Custom rod builders are utilizing the micro guides, smaller than 4.0 ring size, to build bait-casting rods. These highly specialized rods are built with guides on top in the "standard" production rod style as well as many forms of the spiral wrap technique.

It is hoped this thread will not head off in the direction of comparing "all on top" to spirals. If anyone has photos of loaded "all guides on top" bait casting rods that show line position in relation to the blank please take the time to post for reference.

This Rodbuilding.org thread is intended to be very specific in nature. The subject matter is intended to deal with the issue of "line touch" on bait casting rods that are built with all guides on top of the blank.

As a point of reference, please take a look at the attached photo of a major high-end production rod with a piece of kite string used as a reference plane under minimal load.

[www.rodbuilding.org]

The "line touch" is affected by the height of the guide, distance between guides and blank flex between guides.

A bait casting rod is used to present a bait by flipping, casting, pitching or other technique, work the bait in the desired manner, set the hook and retrieve the fish.

How would you define harmful line touch? Which of the required tasks is impacted by "line touch"?

Has the issue of "line touch" prevented you from building a micro rod "all on top" guide configuration.

If anyone has photos and proof of blank damage due to line "rub" please post the information.

If this thread develops in a constructive manner, I will ask the M&Ms to allow a change in the thread title when they get off the water later in the weekend.

Bill Stevens



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2009 09:58PM by Bill Stevens.

Bill,
Interesting topic, but isn't the entire subject a bit of a "catch 22".
i.e. one wants light weight and goes to small short guides and has the line touch the rod. To avoid the line touching the rod, the builder doubles the number of guides, but then the weight savings go away.
I understand that you are asking for a small guide on a tall base to keep the line off the rod.
Fine in theory, but if you start going to a tall base with a very small guide, the base, as part of the small design could be suspect to bending?
Or, if you beef up the base to withstand the pressure - even though it is carrying a small ring, is the weight going to build up too much?

Good topic and I will be interesting in seeing any solutions to the issue.

Take care
Roger

Hi Bill, I think I may have just built a rod that could have something to do with this thread. The rod is a IP903f , 7'6" casting rod. I wanted try out out the 3mm Batson micro guides on a conventionally wrapped casting rod and also hopefully be able to rotate the tip section and use it as a simple spiral when I wanted to. I set the rod up so that the line would just miss the blank under full static load. I used eleven guides counting the wrapped 3mm tip. 5mm butt guide, 4mm, nine 3mm counting the tip. I was surprised that even with so many guides the rod still balances out nicely with the 6 oz. reel. I have not test casted it yet but will give it a try tomorrow when I think the epoxy set enough to see how it casts. I made a really dumb mistake with the butt guide and it will be removed and set straight after I test cast the rod, it is a few degrees of center.

Bill
I use more of a conventional placement and I am not quite that particular on whether the line touches under load. I don.t want the guides so far apart that the line is below the blank but touching doesn't bother me. I am trying to build good functional lightweight rods. I want the maximum casting distance and good strength or backbone. My theory is that once you have hooked a fish you have completed half of the mission. Now you want a strong rod to land the fish. The line touching the rod is not going to hamper that. If I try to keep the line from touching the blank under load then I will have to add several guides which will add weight and reduce the length of the cast. Bearing all of this in mind I am not completely sold on guides smaller than a six. I am currently building a rod using 1-10, 3-8's and 4 or 5-6's,depending on which blank I use. That is on a 7' rod. These rods seem to be really popular with guides and serious fishermen. Most buy 1 or 2 and then come back for more.
I am glad you brought this subject up. It is something that I have struggled with and I am just now beginning to get comfortable with my decission to use the method that I now use. I know there are people on this board that are smarter than I am so if you guys come up with a better way I will get onboard.
Pat

That photo is why I got away from using the fuji concept guides, the frames are too low. I use the batson guides and get by with the same or 1 less guide on the same rods that I used the fuji's on with no line touching the blank. Personally, I don't mind the line touhing the blank as long as it doesn't dip below the " top plane" of the blank as the picture shows.

Pat we are in the same boat and furiously paddling - take another look a the picture - where is the line in relation to the ring on the sixes - sitting in the very bottom when the rod is loaded - the ring size has little to to with the height above the blank - the bend radius of the frame and the ring thickness determine the elevation of the line.

I am hoping someone can quantify the detrimental effects of "line touch" during any of the "uses" of the rod. Does it matter if the line touches - When? and Why? If it does not matter then the number of guides does not have to be increased.

Richard: The higher the guides sit the longer the moment arm which contributes to more rotational force applied to the blank - if there is no real detrimental effects to "line touch" then it would be to the builders advantage to use lower guide rings. If the "taunt" line "snaps to" the upper blank surface and can not move laterally we could be seeing thinks that have not been previously discussed.

