I have every reason to believe this is another example of something that seems straightforward but is really an example of me not knowing enough to realize how much i dont know. So with that said...
I've gathered some thought and math goes into the quantity and spacing of guides on a rod. And I'm pretty clear that these factors play a role in how well you can cast with a given rod. I'm also clear that no rod is an island, and one must consider the rod-reel pairing to get the whole picture.
But theres still some stuff that confuses me. Like my 7' penn squadron 2 rod (great bang for your buck but nothing special) has 9 eyes including the tip. My 11' penn prevail has 6 including the tip. I would think it's a factor of cost, but The prevail costs triple what the squadron cost. I would think being a more expensive rod with far more room for guides, it would at the minimum have the same number if not more. Why doesn't it? And to take that further, would it benefit from adding guides?
I'm sure there's a point where you have enough, and additional guides won't result in additional performance (or cast length or sensitivity or whatever) but is there a point where you have too many? Is it possible the prevail only has 6 because a 7th would be detrimental? It seems common for surf rods to have fewer guides. But whyyyyyyy
The current rule of thumb is to have one guide for every foot of overall length plus one more (eight guides on a seven foot rod). Donno who came up with it; probably Fuji to sell more stuff. I think that is way too many for long rods (9 ft or more). I can't tell if all those guides have any impact on casting distance, but they definitely move the balance point and make the rod more tip-heavy and unwieldy. Way, way back (like in the split bamboo days) a seven foot rod may have had only two or three guides and that was when there was a much higher risk of breaking the rod. Then, there was a period in the fiberglass era when more guides was thought to reflect better rod quality. The fashion pendulum swings.
There have been posts here about spacing guides. Bryan had a good description of the dynamic method based on rod deflection. The idea is to minimize how much the line can rub on the blank with a fish on (conventional tackle). There are also charts and graphs.
-steve
optimal for distance would be 4 or 5 basketball hoops on a 20-footer, but you couldn't play a fish
optimal for playing a fish would be many guides keeping the line close & parallel to the blank,
no matter how the rod bends, but that wouldn't be much of a casting tool
every rod is a compromise between the two extremes, leaning one way or the other
your 5+1 11' is a Surf Rod; your 8+1 7' is a Boat Rod
EDIT: spinning rods, correct?
Steve hits it- the right number of guides is the number is takes to evenly distribute the stress of the line on the blank when static test is done at the recco'd operating parameters of the blank (not using 80 pound braid on a 15-30lb live bait rod and seeing if you can break an ugly stick). Spinning rods in general take less because they are larger and underslung, vs. conventional rods where the guide is lower and you should keep the line off the bend of the blank when flexed. Action comes into play here- a fast action blank may require a concentration of guides in the top quarter of the blank, then only three more in the middle half. A very heavy power, slow action rod like a Magnaflex Hatteras Heaver might be 11' conventional and have three guides and a tip (I have one hanging). I'd still have put one more, but as-is, it doesn't flex with a 16oz sinker on it...My very general rule when building is 5-6 on spinning rods, no matter the length, to keep weight down as the guides are larger...size of reel spool dictates guide size, and then spaced to the action, is a better formula IMO. Conventional rods, 6-8 depending on length, and go up to 25MM on a longer surf rod. I've seen LB rods with 10 guides and to me that's a bit of overkill, but 7-8 is nice.
I agree with most of what has been said. I build my own rods, lighter spinning rods only. I'm not into heavy spinners or conventionals. I like 5 + tip on 5'-6" or less and 6 + tip on 5'-8" to 7'. I am not a fan of the concept system on spinning rods but my disclaimer to that is I only use mono, never braid. I also stretch my mono regularly. I think line diameter and mono memory is the biggest culprit of short casting abilities in mono. I have an 8' telescoping spinning rod with 3 + the tip and it casts just as far as my son's factory made 6' & 7' St Croix and Loomis rods.
Thorhammer hit the nail on the head. I only have a minor quibble, in that I believe the placement should be optimized at proper full load (90 degree bend), especially if you intend to cast the rod, or bend it fully during a fight. But the difference in actual spacing (except for fly rods) is probably pretty minimal between the methods.
-------------------------------------------
Too many guides = more weight, more flat spots, more cost.
Too few guides = load is distributed improperly along the blank (poor casting , less load lifting, more likely to break)
Rods with the guides on top (non-spiral wrapped conventionals) need more guides near the tip to keep the line from rubbing on the blank where the rod bends most. This is why spinning rods get by with fewer guides (on the bottom of the rod, so no line rubbing on blank).
Longer and/or slower action (more evenly bending) rods need more guides.
