Conventional Guide Placement or Static Guide Placement

[jurelometer]

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 

[...]
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

[oc1]

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

[Rivverrat]

  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

[oc1]

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

[Rivverrat]

 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

[Jeri]

 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.

[Rivverrat]

 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

[Dominick]

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

[oc1]

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

[steelfish]

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.

Dwight

amigo, what size of LC guide did you use on that rod?

[Rivverrat]

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

                                                 

[Rivverrat]

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

[oc1]

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

[Jeri]

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'??

[Rivverrat]

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