Very nice Jim! And by the way, thank you. Lynn

Your welcome, John. I hope more people can experience the advantages of the concept and see what they think.

The important information insofar as what affects spinning rod casting properties is all within Angler Resouces new GPS for KR system. Almost too easy to get a nice layup right out of the gate. The only thing that has been generalized is the reel sizing which really can't account for every individual reel out there, but it should be close enough for most makes. Well done.



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

Interesting posts ???

Bill - willierods.com

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> The guides determine where the line goes and at
> what angle, not the reel spool.
>
>
>
> ....................
No disrespect here but as the above (quoted) part is truth , so it's that which say that friction will determine how far away the line goes. Problems will not occur in the middle and most commune class of reels and rods, but will be present on extremes. Besides that, KR Concept it is not about casting distance (after all it is a choked NGC) as much as it is about rod power and sensitivity and those go hand in hand with blank specifications and a good spacing of running guides and appropriate number of KB guides .
The main thing is that generalization is not recommended when you talk about KR , as Jim said , in most cases we are talking about a particular solution to a particular rod. I must agree that this new GPS tool it is a great starting point in building a KR -rod but I will also say that is not the finish in doing it. Every builder should do his homework , study the principles and do his measurements on each occasion for the better result.
Please take the above just as an opinion, no more no less.

kingofbeasts custom rods



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2015 05:45PM by carol staiculescu.

At that's the point - there are no spool upsweep extremes in actual use. Spool diameter and line type are the major factors involved and which do need to be paid attention to.

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

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.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2015 06:37AM by Steve Gardner.

Steve, it's funny that you mention that because I did just that about a year ago.

In my very unscientific test I found that the difference between two reels with 3 degrees difference in upsweep was that the reel with greater upsweep angle had about 4% less casting difference on average over twenty casts. Subjectively, the rod with greater upsweep did not feel as smooth.

Take this for what it's worth. It's a really small effect, but it does exist.

I am confident however, that it is incorrect to say it has no effect whatsoever. If that were true, you could point the reel in any direction and experience no difference at all.

You be the judge as to whether it's important to you or not.

I believe what he said was that the small differences that exist in spool upsweep do not make any difference and from my own tests in shimming reels to try and change casting distance, Tom is right. You took two different reels, not the same reel and adjusted upsweep. That's what you should try. Saying that it must have an effect because it would if you turned the reel around backwards is just cooking up an absurd scenario that makes no sense. In all the work I did with the NGC since it first came out I have also come to the conclusion that it is the diameter of the spool that plays the larger role compared to spool upsweep that to me, seems to be insignificant. If you use the 27X method and base the choker location on spool diameter, you can then change the upsweep by a few degrees up or down and it will have zero effect on the average casting distance. And if you really think about it, having a few degrees of upsweep either way really can't affect casting much because the line isn't rigid. It flexes and like was said the upsweep is a fixed spool, not a gun barrel. The guides are the gun barrel if you want to look at them that way. The line flows out and off of the spool so a few degrees of upsweep can't matter.

Turning the reel completely around to face the other direction is not changing the upsweep it is changing the horizontal direction. Pointing it in odd directions is equally weak for the same reason. Very poor analogy.

The big problem with setting the choke guide based on spool upsweep is that it put the choke guide way too far out on the rod and sometimes off the end of even fairly long rods .Then somebody (Tom?) figured out that the real factor was not spool upsweep but reel spool diameter. This pulled the choker back in much closer on most setups and worked even better than using reel upsweep. Then with the advent of even lighter and more supple braided lines we found that the choker could sometimes come in even closer than 27X and work equally well. I think the AR GPS KR software pulls the choker in even closer for softer lines and it works great. Spool upsweep has been written off as not much if any of a factor and rightly so. Too many other factors that make more difference and have been proven to work better. If spool upsweep was any sort of a real factor then 27X and the AR GPS systems would not work well at all since they both put the choke guide much closer than what you would get when basing that location on spool upsweep.

BTW, did we not go through all this several years ago? Why are we revisiting something that was found to be a non issue and left to the dust bin back then. What is next, a discussion on how advanced the cone of flight guide system is? It sure seems to make sense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2015 09:33AM by James Newsome.

Gentleman,

I've already acknowledged the effect of normal reel parameters is small. I acknowledge that spool diameter is a more significant factor worthy of consideration. What my post comes down to is the manner in which people communicate. What you may not be aware of is that there have been behind the scenes e-mails going back and forth and in some of those e-mails people use language that is in a sense nothing more than black and white absolutes. What I'm simply trying to say is that this is not a absolute black and white situation there are shades of grey in between.

