You can not correctly static test with the butt guide at 0 and the rest at 180 The idea is to have them in line I put them at 180 to get even pressure along the blank As if a spinner Also in that position you will use less guides IMHO if you like the way you do it keep doing it

Bill - willierods.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2014 11:18AM by bill boettcher.

bill boettcher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can not correctly static test with the butt
> guide at 0 and the rest at 180.

Why?

> The idea is to have them in line...

Why?

Good question
I do it cause when static testing before the spiral wrap conventional and spinners were done that way
I figured it was a good way to set the butt guide ??

Bill - willierods.com

John,
The great thing about doing any particular job is that there may be a million different ways to do it.
The amazing thing about that; is that if done correctly, the results will be the same - no matter the method used.

This is exactly why I hate managers who micro manage their employees. There are some folks who dictate the exact steps and order that steps need to be performed. This may be necessary in some occupations or types of jobs. However, that is certainly not the case with rod building.

There are lots of folks who might take two hours to do a given job that others might do in 10 minutes. If the folks doing the job are happy with the amount of time spent doing a particular task - that is great.

Suffice to say, a spiral wrapped rod can be completed in many different ways. The final result may not even be close between the rods. But if the builder and if the user of the given rod is happy, the builder has delivered a quality product to the client.

Have a great day and thanks for all of the comments.

Be safe

John,
The great thing about doing any particular job is that there may be a million different ways to do it.
The amazing thing about that; is that if done correctly, the results will be the same - no matter the method used.

This is exactly why I hate managers who micro manage their employees. There are some folks who dictate the exact steps and order that steps need to be performed. This may be necessary in some occupations or types of jobs. However, that is certainly not the case with rod building.

There are lots of folks who might take two hours to do a given job that others might do in 10 minutes. If the folks doing the job are happy with the amount of time spent doing a particular task - that is great.

Suffice to say, a spiral wrapped rod can be completed in many different ways. The final result may not even be close between the rods. But if the builder and if the user of the given rod is happy, the builder has delivered a quality product to the client.

Have a great day and thanks for all of the comments.

Be safe

Bill,

If it was a good way to set the butt guide, then wouldn't you also do it for a conventional 0 axis build? Think about it, would you actually turn a 0 axis build blank over to 180 to do a static test, then turn it back to 0 and then either 1) accept the guide location without modification or 2) recheck the static load? Well, if you 1) didn't recheck, how would you know that it was actually correct and if 2) you did recheck and you find you need to make an adjustment wouldn't that indicate that turning the blank to 180 first isn't giving you the correct info? Either of these scenarios just doesn't intuitively seem right to me.

Let's consider this: You turn to 180, static test, turn back to 0, static test to check and it's correct. Well if your check to assure accuracy is to do a 0 axis static re-check, why couldn't you just do 0 axis static test in the first place?

Assuming further that the 180, static, rotate to 0, static re-check gives you the correct placement, don't you still have to re-position any transitional guides and fiddle with them, as you stated in a previous post, to get the line to path at the bottom of the ring?

I think I could go on here with a few more examples and questions, but instead let me re-ask a question in this way. Wouldn't it be easier if you could achieve the same guide location without all the turning, reorienting, and possible repositioning?

Roger,

Thanks for responding, I agree with what you wrote.

The reason I've kept asking bill a number of questions is I'm trying to discover if this is just a personal preference or if there is some benefit I am not considering and I'm trying to understand what the reason is why at least both of you, and possibly others, might be doing something different than me.

Now this is just a gut feeling, but I have to ask this because I've never tried tried what both you and Bill describe. My gut intuition tells me that if I were to follow the steps that Bill has elaborated upon, I would find that when I turn the rod back to 0 I would not find the line-pathing in a manner that would satisfy me. My intuition tells me that guides placed on a 180 degree axis would cause a line-path with a smaller radius that the same rod positioned along the 0 axis where the line path radius would be larger.

If in fact both methods would achieve the same results, then that would mean that the difference in line-path radius is either insignificant and thus meaningless, or has no effect. This is the core problem I am having with the 180 flip. I haven't tried it, but my intuition is telling me that this can't be negligible because when the guide is in the 180 position the line paths at the lowest point at the top of the ring which, for example might me 20mm from the blank, while the same guide later turned to the 0 axis would have a line path where again the line is at the lowest position, but now at the bottom of the ring which could be, for example, only 12mm from the blank. For your method to truly achieve the same results, wouldn't this have to mean that ring size and height is also insignificant and thus meaningless when considering line pathing? That hasn't been my experience at all.

How can a line path 20mm below the underside of the blank effectively be the same as a line path 12mm above the top of the blank? If the blank was 1/2" that would mean nearly 2 full inches in difference between the two line paths. I want to understand and believe you, so what am I missing here??



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2014 12:58PM by John E Powell.

I build bass rods that are pretty much all spiral wrapped. Simple Spiral. Havent built a conventional wrap in a while.

If you build bass rods I would talk to the guys over at MHX about the spiral wraps they are using. Reason being they are a component supplier as well as support a pro-staff of tourney anglers who use their stuff. So they have knowledge on both sides of the rod.

Most of the bass guys I know use the simple spiral although they may prefer a different guide train here n there.

Good luck!

