the rod Im working needs one or two more guides after doing a static test (factory rods tend to have less guides for economic reasons not for static test reasons), but only few of them accept to install them to make the rod better, the rest just say that the "engineers" (of the rod brand) made their homework to decide how many guides that specific rod needed no reason to change it so, just install the same numer of guides on the blank and well, I just install the same numbers of guides.
few of them give me "green light" to do whatever its needed on the rod to make it better.
Quote from: oc1 on December 12, 2019, 07:52:18 AM
I was taught to lay out the guides so that the line will not touch the blank when it is bent (with conventional guides on top). Static placement. But, nobody ever explained how much bend or what angle the rod should be. I would always end up needing a zillion guides and it looked funny. Now I just use progressive placement with six guides and tip-top on a nine to eleven foot rod.
The number and weight of guides can have a big impact on balance and swing weight. Fly fishermen are really into balance and reducing swing weight. Look what they do.
-steve
I have always worked in a similar manner, only use conventional setup with guides on top.. I use a little computer model and some experience to initially place the guides and tape them to a rod. Then bend the rod by hanging a 4 kg weight on it and then adjusting the spacing to achieve an nice even flow of the line along the blank. That may mean adding an extra guide sometimes.
My objective is often to use fewer guides as they add weight and these days the rear guides are sometime problematic as with many of the more medium actioned rods you need to keep the line away from your hands and the rod.
Sometimes I then go and cast with the rod to still tweak the guide placement.
When I started most rods we used were the same, very strong fast action you wrapped 7 guides on it......end of story! It worked well enough.
A couple more points.
1. The 90 degree bend that I described in this thread is the shape of the bend of the blank when fully loaded for casting, not just fighting fish. I like the Meiser method because it optimizes the spacing for when the rod is fully loaded. When the rod is not bent, it does not matter where the guides are positioned, but as the load increases, the more important position becomes.
2. After some reading and thinking, I may have been wrong about about spectra rubbing on the blank being a big deal in all situations. I would not want any significant rubbing when hooked up to a tuna with the drag at 15 lbs, but at the other end of the spectrum, with freshwater or inshore use, a bit of rubbing may not be that significant. For example, putting a bunch of guides on a light freshwater noodle rod will be more of a problem than a bit of light line rub when the rod is fully loaded. So I am leaning back a bit toward Steve's position, at least in some situations.
3. Getting back to Bryan's original comment/question, I have always understood static placement to mean that the blank is held in a bend while the guides are being placed to acheive some sort of goal. Static placement can follow a fomula, or simply be a builder eyeballing how the line passes through the guides and adjusting.
In the end, the only way to tell if a placement is optimal is by testing the casting and lifting characteristics with a given placement. The various formulas and methods are simply a way to approximate what that best position is going to be. It seems that some builders treat their spacing algorithms like a religion, so arguments about which is better are usually fruitless. I would argue that any method that does not involve putting a significant bend in the blank to generate guide placement is unlikely to work for a wide variety of blank tapers and lengths.
Looking at this from a load distribution perspective:
I would assert that any guide placement where the guides are not getting progressively closer is problematic. The curve when loaded on all blanks is progressive. When the constructed rod is loaded, the line is pulling the guides closer together. A set of loads are now applied, centered at the apex of the arc between each pair of guides. An overload fracture will eventually occur near the apex between two guides, or the apex between bottom guide and the reel seat/fulcrum. So as the blank takes progressively less force to bend toward the tip, the force on the apex between guide pairs should decrease correspondingly, or you will be concentrating some of the load, and making strain required to break the rod lower than necessary, in addition to diminishing the casting and lifting capabilities.
4. While custom builders tend to be very good craftsmen, and often have practical experience that can usually direct the customer to the right blank for the job, it is much harder to find a builder that understands the mechanics and material science involved in fishing rods. I think that customers sense this at some level and are reluctant to trust a builder's recommendation for spacing that strays too far from factory specs. Can't say that I blame the customer. I don't blame the builders either. If custom building required an advanced degree in physics, they would have to charge more than a couple of bucks per guide in order to pay off the student loans :) .
But it would be nice if more rodbuilding threads discussed performance vs. cosmetics, so thanks to Bryan for starting this thread.
-J
I use static load to tell me where the guides are best placed. It's very important also, to me, that the line makes contact with bottom of stripper guide well before the rod is fully loaded.