Basically the point of the guides is to get the line coming off the reel to track the natural curve of the blank under load. Therefore, height (the point where the line pushes or pulls on the ring causing the rod to bend), and placement is going to be of at least equal importance as the total number of guides. The line can leave the reel at a different distance from the blank during the fight, depending on the reel, so this can be a consideration, especially for folks around here that like those wacky tall narrow reels.
Steve is right about fashion- I think a lot of what goes into tackle is what sells best at a given price point, as opposed to what works best.
Factory guide spacing recommendations for blanks is usually pretty good IMHO, with the caveat that the reel seat locks the reel in the location that the factory recommends, and the line leaving reel height is close to what they expect. If you don't care about fighting big fish with the rod and/or are not loading the rod heavily for distance casting, bottom guide placement is a bit less critical.
Here is a thread with all the gory details: https://alantani.com/index.php?topic=30033.msg349447#msg349447 (https://alantani.com/index.php?topic=30033.msg349447#msg349447)
There are also some new guide systems with formulas for placing guides to optimize casting distance, focused more on spinning rods. I personally view these as a combination of some useful theory, and embarrassingly nonsensical marketing hype ("Infinite Reality"- HA!).
YMMV
-J
I've not built any rods in quite a long time, but the newer spinning rods I've bought with improved spacing certainly cast way, way smoother and farther than my older rods. I'm currently shopping for a decent new dryer motor and trying to get my work bench set up to rebuild a bunch of my old sticks. Thinking about the Fuji Concept and KR Concept spacing systems, and possibly a combination of the two. Bait casters do need more guides, but the number of guides for a spinning rod is up for debate.
In the video below, Mr. Skinner briefly discusses a couple of his favorite rods. The rod he's holding only has four guides.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9i9v0ocpWs
Good answers, everyone. As usual I've learned useful info, so the dumb question was worth asking. I believe the takeaway here is leave what I have alone.
The truth is, no math or formula exist that will give proper guide lay for all blanks.
It's just not possible. Load test as described is the accepted way among most professionals. Rod needs to be braced where the persons hands will be whith fish on.
Reel is placed in reel seat guides are strung a weight is tied to end. Rod is place in pipe or fixture to hold at angle. One pulls on the tip while allowing the weight to keep line tight. Do not pull the line. Bend the rod by hand at the tip allowing weight to keep line tight.
Some standard off the rack rods are doing well to have a guide per ft. Longer spin rods can get by with fewer guides because the blank is being pulled. Guides are being pulled & not being pushed into the rod blank as they are with a conventional set up with rod loaded.
Line comes off a spinner much different. The line coming off a spinner reacts differently with the guides.
Total number of guides can change for various reasons.
Rod in the pictures is a rod for Mike
" MO " . Its a 7' conventional. At present it has a total of 9 guides + tip. 6 of those guides & tip are in the last 23" of the rod. Mike will use mostly 40 lb. line with no knots to pass through so we're using size 8 guides. Most of the time using 8's vs 10's at least one more guide is needed because tge 8's aren't as tall
The pic where I'm bending the rod the guides rolled off the spine / center. Any way makes it easier to see whats being
talked about... Jeff
Quote from: JasonGotaPenn on October 06, 2020, 02:22:16 AM
Good answers, everyone. As usual I've learned useful info, so the dumb question was worth asking. I believe the takeaway here is leave what I have alone.
Come-on Dude, the only dumb questions are the ones you don't ask. I usually learn stuff from every thread, especially those that begin with a question.
Gfish is right.while few people understand rod building. They don't need to. This site does I believe exist to help any one with any questions regarding fishing & the tools used.
THERE ARE NO DUMB QUESTIONS HERE !
Since coming here I now know when looking a reel over if it will meet my expectations.
Prior my expectations weren't in line with what the reel was designed to do... Jeff
One point I don't see mentioned is the issue of keeping the line away from your hand with a conventional rod under load. This applies mostly to those of us that use a rear fitted conventional reel.
Often it's desirable to have a fairly long gap between the last guide and the reel when using fast action blanks. Modern blanks all seem to be softer in the but section then in the past and under load the line then touches your hand which is not good, particularly in the case of braid.
A photo to show the issue.
I would overcome that by spacing the last guide closer to the reel, using a higher guide, more guides, higher reel, finding a more suitable blank, or even fitting the reel seat offset, in a way that it increases that gap.
This is not an easy answer. It comes down to the rod wrapper, guides used, blank, and $$$.
My first starting point is:
Spinners - 1 guide for every foot plus the tip.
Conventionals - 1 guide for every foot plus 2 guides plus the tip.
