for a one piece 7' rod how quickly should the rotation from top to bottom should the spiral take place? currently the first guide is tapped on at 24" from the bottom with an 8" space between the other guides that wrap to the bottom of the rod. It looks nice but in terms of functionality I am guessing. I used the "search" function of this site but could not find any pertinent information and there was nothing that I saw in the library.

Up in the Search Section type in your question You will get a LOT of info ----All Dates

Bill - willierods.com

I believe this thread should answer your question or at least help.

[rodbuilding.org]

thanks for the help...looking at the search function a bit deeper, I found my search was only for the last 30 days. Lots more information when I expanded the date range.

John,
Generally speaking when I do a spiral wrap, I set the rod up as if were a conventional rod. After I get the spacing figured out, I just take the first three guides from the butt end and execute the spiral.

If needed for smooth line flow, I will move the guides a bit, or change the amount of rotation for each of the guides.

By the way, on most of my spirals, I have found that the rod works better if the first or butt guide is offset by 5 or 10 degrees. This offset works out for a better line feed and line retrieve.

But do the layout and pull about 100 feet off the reel, and then under slight pressure reel the line back in. During this time verify how smoothly the line retrieves and if the line stacks evenly on the reel. If you find that the line does not stack evenly on the reel, try adjusting the amount of rotation on the butt guide.

Be safe

John,

Dido on Roger's recommendations!

Don Campbell
don@sensorfishingrods.com

I do as Roger does
Glue tip on at the 180 then place the guides on as a spinner - no bumper guide yet - Static test Then turn the but and any other guides up and adjust Then with a line on static test and see where the line is touching the blank Then put the bumper on
I try to get the line to rest at the bottom of the transition guides on the bottom near the blank so it does not push on the sides of any guide

Bill - willierods.com

The formulaic approaches written about in the past were good starting points. They introduced many rodbuilders and fisherman to the potential benefits of spiral wrapped rods. But like many things in life, often the best results are obtained when you keep a critical eye on and adapt the tried and true approaches of the past with the newer concepts. I remember my first spiral wrapped rod I built for myself back in '79 or '80. Ignoring common sense I tried to copy a guide layout from a casting rod to a trolling rod. It had a very rapid spiral over a short distance to the bottom of the blank. It probably worked fine for catching 1-3 lb smallmouth bass making short casts, but on my trolling rod subject to much heavier drag settings, the spiral guides were twisting loose from the blank and popping the epoxy off the thread after a season of heavy use. Clearly, I had ignored common sense and I learned an important lesson:

It doesn't matter whether the rod is a conventional build or a spiral build, the same common sense basic steps to guide location apply.

In both conventional and spiral builds, guides should be selected and placed to achieve a smooth transition both to and through the first runner guide; factors to consider in both builds are 1) the size and height of the guide rings 2) orientation on or off the axis of the blank and 3) distance between the reel and stripper and distance between each spiral guide. Stress testing and test casting (for rods that will be used to cast) will inform you as to the three factors mentioned above. Your final stress test should be done with a load equal to the reel drag slip weight and the rod and line held through a variety of realistic orientations likely to occur when fighting and landing the fish. As you adjust your ring size and height, orientation, and location, try to achieve a balance in line angle change from guide to guide through the spiral and through runners where the blank flexes and bends.

After that first failure so long ago, I stress tested the rod after that first season and saw why there had been such a severe build failure, I had ignored common sense and followed the formulaic recommendations of the spiral to the letter. The original article stressed the importance of getting to the underside of the rod as quickly as possible, above all else, to minimize any torsional lever-arm forces the spiral applied to the blank. The writer theorized that these forces were best located where the blank was the stoutest (largest diameter close to the handle) which left the majority of the smaller diameter midsection and tip of the blank with all guides on the 180 degree axis and minimal torsional forces. A year later after inspecting the rod failure I remember thinking to myself, was that really so important that it would override all other common sense build factors? The writer seemed to think so remarking [incorrectly] that this is how the spiral should be done for all applications. With hindsight, obviously I should have been a bit more critical and less accepting of something that flew in the face of what was well-accepted practice.