This is of greater importance on rods used on the rail along with proper placement of stripper guide in relation to the reel. For this reason I very seldom use size 25 guides for most conventional reel set up.
Size 25 stripper guide is worthless for most conventional rods. I believe I can easily prove this. All prior stuff said goes out the window if guides aren't laid on the spine.
Regarding the size & number of guides. I like to get the the guides reduced in size quickly. I have no issue using more or less guides. Have a 7'6" Raptor I'm building for Paul "smols" above the first 2 guides I have two 12's above this is six 10's plus tip. More guides here with this set up because of the quick reduction in size. I have found this works very well for casting, stand up fishing with the ability to still go to the rail.
Check with me in a year & I might have found a better way.
Dont be afraid to try new things & ideas when building a rod. .
A rod is a leveraging / shock absorbing tool it's as simple or as in depth as you wish to make it. What works best can only be found out with any certainty through testing. Just like J. mentioned prior This is just one part of rod building that I love so much.
With a basic understanding, after some research & study. One can build rods for fish that they've never fished for or caught.
For those that doubt this, I ask how did a furniture maker design the most prolific handgun of our
time? SOMETHING THAT IS FAR MORE INVOLVED than building a rod. It had to start with a strong DESIRE.
jurelometer, is spot on. His thinking agrees with the way I do things 95% of the time... Jeff
J
We have discussed thi before, but your description strikes me a s a perfect point to show the differences in our preferences. In something as light as a bass rod or an inshore rod, I really want the tip and but to be able to bend parallel to each other, if not touch. Just the way I was taught to fish; with that much bend you can really put the brakes on a fish and let the reel hold the line. It does mean that a deck hand will try to keep you from lifting the rod, takes a long slow talk to get them to stop that.
Neither is wrong, just different.
The Man
Ron, if I understand correctly what you described is high sticking.
When this is done, more so with graphite than glass the graphite is no longer bending but it is in fact trying to compress in on it's self & we get what is call blowing up a rod. Apologies if I miss understood... Jeff
Quote from: Jeri on December 12, 2019, 06:15:33 AM
Low Rider guides and the a mixture of Low Rider guides and low single leg guides gives better performance with regards to all aspects of the rods' final use. We get no wind knots, better distance, more rod action and ultimately better control over the fish during the fight. But, the 'closet experts' still chatter that we are 'wrong'!!!
Some of this holds true a bit for conventional also... Jeff
Quote from: Ron Jones on December 17, 2019, 11:47:57 PM
J
We have discussed thi before, but your description strikes me a s a perfect point to show the differences in our preferences. In something as light as a bass rod or an inshore rod, I really want the tip and but to be able to bend parallel to each other, if not touch. Just the way I was taught to fish; with that much bend you can really put the brakes on a fish and let the reel hold the line. It does mean that a deck hand will try to keep you from lifting the rod, takes a long slow talk to get them to stop that.
Neither is wrong, just different.
The Man
Hi Ron,
I don't think the particular fighting method changes the spacing that much. For a rod that bends safely past 90 degrees, choosing the right blank is the main ingredient. Whatever blank is chosen, the rod will be able to safely handle more bend if the guides are spaced to distribute the load as discussed in this thread. Optimizing for the 90 degree bend as I suggested should give you the best placement for casting. If you like to bend the rod into a U shape when fighting fish, any guide-on-top-of-the-rod placement is going to be a problem on most blanks, as it will require a lot of guides to keep the line mostly on top, pushing down on a single plane against the blank. You might want to consider spinning rods or spiral (AKA acid wrapped) guide layouts if that is your intent.
I don't want to get into another discussion on Ron vs the laws of physics and every long range deckhand :) You get to fish however you like - but you might want to take a look at this demonstration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3ZUZKVdC3o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3ZUZKVdC3o) I think Mr. Mills reasoning is a bit off base. The additional power comes more from the change in leverage than from the muscle groups involved. You might consider trying this demo on some one of your own rods.
If you want to optimize a build for an extreme bend, I would still suggest considering the Meiser method. I think it will give you the best placement for casting and bends up to 90 degrees. If you find uneven load bending past 90 degrees, you can try decreasing the Mieser spacing, or simply adjust as you see fit.
