Reel Repair by Alan Tani

Thanks Dave and Steve. Fishing for answers/information and getting bites works well here.

Quote from: Gfish on October 05, 2026, 04:15:45 PMThanks Dave and Steve. Fishing for answers/information and getting bites works well here.

We are definitely all learning from each other here.  I am looking forward to hearing about anything cbar45 gets back from Seaguide on the functional value of triangular rings.

Here is the Fuji slow motion video posted by Dominick that Steve mentioned.  In addition to making the case for their guide system, you can see how lightly the line contacts the rings vs all the bashing into the frame during a cast.


There is a lot of other energy loss going on during a cast including unwedging the line coils and getting them off of the spool, and most notably, fluid friction from the line moving through the air (air is just another a fluid in physics). Unlike sliding friction, fluid friction is a function of surface area, so the longer the cast, the more friction.  So even a large improvement in guide train efficiency is going to be a smaller improvement in overall casting distance.

-J

Excuse me for being the cynic, I can't help but notice that the Fuji concepts include buying and installing many more Fuji guides than we were accustomed to.  Their theories always seem to augment their profitability.

Quote from: oc1 on October 06, 2026, 12:29:27 PMExcuse me for being the cynic, I can't help but notice that the Fuji concepts include buying and installing many more Fuji guides than we were accustomed to.  Their theories always seem to augment their profitability.

Yeah I've commented on that before. And how if you use the KR concept guides to do a cone of flight type layout with smaller running guides the results will blow you away.

At fuji board meeting:
"All in favor of scrapping this suggested layout that avoids 2 extra guides in the most expensive sizes for the sake of ACTUALLY maximizing casting distance raise your hand."
Yeah...

With that said extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. An extraordinary claim with no proof is a gimmick. Fuji KR guides have proven themselves. If this is an improvement, prove it.

Quote from: JasonGotaProblem on October 06, 2026, 01:04:12 PM

Quote from: oc1 on October 06, 2026, 12:29:27 PMExcuse me for being the cynic, I can't help but notice that the Fuji concepts include buying and installing many more Fuji guides than we were accustomed to.  Their theories always seem to augment their profitability.

Yeah I've commented on that before. And how if you use the KR concept guides to do a cone of flight type layout with smaller running guides the results will blow you away.

At fuji board meeting:
"All in favor of scrapping this suggested layout that avoids 2 extra guides in the most expensive sizes for the sake of ACTUALLY maximizing casting distance raise your hand."
Yeah...

With that said extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. An extraordinary claim with no proof is a gimmick. Fuji KR guides have proven themselves. If this is an improvement, prove it.

I don't remember the video discussing any measured change in casting distance. They also note that the line used in the video was selected because it was a worst case.  The difference with braid is going to be much smaller.  And for folk that say they don't care about distance: A distance test reveals result for effort.  A guide layout that enables a greater distance for a large amount of effort means a lighter touch can be used for short casts. Plus not whacking the braid sideways across the guides has gotta help with maintaining its integrity. GSP braid is quite brittle across the fibers.

The cynic (realist) in me says that the reason actual end result effects (such as casting distance) are not presented is probably because the benefit is not dramatic enough to be useful for marketing  purposes.  They do the same for their ceramic inserts. Lots of technical data about the difference in materials, zilch on measurable end results.

To cut Fuji some slack, they go much farther than just about any manufacturer in the tackle industry in terms of explaining and supporting their product material and design claims. 

If anyone really cares, the distance test is really easy. You just need something that can repeatedly launch the sinker with a consistent velocity that is in the same ballpark as a distance cast.  I am guessing that a contraption with a decent sling shot and a ruler is close enough.  You can tell when you get the velocity right  when the sling shot cast distance matches a normal hand cast distance that you want to test for. Fire off a bunch of these slingshot  "casts" with different guide setups.  Pay attention to the standard deviation in results (a very tight group of distance numbers for a given guide train is a sign that you are getting good data).  Try it with different payloads and different line types. See how much of a difference in distance you are getting.

