Steve Gardner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Carl;
> there is a simple test you can perform in which I
> believe you will find Mr.Kirkman to be correct in
> the statement that "upsweep has little to no
> effect casting distance or rod performance".
>
> Take a rod on which you intend to use a specific
> reel designed it to allow for that reel's upsweep
> angle. Take it out and make several casts (30 or
> more) with it to get a good general casting
> distance established . Then take a few other bands
> of reels, of same spool size and different upsweep
> angles do that same series of casting tests with
> them.
>
> I believe that after such testing you will find
> Mr. Kirkman's statements to be correct.

Steve , no disrespect here but I have build exclusively KR and NGC with K- H guides since the day Fuji made them up. I might not build hundreds of rods but I have build the same rods few thens of times just to see what happens when I make changes to the system. I've done tests most people wont dare to do with them including the one you are talking about. @#$%& I'm one of the first (if not the first) that has build a KR on double footed K guides. I've been experimenting with extreme KR lately with very good results. I found out that in some cases the upsweep can change your casting length with just a few inches or with a few feet . If you view it in numbers sometimes Tom is right, it is little to no difference but when you look at it in percents sometimes you can find out that the change is 20% from total casting length . Nobody can really say for sure that only upsweep , or spool diameter , line type guide height or size is to be blamed for those differences because they are all interconnected with each other. Nor somebody can say that one has zero or no impact . That's because none of us has the means or a way of proving it no matter how hard we sometimes want to.
By field testing I've noticed that in any guides system what matters most when it comes to casting is the stripper position, size and height. That is of course when playing only with guides not with the reel and line in the same time. I also noticed that on thin soft lines ( usually soft braid rated under 10 lb) you can do almost whatever you want to do with the reel size , guide size and guide height with little to no impact on the casting distance. On thick heavy braids or FC on the other hand (40lb and up for braid and 20 lb and up for FC) smallest change in spool diameter, upsweep and guide position , guide size and hight, will have a noticeable impact in casting length.

But, overall, what I was trying to do by posting on this topic was on one hand to point at some weak points of the tool so Jim and his crew can do the necessary adjustments and on the other hand to ask for prudence when setting directions on how to build a rod with certain type of guides. In my opinion it is better to say " this is a tool aiming on an average and most usual KR build and you can start from this point" than "this is the best and thats the best way you can do it".
What everybody seems to miss here is the fact that you are not altering a variable independently when you make a slight change in a guides system but you are messing with a sum of many variables simultaneously (any and each one of them with his own effect). There are interconnections between all the aspects of the elements involved (line type, weight and thickness ; spool diameter ; guides position , height and size, upsweep , and so on ) and when you play with all of them in the same time you cannot say which one matters the most .
On the other hand, it is a matter of perspective while some will consider best an easy to achieve average others will see as best little to no errors in the system even when that implies a more complicated way to achieve it.
That being said one way or the other , each builder will decide for himself which approach suites him best , as long as he knows all the aspects involved and makes his on experiments in all particular cases. The only thing I can tell you for sure is that I will only build KR and NGC with KR guides since in my opinion those are the 2 guide systems that take a rod closer to his best as possible.

kingofbeasts custom rods



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2015 03:51PM by carol staiculescu.

Jim Ising Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Roger I don't think all this is about GPS for KR.
> It has degenerated or maybe I should say elevated
> itself to a much larger philosophical endeavor.
> And Thanks for the kudos, "quite close" for any
> guide layout system is plenty good enough for me!


I agree Jim!

"We agree with Tom to a point but perhaps he should soften his view a little since the past few years have PROVEN that line coming from fairly large spools can easily be pulled through much smaller rings than 27X would allow PROVIDED THE RINGS ARE OF THE RIGHT HEIGHT and the line is of the right kind (the basis for the entire KR Concept). "

Jim if you read my articles and subsequent posts, you'll note that I have always said that the choke guide position provided by 27X provides an all-around average for most reel and line set ups, but that use of smaller, limper and more supple lines such as braid would allow the choker guide to be positioned closer than 27X locates it. I have also always said that smaller rings could be used provided the frame height of the guide was sufficient. So there is nothing for me to soften my stance on here - it is what I have said all along.