There is one major assumption. I love extra fast and fast blanks. I need to control the bend of the rod so I get proper loading at the fast tip and enough guides to allow the backbone of the blank to come into play when I am near the blank's limit.
I posted about my line spacing somewhere. But the best spacing is 1 the line cannot tough the blank in any condition for flexing the blank to its max to casting. There is a balance that can o let come after the initial line spacing, flexing the rod moving them were the line entering and exiting the guide is the same angle. Then taking the rod out with the intended reel and casting, listing for any line slaps. Then adjust the guides to reduce the line slaps, which means that one may need to add another guide to reduce the line's ability to slap the blank. Once I get the distance set, I review the line ring size and ring height. I run the line through all of the guides and then tape the line to the center of the spool knob for spinners and center the line for bait casters and conventionals. I will then change the ring size and height of each guide so that the line secured as noted, only touches the tip ring. I then take the rod out for some casting and see how it flies and sounds. If it sounds like the line is choking at the stripper guide, I move the striper guide up a 1/2" at a time until it disappears then adjust the remaking guides by the static loading method. Run the line through the guides JD see that the guide only touches the tip. Height and ring size adjustment is done again. Then go casting again. Then I experiment if I can reduce 1 or 2 guides and cast and static load again to see if it made a difference in casting and flexing.
I have found that it's difficult for a hobbiest to do things this way because you will need a host of different guides, size and height, before you come up with the optimum arrangement. But if you can, you will be more than satisfied with the way it casts and how it loads while fighting a monster fish for the rod.
Hope this helps. BTW, I hate recommended standard guide spacing. It's a good place start though. But I would still use my method in the end to set the guide spacings.
Have rod/rod blank manufacturers used high resolution videography to determine guide spacing? Especially for spinning rods where the line comes off in spirals? Rod blank manufacturers could have different recommendations for different guide types.
and by the way, I love my interline rods where there are no guides, only the point in which the line enters the rod blank and a top that the line exits the rod blank.
As mentioned above, I would strongly encourage taking a look at this thread:
https://alantani.com/index.php?topic=30033.30 (https://alantani.com/index.php?topic=30033.30)
What we are discussing here was covered in that thread in greater detail, with lots of contributions from our rod builders. Bryan's guide spacing method is in that thread.
If you don't require the rod to load completely, even some pretty crappy guide count/placement will work pretty well, especially with a spinning rod. That is why that guy in the striper video is happy with his four guide spinner. Many of us have fished a rod missing a middle guide, and if the situation is not too demanding, the effect is often not that noticeable.
A limited number of guides changes how the blank loads. To make an extreme example, if you only had two guides on the rod and locked down the drag, the load is going to pull the guides toward each other, concentrating the load at the apex of the curve between the guides on the underside of the blank (the glass is less able to compress than elongate. Since the bottom won't compress, the blank deforms with the sides swelling out, eventually failing). If your broken rod warranty claim is rejected because of high sticking, it is probably because the factory/builder observed this type of breakage at the apex between the seat and first guide, or the apex between two guides.
Change the positioning of the two guides, and you change the point where the load concentrates. Add more guides, and you add more points to distribute the load. Position the guides well and you will have less acute angles where the line passes through the guides, which (I think) means that there will be less force pulling the guides toward each other. And so on.
Quote from: smnaguwa on October 06, 2020, 11:42:16 AM
Have rod/rod blank manufacturers used high resolution videography to determine guide spacing? Especially for spinning rods where the line comes off in spirals? Rod blank manufacturers could have different recommendations for different guide types.
Not a rod company, but Fuji did exactly this to promote their new guide system. See Dominick's post # 37 in the thread mentioned above. Some exaggerations, and goofy marketing hooey, but eventually demonstrating that small ring size starting far away from the blank, then fairly rapidly dropping down to lots of small rings close to the blank limited line slap when very stiff line is pulled off the reel by some sort of high speed line yanker/winder. Might work in real life too :)
-J
I love this kind of threads ;D ;D
last year I restored a short surf rod 7ft that have some broken guides, installed some Ti pacbay guides and my personal touch, but I was also debating on how many guides to wrap on it.
https://alantani.com/index.php?topic=28392.0
....after some reseach this were my comments..
