The effect of guide weight/size on a rod's lure weight rating

[JasonGotaProblem]

Ok here's a fun one. Even though most blanks come with a lure rating as well as a line rating, to me it seems like the way the rod is built (hardware choice and placement) likely plays a role in that. A rod with size 4 runners is gonna feel and perform different from one with size 12 runners. But things get complicated from there because the number of variables explodes when you start considering the many ways a rod could be built.

So for the sake of simplicity in this thought experiment, assume the initial condition is an already built spinning rod with a well laid out reduction train, and runners of a medium size.

If I were to go smaller/lighter on the runners without massively changing the geometry otherwise: what effect would that have on the ability to throw lures a bit above the listed max? What effect would it have on throwing stuff below the min weight?

I think I know the answer but that's witness tampering. I wanna hear your thoughts.

[thorhammer]

Is this an ice rod or a 14', 10 n bait heaver? That matters in terms of what you call "a bit".  As far as going up or down on the guide ring diameter it probably won't affect what weight of lure you can throw very much, but whether the guides are single foot or double, underwrapped or not, and the power of the rod itself, because all that can change / dampen the stiffness of the rod (but not necessarily the strength, it will still be, for instance, a medium power blank in between stoutly double wrapped double wrapped guides is weaker than the wrapped parts. Aside from diameter, the guides themselves can be light wire, recoil, or BSVLG braced type which are heavy duty, so is the assumption you keep the same guide type, just smaller?


Not sure if I'm getting your question but I'd never personally go down in size vs a stock layout with the intent of throwing heavier baits. I'd just throw a heavier bait and see if the rod could handle it. The blank wold determine that more than guides, and you'd likely trade off distance if that is a consideration.

[JasonGotaProblem]

Well since I'm apparently the one writing the imaginary situation, lets assume a 7' inshore rod, and the change would be only going to a smaller size within the same type of guide, not changing style material or brand. And i wouldn't change guides to modify what a rod could cast. I'm just chasing down a concept.

My logic, though to be clear I wont pretend I understand all the physics of a 'good' cast, is that how much the rod bends during a cast has an effect on casting. And how much it bends is related both to the intrinsic properties of a rod which aren't changing for this thought experiment (or the experiment would be pointless, multivariate analysis requires large sample groups), and inertia. Now inertia as we all know is related to mass. Which is why changing the weight of the hardware might affect the rod's behavior during the cast.

[philaroman]

not even gonna' pretend "my logic"...  pure conjecture:
I think you're asking about

• same layout & same connection to blank, if not exactly same guide type
• significantly lower guide weight, regardless of smaller size or lighter materials
• i.e., keep rod essentially same except noticeable decrease in total mass, most prominent at tip section

assuming no loss of strength within functional range, I'd guess:
no change at high end of lure weight & weirdness at low end...
should be better for sensitivity & finesse working smaller baits, but
blank might not load propperly for best distance w/ smallest intended weight & just under
e.g., rod rated for 1/4-1 oz. & rebuilt as you suggest,
would be better for 3/8, but would no longer throw 1/8 as well as it used to

[jurelometer]

The viewpoint of a layman that slept through physics class:  Sorta. Sorta not.

Short answer: See items (5), and (9).



Long answer:


There are three things that you need to consider:

1. The capacity of the blank to store energy (loading) by bending.  This happens gradually on the loading portion of the cast.  The loss in loading capacity from guide weight is going to be negligible.

2. The speed at which the blank can release the energy (unloading during the cast).  This is the frequency.  If distance is the goal- the higher the frequency, the better- we want to transfer that energy into the cast object.  It is the deceleration that is causing the transfer of energy (mass * deceleration), not just the speed.  Generally, higher frequency in a blank is obtained by making it stiffer and lighter for the same diameter and weight.

3.  Now inertia (in the form of swing weight) comes into play.  Once the cast is released, the sooner the rod tip quits swinging back and forth after the release, the less the guides will interfere with the line being pulled in a straight line by the cast weight.

Now some functional observations:


4. We can always store more energy into the cast by using a bigger lure or swinging faster/longer. 

5. Adding guide weight to the top of the blank is sort of like putting a bigger rock in a catapult.  The lever is just going to move more slowly for the same amount of acceleration force.  It is not going to cause the rod to store any more energy than what you put into it. And some of that energy will go into swinging the tip back and forth after release, instead of into the cast object -sort of like casting two weights.

6. My gut tells me that extra swing weight on a spring lever is going to slow down frequency for the same reason as (5).

7.   Once the cast is released, the additional weight on the blank should increase the amplitude of the of the tip swing  (not good).  I think it  will also increase the overall time that the tip swings back and forth, as well, but I am less confident on this.  IOW,  fewer, but wider, slower swings for a longer period of time.