Reel spool upsweep plays little to no role, however, as I have said before. As John mentioned earlier, try aiming the reel spool elsewhere during the cast. In fact, tape the reel on so that the spool is aimed off the left or right by a few degrees and then cast the thing. What you'll see is that the line will leave the spool and head straight to the butt guide paying no mind whatsoever to where the reel spool is aimed. In other words, it will not leave the spool in the direction the reel is aimed, but will simply leave straight away and follow straight to the butt guide. Obviously at some point, you could orient the spool so far out that the line would rub one side of the spool lip, but that only proves once more than the line goes where the guides take it, not where the reel spool is aimed. The line has no idea where the spool is aimed within the confines of the amount of reel spool upsweep found on spinning reels. Therefore it's not a practical consideration in the real world in terms of where the choke guide needs to be.

.........

John, I acknowledged that others had claimed to have gotten good results with their reel shimming experiments, not that I agreed with it or supported that notion. Only that it needed to be tested more. It was tested and was found wanting.

.....................



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2015 05:07PM by Tom Kirkman.

Reading these posts makes me feel like this is Kung fu Rod building
GrassHopper you must put guides on this way or the rod will not feel the power of the force

Yes master --- LMAO

Bill - willierods.com

Bill,

You might want to try selling that idea to Hollywood, there might be a movie in there someplace - Kwai Chang Caine studying Kung Fu under Master Yoda...

Caine: I seek not to know the answers, but to understand the questions.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2015 05:18PM by John E Powell.

And he built fishing rods with the power Nice idea maybe a TV series

John
It's a fishing rod Newbe's reading these posts are probably getting more confused then they were when they started

I got to ask
Why is Fuji ( not Jim ) trying to make there concept simplier -- Because it is COMPLICATED That is why i like the NGC system - simple easy to set up Yet it can be adjusted

people use Fuji's only because it is DRILLED into them that it is FUJI
I have customers wanting fuji guides I ask why Because they are Fuji And that is the only reason ??? So many companies making guides that are just as good ( how and what can one do to a guide ) ??

The sad thing is it is not Jim I would thing he is told how and what to do to sell Fuji

Bill - willierods.com



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2015 05:46PM by bill boettcher.

Tom I fully understand your thinking and, as I've said, I agree (and even built the software to allow for the fact) that a little variation does not matter. Accepted. You also state that "obviously at some point, you could orient the spool so far out that the line would rub one side of the spool lip". Yes. But your point of view also seems to indicate that at some point as you bring that angle back in line with the guides, 100% of that effect completely and totally disappears from the equation. Hmmmm. The way I see it, it seems much easier to imagine that, like any frictional force created in such a way, it would gradually diminish to zero. That zero point would most likely be the point where the reel face was directly in line with the reduction train. You can't feel it or measure it and as you've said it's inconsequential in a real world situation, so for all practical purposes why worry about it. But I think the point is that I don't know exactly where your theoretical "no effect" point is. I don't think anyone does. And since I have the tools to set-up a rod at the "zero point" by positioning the reduction train squarely in front of the spool (or at least inside the "no effect zone")...I think I'll keep doing it. In fact, I think we both end up with the same results more often than not.

This is a great thread and I don't expect to be able to grab the pebble from your hand any time soon. You've been at this a lot longer than I have. Thanks for the hat tip on the GPS for KR, it means a lot to hear you say it'll work in "most" cases.

But unit it's there, it's not there. The point where it becomes a factor is so far outside of what any spinning reel manufacturer is building in that it's completely outside any practical consideration. Surely you know that the line billows out and away from the spool lip, right?

Spool height and spool upsweep are not the same thing. Your current system/software is based on height, not upsweep, as it should be.

...........

OK for arguments sake I was willing to be proven wrong. So I taped on a reel, which is the only way I could come up with Tom's left or right suggestion, pointed EXACTLY 5 degrees to the left of the rod centerline. I've never seen a reel that had more than 4 degrees upsweep and most less than that so I figured this would be good enough for arguments sake. Then I went out about 20 minutes ago and cast it repeatedly. I stood in the low afternoon sun so I could see the line's flight path. If spool angle made any difference shouldn't the line start out to the left and then come back in to the right to where the guide is? The reel was pointed to the left. But it didn't do that. It left the spool in a dead straight line path to the butt guide. The spool angle off to the left did not send the line to the left at all. It was like the line completely ignored the spool angle.

So then I made another twenty casts and marked my distances. Then set the reel back on straight and made 20 more casts and marked off those distances. The overall average between to the two reel positions was roughly the same. If there was any difference I'd need some sort of more scientific method to measure it. Wish I had some type of camera to film this with but anybody can do it and just get at the right angle to a low sun to view the line's path. The reel spool doesn't seem to have anything to do with it. I can't say I'm surprised but after doing it for myself I am convinced more deeply than ever.

