Something I recently noticed

[Cudz]

Recently I have noticed that some rod manufacturers have put the nearest guide to the reel on backward. Can anyone tell me why? There is a good example of what I am talking about shown in the November 2008 issue of BASS MASTER magazine. Page 8 and 9 show Aaron Martens with what I believe is a megabass 6'10" drop shot rod with this guide on backward.

It is probably no big deal, but it has been bothering me for a while.

[drwxr]

"One of the most unusual features of this rod is the eccentric, upside down first guide - a feature which Megabass claims to aid in casting distance especially with superlines"

 

personally i think its just a small gimmick to attract fishermen, i dont see how it could help casting since the only difference is the mounting of the guide, the loop is still on 90 degrees.

Edited December 14, 2008 by efka

[shane]

It's a mfg defect.

They fed you a "line" so as to not have to re-call those rods and they saved themselves a ton a cash.

The're just hoping that not everyone is going to want one now.

 

 

I think you're right. Looking at the way the line is bent at the guide, it looks like the line would flow better if that guide was turned around back where it should be.

[Cudz]

I think you're right. Looking at the way the line is bent at the guide, it looks like the line would flow better if that guide was turned around back where it should be.

LOL. Not a mfg defect. A gimmick perhaps.

[jace]

looks good to me. As far as I know, it started in surf rods where they casts a few hundred yards and it's supposed to get better distance for softer lines and braids. I also know the fuji lowrider setups have the stripper mounted backwards for the same reason. There are plenty of custom rods built this way as well as factory rods from european makers. I don't know if this is the basis of that particular MegaBass rod's design, but i'd put money on it.

 

It won't be long before you see this in factory rods over here. Just like the rods in the StCroix Mojo post...I first saw rods almost exactly like them quite a few years ago on the custom scene, and the first Cumara style split seat I saw was when a friend hacked up a PacBay casting seat to trim weight and expose more blank. It's nearly identical to what you see on the Cumaras.

[Beats]

Well, whether it works or not, it looks wrong.

[kemper]

haha, improve casting distance.

 

right.

[JohnF]

haha, improve casting distance.

 

right.

 

I'm thinkin' there's a reason why they need the larger eye on a spinning rod, and turning it backwards seems counter-productive, unless they just plain screwed up on the placing of the eye and length of the first segment. Sounds like damage control to me, or just a cheesy marketing ploy.

 

JF

[hirk]

I have a Six Sigma Blackbelt which means I can statically measure,quantify,compare a process to validate changes/make comparisons/improvements and prove it out statistically and off the top of my head I can pretty much say for certain that 1/nobody has actually proved this out 2/it makes ZERO statistical difference in casting distance.Just another "bait to hook us instead of fish" lol

[douG]

I didn't think that Six Sigma blackbelts ever say something pretty much off the top of their heads. I am only a lowly greenbelt, but we always collect data, then analyze it to see what falls out. HaiiiiiiiiYa.

Edited December 15, 2008 by douG

[Cudz]

Well here was my take. When I first saw it I started to weigh the pros and cons of doing this with the first guide. Here is my theory but it is just that.

When the line comes off the reel it comes off as a wave. IF you place the first guide too far away from the spool the wave width becomes too big and thus causes the line to hit the rod blank which causes friction and thus slowing down the speed of the line and in turn reducing the distance of the cast. At the same time if you put it too close to the spool it will cause friction again due to the fact that the line is being forced to go at an 'unatural' angle. Having a guide too close could also interfere with the blank's natural backbone or optimum bending point and ultimately affect the rods overall performance.

So here is what I think. Megabass were able to put the guide farther forward on the blank as to not affect the backbone or bending point of the rod and at the same time have the actual location where the line goes through the guide remain in the exact same location if it were attached in a conventional method which would maximize the casting distance.

 

Does what I wrote make sense?