You can even try this to fine tune a layout on a custom build.   

Some folk have messed with test casting different layouts and have convinced themselves of the relative benefits of certain guide train systems, but a test like this will actually quantify the differences.

We could even try the same test  with these triangle ring guides that started this thread.


-J

As a guy that does very little actual plug or lure casting I would be a lot more interested in how the guide train relates to friction and stress when reeling in a fish. Seems to me like that is a much more critical aspect of the guide size, spacing and locations.

Quote from: Midway Tommy on Today at 04:19:26 AMAs a guy that does very little actual plug or lure casting I would be a lot more interested in how the guide train relates to friction and stress when reeling in a fish. Seems to me like that is a much more critical aspect of the guide size, spacing and locations.

We have some threads on this.

 For fighting, the basics are that you want to keep from having any acute line angles in a bent rod from a pair of guides being too far apart, and if it is a conventional rod, you also want to avoid having the line rub on the blank. 

The other thing is that you want to make sure that you can load up the bottom part of the blank if you intend for the rod to do any serious lifting.  This means bottom guides that are not too far from the butt, and using the appropriate guide height so they all load up evenly.  This is more difficult to do with spinning rods, because the spool is so far from the blank.  The closer the guides and spool are to the blank, the easier it is to make a guide train the utilizes the bottom end when fighting a fish.

If you have a light rod, you might need to compromise between casting performance and fighting performance.  More guides near the tip will minimize line rub and acute angles during the fight,  but will lead to more oscillation from the extra weight after the cast is released.  And extra guides will stiffen the blank, especially near the tip. This can inhibit the rod from loading up as well, especially if you are mostly loading  the top part of the rod for short to medium  distance casts (tip casting).  I' m not sure if there is much of a trade off for the bottom half.

With modern ceramic guides and braided line, the coefficient of friction is so low that material selection isn't going to change things much.  And the talk about heat resistance is nonsense. Guide layout is what is important.   

That is all that I can remember off the top of my head.

-J

Quote from: jurelometer on October 06, 2026, 05:56:04 PMIf anyone really cares, the distance test is really easy. You just need something that can repeatedly launch the sinker with a consistent velocity that is in the same ballpark as a distance cast.  I am guessing that a contraption with a decent sling shot and a ruler is close enough.  You can tell when you get the velocity right  when the sling shot cast distance matches a normal hand cast distance that you want to test for. Fire off a bunch of these slingshot  "casts" with different guide setups.  Pay attention to the standard deviation in results (a very tight group of distance numbers for a given guide train is a sign that you are getting good data).  Try it with different payloads and different line types. See how much of a difference in distance you are getting.

You can even try this to fine tune a layout on a custom build.   

Some folk have messed with test casting different layouts and have convinced themselves of the relative benefits of certain guide train systems, but a test like this will actually quantify the differences.
-J

I fail to see how the slingshot thing is more repeatable than just making your best distance cast.  I keep a measured casting head as long as my best cast.  The splice to the backing will end up within a few feet of my thumb at the end of each cast.  It is repeatable enough.

Distance is everything to me and the guide rabbit hole is deep and twisted.  Installing the guides changes the rod's action, swing weight, balance and total weight.  Taping on guides for a test does not have the same effect as whipping and epoxying guides.  What I've ended up with is nothing like the Fuji Concept and does not involve Fuji guides.

Quote from: jurelometer on Today at 04:53:03 AMIf you have a light rod, you might need to compromise between casting performance and fighting performance.  More guides near the tip will minimize line rub and acute angles during the fight,  but will lead to more oscillation from the extra weight after the cast is released.  And extra guides will stiffen the blank, especially near the tip. This can inhibit the rod from loading up as well, especially if you are mostly loading  the top part of the rod for short to medium  distance casts (tip casting).  I' m not sure if there is much of a trade off for the bottom half.