The only thing I would add is that if you don't have your reel spool properly filled with line I can see it making a difference. But any reasonably intelligent fishermen should be expected to have properly filled reel spools. I doubt that those who aren't would be fishing with a custom rod to begin with.

The line will always go in the direction in which it is being pulled, not the direction that the spool is aimed. For spool upsweep to be a factor, and that would be from the standpoint of the line having to overcome a far spool edge, it has to be at an angle which does not exist in any production reel. It simply is not an issue nor a factor.

...................

There is one "little" thing here that Tom is missing every time this kind of discussions are taking place : the other benefits of building according to upsweep because, as I have already said, KR it's not just about casting. Kr it's more about sensitivity ,rod power and rod balance and here we all agree I guess. Simple said the closer the stripper is to the reel seat (and after it all the other guides) the better for the balance sensitivity and power. 27X will place the choke point way up comparing with the upsweep method in most modern reels case. Usualy, especially in Japanesse reels and even more on Daiwa reels the choke point (when established considering the upsweep) its under the middle of the rod in 7 foot rods.
I'll say that it is a practical use here and a noticeable difference but then again this can be just my opinion.

kingofbeasts custom rods



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2015 04:33AM by carol staiculescu.

Carol,

I haven't missed anything here. You just came to the party a little late and probably haven't been following this for the full 20+ year period these discussions and work have been going on regarding the NGC. I designed 27X to work with a wide range of reels and lines, not a particular set up. I have always said that with more supple lines the choker guide can be located closer to the reel than 27X would normally locate it and performance would not be degraded. It is always possible, as I have said many times, to tweak the extremes and arrive at choke location that is even more optimum than what 27X provides. With spool upsweep, you might be closer in or you might be further out than what 27X provides. Even two reels with the same diameter spools may have different degrees of upsweep and generally do. It's an arbitrary way of locating the choke guide whereas using spool diameter to locate the choke guide is consistent and based upon a factor that does play a major role in casting performance.

And as far as being able to use smaller, lighter guides and obtain all the resulting benefits of such, I have advised that many, many times over the last 20 years. In fact, the biggest benefit I saw in the MicroWave Guide was that it allowed you to begin using smaller and lighter guides right after the guide subsequent to the butt guide.

................

Carol- if you want the choke guide closer than where 27X puts it then why not just use a different factor? If you know about where the choke guide works for you and the line you use you could measure a few set ups and determine the factor that will give you that location. You might find it turns out to be 20X or even 15X. But once you have that you would have a consistent means of locating the choke guide. I have found that spool upsweep varies so much from reel to reel that it can't be counted on to give you similar sets ups from one to another.

The only caveat I see in going to a smaller factor is that you start to leave the area where "everything works good" which the 27X gives you and enter an area which is tweaked for a specific reel and line. So if you were to ever change the line size or type by very much the performance might fall off. Just something to think about. But otherwise you can use whatever factor works for the bulk of what you do.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2015 09:01AM by Ken Finch.

Tom,

This is not the first time you've written a response to people that included a comment similar to coming to the party 20 years late. It smacks a tone of superiority and snobbery that I find disconcerting.

It's not meant that way, it's only a reminder that what many see as being a new topic is actually a rehash of something that has been through the wringer many, many years ago. In the mid 1990's, just after Fuji released the New Guide Concept, I wrote what was most likely the first independent article on the system, arguing for it against its many early critics. My point therefore, is that I am well aware of the benefits of smaller, lighter guides along the blank as I was among the first to argue for that concept.

You seem to have problems with most everything I write and have sent me several emails to that effect going back over many months now. It was less than 2 months ago that you emailed and took exception to the fact that I would not allow businesses that had not bought booth space at the Expo to attend and do business in the aisles there. Of course you misunderstood my post regarding that issue, as you often do. I have an awful lot to do each day - the magazine has over 14,000 subscribers and the administrative work that alone entails each day means I have to do many things off the cuff and on the fly, negating the ability to critique every word I write here and how it might be perceived. Opinions should be based on a body of work, not an assumption on a particular post.

If you still have an issue with that please remember that you did not pay a fee to participate here and are certainly free to go elsewhere if you wish.

................

