Reel Repair by Alan Tani

You explain fast tip exactly to what I have . I use x-fast rod to cast 1/32 jig for crappie .I always have problem with knot get caught in tiptop when using heavy line so I have to use bigger tip top on spinning and baitcasting . I often have to cast very far to rich the fish

Well, I gave it five business days but did not receive a response from the generic contact form I filled out.

So a bit disappointed. However, here's a quote from Tom Kirkman—-publisher of Rodmaker Magazine and one of the moderators over on RBO. This is in response to my query about these triangular SeaGuides:


"Browning offered these guides back in the 60's. Not sure who they sourced them from at that time. They failed to catch on...The idea was that 3 points of contact resulted in less friction than if the line contacted the ring all the way around the inside. With the advent of smaller rings and higher framed guides, spinning rod systems brought the line under control more quickly and in many case the line only contacts the ring at a single point (at the inside bottom)."


Apparently everything old is new again.

Only 1 point of contact at a time .Different is the contact jump out at 3 different location or at many more location it's won't make it less friction or more friction . Reduce the size of guide will be more friction

I suppose the amount of friction depends on the angle of contact, and how hard the line is brushing the ring at the point of contact? Not sure though how something like this can be measured.

Modern spinning guide systems use smaller rings with higher frames, such that the line spiraling off the reel flows in a straight line path, and is under control by the time it reaches the upper third section of rod blank.

Think of a spin cast reel and how the single line guide at the cover "tames" the spirals of line coming off the reel. This is what the small guide/high frame Concept systems aim to do, but gradually over the distance from stripper guide to choke guide.

So a big nothingburger- thanks for confirming. The ring shape is going to be irrelevant for friction on the ring.

As I noted earlier, there is a difference between friction and impact.  The amount of contact area does not affect sliding friction, the actual formula for friction only uses the coefficient of friction(smoothness) and the force pressing the surfaces together (line against the ring in this case).  It also doesn't matter from a friction perspective where on the ring that the line rubs, although it is going to rub on the same spot anyways. 

The modern guide systems with small rings/tilted frames work by minimizing the loss of energy from line impact on the guide frames, which is where the vast majority of the energy loss is going to occur when casting.  Impact is a function of mass and change in velocity. So unless the triangular ring shape decreases impact (unlikely), we are just looking at a marketing gimmick.

More details in my earlier post(s) in this thread.


Thanks again to cbar45 for following up on this.

-J

Bigger guides always less friction ( at the guides ) than small guides . Fuji concept guides bring line away from blank so less flapping to blank and this more serious than friction at the guide ,from that we can use smaller guide ,it doesn't mean bigger guides is more friction .just heavier

Quote from: quang tran on October 10, 2026, 02:26:26 AMBigger guides always less friction ( at the guides ) than small guides . Fuji concept guides bring line away from blank so less flapping to blank and this more serious than friction at the guide ,from that we can use smaller guide ,it doesn't mean bigger guides is more friction .just heavier

That is impact not friction.  I hate to be a nitpicker, but I believe that this makes a big difference.

-J

Quote from: jurelometer on October 10, 2026, 02:25:34 AMAs I noted earlier, there is a difference between friction and impact.  The amount of contact area does not affect sliding friction, the actual formula for friction only uses the coefficient of friction(smoothness) and the force pressing the surfaces together (line against the ring in this case).  It also doesn't matter from a friction perspective where on the ring that the line rubs, although it is going to rub on the same spot anyways. 

-J

I'm curious about your stance on the Microwave guides from American Tackle.

I built two ultralight spinning rods with these when they first came out, and while they managed the coils coming off the spool well enough, it seemed to me that really laying into a cast would cause the line to coil off the spool faster than the stripper guide could tame it. A lot of flutter (impact?) was the result as the line thrashed against the stripper guide and frame, before being funneled into the secondary choke ring.

This effect was more apparent with monofilament than with braid. Of interest to note friction-wise, is that with the Microwave system line spirals against the inside of the choke ring on the cast—-brushing it full circle 360 degrees—-yet without a perceptible loss in casting distance. The only loss came with the aforementioned fluttering of line against the stripper during a really hard cast.

I wonder how much the slower recoil of the ultralight (fly rod) blanks I built on have to do with it? Haven't used these rods in awhile, and every time I do must remind myself to slow down and use a smoother casting stroke than what I'm accustomed to.

I'm sorry but those microwave guides are a gimmick. It was an interesting idea but testing has not been very favorable.

I appreciate the boldness of the innovation but it doesn't always work out.

Never really followed the testing done with Microwaves after my initial experience. They cast smoothly enough, but having to use finesse in order to get any distance seemed counter-intuitive and distracting.     