Quote from: Rivverrat on December 18, 2019, 12:02:05 AM
Quote from: Jeri on December 12, 2019, 06:15:33 AM
Low Rider guides and the a mixture of Low Rider guides and low single leg guides gives better performance with regards to all aspects of the rods' final use. We get no wind knots, better distance, more rod action and ultimately better control over the fish during the fight. But, the 'closet experts' still chatter that we are 'wrong'!!!
Some of this holds true a bit for conventional also... Jeff
The farther the guides are from the blank, the harder it will be to approximate the natural curve of the bent blank. Single foot guides means smaller flat spots. So all this makes sense to me. Single foot guides do introduce some issues with fly rods. If you get a tangle while you are trying to clear a fly line after a hookup, you can often pass a pretty big tangle though snake guides, especially if you flip the rod over so that the guides are pointing up, and take out most of the rod bend. With single foot guides, you are toast. One or more of your rod sections will be heading out to sea :) Larger fly rods have pretty much all gone back to snake guides nowadays.
I think they are catching up with Jeri, because the newer commercial spinning rods are definitely more in the style he describes.
-J
Quote from: jurelometer on December 18, 2019, 02:42:11 AM
The farther the guides are from the blank, the harder it will be to approximate the natural curve of the bent blank.
This is is where a person building the rod has to know how it's going to be used. A high framed but small ring diameter is very desirable for a stripper guide on say a rail rod used for for stand up & rail.
Which one is taller the 16 LC or the MN 25 monster sized guide. Keeping in mind the LC stripper is sitting higher on thread & lite finish on the under wrap.
I don't believe much of any thing is gained going with a standard guide 20 or 25 vs the Fuji LC in a lot of instances.
But there is a definite improvement in how I was doing it compared to now.
Now as we move away from the stripper & second guide high guide frames can cause issues that a lot of times can be felt... Jeff
Your video in essence describes how Kilsong will use a rod & leverage to his advantage.
Some one whom I have come to know as a great friend Jamie Massion uses & teaches this method. Hard to believe more people dont use there rods like this... Jeff
Some folks down here have been using this type of technique for years on big sharks in the surf caught on 14' long rods or longer - its called 'straight sticking'. Takes nearly all the leverage of the rod out of the equation, and puts a lot of stress straight onto the reel - not very effective from a boat, but certainly works well in a beach type situation.
Cheers from sunny Africa.
Yup! It's called by the same name here also Jeri.
Quote from: Rivverrat on December 18, 2019, 03:27:45 AM
Which one is taller the 16 LC or the MN 25 monster sized guide. Keeping in mind the LC stripper is sitting higher on thread & lite finish on the under wrap.
I don't believe much of any thing is gained going with a standard guide 20 or 25 vs the Fuji LC in a lot of instances.
But there is a definite improvement in how I was doing it compared to now.
Now as we move away from the stripper & second guide high guide can cause issues that a lot of times can be felt... Jeff
It wasn't just the height of the ring on the LC guides, but also the smaller diameter of the ring. When we first started down this development route, we used a lot of size 20, but having found that it was all working fine, we looked at the higher version of the size 16, and that worked just as well, even with the big coils coming off large spinner reels.
The key aspect to getting everything working in harmony is to then rapidly reduce the ring sizes and height down to a point where the line is running straight and parallel with the rod blank - during the cast - very much the KR Concept, but on very long rods. Typically now we will use a LC16M, LC10, LC8, then a string of KL8. In getting the spacing absolutely 'dead right', we find that casts are absolutely silent, where braid friction over the guides is hugely reduced - but this is only achieved with getting the spacing right between the guides, and not just the first guide. The 'ramp' section (LC16M, LC10 & LC8) is quite close, even on our very long rods, and we also find that positioning of the first guide to be critical, too close to the reel, and we get a lot of 'backbone' in the rod, but further away gives us extra distance.
There is no exact science in all this, but lots of time spent experimenting does pay off, especially if you can remain objective.
Cheers from sunny Africa.
Quote from: Jeri on December 18, 2019, 06:56:19 AM
....It wasn't just the height of the ring on the LC guides, but also the smaller diameter of the ring.....
There is no exact science in all this, but lots of time spent experimenting does pay off, especially if you can remain objective.
Cheers from sunny Africa.