Quote from: steelfish on May 03, 2019, 05:27:03 PM
I got this brand new rod for cheap cuz it had 2 broken guides and the tip, its a Tica UMGA 7ft surf Spinning rod, I was going to install some matching guides and sell it but I look at my rod rack and noticed that I NEEDED a surf rod (yep, really!! ), ...............
in another thread I was mentioning that before wrapping this rod I did a static test on it and seemed that it might need another guide at least to have a better flow on the line when pulling or lifting 15lb from the ground, but after reading some of the professinal tips from Jeri (our surf fishing expert and rod builder) I opted to leave the rod with the stock 5 guides to have a minimal stiff joints by the guide/thread/epoxy and let the blank do its work on the fish, this rod is MH in action and it will work any fish from 1-6# really nice by itself, the less guides will also help to cast better, hopefully I could test it soon with a fish.
so, far the rod have worked flawlessly catching 3-4# triggers from the beach and other small fishes and love how the blank "works" the fish by itself all you have to to is to hold the rod in your hands steady and the blank will move up and down while the fish fight until is tired, I've taken it also for inshore fishing on boat and it worked great for bit bigger fishes as spanish macks, by now is my preferred rod for catch bait
with all the different blanks, fast taper, this taper, that taper, there is no rule of thumb in my belief, i liked riverrats picture, if i built a rod with a blank i never used before, i would put the finished blank with the reel seat in a tube held in a vise, reel mounted and run the line thru the tip, other guides loseley floating on the line, i would attach a large weight to the end of line, i would then crank the line in some on the reel putting a bend on the blank, then i would slide the guides into position , tape them down , so the line would run thru the guides and not lay, or rub on the blank, this way the line is bridged evenly . just my way of guide spacing. harryk
This thread keeps getting better. It's amazing how many fish a fella can catch despite not having the slightest clue how the gear works or why it's designed the way it is.
I've caught fish with some remarkably busted rods. Blind squirrel principle it seems.
Quote from: JasonGotaPenn on October 07, 2020, 08:45:28 PM
This thread keeps getting better. It's amazing how many fish a fella can catch despite not having the slightest clue how the gear works or why it's designed the way it is.
I've caught fish with some remarkably busted rods. Blind squirrel principle it seems.
You said it..."BUSTED" rods.
None of my custom rods, like I had mentioned, have never gotten busted when fighting a fish.
If you buy the components for a rod that cost $400, wouldn't you want to wrap it so it does not get "BUSTED" fighting a fish? If you don't have a problem with it, then buy an OTS rod with a good warrentee and call it a day.
Quote from: Bryan Young on October 07, 2020, 09:12:12 PM
Quote from: JasonGotaPenn on October 07, 2020, 08:45:28 PM
This thread keeps getting better. It's amazing how many fish a fella can catch despite not having the slightest clue how the gear works or why it's designed the way it is.
I've caught fish with some remarkably busted rods. Blind squirrel principle it seems.
You said it..."BUSTED" rods.
None of my custom rods, like I had mentioned, have never gotten busted when fighting a fish.
If you buy the components for a rod that cost $400, wouldn't you want to wrap it so it does not get "BUSTED" fighting a fish? If you don't have a problem with it, then buy an OTS rod with a good warrentee and call it a day.
Did i just get roasted?
Man, I was a kid. I didn't know any better or have muxh of a budget. I had a cheapo rod that at one point only had 3 functional guides, of which none were the tip or bottom one. You could still cast if you flung it sideways. I "fixed" it at one point with a bent soda can tabs. I may not be very skilled, but at least I'm creative.
Quote from: JasonGotaPenn on October 07, 2020, 08:45:28 PM
Did i just get roasted?
No man. No body here like that. Brian was just pointing out what's obvious... Jeff
Quote from: Rivverrat on October 07, 2020, 09:57:38 PM
Quote from: JasonGotaPenn on October 07, 2020, 08:45:28 PM
Did i just get roasted?
No man. No body here like that. Brian was just pointing out what's obvious... Jeff
You sure? I was thinking maybe i need to report it to a... Wait... Oh.
In case its unclear I'm entirely kidding.
Quote from: JasonGotaPenn on October 07, 2020, 09:32:14 PM
Quote from: Bryan Young on October 07, 2020, 09:12:12 PM
Quote from: JasonGotaPenn on October 07, 2020, 08:45:28 PM
This thread keeps getting better. It's amazing how many fish a fella can catch despite not having the slightest clue how the gear works or why it's designed the way it is.
I've caught fish with some remarkably busted rods. Blind squirrel principle it seems.
You said it..."BUSTED" rods.
None of my custom rods, like I had mentioned, have never gotten busted when fighting a fish.
If you buy the components for a rod that cost $400, wouldn't you want to wrap it so it does not get "BUSTED" fighting a fish? If you don't have a problem with it, then buy an OTS rod with a good warrentee and call it a day.
Did i just get roasted?