-J

Extra (unnecessary) guides near the tip won't stiffen the blank, but they will slow it down enough such that a snap-shot cast using only the upper third of the rod will feel "mushy"—-which is what I think you're getting at here.

The same goes for extra weight. If you wrapped 50 guides end-to-end on a blank you'd end up with something super flexy and slow, rather than a metal ramrod.

Running guides used in Concept systems may be more in number, but make up for this by being generally smaller and lighter. Of importance is allowing the curve of the blank to dictate a minimal amount of guides and their positioning, aiming for a straight line path regardless of the system being used.

I once built a 14' 6" rod for fishing from the high cliffs. If I had gone with the suggested NGC spacing of one running guide per every "X" amount of inches, it'd have totaled something like 20 guides from the choke-point to tip. Spacing the running guides according to the blank's natural curve allowed me to use less.

At the end of the day every rod is an individual. All these systems and concepts are starting points. All of which would allow you to build a pretty decent rod if you stick to them. But to build a great rod requires test casting, test pulling, and micro-adjustments. I can't tell you the last time that the selection of guides I purchased were actually the final set of guides that got installed. There's almost always a swap of one or two components happening based on the results of my bench testing. Sometimes I wrap a rod and then go change the guides a week later. One rod saw 3 different stripper guide types before I was happy.

Could I have built a "perfectly fine" rod without that almost inevitable swap? Yeah. But I try to build great rods. And I'd like to believe that I succeed ...sometimes. could I learn from previous experience and just buy the right parts the first time? You'd probably think so.

Quote from: oc1 on Today at 05:57:54 AM

Quote from: jurelometer on October 06, 2026, 05:56:04 PMIf anyone really cares, the distance test is really easy. You just need something that can repeatedly launch the sinker with a consistent velocity that is in the same ballpark as a distance cast.  I am guessing that a contraption with a decent sling shot and a ruler is close enough.  You can tell when you get the velocity right  when the sling shot cast distance matches a normal hand cast distance that you want to test for. Fire off a bunch of these slingshot  "casts" with different guide setups.  Pay attention to the standard deviation in results (a very tight group of distance numbers for a given guide train is a sign that you are getting good data).  Try it with different payloads and different line types. See how much of a difference in distance you are getting.

You can even try this to fine tune a layout on a custom build.   

Some folk have messed with test casting different layouts and have convinced themselves of the relative benefits of certain guide train systems, but a test like this will actually quantify the differences.
-J

I fail to see how the slingshot thing is more repeatable than just making your best distance cast.  I keep a measured casting head as long as my best cast.  The splice to the backing will end up within a few feet of my thumb at the end of each cast.  It is repeatable enough.

Distance is everything to me and the guide rabbit hole is deep and twisted.  Installing the guides changes the rod's action, swing weight, balance and total weight.  Taping on guides for a test does not have the same effect as whipping and epoxying guides.  What I've ended up with is nothing like the Fuji Concept and does not involve Fuji guides.

Since you are not bending the rod to launch the cast, the slingshot approach takes the blank out of the equation and only measures the guide layout.  You can test two layouts built on the same model of blank, one right after another, and not have to be concerned that differences in the blanks are affecting the results.  If you try to us the same blank and change the guides, the. You have to deal with differences in itime, which can also skew the result. Other stuff to worry about too like the line getting warmer, stretched out more, wet, etc.

If you are like me, your best casts vary a lot in distance, so it takes a large sample to get get a decent number for comparison, and then you have to worry about how repeatedly casting affects your distance.

And if the difference in performance is useful but not dramatic  (let's say 5-10%), in order to capture and quantify the improvement, you need a more exact process.  Also if you want to share your results, a repeatable, quantifiable experiment that can be duplicated is more compelling than a personal casting test.

OTOH, if you are just interested in finding out if it makes a big enough difference for you to personally care about, and doing some practice casts gets you there, then I agree with your position.