John
You misunderstood I don't do all that turning Tested as fished
I static test where most or all of the guides will be fished
On a casting rod the guides are on top so that is where they would be tested
A spinner they are on the bottom or 180
A spiral I guess one could say 90 or 95 % are at the 180 So why put them on top and then move most all to the 180 So I put them at the 180 and move 1 or 2 guides and add the bumper
I have placed the butt at 0 the rest at 180 and static test but thought it would be better all at 180 ??
Common sense ?? Nothing written in stone

Adam makes good sense

Bill - willierods.com

bill boettcher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John
> You misunderstood I don't do all that turning
> Tested as fished
> I static test where most or all of the guides will
> be fished
> On a casting rod the guides are on top so that is
> where they would be tested
> A spinner they are on the bottom or 180
> A spiral I guess one could say 90 or 95 % are at
> the 180 So why put them on top and then move most
> all to the 180 So I put them at the 180 and move 1
> or 2 guides and add the bumper
> I have placed the butt at 0 the rest at 180 and
> static test but thought it would be better all at
> 180 ??
> Common sense ?? Nothing written in stone
>
> Adam makes good sense


Bill, I do understand that your only moving the spiral guides and the runners are kept on the 180, so there's no misunderstanding in that respect.

Bill,
Exactly.

Basically put casting guides on the bottom of the rod, as if the rod were a spinning guide.

Then, take the first guide and put it on top of the rod and you are essentially set.

With the line on the bottom of the rod, as in a spiral wrapper or spinning guide setup, there are generally fewer guides, simply because the line can deflect without ever intersecting or touching the blank.

For example, if one wanted to use micro casting guides in a conventional casting rod setup and wanted to not have the line touch the blank - one might very well have 14 guides on a 7 foot rod. But, if the same blank were built up in a spinning or spiral wrapped configuration, you might only have 7 guides on the identical blank.

Take care

That is why I do it that way Roger I also may try different butt guides and bumper sizes just to get the straightest line path
I guess one could just use a spacing from say St Croix of a spinner and just put the butt guide up to zero and be done with it But I would worry that I did not do or could have done it better ???

Bill - willierods.com

The discussion seems to be diverging here so I won't press further with specific questions.

Thanks Bill and Roger for your input.

JP

OK John
How do you do them

Bill - willierods.com

Bill,

I do one static test starting with my stripper guide on the zero, runners on the 180 and two small transition guides. I fix one transition guide at 90 or 270, the other just hanging free on the line between the 90/270 and the 180. The reason I hang the extra free guide at the start is so its available if I decide i want to do a two guide transition. Then I just proceed as normal. I keep the runners and tip on the 180, but I make adjustments to the angle and distance of the stripper and transition(s) based upon what I see. The rod (and reel) are kept in the upright position, and I use two lines. The first line is attached to the ring of the tip and goes to a scale and weight. I adjust the position of the weight and angle of the rod to simulate drag settings up to the maximum the person will use. The second line is just taught and runs from the reel through all the guides and tip and at the end is a small weight just heavy enough to keep this line from sagging between guides (like 1/2 oz sinker is all).

After completing my static testing at various weights on the first line and simulating reasonable rod bends from fighting and landing a fish, I would then do some test casting if the rod was to be used for casting). Since I almost exclusively build trolling rods, I skip this step unless it's a caster. Lastly, I check for and make any stripper angle adjustments on or off the 0 axis to account for the intended use and/or line stacking of levelwind reels. For the charter fleet I service, I set the stripper so the line path defaults down the center of the blank. This is because the rod may see a new reel every year during the course of it's life and it's generally being used by inexperienced people. Avoidance of levelwind stacking is a prime concern for a charter boat rod in the fishery I service.

When I build for more experienced customer, I interview them and explain the options. Some choose the negative offset guide angle to center the line, others prefer a closer to 0 axis or on the 0 with the understanding it may require the person to manage the line during retrieval.

On builds using conventional but non-levelwind reels, I review with the person how they plan to manage the line during retrieval. Some plan to leave the rod in the holder and they have a free hand to work the line, others plan to hold the rod and must use the rod holding hand to manage the line. In the latter scenario, they are likely to reach up with their thumb and guide the line. Depending on a lot of factors like reel geometry, type of line used (I see a lot of thick copper lines for this particular arrangement), and hand size and thumb reach, I might significantly offset the stripper toward the thumb of the hand holding the rod to make line management easier. I'll actually set up a hour to meet with the client and have them work the rod and manage the line with their thumb to get the ideal angle, ring size and height, and distance for them. Sometimes this means I need to redo my static testing based on the new stripper orientation.

I usually upcharge an extra $30 or so when I know I'm going to build a rod for a large-frame, non-levelwind trolling reel like a Pen Senator or similar.

There are other considerations I have omitted for somewhat brevity, but this is basically what I do. Other than the specifics I mentioned, I otherwise perform a static test as anyone else would who uses the two-line method vs the one line method.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2014 03:32PM by John E Powell.

John Powell,

A very nice write-up with good detail and explanation behind your thought process, very easy to follow!

Thank You

Thanks for all the info John Gives me a few things to think about

Bill - willierods.com

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LMAO ????????? What is this

Googled it up found out

Bill - willierods.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 09:45AM by bill boettcher.

John, now I have to ask a question. Why do you think the "line path radius" would be different?

IMHO each blank has a natural "line path radius". It is our job to pick the lightest possible guide train (suitable for our needs) that preserves this "line path radius". If done properly, there should be no difference between the two builds (other than size and number of guides).

On a spiral build, compared to a normal conventional build, I find I can usually get away with less different sized guides and often less total guides,

Russ in Hollywood, FL.