To clarify my previous comment: “why reputable rod manufacturers wouldn’t add an extra guide or two IF the resulting performance would put them ahead of their competitors….etc”
I meant to defend reputable rod manufacturers. I believe that IF the rod makers saw that adding another guide or two would better performance significantly over their competitors, they WOULD do it. I’m sure they realize that the line touching the blank when the rod is loaded is acceptable….especially in light of the fact that many warranty their rods. I don’t think it’ll be long before we’ll see micros on production rods, although I doubt we’ll see anything smaller than 4’s (knot considerations).

Heavy duty flipping stick all 3.5 micro on top -

Please take a look at the first of the photos concerning the relation of the line to the blank when pitching with the lure wt load. There is an optical illusion to this photo as it relates to line spacing. Actual spacing of the guides is 3.75", 4.00", 4.35", 5" as seen in the photo. When I can find a bubba to pull on the "beast" I will take pictures and post them.

[www.rodbuilding.org]

Second Picture Load:

[www.rodbuilding.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2009 10:51AM by Bill Stevens.

Bill
Why not use a micro guide for the tip?? I noticed a tip top in the picture. What size for that rod?? Did you use 3.5's all the way or is your butt guide a different size as per Steve Gardner? Also who's blank is that as I did not see it on your web page.

Rolly Beenen
Rovic Custom Rods

Bill, you ask: “any reason not to use All Same Size Micros butt to tip?”
I think what may warrant some consideration, is the moderation of the vector angle resulting from the level wind guides position on the reel, to the butt guide. It’s a “given” that the line is making directional changes before it even leaves the reel. Any additional course directions would best be minimized. There is probably an optimum balance as to the size and location of the butt guide. I don’t see much of a weight penalty for a 6 or 8 butt guide that far back on the blank.
I appreciate the “questions” you’re “asking”. While we anxiously await the “right” answers (snicker), it stimulates our minds and gives food for thought

This seven power rod is a proto type build for a blank manufacturer. The blank is under development and furthur improvements are presently in the works. See if you can find a seven foot seven power blank on the present market with a 5.5 tip top. Load tests were done on the tip tops at 30# loads. All guides are 3.5s and all on top. The tip top was at the request of the designer of the blank. The the total build weight is 3.82 oz.

continuing Steve's point about line friction, I personally worry that too few guides will produce sharper angles at the guides.
These sharper angles create pinch points and must increase friction. Is is additive (blank rub + sharp guide angles)?
I would think it is. But what is more damaging to the line? If the sharp angles with the line in the guide is harmful, then nothing is gained by spiral wrapping and putting the guides on the bottom, from a line friction perspective. The pinch points still exist. If line angle leaving the guide is inconsequential, why not have one to two guides and a tip top?
For spinning rods, a butt guide halfway up, then a micro at the 2/3 mark and a tip top. Talk about a minimalist approach.
Sounds like a cool experiment......

Life is pretty simple: You do some stuff. Most fails. Some works. You do more of what works. If it works big, others quickly copy it. Then you do something else. The trick is the doing something else.
Leonardo da Vinci

Steve,
I had some similar issues with respect ot Bass rods.
As a result, I built up two rods that had identical blanks and guides.

On one rod, I used conventional - on top of the blank - guides for this casting rod.
On the other , I used essentailly the same guides, except used a spiral mount with three guides to get around the blank before locating the running guides on the bottom of the rod.
The one thing that I did find that with the spiral wrapped rod, I was able to use 2 fewer guides by having the running guides ont he bottom of the rod.

During casting tests, I found that the two rods had very similar casting results. i.e. I didn't find a big difference from one rod to the other. However, I did find that over long term use, that the spiral wrapped rod was much more comfortable to use for all around use.

