Maybe Jim Ising or Bill Batson can answer for their respective brands but we all know that the same ring size tip top has a reduced height compared to its guide. Why is that? It doesn't matter when fighting a fish but most of the work is casting. Whether using NGC or cone of flight the tip top ought to be the same ring size as its nearest guide but it doesn't work for height. One has to use the next size up tip top to get the right height. Why aren't the manufacturers doing anything about it? In the meantime what do I do, use the same ring size as the last guide for the tip top and have the height lower or use a bigger tip top so that the height is equal to the guide. What's the performance difference? I imagine using the same ring size with the height difference will suffer in distance as there may be more slap being a step down. Anyone done any comparison?

ken

Ken,
One solution is to wrap on a single foot guide for the tip top. I started using SF guides for tip-tops several years ago because of the unavailability of small ringed (micro) guide tip-tops. It took a while to get used to the look of them and now I prefer them to conventional framed tip-tops. They are also considerably lighter and I think they look cleaner.
I do however bend the guide slightly forward to provide an angle more conducive to the line flow, so this would slightly lower its height in relation to the other guides. I think it better accommodates the angular variations of the line at the rod tip and I doubt it would affect casting performance in any way.

Why do you think it matters?

x10 on Randy's comments.

So what if the tip top is a bit smaller or larger? As long as you have a hole big enough for the line to flow, you will be in good shape.

The size of the tip - as long as it is large enough to freely pass the line - will have essentially 0 effects on the rod, its power, action or fish catching ability.

Be safe

Don't know that it matters, that's what I'm trying to find out. It's logical that it matters. After all the trouble we go to to line up the guides whichever concept is used, to have the last one being out of whack just grates. One rod I built didn't cast well and when I realigned the guides so that it looked like a bullseye the casting improved. If you don't have the tip top aligned it'll matter. The question is how much. Mine's not a problem in sourcing the tip top. Dblue carries the ones I need with the right tubes. I'm just trying to find out if someone has done any tests to see if it matters as this issue has been around a long time.

Ken,
I think your question/concern is valid, but the slight difference in height would probably not amount to any measurable casting difference. It may be more of a bothersome aesthetic or cosmetic issue for you. I’d go so far to suggest that if you increase the tip top size to get the desired height, the additional weight at the rod tip will have more of a negative measurable effect on performance than the shorter tip top. There are many things that affect performance in a significant way, so I think that if you’re dissatisfied with your rods casting, I’d look elsewhere for the problem. I’d even suspect that unless your build was drastically misconfigured, that the problem wouldn’t be with the rod at all, so you might look at the other possibilities such as casting weight (matched to rods power), line, etc……or if it’s a casting rod, check out the reel.

I'm going to try the tip top size that is the ring size as its nearest guide. A light bulb moment went off when I was looking at the rod in that while there is a difference in height this is much reduced and even disappears under casting conditions. This is because the bait/lure used has a weight and this will bend the tip anyway. So maybe my concerns are answered in this manner.