Jeri, very well stated. You did very well saying what I only attempted. I dont speak well typing. Yup! with out the smaller ring it would fail. The height plus small diameter is needed to achieve at the stripper position what I feel & see when casting & in some cases has a needed effect on the power the rod produces allowing for a quicker transition to the stronger portion of the blank.
Point I was attempting to make was this guide is not as tall as some think when compared to whats normally used. Jeri, you must be one of the smartest people here because you agree.
At least thats what my grandpa said " Ever notice the smartest person in the room is always the one that agrees with you " he was not an astronaut or doctor, never made an important discovery of any kind, but as a child when I sat on the throne made of my grandpas lap there was peace on earth & I was surly king of all I surveyed. Hubert C. Davis one of the greatest river cat fisherman ever !
OK I'm way off topic time to hit the rack... Jeff
Quote from: Jeri on December 18, 2019, 06:15:39 AM
Some folks down here have been using this type of technique for years on big sharks in the surf caught on 14' long rods or longer - its called 'straight sticking'. Takes nearly all the leverage of the rod out of the equation, and puts a lot of stress straight onto the reel - not very effective from a boat, but certainly works well in a beach type situation.
Cheers from sunny Africa.
Works great on a boat for me. Just point the tip down. Don't know why some folks are afraid to get the rod tip wet :) This technique is more of a flavor of short pumping a fish with some adaption for how much more specific the rod angle needs to be to load up the butt and get any lifting power on a fly rod. The slow pitch rods that I presume Kilsong is mostly using have loading characteristics similar to fly rods, so it makes sense that the fighting technique would be similar.
Re smaller rings on the bottom end of surf rods: I don't understand the importance of the smaller ring other than choking down the coils and and feed angle off the spool so that you get rid of line slap on the first guide or two, instead of over and over again all the way up the rod. I believe that the distance from the blank to the bottom of the ring not the ring diameter affects how the guide loads the blank. What am I missing here?
-J
Quote from: jurelometer on December 18, 2019, 09:10:32 AM
The slow pitch rods that I presume Kilsong is mostly using have loading characteristics similar to fly rods, so it makes sense that the fighting technique would be similar.
Re smaller rings on the bottom end of surf rods: I don't understand the importance of the smaller ring other than choking down the coils and and feed angle off the spool so that you get rid of line slap on the first guide or two, instead of over and over again all the way up the rod. I believe that the distance from the blank to the bottom of the ring not the ring diameter affects how the guide loads the blank. What am I missing here?
-J
Cant sleep.
I've yet to do a true long surf rod. I wont speak for Jerry, but the 10' rods I've played with trying different guides being K's MN's & the LC as a stripper it allows one to move the stripper guide based on what ones after being power or casting distance just based on which guide used & how well it sits on the based on distance from the reel.
I believe a better style of guide for certain things has yet to be made. What I found "I THINK", is there is rarely a need for an extremely large ring size for a stripper guide on a spinner. At least not as big as some have been using in the past. The small ring stripper helps set the line up for the rest of the guide train when a quick reduction set of guides is used. I dont know if there is any benefit to this when the upper guides are from the older way of doing it
Yup! I believe your right the higher the bottom of the stripper the quicker the lower, stronger portion of the rod comes into play. Don't think this is much of a debatable point. Disagree that only slow taper rods or fly rods work best straight sticking. Please correct me If I miss understood. Though the benefit may be more noticeable on a slow taper lite rod.There is a clip I believe of Kilsong straight sticking a good size tuna. I also know it has worked for me on the beach with some of my heavier very fast tapered rods. My friend Jamie uses it on cows at times.
I do believe its a technique that can work very well on a lot of bigger fish when they are out in front of you, regardless of rod when one wants to conserve their energy & keep the fish moving. .
In the end I'm still learning this craft. Always will be. Still improving the quality of my builds. Right or wrong I'll not hesitate to throw out there what I think I've seen or might work best. Knowing there is a tremendous amount of knowledge here. There is more to be learned from a cordial disagreement than an agreement. One might bring a warm fuzzy feeling the other forces a person to explain their position.
I love talking about this stuff not quite as much as doing it though. OK one more time, Gotta Hit The Rack... Jeff
Quote from: jurelometer on December 18, 2019, 09:10:32 AM
Re smaller rings on the bottom end of surf rods: I don't understand the importance of the smaller ring other than choking down the coils and and feed angle off the spool so that you get rid of line slap on the first guide or two, instead of over and over again all the way up the rod. I believe that the distance from the blank to the bottom of the ring not the ring diameter affects how the guide loads the blank. What am I missing here?