8.  Weight toward the tip matters much more, because of the greater distance traveled when the rod is swinging or bending.

9.  This is probably only going to be a hypothetical issue until the rod gets very long, very light, and the difference in guide weight becomes substantial.  Not too often in real life.

I am most confident regarding (9).


-J

[Jeri]

We have in very long rods - 12' and over 'found' significant power and performance from the same blank, by using significantly lower weight and less restrictive guides, especially at the tip. However, that didn't result in allowing the blank to perform with more lure/sinker weight.

Lure and sinker weight for any given blank are a function of that blank design, only by changing the blank design with the lure/sinker weight capacity change. A quick analogy would be cut 6-8" off the top of the blank, you would find it probably performs better with more lure/sinker weight, other performance parameters would probably deteriorate.

Just changing the guide weights/size is not going to improve performance unless there is an improvement in guide performance and their interaction with the blank.

[JasonGotaProblem]

Thank you everyone for your input. I recently redid my star rod (stellar lite fast taper 8-17#) by switching to a Fuji KL guide train utilizing sz 5 runners where I believe it had size 8 or 10 runners previously, and the size difference is huge. It's labeled for 1/4-3/4oz lure weight, but what I'm finding in test casting is that I'm throwing 1oz lead further than I'm throwing 3/4oz lead, where most rods performance tends to top out around the listed weight.

I found myself wondering if the reduction in guide weight meant that it would take a heavier lure to get the same action out of the blank. And it's sounding like that description might be technically true, but the effect is much smaller than I'm picturing, and likely not the driving force behind what I'm observing.

And to be fair I did not do a pre build test comparing 3/4 to 1oz so maybe that has always been the case, and star is labeling rods based on what consumers expect to see more than labeling the results of detailed testing they performed. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a rod company does that.

My best friend has a stock star rod of the same model (he's the one that talked me into getting it). I've already convinced him to let me use it for some comparison testing next time I see him, this will be added to the list of tests performed. Either way I'm thrilled with the performance of the rebuilt rod, heavier lures or not.

[jurelometer]

I just weighed a Fuji size 7  K series two-footed Fazlite on my handy mini digital scale- 0.36 grams.

Then I checked the density of clear epoxy A+B resins online - if i were to use the amount of resin that would fit into a 1/4 by 1/4 inch cube, the epoxy would weigh between 0.35 to 0.40 grams. depending on the brand.   I suspect that most custom builders add much more weight in the epoxy wrap coatings than they do on the runner guides.


Now lets say you increased/decreased the guide weight by a large amount- say 30%  that would be the equivalent (weight)  of a couple of drops of water (.1 grams).  I don't think a few drops of water on a rod is going to effect casting distance


Now support the butt of the blank horizontally at least four feet above the floor.   Attach a line the tip (preferably strung through the guides if already wrapped). Add weight to the end of the line until the blank is bent the amount that would be used for a long cast.  This will give you an idea of the amount of forces at play when you are loading the rod.  I think that you will find that messing with changes in modern guide weight on a saltwater rod is like putting a pebble in your pocket before going for a walk.  Yes it will make a difference.  A tiny, irrelevant, probably unmeasurable  difference.

BUT:  Changing guide geometries/ring sizes and locations is a different story.  Here we are dealing with larger forces caused by the impact from waves of line being puled through and across a series of guide at high velocity.    Most of the reports we see from newer/lighter guides providing improved performance are also using different guide geometries and/or  locations.

Here is the best guide weight test that I could think of offhand:  Temporarily wrap a small chunk of lead wire opposite the foot on the top four or five guides.  Keep adding lead until there is an easily recognizable difference in casting performance.  That will give you a much better idea of  how much change in guide weight is required to  make a difference in casting performance for that rod.

If you have a buddy or two with some spare time you could verify  the results with a blind test, where the buddies did not know the amount of weight added/removed. Just replace the lead with mono leader of the same diameter.

I have a different opinion than yours on what the effect of adding significant swing weight toward the tip would be, but it seems sort of  irrelevant to go down that road much farther.

-J

[oc1]

Balance the rod on one finger and note where the balance point is.  Now, remove the guides or change the guides to a heavier model and chack the balance point again.  It will have moved a few inches.  If you want the rod to balance under the reel arbor, the guide configuration will change the length of the handle by several inches.  You will notice the difference.  But, that's ergonomics, not lure weight.

[Jeri]

Thank you everyone for your input. I recently redid my star rod (stellar lite fast taper 8-17#) by switching to a Fuji KL guide train utilizing sz 5 runners where I believe it had size 8 or 10 runners previously, and the size difference is huge. It's labeled for 1/4-3/4oz lure weight, but what I'm finding in test casting is that I'm throwing 1oz lead further than I'm throwing 3/4oz lead, where most rods performance tends to top out around the listed weight.