I did have one of my heavy bass fishing buddies use both rods for a few days. He used them for all types of fishing. The one thing that he did say, was that for jerk bait fishing, me much preferred the use of the conventional wrapped rod.
The reason for this is that for jerk bait fishing, he typically fished with his tip low, and by standing up on the bow of his boat, he typically fished his jerk bait rod, with the tip low, jerking the tip of the rod toward the boat with the butt held high. This meant that the line came off the top side of the rod, thus causing the blank to typically deflect up - compared to deflecting down as is the case for normal casting and retreiving.

However, for spinner bait, and jig fishing with his tip held high, he found that he much preferred the spiral wrapped rod with the main rod deflection being in a downward direction, which makes sense since the guides are on the underside of the rod in a spiral wrapped rod.

Note, both of these rods had conventional sized guides, so no opinon is voiced for the same rods wrapped with micros.

Take care
Roger

Bill, in seeing the 2nd photo, it doesn’t look like it’s loaded that much. I can only assume one (or more) of the following:
A. Because of line touch, the blank (or line) suffered a catastrophic failure before additional load could be applied. (most likely)
B. The girly-man applying the load was incapable of bending the heavy powered rod further.
C. Before the rod could be further deflected, the inherent bone-breaking torque from a guides-on-top rod tore the rod from your grasp while trying to stabilize itself.

guys i am al jackson the designer of the blanks bill stevens has built into micro guided rods at my behest. wehave been working on the blanks for a couple of months, but ihave been a designer for 38 years in the fishing and golf business. i have been responsible for reinforcing some of these old wives tales ,so it is high time i dispell a few. i need to learn how to type as well. contact me with any questions you may have. thanks al

Obed,
I don’t think line angle leaving the guide is not inconsequential…it’s relative. We want the line to conform to the curve of the blank with as few guides as necessary to control the line and at the same time retain the properties of the blank.
I’ve done a few experiments myself, but found that to be conclusive, on the water, “real world” usage had to be done following the tests..

Roger,
As rod builders, we live in a world of trade-offs. We may elect to go with the spiral to give us more of one attribute, even though it may lose one of another…(that we may feel is inconsequential). I don’t know why that you’d use fewer guides on a Spiral…at least not in a “distribution of load” sense. Unless it’s that pesky line touch thing. (Ha)

Al -

I greatly look forward to your input. Thanks for joining.

-----------------
AD

Al,
Bad typing is a badge of courage on this forum. If you can dispell some of the "old wives tales", go ahead. Rod builders are an opinionated bunch, but we're willing to hear all views....whether we agree or not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2009 02:45PM by jim spooner.

Thomas;
It was truly an honor to speak with you and Your daughter!

You have created one advantage that many of the others have not had. By stripping down rods that you have been using for some time and redoing them with Micro’s
You have a true and accurate comparison of the advantages of using them

Jerry;
This link will answer some of your question
[rodbuilding.org]

I have used down to 2.5mm on spiral wraps and 1.5mm on spinning rods
Most likely could use the smaller on a spiral wrap, but have not up to this point. But I would not go that small until I’ve transitioned to the bottom.
Have used tips to 3mm but stay with a 5 or 6mm for my workhorse type bass rods.

Steve Bro;
Your question; “What I am wondering is, does a spiral wrapped rod have better or worse casting distance VS. a all on top rod?”
Much of that may depend on the blank, builder and caster (or not)
The one fact I can state for sure is that during “the Rod Wars” at the Expo

Casting 8ft cranking rods using the same reel and line and lure on both
The 8ft all on top all same size 3.5mm
Verses
The spiral wrapped 6mm-5mm-4mm-3.5mm 3’s to tip
The spiral wrapped rod was the only one to get into the backing on the reel

Which brings up the very important and relevant question that Mr. Bill Stevens posed;
“If a potential customer of a custom builder will not purchase a spiral is there any reason not to use micros all on top - and if they are used is there any reason not to use All Same Size Micros butt to tip?”

To that I would say absolutely NO! Both setups outcast anything else you could have put up against them, and should more then satisfy any customers needs.

