Rod builders only Ring Spacing

[Malcolm]

I'm just about to start putting together a fly rod. A 12ft 3/4. I will only put up detailed measurements if anyone can help otherwise I'll just ask a couple of general things.

I'm coming up with a fair bit of often contradictory advice. The information I have doesn't tally with the rods I have made by a variety of builders either.

1. Double Butt: On some very good casting rods the builders make them with a double butt ring. Two rings separated by only 15cm or so. I'm tempted to do this and have two butt rings of identical size should I decide to do this.

2. Does it actually make much difference anyway. If I just increase the distance by a fixed amount every ring: say 12 cm tip to second, then 14 second to third, 16cm 3rd to 4th etc. Some are advising that I just do this others say measure the action of the rod and vary according to the measurements.

Any advice gratefully received.

I should say that I have built rods before but have made the mistake of reading up advice. Anyway what are your views.

If anyone has a good formula for the ring spacing or can work it out from detailed measurements I'll post them here otherwise I won't.

Thanks
Malcolm

[Traditionalist]

A double butt ring wont make much difference under normal circumstances. It may be worthwhile if you are double hauling heads for distance a lot, but that is not likely with a 12 ft 3/4  rod.

Personally I would try to match the ring spacing to the rod curve.  This can ( and will) make a massive difference depending on the rod action, as opposed to just an incremental spacing scheme. 

This may be useful to you;

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/stetzer/www/guideN.html

This too;
http://www.rodbuilding.org/library/staticguide.html

This is the method I used for most of my rods.

Detailed measurements and various fixed schemes wont do you much good if you are building a single rod on an unknown blank. The static system works well on any rod.

Some more info on that;

http://anglersresource.net/StaticLoadTutorial.aspx

[Malcolm]

Thanks Mike,

Those were two of the resources I read - the calculator in first link doesn't work as it happens but it's simple to do anyway and is a PITA as I'd have to reset it for each section or fiddle about to allow for theI'd rather play fiddle around on a spreadsheet.

To do the second one as they suggest I'd need to start with about 22 rings for the 297cm, before I started increasing the distance beween them as there is 297cm between the first stripper guide and the tip. It's OK I know I can get away with less! Intuitively that method would work best for the top 6 feet or so.

[Wildfisher]

Personally I would try to match the ring spacing to the rod curve. 

Well, while  I don't know much about rod design  that would make perfect sense to me. How to go about it is another matter as would it not change the curve to some degree at least?

[Traditionalist]

Thanks Mike,

Those were two of the resources I read - the calculator in first link doesn't work as it happens but it's simple to do anyway and is a PITA as I'd have to reset it for each section or fiddle about to allow for theI'd rather play fiddle around on a spreadsheet.

To do the second one as they suggest I'd need to start with about 22 rings for the 297cm, before I started increasing the distance beween them as there is 297cm between the first stripper guide and the tip. It's OK I know I can get away with less! Intuitively that method would work best for the top 6 feet or so.

The calculator still works for me, just tried it, mess on though as you say.

You can do it intuitively without a load of rings.  If you know you want about twelve rings all told, set up the static curve and just choose the best placement on the curve. Where the rings exert the least downward force on the line.The main point is that you actually do have the natural curve of the rod. ( hence tensioning with cord from the tip ring).

I try to get the rings set up so that the line between the rings is about the same distance from the rod when the curve is set up. You are trying to build a "tunnel" of rings for the line to go through without any sharp angles. That's all there is to it really.

Well, while  I don't know much about rod design  that would make perfect sense to me. How to go about it is another matter as would it not change the curve to some degree at least?

The static method shown works.  No, if the rings are spaced properly then the natural curve will not be altered to any great degree.  That is the whole point.

Calculated systems only work if the properties of the rod are exactly known.

Placing rings incorrectly exerts more force on the blank, and also increases friction on the line.  The static system always works for any rod.

You can not get the optimum "spacing", as the optimum would have no spacing, it would be a continuous "tunnel" through which the line runs.  All ring spacing is a compromise. You just have to choose the best compromise you can find.