Tom,
I'm glad that we all finally agree on something. It is true, I did arrive a little bit late on the party, but I've done my homework (quite allot of it lately ). Sorry for bringing up front things that were discussed years ago but it seems to me that many people still don't understand much when it comes to this KR system (if I remember correctly a year or two back we had almost the same discussions with same arguments). While you find out that upsweep has little to no influence in casting I would say that considering those other benefits it brings is better to use it as a starting point . For example , this morning, as I was repairing a Shimano Stradic 3000 SFD for a guy , I've thought to do some measurements on it. I've measured a choke point of 107 cm (the reel was taped on a blank). I Then have remembered that My C3000 Twin Power MG had the choke point at 116 cm (measured) . Those values were pretty close to the 127 cm calculated using your 27 x method. Then I took my Daiwa Morethan Branzino 3000 and measured it's choke point and find it to be at 91 cm. Calculating it by the 27 x method it was at 145,8 cm (pretty far away from the upsweep choke point) . The Twin Power and Branzino are among the two I use most when test casting and except the cases when I use thin and soft lines, I can say that a guides configuration which works for Daiwa will work for the Shimano also but never the other way around (speaking strictly about casting and casting distance). What I am saying is that this KR GPS which Jim and his crew is working on, cannot take in consideration only the class of the reel when it comes to reel influence . If the upsweep is not an issue for you fine, don't use it , but at least the spool diameter should be used in my opinion.

Ken
No offense but I consider that in rod building we build specific tools for specific jobs. Practically a rod tweaked for the reel and the line to be used with (and the type of lures I will also add ) is the name of the game here in custom rod building. An average rod which works on almost any situation and with most common reels or lines you can buy from stores. This is how I see it and this is the reason for which I consider to be better the one which performs best in specific conditions not the one which will work no matter what.

kingofbeasts custom rods



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2015 05:21PM by carol staiculescu.

Carol,

But this is only true if the spool upsweep has enough upsweep to actually locate the choke guide closer and that your particular line will work okay with that closer choke guide placement. Spool diameter is, in fact, the basis of the 27X system. That factor was arrived at by much time and trouble setting up, by trial and error, 100 different NGC outfitted rods with a wide variety of reels, lines, etc. to absolute optimum and then averaging the choke guide location based on spool diameter. One thing quickly became obvious and that was the the optimum set up for most outfits was a distance equal to between 25 and 29 times the spool diameter of the reel used.

The reason that 27X was developed, and the subsequent systems from AR, was precisely because spool upsweep turned out to be an inconsistent and sometimes poor element for locating the choke guide. It was all over the place, plus, there are some reels with no spool upsweep whatsoever. Better, more reliable means of locating the choke guide were required and have been subsequently delivered. In nearly all cases, any sort of simple system, which these are, puts you squarely in the ballpark and delivers excellent performance. However and as I have said so many times, it is always possible to tweak these systems closer to optimum for your specific reel and line. The only question is, how much time and effort do you expend to achieve 2% better results. And, of course, I'm sure there are times with some outfits where you might achieve much more than that. Each person has to decide where the aspect of diminishing returns kicks in.

Of course, if you have a method that works for your specific needs and use, then by all means use it. Good luck.

...........................

John E Powell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom,
>
> This is not the first time you've written a
> response to people that included a comment similar
> to coming to the party 20 years late. It smacks a
> tone of superiority and snobbery that I find
> disconcerting.



And on just about any other rod building forum on the internet, posting something like this to the owner of the forum would have gotten you the boot. The fact that Tom didn't ban you says tons about him and is really all you need to know.

I started this thread and I'd like to end it by reminding everyone that it is a GOOD thing that so many rod builders give this subject so much thought. Every comment here is directed at a single goal - reaching "layout nirvana". It's apparent that many view it as a critical issue in offering customers a tool that performs at an optimum level. Regardless of how you ultimately get there, whether your fiddling with a 27X layout or a GPS generated build sheet, we are all pursuing the same goal. And I am sure that Tom and I would agree that there are few formula based suggestions that don't need the masterful eye of a good builder to bring all the variables together into a high-functioning finished product. Thank goodness we are all working so hard to provide quality products to fishermen who understand the importance of discussions just like this one.

Give GPS for KR a try. If it's right for you, you'll know it. If it's not, there are many other roads to travel.

I used the latest GPS app to determine guides for a 7' spinning rod, 10 lb braid, 2000 series reel, spindle 12.5" from blank butt. It suggested proper guides (I have to imagine)...but only 4 running guides? That seems low, right? That's one runner for every 7.25 inches at the top. I am doing my first build so I am inclined to just follow what the app recommended - but it doesn't jive with most everything else I've read. Seems it shoud indicate soemthing like "4 to 6 running guides" - or maybe calculate the number based on some rule of thumb - like one runner per 5" of blank remaining. But it simply said, "4". Any advice? Looks like I may have to order a single guide from Mudhole - that'sll cost me about $4 in shipping (yuck).

Thank in advance,

Pat