Mr. Spooner
I think your comments may be a bit out dated.
Many of the rod manufacturers are still building under old school thought process of what used to be considered normal need for guides and what has been sufficient performance.
Also; some of that thought process being; If we build 100,000 rods a year and save one guide per rod, paying for one less warp and one less epoxy job per rod, then we have increased our bottom line.

But if you take a look at some of the newer versions of manufactured rods you will indeed find that a several have gone to using more then the old school thought of (1 for every foot plus 1 extra and the tip).

Some like Lamaglas using smaller guides, some staying with 6mm running guides
I have taken a look at what I have here in my shop for repairs below are some examples
All bait casters (bass rods) all wrapped on top
Lamaglas 7ft-- 11guides plus tip
Quarrow 5’10”--9 guides plus tip
All-Pro 7’-- 9 guides plus tip
Berkley 6’6” --9 guides plus tip

Also I have had the pleasure of handling the blank in Mr. Stevens’s photo I can assure you it has not failed and would most likely take a person laying their entire weight on it to get it flexed much further. I only hope to catch a bass that big one day.

Mr. Jackson I too am glad that you have decided to join in on these conversations

Mr. Gardner,
I realize that I am not on the "cutting edge" nor a celebrated "expert". And, not only my “comments”, but “I” am a bit out dated (Ha).
I guess you’re saying that even if a manufacturer believed he could get a lion’s share of the market (with a better performing rod*), he would not add guides regardless of the net financial gain over a few cents per rod. I came from a manufacturing background and have dealt with many of the marketing people and they are not all stupid. I don’t believe that all consumers (fisherman) are that stupid either…although some (including me) might need a bit of (re)educating.
I believe that there is a “point of diminishing return” regarding the number of guides for “line control” or “stress distribution”. I also believe that there is an optimum “balance” of all the factors involved depending on the desired results…..casting distance, stability (torque), weight, tip resonance, durability, etc.
To those of us, who seek to demonstrate the superiority of our creations over our factory counterparts, we shouldn’t underestimate their skills and resources (manufacturing as well as marketing), even though it’s in the form of mass production.

Btw, Suggesting that Bill’s rod failed was a tongue-in-cheek comment. Lighten up, son.

(*a "better performing rod” may be subjective and not necessarily dramatic enough to justify added expense per rod.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2009 02:40PM by jim spooner.

Mr. Spooner
Actually I’m saying opposite~ I deal with many manufactured products that on almost a daily level the manufacturer is trying to cut the cost production to improve their bottom line, many times at the sacrifice of quality.

Few years back manufactures did not design rods to the level of performance demanded by today’s user. If 8 was almost as good as 9 then why spend the extra money.
But in today’s market Companies like Lamaglas have added just not one more guide, but sometimes 2 or 3 with the reason for that being improving performance.
Because of our (custom builders) and their research into improving designs they have seen the need to do so.

I totally agree with you on your diminishing returns, balance, torque, weight, ECT. comment. And it is up to the builder to decide were that is. Obviously for Lamaglas, some other manufacturers and a few custom builders it was not by adding a few extra guides.
If you would have been at the seminar on Micro guides at the Expo you would have seen first hand were you could add as many 36 additional 3mm micro guides by removing the standard set up of 6’s and still end up with less weigh. (Not taking into account the epoxy and thread weights) but even those are reduced by using the micro guides
Your comment;
“(*a "better performing rod” may be subjective and not necessarily dramatic enough to justify added expense per rod.)” Is so true!
But then it just as easily may be dramatic enough to more then justify it! Or at least for Lamiglas it was.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2009 03:22PM by Steve Gardner.