-J
The essence is to rapidly reduce the disruptive coils down, but more to get the whole set up working into some sort of harmonic action - rod, reel and line. Something that we have seen, and only on rods with LC guides as the first 3, is get it all right and the large coils coming off the reel approach the first guide, and shortly there after a reversing effect takes place, where either due to 'echo' of some other factor, a much smaller coil 'grows' away from the first guide back towards the handle and reel - this takes place during the highest speed period of sinker/lure flight and really does seem to add considerable distance. Have never seen this 'reverse cyclone' effect on any other guide schemes, and it generally appears when we have fine tuned the spacing for a particular blank 'just right' - for both distance and power.
Having been building long surf rods with LC guides for over 7 years now, I would certainly not entertain going to a large first guide, for fear of losing performance. We did carry out a whole series of tests on a small 12' 3oz surf rod, using traditional 'Cone of Flight' designs, and then 'K' series and finally a LC/KL hybrid scheme. the LC/KL scheme came out by far the best solution, the other two schemes lost distance and had numerous issues with line slap and wrapping line around guides.
It is just what we have found, and perhaps a contributory factor is that the blanks that we are using are less through action than typical American surf blanks, so significantly more powerful in the lower half.
Cheers from sunny Africa.
WOW, tell me more about the smaller-ringed/taller/shorter reduction train for longer spinning rods
could I substitute K Spinning w/ Fuji Match Guides (photo is stock Fuji Alconite BNMVOG; BNMVAG )
I guess mine are older ALO2, when there was only one version somewhere between the two;
the 20's & 12's have thin liners, so the actual ceramic rings look closer to 16 & 10
Quote from: Jeri on December 18, 2019, 01:40:16 PM
Quote from: jurelometer on December 18, 2019, 09:10:32 AM
Re smaller rings on the bottom end of surf rods: I don't understand the importance of the smaller ring other than choking down the coils and and feed angle off the spool so that you get rid of line slap on the first guide or two, instead of over and over again all the way up the rod. I believe that the distance from the blank to the bottom of the ring not the ring diameter affects how the guide loads the blank. What am I missing here?
-J
The essence is to rapidly reduce the disruptive coils down, but more to get the whole set up working into some sort of harmonic action - rod, reel and line. Something that we have seen, and only on rods with LC guides as the first 3, is get it all right and the large coils coming off the reel approach the first guide, and shortly there after a reversing effect takes place, where either due to 'echo' of some other factor, a much smaller coil 'grows' away from the first guide back towards the handle and reel - this takes place during the highest speed period of sinker/lure flight and really does seem to add considerable distance. Have never seen this 'reverse cyclone' effect on any other guide schemes, and it generally appears when we have fine tuned the spacing for a particular blank 'just right' - for both distance and power.
Having been building long surf rods with LC guides for over 7 years now, I would certainly not entertain going to a large first guide, for fear of losing performance. We did carry out a whole series of tests on a small 12' 3oz surf rod, using traditional 'Cone of Flight' designs, and then 'K' series and finally a LC/KL hybrid scheme. the LC/KL scheme came out by far the best solution, the other two schemes lost distance and had numerous issues with line slap and wrapping line around guides.
It is just what we have found, and perhaps a contributory factor is that the blanks that we are using are less through action than typical American surf blanks, so significantly more powerful in the lower half.
Cheers from sunny Africa.
I would love to see a super slow motion video of the reverse cyclone.
Ron Jones
pretty interesting reading amigos
keep comentings, its always nice to learn directly from the professionals
Alex,
I recently built myself a cool Hercules 15-30 rod for flat lining kings. First stripper is the taller LC Fuji turned reverse and then finished the rod out with Fuji MNSGs. Line flows perfectly lifting a 12 lb dumbbell. ;D
Dwight
Quote from: Jeri on December 18, 2019, 01:40:16 PM
Quote from: jurelometer on December 18, 2019, 09:10:32 AM
Re smaller rings on the bottom end of surf rods: I don't understand the importance of the smaller ring other than choking down the coils and and feed angle off the spool so that you get rid of line slap on the first guide or two, instead of over and over again all the way up the rod. I believe that the distance from the blank to the bottom of the ring not the ring diameter affects how the guide loads the blank. What am I missing here?