One approach that can sometimes be useful in a scientific analysis to a question is to consider if there can be a situation where a variable can cause a system to fail. Such failures, however extreme or unrealistic, can sometimes inform scientific inquiry. A year ago when I wrote to Jim Ising, I explained in an e-mail how I was tinkering with offset reaming of the reel seat bushing to test whether aiming the spool shaft at the choke point might be worth the effort. After a bit of experimenting, I felt it wasn't worth the effort due to handle construction complexities and the sequence of assembly vs test casting. The return just wasn't there.

Other people have tried different methods along this same theme. Interestingly Tom Kirkman himself 12 years ago acknowledged "good results". Those are Tom's words, not mine. Tom then goes on to describe how he plans to try using shims to accomplish a similar result. You can read his post here: [rodbuilding.org] I have to wonder why the complete flip flop? Where those early reports later proven to be a lie? Or is it that with with time and testing our understanding has evolved? I'd like to think that peoples understandings can evolve through scientific inquiry and that posing such questions does have value.

We're never going to evolve if we continue to passionately look at things in terms of absolutes. Again, keep in mind that I'm referring to non-public emails not so much to content posted publicly in this thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2015 10:14AM by John E Powell.

If you read that post a little more carefully, you'll note that I said others had reported good results with it, not me. You'll also note that I said I had devised a method for changing the angle of the reel and would do some testing. I did, and found it had little to no effect on casting distance.

In those emails you mention, I said that my time here is spent helping people build fishing rods for the real world. This entails practical methods and techniques, not rods for use in far flung theoretical situations that don't exist in the real world. In fact, it is just these extremely far flung theories and non-practical applications that tend to turn many people away from custom rod building, as they read that stuff and get the idea that rod building is too difficult or too involved for them.

In your emails you stated that I was correct in terms of practical application but that you were correct in theory. In your earlier posts on this thread you didn't mention that you were only talking theory, which I assume is why you went in and removed them.

There's nothing wrong with talking in the hypothetical or theoretical, but it should be stated as such so as not to confuse newer builders. And we should always remember that we cast and fish in the real world, not a theoretical one. And in the real world, choke guide location based on spool upsweep is simply not as productive in terms of overall casting performance as choke guide location based on spool diameter and line type. At this point we don't have to guess about it - we know. We're beyond theory and into known practical application. You are certainly free to continue to espouse on what you believe to be important insofar as spool upsweep for choke guide location, but once most people find something better they're not likely to step backwards.

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

That was my point in my post above.That spool upsweep as a means of locating the choke guide has already been proven not to be the best way. So starting up the same old tired and discounted argument again is devolution not evolution.

At any rate, I don't want this thread to devolve into something less than what we expect on this forum. The topic was originally about Anglers Resource new GPS KR system and we have strayed far enough from that.

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

carol staiculescu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom Kirkman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > The guides determine where the line goes and at
> > what angle, not the reel spool.

[www.rodbuilding.org] = "One common misconception is that you must use a particular type or style of guide. ?Nothing could be further from the truth. ?The key is in selecting and placing guides so that you achieve two straight line paths; one from the reel to the intersection guide, and then from the intersection guide on to the tip top. ?Do not preselect your guides. ?Instead, allow the reel and intended line path to show you what you what guides will be required. "

I think what is confusing to new builders is having information that is contradicting. They do research, find 15 years worth of information saying this is how you are supposed to do it, only to find out that isn't the best way.

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you read that post a little more carefully,
> you'll note that I said others had reported good
> results with it, not me.

If you read my post more carefully you'll note that I used the word "acknowledged". The post I linked was your response to the original poster stating they had good results. I simply pointed out you acknowledged their good results publicly. Am I wrong in this? I don't think so, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that comment.

> In your earlier posts on this
> thread you didn't mention that you were only
> talking theory, which I assume is why you went in
> and removed them.

You are correct, after reading a few responses to my 2nd and 3rd postings, I realized that my intent was being misunderstood so rather than let them continue to fuel the fire and allow them to take the thread sideways, I deleted them in the hope the thread would refocus on the appreciable and valuable work completed by Jim's team. In my mind deleting them altogether seemed a more appropriate course of action that attempting to go back and edit them for greater clarity.

I do stand by my 1st undeleted post in the thread. I meant nothing more than to give credit where it was due, and to suggest the possibility of having the option to use the old measurement method for those of us familiar with and comfortable in its use.

I'm afraid I'll have to take the blame since we are the ones who did the work to create GPS for KR. It troubles me that this discussion always seems to create two very distinct "camps" among rod builders. It really doesn't have to be that way. Maybe we can meet in the middle.