Bill, Bill ,Bill
You are the hardest member on this board to figure out whether you are being cheeky or serious, as you slip so seamlessly between modes, and your cheeky comments almost always have a deeper depth than a surface glance might trigger thought about.
Let no one take offense about what follows:-
1.
There is an issue of abrasion between line & blank.
dirty lines as mentioned by SteveG is a culprit. dirty lines damage themselves within the weave, dirty lines can damage anything they come in contact with.
How fast do they damage themselves or anything they come in contact with.............................with extremely low severity & over a long time.
ANSWER in Rod design considerations : .....................its a less than 1% consideration..............hardly worth worrying about at all.

2.
There is an issue of friction between line & blank.
The relationship between force & friction is such that : ............................area of contact does not affect total friction.
a)
The issue of friction is not one of concern for the blank it is one of concern for the line.
Heat is the enemy of lines.
Friction generates heat.
The primary issue is the time that line is subject to heat.
There is a whole raft of considerations in this:
- the material in contact.
- its co-efficient of friction
- its co-efficient of heat conductivity.
- any heatsink attached to the material in contact ( eg guide frames on guide rings )

The primary issues of line contact with carbon fibre blanks is that carbon is a very, very good heat insulator. The resin/thermoplastic that holds it together, and is also a finish coat, is far less so.
never-the-less heat buildup in the area of contact on the blank is an issue for the line that comes in contact with the blank in that area.
The time in contact with that heat source is a primary concern.......................longer contact area...............longer time in contact as the line passes over it.
a) (i)
casting mode considerations ...................negligible
a) (ii)
fighting mode considerations .........................it depends entirely on the scale of fish size to line/rod & the fighting attributes of the fish.

TUNA, TROUT, SALMON, etc etc its a consideration where long runs under line tension are/might be experienced.

BASS fishing............................. who is kidding who............... in most situations the fight is short & sharp...............win or lose.

The concern for friction & heat generation & time of contact of line with an area of the blank elevated in temp by contact is one of compromise with the situation of duty of the rod and circumstances of exposure to periods of sustained runs by the fish which could generate heat buildup in the contact area between line & rod.

ANSWER in Rod design considerations for BASS fishing : .....................its a less than 1% consideration..............hardly worth worrying about at all........................ unless your style of bassfishing involves long sustained runs.

3.
Guide height & purse string/bowstring effects...........................lets leave it alone for now.
An applicable general comment is that these effects are significantly less for an "on-top" guidetrain than they are for an "on-bottom" guide train.

Quite happy to discuss in another thread .....................if anyone has input on the physical, mathematical relationships involved...............
Its not relevant to the topic Bill has raised..................... so lets keep it on-topic.

4.
Numbers of guides: ............... no discussion of numbers of guides & why ...............here.
Keeping 'on-topic'
If you have a rod & guide train that is working for you & is not breaking, .................given the above.......................why on earth would you increase the number of guides when reducing ring size in that guide train........................in a situation of short sharp bassfishing encounters.
5.
In my experience I have yet to meet a fisher who uses a baitcaster with the rod perfectly aligned in the vertical plane when using their gear.
the natural rod orientation for a person cradling the reel in the left hand and winding the reel with their right hand is a rod orientation at about 11o'clock ( guides to rod ) and quite often more when fighting a fish..............................what are you worried about, with line friction of line on the blank. The majority of us are mitigating the issue naturally.
6.
there are a number of other minor issues of consideration ................but they are very small in effect so we can skip them here.

Sharp enough knife twisted in the gut ( of rod building "rule" ) there Mr Stevens............................... another very cutting topic maestro...................... sorting out misguided intuition and applicable relative facts & their influences is always interesting.