Man, I was a kid. I didn't know any better or have muxh of a budget. I had a cheapo rod that at one point only had 3 functional guides, of which none were the tip or bottom one. You could still cast if you flung it sideways. I "fixed" it at one point with a bent soda can tabs. I may not be very skilled, but at least I'm creative.
No roasting.
Only stating a fact.
Also, fish don't know the rod or reel you are fishing with nor do they care. The same with lures. I knew guys that could take a stick, whittle it a bit, tie it to leader and add a hook and catch fish. But we still buy these pretty fancy lures.
If you can do with what you have, more power to you. Why spend the money for anything better? I'm cheap. I don't like to spend more money unless it makes perfect sense.
Quote from: Bryan Young on October 07, 2020, 10:39:50 PM
Quote from: JasonGotaPenn on October 07, 2020, 09:32:14 PM
Quote from: Bryan Young on October 07, 2020, 09:12:12 PM
Quote from: JasonGotaPenn on October 07, 2020, 08:45:28 PM
This thread keeps getting better. It's amazing how many fish a fella can catch despite not having the slightest clue how the gear works or why it's designed the way it is.
I've caught fish with some remarkably busted rods. Blind squirrel principle it seems.
You said it..."BUSTED" rods.
None of my custom rods, like I had mentioned, have never gotten busted when fighting a fish.
If you buy the components for a rod that cost $400, wouldn't you want to wrap it so it does not get "BUSTED" fighting a fish? If you don't have a problem with it, then buy an OTS rod with a good warrentee and call it a day.
Did i just get roasted?
Man, I was a kid. I didn't know any better or have muxh of a budget. I had a cheapo rod that at one point only had 3 functional guides, of which none were the tip or bottom one. You could still cast if you flung it sideways. I "fixed" it at one point with a bent soda can tabs. I may not be very skilled, but at least I'm creative.
No roasting.
Only stating a fact.
Also, fish don't know the rod or reel you are fishing with nor do they care. The same with lures. I knew guys that could take a stick, whittle it a bit, tie it to leader and add a hook and catch fish. But we still buy these pretty fancy lures.
If you can do with what you have, more power to you. Why spend the money for anything better? I'm cheap. I don't like to spend more money unless it makes perfect sense.
And sorry, it's been a rough couple of days from work dealing with indecisiveness. I guess it's showing here. Please accept my apologies.
You guys favor me with your willingness to share your knowledge. There was nothing offensive about anything that was said. I was trying to be funny.
More dumb questions are sure to follow.
Quote from: Bryan Young on October 07, 2020, 10:39:50 PM
............ I don't like to spend more money unless it makes perfect sense.
for me it always makes perfect sense.. my better half doesnt share my way of thinking ::)
Points are all valid. We tinker, because that's what we do. David Duel's WR drum was caught on a stock Squidder, the WR striped bass for a long while was on a 704Z (maybe 706Z), and more bottom fish have been caught on Long Beach's and 113's on broomstick snake guide rods than any of us will likely ever catch. Did I catch loads of grouper on bone stock 114H and solid glas rods? YES. Did I still build Cortez Customs on Sabres to do the exact same job? YES. I have more custom and high stuff than I'm about to tell anyone about, yet it seems to come down to the Penn 9's, 4500SS, and Ambassadeurs more often than not. I will buy a rod with 6" broken off for five bucks, re-tip, and call it a jigging rod in a skinny second :)
(I just nabbed such a St Croix this weekend for $8. The dude wanted 15, I says no it's broken).
hey, you can catch a fish with a shoelace/safety-pin/booger combo ;D
but it ain't optimal or even enjoyable (beyond having done it ONCE, just to say you did)
& it ain't why you gravitate to this forum
Quote from: thorhammer on October 07, 2020, 11:35:48 PM
I will buy a rod with 6" broken off for five bucks, re-tip, and call it a jigging rod in a skinny second :)
LOL, I have some nice Lews 7ft heavy freshwater rods with 6" to 8" broken off from the tip, I have the same plans for them, change some guides and use them for jigging and inshore fish in SW, both passed the test to lift 15# tool box from the floor and bouncing it few times, they will be spanish macks killers.
I have heard it said (and tend to believe it, but have no reference evidence) that more rods have been broken by car doors, truck tail gates, ex-wives, and dock cleats than by fish (guilty, I lost an old Green Conolon trout rod on a dock cleat :'(). Another thought - I would put forth (again with no references) that a number of rods "broken" on fish actually were rods that may have been inadvertently damaged by rapping up against a gunwale, improperly stored, rolling around in the bed of the truck on the way to the dock, or otherwise took a sharp knock or concentrated blow that may not have outwardly shown signs of damage but did in fact affect the composite. I know that OC Steve and Jurelometer Dave both have pretty extensive experience in the composite realm, and probably could speak with more knowledge.
