New concept guide system

[Lymphocyte]

If you were to ask a question on a US rodbuilding site about the correct way to determine the correct guide spacing for a given spinning rod, then you would be quickly directed towards the ‘new concept guide system (CGS)’. Rather than a more traditional ‘cone-of-flight’ system where guides are progressively reduced in size towards the tip, the CGS suggests placing the guides in reference to a ‘choker’ guide, from which larger guides are place below (towards the reel), while a number of ‘running’ guides that are exactly the same size and frame as the choker are placed in front of this guide towards the tip. The path the line follows from the reel should then look like a sloping ramp to the choker and then flat road through the running guides to the tip.

Apparently, this method allows superior casting distance to other configurations. While there is nothing I have to show to dispute this, nor do I have an opinion either way, is there any reliable data available (emphasise reliable) that backs up this claim?

I’m a research scientist by trade and when we publish our claims in our profession, we have to back it up with a veritable truck-load of undisputable data. While I know rodbuilding doesn’t demand the same level of review, I do want to ease my skepticisms about how the CGS casting distance claims were made. Afterall, isn’t it in the interest of the rodbuilder to have a unique approach for improving casting distance that isn’t readily available on commercially available rods? And even if a rodbuilder did carry out a series of casting distance comparisons with different guide configurations, wouldn’t there be an element of bias involved in the results?

Just thought this is an important question to raise as I’m very interested in the potential benefits of CGS, but I just need more convincing.

[Stuart]

I will say with out sounding as if I’m insulting Americans, but I have found that most all of the US rod building site members to approach rod building as though they where designing and building rockets. I find it amusing and quit boring with most of the sites. Yes, there are some good posts but I’m the most part they are just beyond common sense. They try to take rod building to a level of that of a nuclear physicist. I have been building rods full time for many years, much to the detriment of my brain. Any one that can build a rod also has an opinion on how and where the guides should go. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. While many say the “NEW” CSG is the only way to go they would also be very wrong in there assumption. To boil all this crap down, there is simply way to many variables to take into account when selecting and spacing guides. There are a few tricks of the trade but its by no means sophisticated. The current belief is that a larger chock guide on bream and spin rods is the way to go. I have for many years been using a much smaller guide and getting 1/3 more distance than a larger guides. I don’t take the road of least resistance or go with the flow. I want to and need to know why and how. I don’t know everything even though my parents keep telling me I think I know everything. I have heard just about everything, most of it is crap, some of it is ok. In the most part, its recycled ideas revisited form years ago. I have always approached my rod building with hard proof, evidence of ideas. Most of the ideas I come up with are then tested by means of designing and building test jigs for designing a blank to guide spacing and just about everything else in between. Because my blanks are, so unique they need a completely different approach. Common blanks, which there are 100000000 on the market, are in the most part copied from someone else. There has been very little in the way of new blanks, materials and concepts despite what some may think.
I do agree in the most part that rod building doesn’t require the same level of review as your trade. However, it really depends on what level you’re at and what your requirements are. Take my blanks for instance, they took me 3 years to perfect and the jigs, which I needed to build to accomplish this, was vast. Radical blanks require radical thinking and even more radical test beds. Feel alone can only serve you well by a small amount. Having a test bed that wouldn’t change was hard. The outcome was a blank that put 60% more pressure on the fish while reducing the effort on the angler by half. That could only have happened with an idea, an understanding and then achieve the result I set out to get. That is one of the biggest problems in this game, to many opinions and not enough actual testing. Its copies of copies and old information re hashed. There is nothing like testing yourself, trying new ideas to you and then coming to the end result. Take what you read with a grain of salt, most of it is from people that know next to bugger all. They may talk the talk but most can’t walk the walk. That guys that talk the talk are rod assemblers, they are far from a rod builder, very big difference.

[MudRiverDan]

I have a gloomis pr842 poppin rod with this configuration, it also has oversize guides for knot clearance, i broke it last year.

Hope to buy another







It was great for casting.

Dan

[tunaticer]

How many of us have a perfect casting technique that produces the outstanding distances every cast?? I sure don't, but im no slouch either at lobbing a lure into the strike zone. The point is regardless of tapering or choked designs of rods, if you use one enough you will refine your techniques to suit that rod and its actions for your best distances and accuracy.
I have both designs and they are pretty well equal.

[mikeyh]

Hi Lympho,
I am also a scientist by profession and increasingly becoming even more sceptical about most things I read.....When people say xyz, my usual response is " where is your data". In terms of the guide theories, it probably isnt exactly going to feature in a peer reviewed journal. I have posted on here before about the guide sizing with Alveys...the industry standard is these massive hoops which carry the line in a cone towards the tip. Years ago I spent some time with NSW casting champ ( Ross Garven) who was building long surf rods with the bottom guide no larger typically than a size 25....as opposed to these huge heavy hoops. This would support the choker theory although he was using these small guides as
the first guide. He had high speed photos taken and was getting less line slap and consequently more distance with the small guides. I built all my long rods like this? I would like to try with some other rods and see what happens in terms of distance...although as you know, hard to set up a unbiased exp if you are doing he casting yourself as each cast wont be exactly the same.

Just thinking aloud, fishing line is really flexible and maybe "choking" it down quickly is less damaging to distance than having the line slapping on the blank. However as you say Lympho......where is any (unconfounded) data? The other reason I like small guides is that they are cheaper and lighter ( and IMO) look better. Open for discussion I guess.