I find this subject interesting and amusing. To me, it is one of the great myths of rod building. I’ve even heard stories of the line cutting graphite blanks in half! I can only speak for my experience, but in over 40 years in this craft, I’ve never had a problem of any kind, relating to the line touching the blank. I’ve always built with guides on top and the picture Bill shows is mild compared to what my line does when loaded. YES, it does drop BELOW the blank! There I’ve said it! I’ve never observed any scuffing or other cosmetic issues. While there may be some slight torque, but certainly not enough to put the integrity of the blank at risk. The so called “purse string effect” is no different than guides on bottom. Speaking of torque, which will invariably be brought up…..(with its solution), there is so little of it to begin with (freshwater rods), that only special ball bearing devices can demonstrate it. For those that are incredibly sensitivity endowed or psychologically inclined, then the Spiral is the “answer”. There is that pesky vectoring around the blank to contend with, but as it’s been said a million times, “There's no significant difference in casting distance”.
Its worth noting that the “micro” guides results in even less torque because they sit closer to the blank (shorter lever arm). I’ve been using the micros for some time and seen the results in lighter weight, more sensitivity and longer casts. It does put the line closer to the blank…so what! My line STILL occasionally drops below the blank….Oh my! Some subscribe to the idea that with guides on top, the line is kept away from the blank on a long cast. It sounds good, but I don’t buy it. For one thing, on an ergonomically correct cast the guides are 90 degrees to the plane of the cast. In general, the rod is cast in many orientations during a typical fishing day. I think the micros (top or bottom mounted) minimize the line clattering (engineering term) around in the guides, allowing the forward energy of the line with less impedence. I. E. “line control”
Another advantage that I’ve found in using the micros is that, prior to their availability, I used less of what many consider the necessary number of guides required to keep the line off the blank. I believed the additional weight of more guides prohibitive to good rod performance. With the micros, one or two additional guides are negligible. Btw, line still touches blank…just want to make sure I’m clear on that.
Well, I’ve had my rant and I apologize if I seem politically incorrect, or if, in any way, offended anyone.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2009 07:14PM by jim spooner.

Question: Bill how many guides are you using on your 7'6" rod. Personally I think your spacing is off. On that rod I suspect if you add 2, possible 3 extra guides your line drop well be eliminated. As for adding extra weight! I dought if you well notice it .

Good Wraps Bob

I agree that if the guide frames are higher there is more torque. (this is a nominal height difference between the batson fly and fuji fly guides). If the line dips below the rod blank that would also torque the rod, possibly more torque that using a taller guide. I don't think it matters in most applications. For me, better safe than sorry. I don't notice a weight difference in the batson guides compared to the fuji guides so it's a non issue for me. I did build myself a 7'6" flipping rod a few years ago and only used 5 guides, fuji concept guides, and it hasn't broke yet.

No offense taken Jim

The rod poto is is of a major high end production rod -!

Bill, you asked specifically for some “impact of line touch” and although I alluded to friction on my previous rant, I think it has to be a consideration. If one was to imagine a cylinder formed by the inside diameter of any two guides, imagine the line flow approximately conforming to the envelope of that cylinder. Since monofilament or Fluorocarbon is stiffer and more likely to have some coiling (memory), it would be more likely to travel beyond the envelope of the “cylinder”. With the micros being closer to the blank, there could be detrimental contact with the blank. I don’t know if this would be considered friction, but in any case,…some kind of impediment. It would be wise to experiment when downsizing guides to ensure satisfactory performance with mono or fluoro lines.
It’s a bit “off subject”, but I think one of the benefits of the micros is that the theoretical “cylinder”, being smaller would more effectively control the line and keep it moving in the desired direction. My guess is, that this is more applicable to braid, but it may also be true of mono as well. OR, it could have the opposite effect for mono….I don’t know….”impediment” thing again??? I only use braid, so not an issue for me.
In the past, Emory Harry has pointed out that, although there could be line contact with the rod under load, the line would not be moving, therefore, little or no friction. (this is an abbreviated version of his comprehensive explanation) I’m afraid that, that would not apply to me. (speaking for myself again) I often horse a fish out of heavy cover while taking up line (reeling). I guess the low angle of line contact might alleviate some of the friction, but friction none-the-less.
Btw, the rod in the photo really doesn’t look so bad to me, (except the guides are too big). Looks like the loads are equally distributed between the guides. I’d be hard pressed to explain why reputable rod manufacturers wouldn’t add an extra guide or two if the resulting performance would put them ahead of their competitors, far offsetting the costs of the guides. I would assume they’ve been in the business long enough to know that trade-offs are part of rod function. Unless there’s some kind of conspiracy….. hmmmmmm.

II did fish today. All micros, all on top. 6'2" - 7'9" rods. All my builds are in this manner.

My line slightly touches the blank (the Bobby Feazel method). I also sold 3 rods at the tournament - believe it or not customers LIKE and WANT micro guides. First rod sold was to my boater (I fished back of the boat in today's Tx). Why? I outcasted him from the back of the boat all day. By the end of the day, he was using my rods and I was using his orange bunny sticks.