Quote from: Bryan Young on October 06, 2020, 03:30:01 PM
and by the way, I love my interline rods where there are no guides, only the point in which the line enters the rod blank and a top that the line exits the rod blank.
Bryan - I would like to hear more about this. My only experience with a "though rod" type of setup has been when I borrowed a buddies Sabiki rod on my last long range trip (and he was more than happy to let me borrow it - he drank beer and watched me catch bait ;D) but I have never seen anything like that used elsewhere. What I really liked about his Sabiki bait setup was that you could reel the rig up inside of the rod and toss it in the rack - and then use it again later without all the grief associated with trying to store one of those bait catching rigs. - john
Quote from: Brewcrafter on October 09, 2020, 04:19:08 AM
rods "broken" on fish actually were rods that may have been inadvertently damaged by rapping up against a gunwale,
I know that OC Steve and Jurelometer Dave both have pretty extensive experience in the composite realm, and probably could speak with more knowledge.
What I know is from the school of hard knocks.... so to speak. My rod holders allow the tip to slap against the gunwale when it gets rough. There's no place else to put them. I've broken a half-dozen rods in about as many years. They always break near the tip in the middle of a cast after thousands of similar casts.
There is a certain type of blank that is much more prone to breaking in my hands. They are black graphite with a satin finish, made in China (possibly all from the same factory) and sold under names like Rainshadow, or Batson, or Alps or unbranded and sold on the internet by places like Mud Hole, GetBit or anonymous ebay sellers. They are very inexpensive, very light, with good action, and are a terrific deal if you don't break it.. I think they must use a really high modulus carbon fiber and are so brittle that they cannot handle being slapped around. St. Croix and Lamiglass graphite blanks and all the old fiberglass tobacco blanks hold up very well for me. Never broke one. But, fiberglass is really heavy. St.Croix or Lamiglass graphite are somewhat heavier and cost about four times more.
-steve
Quote from: Brewcrafter on October 09, 2020, 04:19:08 AM
Bryan - I would like to hear more about this. My only experience with a "though rod" type of setup has been when I borrowed a buddies Sabiki rod on my last long range trip (and he was more than happy to let me borrow it - he drank beer and watched me catch bait ;D) but I have never seen anything like that used elsewhere. What I really liked about his Sabiki bait setup was that you could reel the rig up inside of the rod and toss it in the rack - and then use it again later without all the grief associated with trying to store one of those bait catching rigs. - john
John,
If I can ever make it down there, I'll gladly bring a few rods down. We could go down to the surf and cast away and hopefully you could catch something to see why I love interline rods. That, and there is no way to foul snag another one's line of my guides as we weave through each other on a boat when fighting a fish.
There was a company that made through-blank rods for teasing billfish for fly fishers.
They troll around a typical spread of lures, but without hooks. When a billfish starts whacking a lure, The lures are all wound in , and a deckhand casts a rigged hookless bait on the teaser rod. You want the billfish to almost eat the bait and then you yank it away and out of the water. A rod without guides comes in handy here.
On a side note: As soon as the bait is pulled out of the water, the captain takes the motor(s) out of gear, and the angler flops the fly right where the bait was pulled out. All this happens within 30 feet of the transom. Even though the boat is still moving, and the cast is more of a lob than a real cast with the fly being dragged by the boat when the fish eats, this somehow counts as a legal cast-fly caught fish and not trolling for the purposes of IGFA records, and self congratulations. ::) ::) ::)
Getting back on topic, I would think that the problem with through-blank rods is that there is no way to control the line rubbing on the inside of the blank, and since blanks are built inside to outside around a mandrel, there really is no way to line a rod to avoid wear that is both durable and not detrimental to rod action. Braid probably makes this worse.
Quote from: oc1 on October 09, 2020, 06:38:09 AM
Quote from: Brewcrafter on October 09, 2020, 04:19:08 AM
rods "broken" on fish actually were rods that may have been inadvertently damaged by rapping up against a gunwale,
I know that OC Steve and Jurelometer Dave both have pretty extensive experience in the composite realm, and probably could speak with more knowledge.
What I know is from the school of hard knocks.... so to speak. My rod holders allow the tip to slap against the gunwale when it gets rough. There's no place else to put them. I've broken a half-dozen rods in about as many years. They always break near the tip in the middle of a cast after thousands of similar casts.