-J

Quote from: cbar45 on Today at 12:25:17 PM

Quote from: jurelometer on Today at 04:53:03 AMIf you have a light rod, you might need to compromise between casting performance and fighting performance.  More guides near the tip will minimize line rub and acute angles during the fight,  but will lead to more oscillation from the extra weight after the cast is released.  And extra guides will stiffen the blank, especially near the tip. This can inhibit the rod from loading up as well, especially if you are mostly loading  the top part of the rod for short to medium  distance casts (tip casting).  I' m not sure if there is much of a trade off for the bottom half.

-J

Extra (unnecessary) guides near the tip won't stiffen the blank, but they will slow it down enough such that a snap-shot cast using only the upper third of the rod will feel "mushy"—-which is what I think you're getting at here.

The same goes for extra weight. If you wrapped 50 guides end-to-end on a blank you'd end up with something super flexy and slow, rather than a metal ramrod.

Agree. I think that we might be mostly saying the same thing in different ways, but there is probably still some disagreement here.

I could have been more precise. The guide feet make stiff spots underneath them in the blank, more significantly with double foot guides. Some of the progressive bend is lost and the tip starts to flatten out during the swing.  You can really see this on a fly rod where somebody loaded up the tip with those single foot ceramics.  Much harder to see and much less effect on a rod designed to huck a 8 oz payload.


I try to avoid using terms like slowing the rod or action, because it seems to mean different things to different people.  When you release the cast, the tip is going to swing back and forth  (oscillation). How far, fast, and how many times it swings is a function of the elasticity, velocity, and mass.  Oscillating is bad, because the tip swinging back and forth reintroduces shock waves in the line and can also affect accuracy.  Oscillation can actually be measured and compared between blanks.  There is a thread where we discuss this somewhere.

Modern carbon fiber  blanks have much less mass for the same amount of elasticity (or stiffness, if you will).  This is what advanced casters will refer to as dampness.  Since the black tip doesn't have as much mass, it has less stored energy and will not oscillate as far or as long as a heavier fiberglass blank tip section with the same stiffness.  But the more mass you add back on to the tip in the form of guides, the more you undo this advantage.

QuoteRunning guides used in Concept systems may be more in number, but make up for this by being generally smaller and lighter. Of importance is allowing the curve of the blank to dictate a minimal amount of guides and their positioning, aiming for a straight line path regardless of the system being used.

Good point about the smaller and lighter guides (also single foot).  I think that this actually reinforces the point that guide weight matters.

QuoteI once built a 14' 6" rod for fishing from the high cliffs. If I had gone with the suggested NGC spacing of one running guide per every "X" amount of inches, it'd have totaled something like 20 guides from the choke-point to tip. Spacing the running guides according to the blank's natural curve allowed me to use less.

On the "curve" of the rod, and just focusing on the casting portion, the rod is not bent once the cast is released. The guides interacting with the  "curve" of the blank is restricted to loading up some stored energy in the blank before the release, and the bottom half of the blank is where you can store the most.  We already discussed guide spacing for fighting purposes.

I learned so much about loading and releasing the blank, which section of it that I am loading, etc. from fly casting.  It is an essential part of making a fly cast, and it is much easier to observe and feel than with conventional  or spinning.  But I have eventually realized that how critical this is can vary with the gear and your goals.  You won't find a good fly caster that won't recognize how the rod they are casting is loading, but I have fished with  iron hackers that can outcast me that don't have a clue.

Those extra runnners that Fuji is recommending still probably decrease loss of energy from impact, but there are diminishing returns. At some point, another guide or two is not worth it. And I think that you bring up another good point: there are other variables to consider besides post-release guide train efficiency.

For the casting rods that I use most, I care about being able to pass leader knots (not a fan of the FG style knots) with large mono leaders.  I also fish a lot in pangas, where rods get banged up quite a bit.  I played a short time with the newer lightweight, smaller sized, single foots, and did not get a an obvious benefit, even when casting for distance.  So I am back to double foot guides, usually no smaller than size six, even with a 400 sized level wind outfit.  Those lightweight size fours are just too small and fragile.

The trade offs will be different for different folk.

-J