-J
The essence is to rapidly reduce the disruptive coils down, but more to get the whole set up working into some sort of harmonic action - rod, reel and line. Something that we have seen, and only on rods with LC guides as the first 3, is get it all right and the large coils coming off the reel approach the first guide, and shortly there after a reversing effect takes place, where either due to 'echo' of some other factor, a much smaller coil 'grows' away from the first guide back towards the handle and reel - this takes place during the highest speed period of sinker/lure flight and really does seem to add considerable distance. Have never seen this 'reverse cyclone' effect on any other guide schemes, and it generally appears when we have fine tuned the spacing for a particular blank 'just right' - for both distance and power.
Having been building long surf rods with LC guides for over 7 years now, I would certainly not entertain going to a large first guide, for fear of losing performance. We did carry out a whole series of tests on a small 12' 3oz surf rod, using traditional 'Cone of Flight' designs, and then 'K' series and finally a LC/KL hybrid scheme. the LC/KL scheme came out by far the best solution, the other two schemes lost distance and had numerous issues with line slap and wrapping line around guides.
It is just what we have found, and perhaps a contributory factor is that the blanks that we are using are less through action than typical American surf blanks, so significantly more powerful in the lower half.
Cheers from sunny Africa.
Thanks Jeri,
I think we are more or less saying the same thing, just coming from a different perspective. From a rod loading/guide positioning perspective, we want a series of guides with the base of the rings a common short distance from the blank. This makes it possible for the line through the guides to follow the natural shape of the loaded blank- enabling the "harmonic action" you describe. No need for large rings so far. But the reel holds the line away from the blank, especially far on a spinning reel. The traditional solution for this transition was a series of large rings, which it turns out does not do a good job because it allows line slap to occur over and over again as the coils pass through the guides, and does not load the rod well because the bottom of the large ring is too low.
The solution is a tall guide with a small ring for the first couple of guides, which will both throttle/ choke out line spirals and other oscillations, and allow some transfer of force to the blank when the rod is loaded. The guides then transition sooner to the small rings/ close to the blank layout. I think you have been vindicated on the basic concept for a few years , as the saltwater spinning rods that I am seeing sold now are using this type of guide system.
The only problem with all this is that I still have a dozen or so big ring spinning guides lying around that are never going to be used ;D
Quote from: Rivverrat on December 18, 2019, 10:46:42 AM
[...]
Yup! I believe your right the higher the bottom of the stripper the quicker the lower, stronger portion of the rod comes into play. Don't think this is much of a debatable point. Disagree that only slow taper rods or fly rods work best straight sticking. Please correct me If I miss understood. Though the benefit may be more noticeable on a slow taper lite rod.There is a clip I believe of Kilsong straight sticking a good size tuna. I also know it has worked for me on the beach with some of my heavier very fast tapered rods. My friend Jamie uses it on cows at times.
[...]
I think that we are mostly in agreement here. But I think of straight sticking as more of a point and wind without pumping. The reel does pretty much all the work. With fly reels and spinning reels there usually has to be some amount of pumping because of limitations in the reels.
If you are pulling on a fish, the shorter the lever, the less mechanical disadvantage you are fighting, regardless of the type of rod you are using. Longer and/or more bendy rods just make the physics involved more apparent. (agreeing with your point)
With a bendy rod (e.g. fly, slow pitch) there is no choice but to use the butt to lift heavier loads. It is critical that the guide placement allows for the bottom of the rod to load up without the tip being bent too far. If you are trying to pump in a big fish with a large bend in the top half of the rod, the bending simply loads up and then releases most of the energy, lifting little or no line.
Imagine if there was a 1 lb weight on the floor. you tie a piece of twine to it and lift it up by the twine with your hand. Now replace the twine with a stretchy elastic band. You lift, but the band stretches for a couple feet before the elasticity is taken out and then the weight is only lifted a short distance, despite all the energy expended. This is additional burden that you have to deal with when you try to long stroke a heavy fish with a bendy rod.
Looking back at what I just wrote, it appears to be a long winded way of saying I think we three are pretty much in agreement, and mostly dealing with different interpretations of terminology. I am going to post anyways as there are some clarifying details that might be of interest...