There is a certain type of blank that is much more prone to breaking in my hands. They are black graphite with a satin finish, made in China (possibly all from the same factory) and sold under names like Rainshadow, or Batson, or Alps or unbranded and sold on the internet by places like Mud Hole, GetBit or anonymous ebay sellers. They are very inexpensive, very light, with good action, and are a terrific deal if you don't break it.. I think they must use a really high modulus carbon fiber and are so brittle that they cannot handle being slapped around. St. Croix and Lamiglass graphite blanks and all the old fiberglass tobacco blanks hold up very well for me. Never broke one. But, fiberglass is really heavy. St.Croix or Lamiglass graphite are somewhat heavier and cost about four times more.
-steve
Steve has actually messed with building blanks from scratch, I am just making stuff up ;D.
But I did read that while the material science types make some distinctions about when to use the words graphite vs carbon when discussing fibers, the words are pretty much interchangeable when used to market fishing rods. They are all built from off the shelf carbon fiber weave, with only the resins doctored for fishing rod usage.
I think that wall thickness that is the controlling factor. Glass and carbon fibers do not stretch much, it is the resin that is elastic and allows the fibers to move around, which is why the blank can bend without breaking. Since carbon fibers are stiffer than glass, less fibers are needed to reach the desired stiffness for a given rod. While this makes the rod lighter and more lively, less fibers with less resin means that it takes less damage or deformation for enough fibers to detach from the resin for the rod to go kablooie.
But it is not just damage from blank abuse. High stick failures are a real thing. I have seen fly rods blow up (break in multiple locations at the same time) more than once.
From time to time, fly rod makers will come out with super lightweight high performance rod for big bucks (like over $1000 USD), but they generally lose favor over time, as they break almost as easily as the low-end low lightweight cheapies that Steve refers too (I do like Rainshadow blanks for the record, and their customer support has treated me well- quality control does not seem as good as the super expensive brands, but all lightweight blanks tend to break).
The improvements that go into higher end rods ( beyond better quality control) are in the resins where various powders and magic pixie dust is added to the resin that goes into the weave or outer coating. The goal here is to improve the strength of resin attachment to fibers , and mebbe changing the elastic properties (not sure about this part). The coating additives are used to make the surface more resilient to impact damage. Think about this before sanding down a high end blank. Coatings are less common, but they are still out there.
The adds we see about nano-technology rods are usually referring to the stuff that they put in the resin, as opposed to using actual nano fibers, which are still sort of expensive to make. Whether these "nano" powders do more for marketing performance than fishing performance, I have no clue.
-J
Quote from: oc1 on October 09, 2020, 06:38:09 AM
There is a certain type of blank that is much more prone to breaking in my hands. They are black graphite with a satin finish, made in China (possibly all from the same factory) and sold under names like Rainshadow, or Batson, or Alps or unbranded and sold on the internet by places like Mud Hole, GetBit or anonymous ebay sellers. They are very inexpensive, very light, with good action, and are a terrific deal if you don't break it.. I think they must use a really high modulus carbon fiber and are so brittle that they cannot handle being slapped around. St. Croix and Lamiglass graphite blanks and all the old fiberglass tobacco blanks hold up very well for me. Never broke one. But, fiberglass is really heavy. St.Croix or Lamiglass graphite are somewhat heavier and cost about four times more.
-steve
I totally disagree with this. Rainshadow or Batson (Batson is the company, Rainshadow is the blank) are high quality blanks, and not that cheap. I put them up against Seekers and Calstars. Definitely not "brittle". BTW, Alps makes rod components, not blanks.
Quote from: Brewcrafter on October 09, 2020, 04:19:08 AM
I have heard it said (and tend to believe it, but have no reference evidence) that more rods have been broken by car doors, truck tail gates, ex-wives, and dock cleats than by fish (guilty, I lost an old Green Conolon trout rod on a dock cleat :'(). Another thought - ........................ - john
I have probably broken 6 or 7 rods during my fishing life........one when trying to dislodge a lure stuck on the bottom and the rest all when "throwing" a fish on to shore. This is actually more lifting a fish on to a boat or rock. When done correctly with the type of rod most of us use it is possible to throw a fish of up to about 18 pounds. It is called "throwing" because you need to propel the fish with some momentum out the water with a fluid swinging action using the backbone of the rod.
High modulus graphite is especially prone to break when doing this.
95% of rods break by high sticking.
Also there's some variety out there for through-blank rods available for sale.
Yes thats a real listing.
To the original posters' first question, a lot of commercial products are built to 'suit the markets perceptions' and invariably built down to a price point. Meaning that the longer surf rod has been built to suit the perceived customer requirements - big guides and not too many, it has nothing to do with performance.