[Owen]

The "concept" which is being discussed is in my opinion more about selling magazines than providing a uniform and verifiable formula for guide placement
You must take into account that the vast majority of devotees build rods for bass fishing only.
The "theory" may well be successful in this small subset, but it's more a case of finding a combo that works on that style rod and then coming up with a formula that "proves" the dimensions.
The key problem is the arbitrary 27x dimension. Seriously????
How do you account for spool angle, spool height, rod action, intended lure/bait mass etc etc etc?

True Custom rod builders take into account the intended use, the physical attributes of the client and not least the attributes of the blank and reel

"hobbyists" want easy "how to" methods that take all that pressure off them. If they're questioned they can point to all the marketing on the forum run by.... The originator of the "concept"
This method is aimed squarely at the latter.

[mikeyh]

I assume this is the "new" CGS....http://www.kowafuji.com/ngc.htm

[Owen]

That is the original system by Fuji
It has since been "reinvented" to include the 27x "enhancement"

[trout head]

Stuart , Owen ,well put , I also think it is for lazy rod builders , I spent a lot of time on a blank static testing and test casting with the intended reel , before I build the rod , I find it takes some time , but I gain a far better understanding of guide placment and sizing , as Stuart has said , anybody can build a rod , but do they understand what they are doing and why .

[RFARREN]

Its a bit like split butts i spose
some like them some dont, i personally have not played with the cgs but i am skeptical
i have never had a problem with guide spacings on any rod i have build, if you do the groundwork before you bind and select the correct size guide for the reel that will be used you wont have a problem
even determining the correct stripper guide size for a certain size reel varies from one builder to another, but if they are positioned correctly......most work fine
i am about to wrap a rod with "K" series sic guides so i will spend a bit of time on test casts

my 2 cents
Ron

[Stuart]

I think Owen hit the nail on the head. Most of the Fads I have witnessed over the years are derived mainly from advertising by one or several.
I would love a $ for every fad or concept I have seen over the years. There is nothing wrong with an idea but to push it as a new concept is just that, a concept.
Often these ideas aren’t tested and have no hard and fast data to back up there idea or concept.
I have dealt with many a yank over the years, not singling them out but they do strive to make building a fishing rod so over complicated it turns people away.
It appears that many rod-building forums have gone the way of super advanced, next dimension, Tran’s dimensional rod design and understanding.
You would literally need a degree in astro and gastro physics to truly understand what the friggen hell they are all banging on about. I don’t visit or participate in any of that crap anymore.
I like the Ausfish site because its ground roots stuff, no egos no fifth dimensional rod building here. Its not open heart of brain surgery, honest, from beginner to experienced.
That’s how building a fishing rod should be. What’s the saying, keep it simple stupid. Anyway what were we talking about again? Fixing a guide to a blank using hose clamps. I never was a listener.

[mikeyh]

I had better get myself up to speed with the 27x enhancement...what the!!!!!

[Owen]

I wouldn't bother mate
As I said the chief proponent owns both the forum and the subscription magazine where it is heavily pushed
Can you spell "vested interest"??

I don't class myself as a rod builder of note but I can smell a turd when I step in it

As Stuart said, stick to the basics and do your own static testing and casting
You'll be more satisfied knowing its right and you'll learn more because you'll see the results of each change

[Stuart]

Yep, seeing is learning. Mikeyh, perhaps you should try and make the rod building weekend? I can assure you, you will have a great time. If lucky or unlucky phill turs up we can pay out on him, he is always a laugh especially when we laugh at him. If he wont show now, hthen stink finger or finger as he likes to be called, is always ready to be laughed at. I wont tell why he likes to smell his finger.

[RFARREN]

hahaha stu u a xpert in "gastro physics" ?

[benno_r]

Hello Lads,

I have used the new concept system as a basis for 3 of my builds on rods that are primarily for casting. I know they have charts for this, and I know of the 27x spool diameter rule, but I determined a choker point by putting a reel on the reel seat, and using the spool axis to determine the choker point. From there it is a mix of trigonometry, static loading, test casting, and rechecking. Each of these 3 rods are built with a specific reel in mind, and hence, the choking guide is laid out for each reel.

From my point of view, the fundamentals of the NCG are a great way to get a starting point of setting out your guides. I am not saying it is the best way, or the only way, just another way of getting to your desired outcome.

And yes, I am very impressed with how they cast.

Cheers,
Ben

[Stuart]

hahaha stu u a xpert in "gastro physics" ?

They dont call me Abdul bad bowls Mackenzie for nothing mate. How did we get from guides to my gastro issues? I tell ya what, we cover every thing on this forum.

[mikeyh]

Hi Stu, i would give my left one to come down but we are away the weekend before- really be pushing it. Not getting as much business travel to Bris these days either........

[Stuart]

Well if your willing to loose a nut Im sure you could stand up to the wife, O hang on, scrub that mate my mistake. Never piss the ball and chain off or you may loose both them man nuts.

[Lymphocyte]

Apologies for the late reply - work turned into a monster and then a couple of days in the sick bed.

Thanks for all your replies. Reading between the lines is probably one of the most difficult parts about gleaning information from the internet, particlularly in the rodbuilding domain. Stuart, I also think you alluded to whole other argument in itself - that many (if not most) self proclaimed 'rodbuilders' could be better described as 'rod assemblers'. And then there's the 'custom' vs 'handcrafted' debate. But I won't carry on any further as it's unlikely we're going to get any formal description standards developed anytime soon.