No need to apologize my friend; if something's below par, then it's below par—-and all the glitzy advertisements  won't change that.

I give them points though for going into depth explaining what their system was trying to achieve, and how they were going about accomplishing it.

Quote from: cbar45 on October 10, 2026, 09:46:24 AM

Quote from: jurelometer on October 10, 2026, 02:25:34 AMAs I noted earlier, there is a difference between friction and impact.  The amount of contact area does not affect sliding friction, the actual formula for friction only uses the coefficient of friction(smoothness) and the force pressing the surfaces together (line against the ring in this case).  It also doesn't matter from a friction perspective where on the ring that the line rubs, although it is going to rub on the same spot anyways. 

-J

I'm curious about your stance on the Microwave guides from American Tackle.

I built two ultralight spinning rods with these when they first came out, and while they managed the coils coming off the spool well enough, it seemed to me that really laying into a cast would cause the line to coil off the spool faster than the stripper guide could tame it. A lot of flutter (impact?) was the result as the line thrashed against the stripper guide and frame, before being funneled into the secondary choke ring.

This effect was more apparent with monofilament than with braid. Of interest to note friction-wise, is that with the Microwave system line spirals against the inside of the choke ring on the cast—-brushing it full circle 360 degrees—-yet without a perceptible loss in casting distance. The only loss came with the aforementioned fluttering of line against the stripper during a really hard cast.

I wonder how much the slower recoil of the ultralight (fly rod) blanks I built on have to do with it? Haven't used these rods in awhile, and every time I do must remind myself to slow down and use a smoother casting stroke than what I'm accustomed to.

Answering the last part first, the rod should straighten out pretty fast after the release, so the action of the rod should not have much affect on guide train casting performance,  and especially not at the stripping guide.

As a concept, the microwave idea is at least a plausible candidate. It is essentially a large diameter ring guide next to a small diameter ring guide, but sharing a foot.  Note that the outer ring has no insert, reinforcing  my point about the relative unimportance of ring friction on casting performance. [Correction: just noticed that there is an insert for the outer ring]. There is also a potential benefit from those internal ring supports acting like a a funnel

But if the rings are too close, the ring pair just causes more impact without choking any differently than a single ring with a fat frame (bad).  The designer would have to be lucky for the optimal spacing not to be too far apart to fit on a single frame.

It all hinges on the wave and coil frequency and amplitude, both before and after hitting first ring.  This is something that has to be tested live, because some fishing component company is not going to able to afford paying engineers to model it with software.

So if there was quantitative testing, where are the results?  I haven't seen any. Not even something like the Fuji video.  If the testing shows  significant improvement over competition, this is quite valuable for marketing purpose.  Maybe the results were not that dramatic?

If they didn't do any quantitative testing, and just did some practice casting out behind the office... meh.

My guess is that any system that chokes down the coils early will have about the same performance as any other system that also chokes the coils down early, with the biggest difference coming from variance in ring location, height, and diameter.

So probably, American Tackle Microwaves and Fuji Concepts are in the same ballpark, especially if the parameters mentioned above are close.  One could be a little better than the other. I would lean toward the Fujis, as you have more control over the fine tuning.

And if we really want to avoid coil impact, the easy answer is to ditch the spinning gear.  There is a reason why all those distance records are set with revolving spool reels.

But I am the wrong guy to ask in a way. I am not much of a fan of spinning gear. I don't get too excited about this stuff beyond some mild intellectual curiosity. 

I was just thinking about when I walk down the Loreto  waterfront at sunrise to get picked up at the marina.  There are often a half dozen or so locals shore fishing, trying to catch some small snapper for lunch.  A few have fancy spinning outfits, most have some beat up inexpensive stuff, and  some guys with just mono wrapped around a beer can.  They all have about the same success in catching those snappers.

We can overcomplicate this fishing thing sometimes.

-J

Quote from: cbar45 on October 10, 2026, 09:46:24 AMI'm curious about your stance on the Microwave guides from American Tackle.

I built two ultralight spinning rods with these when they first came out, and while they managed the coils coming off the spool well enough, it seemed to me that really laying into a cast would cause the line to coil off the spool faster than the stripper guide could tame it. A lot of flutter (impact?) was the result as the line thrashed against the stripper guide and frame, before being funneled into the secondary choke ring.

This effect was more apparent with monofilament than with braid. Of interest to note friction-wise, is that with the Microwave system line spirals against the inside of the choke ring on the cast—-brushing it full circle 360 degrees—-yet without a perceptible loss in casting distance. The only loss came with the aforementioned fluttering of line against the stripper during a really hard cast.