I found myself wondering if the reduction in guide weight meant that it would take a heavier lure to get the same action out of the blank. And it's sounding like that description might be technically true, but the effect is much smaller than I'm picturing, and likely not the driving force behind what I'm observing.

And to be fair I did not do a pre build test comparing 3/4 to 1oz so maybe that has always been the case, and star is labeling rods based on what consumers expect to see more than labeling the results of detailed testing they performed. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a rod company does that.

My best friend has a stock star rod of the same model (he's the one that talked me into getting it). I've already convinced him to let me use it for some comparison testing next time I see him, this will be added to the list of tests performed. Either way I'm thrilled with the performance of the rebuilt rod, heavier lures or not.

I feel that any hard assumptions that you may derive from this exercise are purely hypothetical, as firstly you have no data from the rod performance prior to the changes you have made. Ratings provided by manufacturers have to cover a very wide range of skills, abilities and techniques employed by an even wider range of anglers - and in this they try perhaps to cover too many bases.

Another aspect is your 'test casts', having done very many hours of test casting with various geometry schemes on rods, I can assure you that it is a subjective exercise, some days your timing and technique is absolutely spot on, others - not so.

The very aspect of technique is the cause for a lot of debate. Just yesterday, I had a chat with a client who was querying my rating on a rod that I built, and the answer was simply the change in technique that he employs with surf rods, generates so much more power through the blank, that the higher rating was uncomfortable, while a lower sinker/lure weight generated more balance in the cast. This simple element is a huge challenge to rod testers in trying to establish the rating of a new product.

The aspect of trying to come up with simple formulae for developing or enhancing performance is exceptionally difficult, as there are just too many variables, and often the original product has been designed to fill a commercial niche, rather than a performance position. So, unless you are always going to be starting with a bare blank, generalisations become mute.

But, the journey is entertaining, but wrong turns are potentially many.

[JasonGotaProblem]

Great posts J and Jeri. I am not one to take an immovable position on an idea in general. Certainly not on one where I am not terribly experienced. I am asking questions to learn. If I seem to be defending a flawed idea, it's for the sake of discussion.

And yes the subject of skill and technique confound any attempt to make any quantitative generalizations when it comes to rods and casting. An expert caster with a crap rod may outperform a crap caster with a perfect rod. Or maybe not. Depends on the weather? Personally I just try to build them better to make up for lack of skill.

I am looking forward to doing some side by side testing of my creation vs stock rod, but I don't expect I'll be getting hard data for a journal publication unless I build some sort of casting machine to eliminate the human element for precise measurements, and even that would be specific to that one casting style. I guess in the end It's a subjective exercise, for my own edification and entertainment. I'll discuss the results here but like any of my posts, nothing is conclusive.

[Cor]

There was a time when guidse made from 2 mm SS wire were incredibly popular here because they did not break, but they were heavy.
It took a while to realise that playing all day with a rod with heavy guides was not easy on the body.  Bear in mind that the leveredge of the 10 ft rod also works against you when casting and definitely effects the balance of the rod.

Compared with modern stiff light rods those old rods were awful to fish with.

[oc1]

You guys ar going to scoff at this, and that's OK.

For light baitcasting rods, I use one of these for a striper.:
https://www.jannsnetcraft.com/pacific-bay-single-foot-guides/280539.aspx

All the other guides are these:
https://www.jannsnetcraft.com/pacific-bay-single-foot-guides/280542.aspx

They cost seventy-five cents or less, have stainless frame and rings, and weigh practically nothing..

I fish with 20# braid, 3 pounds of thumb drag and runs of less than 100 yards.  The guides get a single wrap that just covers the foot and just enough varnish or epoxy to saturate the thread (everything else is wiped off).  There are a maximum of seven guides and tip on ten to eleven foot rods.

This is the lightest guide set-up I've found.  I've bent them several times but just bend it back by hand.  I've not been fortunate enough to cut a groove in one yet.    If you could ruin a guide you'd be out seventy-five cents, a piece of thread and fifteen minutes.

The effect of guide weight on swing weight is easy enough to calculate beforehand, aside from having to weight each guide and measure it's distance from the reel.  The distance of a guide from the reel in feet multiplied by the weight of the guide+wrapping in pounds (a tiny fraction of a pound) will give you foot-pounds of torque (like on a torque wrench).  Sum the torque of each of the guides to get the total.  Compare to another guide style and guide placement scheme.  

[Cor]

I don't "scoff" at anything that makes sense and specially things that make economic sense!