There is one factor with a spiral build that is not generally a concern with a conventional build, line stacking with levelwind reels. This is checked once you've completed stress testing and test casting (if necessary). Using the reel that will be used on the rod, remove 50-100% more line from the reel than you would expect to be a worst case scenario and then re-wind the line back onto the reel. The line should not stack to one side severely enough to cause a problem with the function of the reel. On hand-held casting rods for smaller fish that don't make huge runs when hooked, this is less of a concern compared to a trolling rod used to target large predator fish where the fish can potentially strip all the line from the reel. You might find that if you test your setup to this extreme that the line may excessively stack to one side of the reel spool requiring you to take some kind of corrective action with respect to the stripper guide orientation (or ring size/height or spacing).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2014 01:24PM by John E Powell.

John Powell,

I want to thank you for your response. This was well thought out, explained yourself well with good examples and well written.

Chester,

Your welcome.

gee guys Sounds like some Common Courtesy - LOL

Bill - willierods.com

Yep, there is nothing wrong with that.

Besides when someone does a nice job and goes above and beyond a simple 2-5 line response on such a topic as this one, it deserves to be mentioned. Maybe it will get contagious and spread, what do you think Bill B?

gee Chester
Are you trying to press my Buttons ? LOL I type with 2 fingers he must know how to REALLY type ??

Bill - willierods.com

No Bill, just some good spirited fun. ;-)

Did not mean to take it the wrong way - sorry -

Bill - willierods.com

Might be self-obvious but given the way some posts sound I'm not sure.....you know the line doesn't need any "help" getting to the bottom of the blank. It would be better if the line didn't touch the blank but some just put a sleeve over the blank.

I might suggest laying out the guides as a normal conventional rod....then flipping all but the butt guide over......then pick a low frame guide (I use single foot ceramic fly rod type) a size or two smaller than the butt guide and let the line go through it (and all the other guides) as you load the blank. Pick a place between butt guide and first 180 guide (usually halfway) where there is no side loading on this "bumper guide". The loaded line path will dictate its location. Afterwards static testing might allow for one or two less running guides.

I'd only be looking to use three guides to move towards the bottom for a special distance casting rod like a surf rod. I just haven't found that much difference between the simple "bumper guide" type to justify the other type layouts for most rods. Your mileage may differ and I'm a "salt water" guy.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

I cut one step and start the guides all at 180 then static test Saves some time and usually cuts at least one guide

Bill - willierods.com

Bill, you say that you cut a step, but to me it seems like your adding a step (or two, or three)...

Isn't turning the guide(s)s to the top and side (if any) an additional step and possibly removing a guide a second additional step? Wouldn't the removal of the 'extra guide" necessitate a re-static testing with the guides near their final orientation and location - isn't that what I started with?

Honestly, it seems to me that what your doing is a lot more work than what I'm doing. I'm doing one layout while apparently your doing one layout, then changing it and doing a second layout ending up with something similar to my one layout.

So, I'm a bit confused. Maybe you could clarify if I'm not understanding what your doing.

Sincerely,

JP.

Instead of putting the guides on top of the blank ( conventional ) I put all them at the 180 ( spinning rod ) with the tip glued in place
Static Test ( no bumper guide ) When I like the spacing - and conventional rods usually have at least one extra guide - Less as a spinner -
Then turn the butt and one or two as needed upward Where the line touches the blank add a bumper guide
Static test adjust as needed

Bill - willierods.com

Bill (and Roger)

Your static testing and adjustment at 180, turning guides and static testing and adjusting again. Three steps. I'm starting with guides near where I expect them to be and doing one static test. One step.

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm going to stick with what I've been doing as it seems more intuitive to me to do one static test and adjustment. I can't understand what benefit there could be to following your extra intermediate steps. If I followed your three step procedure, Shouldn't I end up with the same spacing and orientation since your final step and my only step are the same thing?