Here's the thing... when you build a rod and you test it... you static load it. How often do you really put pressure on the rod to where it is fully loaded when reeling in a fish. Really... go look. Watch... you'll be surprised how often it isn't fully loaded between moving, reeling, etc. And I am building for guys who winch them in.

My 7'9"s use 9 - 10 guides. 6-4-3s. My 7's use 9 guides - 6-4-3s.

I just went to the rod rack and looked. I have 5 production rods sitting here.. when I pulled a line through, everyone of them touched the blank and they all have BIG guides.

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

Personally I’m not concerned that the line might damage the blank, but rather that the blank might damage the line. I have watched too many demonstrations of what friction can do to a line not to take this into consideration.
I’m sure the damage is miniscule for each event, but when it happens many times during a day, then many more time over a few days, even minor damage can have bad consequences.
I’m am also convinced that more damage is done when the rods are dirty, say from road grim sticking to the surface on the way to the lake or in dirtier water situations creating an almost sand paper effect on the line.

Roger;
As demonstrated during the seminar on Micro guides at the Expo, if you removed the 6mm guides off a rod and used 3mm guides in their place. You could actually add more then 36 more 3mm guides and the bag they were in and the weight still be less then the weight of the 6mm guides.
So if you had to add a couple or few extra to facilitate line clearance from the blank you are still so far below what 6’s weigh that you’re way ahead of the game.

As also demonstrated during the Seminar, there can be advantages gained in line control by using both smaller guides (as Jim alludes to) and by closer spacing of the guides.

Both of which increase line control, while improving casting distances.

Steve
Do you follow Alex's idea of using a 6 and then a 4 then 3's all the way out or do you use 3's all the way?
Do you go ALL ON TOP or a spiral?

Rolly Beenen
Rovic Custom Rods

6mm-5mm- 4mm -3.5mm -3's to tip
Or
5mm -4mm- 3's to tip
Depending on rod

All spiral wrapped

But I don't know if there is any difference better or worse between Alex’s and mine

Bill S. made an excellent point with the pic. Look at the pic, you well see where the line falls below the rod. In my opinion that shows extra stress on the blank. they should have added at least 3 extra guides. Who cares if there are more guides than recommended If you are worried about extra weight from the guides and thread, pulse the finish. I bet you could not feel it. As for balance that well also change if you change reels and line weight. Like Bill stated these guides were designed for a specific purpose. Ironheaders are not Bassers. Bill are you coming to Woodland.

Good Wraps Bob

After having the distinct pleasure of speaking with Steve on Sunday I came home and ripped off most of my 6's and have replaced them with3's. I 've had to add an extra on a few rods but it was WELL worth it and the rods cast better and are MUCH lighter to the feel.... Steve has shared lesson with me that I will carry throughout my days (not just rodbuilding) and I am VERY grateful for him opening my eyes!

Steve, again thanks for all and by the way, I have finally finished up my 5'6"caster that I spoke with you a while back. I have one built in the fashion with the equal distance that we spoke of and micro'd out the other.... needless to say... I have some rewrapping to do and this will be replacing almost every guide on the equal distance rod..... I noticed a HUGE difference in responsiveness, feel, balance and casting between the setups. I spiraled most of mine and a few do rub the blank but honestly if I blow up a blank... who cares, gives me an excuse to try more :) Not that I am worried about it though.


thanks,
Tom

Steve,
Do you use a standard size tip top, or do you use a 3mm? How small a ring size can you go without having a problem on a spiral wraped rod?

I also find this subject very interesting, I live in Minnesota and am an avid bass fisherman. I fish tournament circuits and have seen built and used many rods. The very 1st time I ever saw or heard about a spiral wrapped rod was on this site. I have never built a spiral wrapped rod. I recently purchased a bunch of Micro guides and everything being discussed here has been on my mind. What I am wondering is, does a spiral wrapped rod have better or worse casting distance VS. a all on top rod? I went out to dinner last night with some of my fishing buddies and our wifes and I told one of them that I was going to build him a Scum frog rod with Micro Guides for him to try. Should I build it spiral or conventional, he wants to un-spool his reel when he casts this beast. He wants a 7" medium heavy.


Thanks all,

Steve Bro
(BroCo Custom Rods)

Is a blank deflected during the outbound flight of a long crank bait throw?

When you are flipping or pitching close in with a broom stick is the blank deflected to the point that the line touches?

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?

The "teachings" of "no line touch" are bothersome and are keeping many builders from building rods using micro guides - should it be? If it is not important lets consider changing the "rules".

It is raining this morning - when it stops I will post a picture of a 7 foot highly functional seven power mag bass rod with all 3.5 micros on top under heavy load - the rod onlly has nine guides and has bee tournament tested.