This is how it is done;

http://www.coloradofisherman.com/forum/index.php?topic=48521.0

It is quite easy, fairly quick, and very accurate. No purely "calculated" system even comes close unless the rod properties are known exactly, and even then a static test will usually be better. For completely progressive rods some calculated systems do come close.

For very fast ( tip action) rods, very few rings are needed on the lower sections ( they dont bend much) and more on the tip section(s). It is always a compromise how many rings are actually used.

You can use various programs to calculate things, Like this; ( This is a direct download link)

http://www.farnorthrodsmiths.com/Downloads/GuideCalculator.msi
(Free software, runs on Windows)

This will give you a very good starting point, but you still need to do a static test.  The results of a static test tell you what the blank is actually doing.



Info here;

http://www.rodbuildingforum.com/lofiversion/index.php/t6718.html

http://www.rodbuildingforum.com/uploads/gallery424594030b420.jpg  static test

That brings up another point which is seldom addressed.  The static test curve shown there is already beyond the optimum which is exactly 90°.

Any angle of the rod more than 90° increases the pressure on one section of the blank, and will often snap it like a carrot.  This is why one should NEVER hold the rod up behind when fighting or landing fish.

You should NEVER EVER do this;

http://0.tqn.com/d/longisland/1/0/4/C/-/-/caleb-smith-man-fly-fishing5.jpg

if the fish lunges then the rod will probably break at the tip.

The optimum cushioning and the least pressure on the fish is when the rod is at 90° to the line.

Any angle between 0°...90°  adjusts the pressure on the fish, and on the blank. The lesser the angle the greater the pressure on the fish, and the less pressure on the blank.

The maximum pressure on the fish and the least cushioning ( =no pressure on blank) is when the rod is pointing straight at the fish.

If the tip is bent down "backwards"  forming a tight curve in the tip of the blank, the pressure on the blank is concentrated in a very small area, it is not distributed along the blank, and will often cause it to fail.  Even when just threading  line through the rings!

[burnie]

Never made a fly rod,but when ringing other rods I used to thread rings on a fly line and then attach them with electrical tape to the rod and flex it.Look for any obvious flat spots or angles that just look wrong. Never tried to measure anything as blanks I have used behaved differently,even when they were supposed to matched pairs.
Cannot think of any reason for using two butt rings except when using a multiplier for distance casting.

[Traditionalist]

Never made a fly rod,but when ringing other rods I used to thread rings on a fly line and then attach them with electrical tape to the rod and flex it.Look for any obvious flat spots or angles that just look wrong. Never tried to measure anything as blanks I have used behaved differently,even when they were supposed to matched pairs.
Cannot think of any reason for using two butt rings except when using a multiplier for distance casting.

That does not work well as the blank is forced into a curve by the ring placement. The ring placement has to be on the natural curve of the blank.

The main reason for two butt ( stripping) rings is that it reduces line slap when casting. It is usually only used on fast rods above #8 weights.

There is no point on a multiplier rod as there is no line slap.

On a fixed spool rod it reduces line coning very considerably and is more or less essential as is a much larger butt ring for the same reason.

[Traditionalist]

This is the output from the calculator given above for a 12 foot rod with the specs shown;



the "Taming Guide"  is the second stripping ring above the butt ring. Designed to reduce line slap. Not necessary on light rods.

The calculator is running on Windows 7 in this case. You will automatically get the newest version from the link provided. V 1.4.2 at the moment.

[bushy palmer]

davefromtheattic fitted a taming guide to a mhx blank a few years back. My understanding is that the tamer is "extra" and hence you would just place the other guides exactly where you would anyway.

In terms of spacing I feel you can't beat your own eye. 

[Traditionalist]

My understanding is that the tamer is "extra" and hence you would just place the other guides exactly where you would anyway.

In terms of spacing I feel you can't beat your own eye. 

That is correct, the tamer guide is extra.

That too is correct, but you need to know the natural curve of the blank in order to do it. preferably threaded with easily visible line. Also, most people prefer to have some basis or other for the number of rings used and their placement.