It does seem we are starting to circle back into the original question with several members pointing out the importance of messing with guide height and style in addition to location, and the importance of live testing if you are trying something new or maybe even challenging current practices.
-J
Quote from: Ron Jones on December 18, 2019, 07:18:26 PM
I would love to see a super slow motion video of the reverse cyclone.
Ron Jones
Agreed. It all happens so quick and hectically I have a hard time seeing what is going on out there. Some of the gimmicks (like microwave guides) sound like B.S. to me and I'd have to see it to believe it.
-steve
Jerry, I've been unable to find what I call a perfect balance between distance & power on spinning rod blanks I have built. It seems to me, yes both can exist but not at the expense of the other. For max distance one must place an LC or some such guide much further up the blank than what would be the accepted norm by some. Yes I know neither of us care much about normal stuff when it comes to building rods.
This places stripper up into the thinner walled section out side the lower stronger sections of most blanks. Ultimately I find it to be a very acceptable compromise ? Your thoughts ?
Jeri, also I cant say I'm familiar with blanks you use so that's an unknown variable to me.
Dwight, I do the same mixing guide models just as you stated.
jurelometer, I agree we are talking the same thing. You all are just better at describing it... Jeff
Quote from: jurelometer on December 18, 2019, 08:45:27 PM
If you are pulling on a fish, the shorter the lever, the less mechanical disadvantage you are fighting, regardless of the type of rod you are using. Longer and/or more bendy rods just make the physics involved more apparent. (agreeing with your point)
With a bendy rod (e.g. fly, slow pitch) there is no choice but to use the butt to lift heavier loads. It is critical that the guide placement allows for the bottom of the rod to load up without the tip being bent too far. If you are trying to pump in a big fish with a large bend in the top half of the rod, the bending simply loads up and then releases most of the energy, lifting little or no line.
I think of the rod as a big spring that helps keep constant tension on the fish with every move and with every head shake.
-steve
I will say discussions of this type don't go well on other sites. This stuff does bring into question some old ways that for some don't die easily... Jeff
Quote from: Rivverrat on December 18, 2019, 08:54:16 PM
Jerry, I've been unable to find what I call a perfect balance between distance & power on spinning rod blanks I have built. It seems to me, yes both can exist but not at the expense of the other. For max distance one must place an LC or some such guide much further up the blank than what would be the accepted norm by some. Yes I know neither of us care much about normal stuff when it comes to building rods.
This places stripper up into the thinner walled section out side the lower stronger sections of most blanks. Ultimately I find it to be a very acceptable compromise ? Your thoughts ?
Jeri, also I cant say I'm familiar with blanks you use so that's an unknown variable to me.
Dwight, I do the same mixing guide models just as you stated.
jurelometer, I agree we are talking the same thing. You all are just better at describing it... Jeff
I'm at a loss to understand how you end up with a 'thinner walled section' of a blank, all ours are pretty much uniform thickness up the entire length. Our blanks and most high performance UK surf blanks have a split of lower half being parallel taper, and then upper half being reducing taper (internally), which leads to a design style that is more lever and spring rather than progressive spring like US surf blanks.
Quote from: Jeri on December 18, 2019, 09:25:13 PM
Quote from: Rivverrat on December 18, 2019, 08:54:16 PM
Jerry, I've been unable to find what I call a perfect balance between distance & power on spinning rod blanks I have built. It seems to me, yes both can exist but not at the expense of the other. For max distance one must place an LC or some such guide much further up the blank than what would be the accepted norm by some. Yes I know neither of us care much about normal stuff when it comes to building rods.
This places stripper up into the thinner walled section out side the lower stronger sections of most blanks. Ultimately I find it to be a very acceptable compromise ? Your thoughts ?
Jeri, also I cant say I'm familiar with blanks you use so that's an unknown variable to me.
Dwight, I do the same mixing guide models just as you stated.
jurelometer, I agree we are talking the same thing. You all are just better at describing it... Jeff
I'm at a loss to understand how you end up with a 'thinner walled section' of a blank, all ours are pretty much uniform thickness up the entire length. Our blanks and most high performance UK surf blanks have a split of lower half being parallel taper, and then upper half being reducing taper (internally), which leads to a design style that is more lever and spring rather than progressive spring like US surf blanks.