Building a lot of long surf rods for our local market down here, we have over the years found that 'rules' and 'recipes' for rod designs should only be taken as guidence at best, for as no rules ever apply truly to every situation. A point in case, we build a lot of 14'long surf rods and accordingly whether for use with conventional or spinner reels, we have found that 9 guides can give optimum performance for our blanks, but equally both rods would be built on a totally different schemes of layout.
There are just too many variations in fishing rod types and applications and lengths and actions for any rules to ever become set in stone.
As long as there's on on the tip like the old long bamboo poles that never had a reel I'd give it a go.
J - thanks for the info. In-line rods are popular in Asia. I have a Shimano in-line rod I use shore fishing for stripers. I have wondered how durable they are. How much "grooving" of the inside of the rod is happening? I don't use regular braided line but use fused PE line like Nanofil.
Quote from: smnaguwa on October 12, 2020, 11:16:51 AM
J - thanks for the info. In-line rods are popular in Asia. I have a Shimano in-line rod I use shore fishing for stripers. I have wondered how durable they are. How much "grooving" of the inside of the rod is happening? I don't use regular braided line but use fused PE line like Nanofil.
Ahh, they call them interline rods. Now I have the proper terminology. :)
The only thing that I could come up with was a giant stainless steel tapered coil spring crammed up inside the blank. Mebbe even nested into the mandrel before wrapping the weave. If the mandrel had a spiral groove, you could unscrew the finishished blank off the mandrel, and the spring would be held in place on the blank by the resin, with just the right amount of metal exposed.
But I thought that this would still be too problematic. Line grooving wear is the obvious problem. Having lots of coils spreads out the load, decreasing wear on an individual coil, UNLESS, the rod has a fast taper which would concentrate load on a couple of coils. And normal rods usually tend to be pretty thin toward the tip to minimize inertia/recoil (the tip waving back and forth when releasing the cast). And the tip section typically bends quite a lot. There has to be too many compromises toward the tip section of the rod - larger diameter to accommodate the metal coil and exit hole and possibly knot passing, a heavy through-hole tip top, more weight from the metal coil, and so on. Oh, and also, the metal coil is going to impart its own action, which is a bit hard to control, as the wire diameter has to be large enough to keep the line from rubbing on the blank, and fatigue is going to make the spring tension decrease over time at a different rate than the rest of the blank (probably faster).
So the blank design for this rod, has to be a slower action, with a more consistent bend, and the tip is going to be especially heavy and on the slow side.
But it looks like Daiwa could not come up with anything better. Somewhere around the midpoint of this video, there are a few words and a diagram that looks pretty much like what I described above, along with copious amounts of marketing "fertilizer" couched as technology. "Water shedding" blah blah blah...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9IHD9b62Bss (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9IHD9b62Bss)
There are other disadvanges, including the aforementioned inability to inspect for wear, inability to replace worn "coils", difficulty cleanining, threading, passing knots and tangles, more friction during the cast. The list goes on. (There must be some sort of giant threading tool to simplify threading the line from the entry to exit orifice?)
So what are the advantages?
No guides to break when transporting or fishing.
No guides to tangle on your terminal tackle.
May be cheaper to manufacture in large volume.
Looks cool to some folks.
Couldn't really come up with anything else. I don't buy the "performance advantage from not having guides" argument. The interline rod has one humongous coil guide fighting the action of the blank from entry orifice to exit orifice.
-----
These type of rods make the most sense where the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I could be wrong, but I think ther is a lot of drop-fishing with multi-hook sabiki rigs in Japan and parts of Asia. Not just for bait catching like we do here in the USA. Here, you are not casting, a slow soft rod is what you want to keep fish from coming off the hook, and you are not catching big fish that will heavily load the rod and take line. And anybody who has fished a sabiki rig with a "normal" rod knows what a pain sabikis are for tangling in the guides.
Another case that comes to mind are the bass boat guys that lay out a bunch of rigged rods on the carpeted deck, so that they can switch lures from cast to cast. Most bass casts ar pretty short distance, And bass don't pull very hard.
There are probably other cases, and if folks simply just like fishing with these rods, that is reason enough to use them. But looking strictly from a technology perspective, I just see this type of design as having some inherent challenges that put it at a disadvantage.
-J
Thanks for the info J. I think it is popular in Japan as shore fishing from rocks is very common there. It is also windy and the interline rod eliminates the "line slap" or line bowing when using the ~4m(13ft) spinning rods with light line. It may also help with the precison casting needed as guides affects the aerodynamics of the rod. The soft action makes it tough fighting the fish but the length of the rod is necessary to land the fish among the rocks even with very long landing nets. They come with a fine coiled line threading wire .