Next contributor please.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2009 07:07PM by Denis Brown.

we only need to put enough guides on to space the load evenly for the action and power of the rod on top or on bottom. wrapping micro guides as you all know is harder than normal guides. spacing the guides for a given blank action requires more care to minimize the acute angle which indicates too much stress in a given area. with the spline down(i am for spline consideration in all builds) on a casting rod a heavier action blank such as the IMH84xHAJR that bill is using in the pix doesn't bend enough to require more than the 9 guides and top. he made a IMH84mHAJR that could go one more guide if one chose. testing spiral versus normal on top in 1975, we found that durability was not equal. spiral was more durable than guides on top during high sticking. however, casting accuracy was easily given to guides on top. one thing that we seem to all agree on is that micro guides are the way of the future. we have been building rods on blanks that are constructed without consideration for this new direction. my main thrust is to make compoenents that preform to the higher standards that we expect from these new rods we build. load carrying ability has more to do with placement of the guides than heighth. what if you just had the tip top and the reel in the reel seat? at some point all guide spacings and
heighths are over loaded,because the blank can nolonger comfortably wield the load. al

Mr D Brown

You sir are indeed longer winded than I, but I find it a pleasure to concentrate long enough to greatly appreciate your thought provoking reasoning ability.

When I first started to grapple with the 'line touching blank' consideration, I came to the conclusion that I needed some facts to justify or dispel my assumptions. That's when the engineering training kicked in. How do I do this? AH HA, devise an experiment.

Chuck a short piece of blank in your lathe and spin it about 800-1000 RPM. Take any type line you wish and tie a loop about 8 inches in diameter. Put your safety gloves on and place the loop over the spinning blank piece. Be totally amazed at how much time and force it takes to damage your loop of line. Observe how much damage you get to the piece of blank. Then start thinking about how often you will ever encounter a similar circumstance in the real fishing world. Fisherman experiencing 70 MPH runs from black marlin may be exempted from this bit of trivia.

My conclusion is that 'line touching blank' is a mute issue and should only be considered only after we get to the 1% considration as expressed by Mr D Brown.

One side note: In bass fishing, we get much more torque on our rods while turning the handle than we will ever get when fighting a fish with the line lying flat against the top of the blank.

Bill Stevens, I am more than happy to see this thread's title changed to M&M Vol 7.

Dennis;
Thank you for your input.
I have some questions and some more thoughts
In sections 1 and 2 you used the comment of
“It’s a less than 1% consideration ..............hardly worth worrying about at all.”
Is there a mathematical formula for those numbers?
Would those percentages be higher or lower on the line or blank, determined by the amount of foreign materials and their properties?

In answer to your comment;
“If you have a rod & guide train that is working for you & is not breaking, .................given the above.......................why on earth would you increase the number of guides when reducing ring size in that guide train........................in a situation of short sharp bass fishing encounters”

My personally reason for using more 3mm guides then I would 6mm guides:
Is that in my experience, I have found that many of the setups I’ve built and experimented with actually cast further with an extra guide or two. I believe that the closer spacing has an improved increase in line control reducing the energy robbing wave effect caused by the blanks dampening. But have many times opted to stay with the fewer 6mm guides because of the added weight. Other considerations being more important.

What the 3mm guides have allowed me to do;
Is to add the guides with out adding the weight of 6mm’s and in fact reducing the weight by over 80% increasing the line control by reducing the spacing and at the same time reducing the dampening effect of the blank because of the reduced weight, further improving line control.



Now according to physics based on their theories, my description of what and why may be a little off, but the effects have been the same.

Those being;
That 3mm guides, even when used in greater numbers have vastly improved my rods performances in all aspects that mater to me and to those I build for;
1-Longer casting distances with less effort
2-Lighter rods, especially out towards the tip, meaning less fatigue at the end of the day
3-Increased sensitivity (feel), most likely do to less overall mass
4- Rods that balance further back reducing arm torque and increasing bite detection
5-Improved control over fighting the fish,

No I would be the first to tell you I don’t know all the “physical, mathematical relationships involved” but I do know results and they are what is important (at least to me)

Bill;
I'm with Bobby on the thread name change



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2009 09:22PM by Steve Gardner.

Denis the "shiv" was professionally placed - thanks!

The concern over "line touch" should not prevent builders from using micro guides on top of the blank to set up a bass bait casting rod.