OK I'm lost here also. I will need to take a look at these blanks to comprehend this. What your describing, and how I read it isnt making sense to me. I'm positive its my lack of understanding... Jeff
Quote from: oc1 on December 18, 2019, 08:53:12 PM
Quote from: Ron Jones on December 18, 2019, 07:18:26 PM
I would love to see a super slow motion video of the reverse cyclone.
Ron Jones
Agreed. It all happens so quick and hectically I have a hard time seeing what is going on out there. Some of the gimmicks (like microwave guides) sound like B.S. to me and I'd have to see it to believe it.
-steve
I found this on Youtube. It is in 3 parts with super slow motion. Quite interesting. Dominick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9d6TUsZ4c4
Yeah, that's pretty darn interesting and explanatory Dominick. Without it I would have labeled the oval guides as more B.S. While watching, you sort of have to chalk one up to baitcasting over spinning too.
-steve
Quote from: Newell Nut on December 18, 2019, 08:22:52 PM
Alex,
I recently built myself a cool Hercules 15-30 rod for flat lining kings. First stripper is the taller LC Fuji turned reverse and then finished the rod out with Fuji MNSGs. Line flows perfectly lifting a 12 lb dumbbell. ;D
Dwight
amigo, what size of LC guide did you use on that rod?
Jeri, I think I realize where the issue is regarding what we both or trying to say. I have for a long time used terms that are not technically correct when it comes to building a rod. This is something I need to correct.
Allow me to restate what I was trying to say. Please remember I dont build the rods you do & I am for certain I could gain much knowledge not only by watching over your shoulder as you build one but also going to the beach & using them with you watching.
What I was attempting to say is I have not ever seen a spinning rod of any length that isn't in some way a compromise when it comes to over all performance being distance or power. One cannot get the max performance from both of these variables out of the same spinning rod. It seems one is always favored over the other just as it does with other things in life... Jeff
Threads always seem to take a turn.
To Brian's original question, if you are using formulas, charts etc... or what ever., With out a static test, with rod fully loaded.... there is no way you can know if the guide lay out is right or not. At least not until you fish it.
Fully loaded static test is what I do. I not only wish to see proper line lay through the guide train I also want to make sure nothing is going to pop or come loose. This can only be done with rod fully loaded for its line class. Knowing some will push this to half of the lines rating when fished.
There are rod blanks made today that wont do this. I tend to stay away from them.
If this is not done the possibility of issues later while fishing becomes higher.
The guide lay out can & will change for same model blank. Given no two blanks of the same model & maker are exactly the same... Jeff
Quote from: Rivverrat on December 19, 2019, 06:10:05 AM
The guide lay out can & will change for same model blank. Given no two blanks of the same model & maker are exactly the same... Jeff
So, when you do a static layout and a couple of guides appear to be out of place, do you fess-up and embrace the bad blank or adjust the layout so it looks normal?
-steve
Nearly all these 'concept' strategies date back to the Omura Theory presented in the middle 1960's, where even then the height of the frame and reduced size of the ring on the guides to enhance performance. Obviously they lacked access to some of the technology we have today, but even then it was suggested that a tall size 16 guide would offer optimum performance as the first guide on a spinning rod. Makes you wonder just what can be achieved with simple visual science and a clear head - not 'pub science'??
Steve, this is really a great question !
Simply because it hits on so many areas of rod building as a business.
But first lets back up just a bit. I'm not talking about a bad blank here. The differences while slight, that I was referring to are common among the same model blank from the same maker. it can take some very careful measurements to reveal this.
What I'm talking about is variables among a hand made product, not a bad blank. I would encourage any one that hopes to build a quality rod to use the very best blank they can afford. So if a bad blank shows they will gladly replace it.
I have to wonder about any one who would knowingly send out a supposed custom rod built on a bad blank.
A custom rod aint cheap ! It will possibly be used on a trip that cost so much that most are very lucky to go once or twice in any given year. Or some one like my self can only dream about...
I can only hope there is an extra hot place in hell for any one that would " knowingly " do this... Jeff
Quote from: Jeri on December 19, 2019, 06:35:47 AM... Makes you wonder just what can be achieved with simple visual science and a clear head - not 'pub science'??
Right On !! Keeping in mind what the goals are with a specific rod & go forth test & pay attention. I find this very intriguing... Jeff