I wonder how much the slower recoil of the ultralight (fly rod) blanks I built on have to do with it? Haven't used these rods in awhile, and every time I do must remind myself to slow down and use a smoother casting stroke than what I'm accustomed to.

The one thing that is fairly obvious but hasn't had a lot of discussion yet and is not just applicable to Microwave System guides is that the more energy and physical movement that is put into a cast the more movement there is in the tip one third of a slower/flexible action rod. Just about every rod action there is will perform better with a smooth powerful cast and wrist action. The back and forth and/or up and down movement of the rod and guides at the outer end will have a huge impact on how smoothly the line transitions through the guides. Energetic casts, in themselves, can, at times, reduce the smoothness and distance the lure/weight and line travels.

Quote from: Midway Tommy on October 10, 2026, 08:47:56 PM

Quote from: cbar45 on October 10, 2026, 09:46:24 AMI'm curious about your stance on the Microwave guides from American Tackle.

I built two ultralight spinning rods with these when they first came out, and while they managed the coils coming off the spool well enough, it seemed to me that really laying into a cast would cause the line to coil off the spool faster than the stripper guide could tame it. A lot of flutter (impact?) was the result as the line thrashed against the stripper guide and frame, before being funneled into the secondary choke ring.

This effect was more apparent with monofilament than with braid. Of interest to note friction-wise, is that with the Microwave system line spirals against the inside of the choke ring on the cast—-brushing it full circle 360 degrees—-yet without a perceptible loss in casting distance. The only loss came with the aforementioned fluttering of line against the stripper during a really hard cast.

I wonder how much the slower recoil of the ultralight (fly rod) blanks I built on have to do with it? Haven't used these rods in awhile, and every time I do must remind myself to slow down and use a smoother casting stroke than what I'm accustomed to.

The one thing that is fairly obvious but hasn't had a lot of discussion yet and is not just applicable to Microwave System guides is that the more energy and physical movement that is put into a cast the more movement there is in the tip one third of a slower/flexible action rod. Just about every rod action there is will perform better with a smooth powerful cast and wrist action. The back and forth and/or up and down movement of the rod and guides at the outer end will have a huge impact on how smoothly the line transitions through the guides. Energetic casts, in themselves, can, at times, reduce the smoothness and distance the lure/weight and line travels.

I don't think that using a wrist snap vs. a fully body cast changes which guide system will work better, which is the topic at hand.  The velocity of the line is going to determine the amount of slapping (impact) going on, and the velocity required is a determined by how far you need to cast the payload.

We did cover about the tip oscillating, and how it is a function of the velocity (or more specifically,  deceleration) of the tip- which is again a function of the energy required to reach the required distance.  It is true that a full body swing is more likely introduce oscillation on more than one plane, but we did cover the rest:

Quote from: jurelometer on October 07, 2026, 05:40:08 PMI 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 experience as "dampness", a rod that has a strong spring but not a lot of bounce.  Since the blank 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.

On casting style and rod action: I gotta disagree.  The blank straightens out pretty quickly at the release of the cast,  immediately at the but, and fairly quickly at the tip.  Plus, if I am hucking a six oz iron with a long rod 100+ yards, a wrist snap cast is not going to get me there. It is going to be two hands, plus knees and hips- a full body cast. Same, but to a lesser extent in many saltwater situations.  Even with a fly rod, once you are up to an 8 wt or so, you need an athletic stance and some body motion, or you are going to screw up your shoulder or elbow. 

But I do I agree with the basic principle that for the appropriate lighter gear, you can get a cleaner, more accurate, and fairly long cast with a well timed wrist snap, and that this is probably underutilized.  No reason to be swinging for the fences to put a 1/8 oz roostertail out 120 feet.

-J

Thanks for the replies. Lots of food for thought here. Now I've a hankering to go out and cast my Microwave rods again and see if I can really dial it in.

From what I remember it was the speed of the cast—-coupled with a fair amount of power—-that was leading the line to wallow out a bit behind the stripper guide. Bear in mind this was my first time casting a blank this slow and light. I will try more of a controlled wrist snap next time and see how that does.

The AmTack videos and pictorials I remember seeing had a basic explanation of the rapid choke concept, and how it applied to their unique stripper guide's goal of taming the coils of line. On another video I re-watched this morning, the presenter suggests to "dial back the power of your cast", but it isn't clear if he is saying it for presentation purposes...or if doing so is how Microwave guides are made to be used.

Haven't had any trouble with similar ultralight rods I later built, falling back on the tried-and-true NGC and 27x styles of guide layout.

You guys are making me wanna reprioritize getting my rod building bench back up and running. I miss it.