1) Fuji determined (20 years ago) that the angle of the spool when projected, would create an imaginary line that crossed the blank. They deduced that guides along that line would perform best. This was a key point in the development of the New Guide Concept, but there were other factors as well. Fuji has never abandoned this premise and as their agent we continue to believe it is important. HOWEVER, if you will take another look at GPS for KR you will quickly see that the guide train is generated for a "SERIES" reel. Do all Series 3000 reels have the same upsweep? They certainly do not, but in the realm of high-functioning guide trains the slight variation in upsweep from one 3000 Series to the next is not enough to have a dramatic effect on performance. Does this put us in the Kirkman camp? Not necessarily because as illogical as it sounds to some folks it seems very logical to us that given the tools to place the reduction train DIRECTLY ON FRONT OF THE SPOOL AND ON THE SAME ANGLE, that would be the best place for it. Why NOT locate the point on the blank where the spool is "aiming" and place guides to perform in that line if you have a choice. It's certainly not going to HURT performance (all other things considered), and it might help in some immeasurable way. Conclusion: Tom is right. A little variation in that angle will probably not matter much. But Fuji is right as well. Placing the stripper (and subsequent reducers and choke) directly in front of the spool is most certainly the best place for it...or perhaps a better way to put it is that understanding the relationship between the spool an reduction train, it's wise (and logical) to strive for a good, straight line between the two. I hope everyone can agree on that.

2) Spool diameter: Tom wants to discount upsweep in favor of spool diameter. In the extreme, again, he's right. Line coming from a very large spool just won't allow itself to be pulled efficiently through guides that are too close (or too small) to the face of the reel. Either of these scenarios creates a "brake" system where too much friction too early limits the energy to a "max point" that can't be exceeded regardless of the power used in the cast or the rest of the guide train set-up. But to discount upsweep in favor of making spool size all-important seems shortsighted and risky. You can't say slight variations in upsweep have no effect and then turn around and say slight variations in spool diameter have a great effect. Slight variations in spool diameter do not have an effect. Larger variations do. GPS for KR realizes there is no huge variation in spool diameter among (average) 3000 Series reels (or 4000 or 2000), if your spool is huge you will not find info for it in the app. As reel series go up (and spools get larger), you will notice that stripper size goes up in GPS for KR, as Tom says it should. 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).

3) Line: There are literally hundreds of types of line being cast at any given moment under a thousand different weather and temperature conditions so if any one factor in guide set-up must deal in averages - line would be it. And yes, it can have a huge effect on guide train performance. Cheap 20# mono on a cold day is going to make you think your new $500 Hi-mod Kr Concept rod is crap. No argument here. Just don't give the extreme too much credence in the way you view how all these things work together. Most of us use a narrow range of line and most of the information, including GPS for KR, targets the most used mono and braid categories. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

4) Choke point: In most cases, 27X places choke points further away than both NGC and KR. The choice of which to use is entirely up to the rod builder. One goal of both NGC and KR is to bring smooth flowing line down to the blank as soon as possible with minimal loss of lure energy. A fine line for sure. With 27X you'll be safe in most cases. With NGC or KR you will, in many cases, have less weight in the top section of the rod because all the bigger (heavier) guides will be closer in. With heavier line and/or bigger spools 27X and NGC/KR will begin to merge. With lighter, faster choking line and smaller reels KR would get the nod. In the middle an NGC set up is probably best and 27X is likely best for heavier, longer rods, You don't have to pick one and jump up on a soapbox. Like Tom always says, use the right components to do the job you want the rod to do.

Our contention is that every comment in this thread is to some extent, correct. The problem seems to be that everyone wants to define an absolute from an extreme. Upsweep doesn't mater? Shim a reel foot until its face leans 45-degrees to the stripper ring - it matters. Spool size doesn't matter? Put a 16H stripper in front of a Spheros 10000 - it matters. Line doesn't matter? Try some 17lb Ande mono on your Ultra Light - it matters.

All we want to do is help people understand how to use products from a company that invests more time and energy in advancing the technology than anyone on the planet.

Thanks to all who find GPS for KR useful. It makes all the hard work worthwhile. This is the way we do it, you can do it any way you want.

Jim,
I really appreciate the ultra simplicity of this system.

Basically your choice of three guide sizes and a runner size.

I really don't understand all of the reason for all of the commentary on the system.

Any guide selection and position system is a "guide".

Every diligent rod builder will take any "guide" and tweak it - as needed for the ultimate rod. However, this system certainly puts the builder quite close to what is needed for building an excellent rod. If one needs a bit larger or smaller guide or closer or further spaced guide for a specific application or blank, then by all means go for it to suit those needs.

But every builder knows that from the get go, that any guide is just that - a guide and final selection, sizing and placement is up to the individual desires of client and builder.

Great work.

Thank you Jim.

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!