If you look at the crappy drawing I did below I think you will be able to understand what I am talking about. You can keep the actual guide in the exact same location but move the attachment location of that guide forward as to not interfere with the strongest part of the rod.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Cudz

[MJL]

For the purposes of extreme distance casting with spinning rods (200+ yards), the use of a larger butt ring in addition to a wide spool on the reel (as seen on many big-pit type spinning reels) will show favourable results. According to British tournament casters (and current casting record holders) Mark Hutchinson and Terry Edmonds, larger butt guides do add on a few extra yards provided you have the technique to cast in that neighbourhood of those distances to begin with. For the average angler like you or I (or someone who hasn't spent years tournament casting), a larger butt guide will mean absolutely nothing.

 

As for reversing the butt guide, a few theories are floating around.

 

1. Line slap on the butt guide legs as line comes off the spool creating friction and thus losing distance. Could be a problem with too small of a butt guide choking the line too severely before it flows through.

 

2. When casting extreme distances, the line flowing off the reel will sometimes wrap/tangle around the butt guide legs and kill the cast completely. From what my carping friends tell me, it has happened to them using thin braid while chucking their hooks out a long way (150+ yards). By reversing the guide, you might lessen the chances of the line fouling around the guide feet. A few guides popular with surf fisherman are marketed as anti fouling – eg. Fuji Lowriders, PacBay XTWG

 

For conventional spinning rods for bass, walleye, panfish, etc, I personally can’t see any significant benefit to reversing the butt guide when you’re casting 40 yards (usually less on average) with a 1/4oz jig or crankbait.

[EE_]

douG I have a confidence of 99.9999998027% that your correct

 

Well, make a wild guess here...

Their next gimmick will be making it adjustable, the distance between the spool & the first guide that is

Edited December 15, 2008 by EE_

[irishfield]

The reversed guide is getting exactly what they want.... FREE ADVERTISING !!!

[Victor]

Well here was my take. When I first saw it I started to weigh the pros and cons of doing this with the first guide. Here is my theory but it is just that.

When the line comes off the reel it comes off as a wave. IF you place the first guide too far away from the spool the wave width becomes too big and thus causes the line to hit the rod blank which causes friction and thus slowing down the speed of the line and in turn reducing the distance of the cast. At the same time if you put it too close to the spool it will cause friction again due to the fact that the line is being forced to go at an 'unatural' angle. Having a guide too close could also interfere with the blank's natural backbone or optimum bending point and ultimately affect the rods overall performance.

So here is what I think. Megabass were able to put the guide farther forward on the blank as to not affect the backbone or bending point of the rod and at the same time have the actual location where the line goes through the guide remain in the exact same location if it were attached in a conventional method which would maximize the casting distance.

 

Does what I wrote make sense?

If you look at the crappy drawing I did below I think you will be able to understand what I am talking about. You can keep the actual guide in the exact same location but move the attachment location of that guide forward as to not interfere with the strongest part of the rod.

 

I see what you're saying there, does make some sense.

 

However, my understand of it was that the actual "butt guide ring" move closer to the reel while it is "mounted" on the blank at the same location as before, which would allow the butt guide to have better control of the unwinding line while not having to sacrifice backbone of the rod. Maybe i'm wrong?

 

but either way ... as MJL said, i doubt that will make a difference for pan/bass fishing purposes. But then... who knows, maybe all we need is that extra 5cm of casting distance to reach the big ones we've always failed to catch

Edited December 15, 2008 by Victor

[Spiel]

....All I can tell you is with 33 years of custom rod building experience you will not see this load of bunk on any of my rods.....ever! Looks damn ridiculous.

[forrest]

Well here was my take. When I first saw it I started to weigh the pros and cons of doing this with the first guide. Here is my theory but it is just that.

When the line comes off the reel it comes off as a wave. IF you place the first guide too far away from the spool the wave width becomes too big and thus causes the line to hit the rod blank which causes friction and thus slowing down the speed of the line and in turn reducing the distance of the cast. At the same time if you put it too close to the spool it will cause friction again due to the fact that the line is being forced to go at an 'unatural' angle. Having a guide too close could also interfere with the blank's natural backbone or optimum bending point and ultimately affect the rods overall performance.

So here is what I think. Megabass were able to put the guide farther forward on the blank as to not affect the backbone or bending point of the rod and at the same time have the actual location where the line goes through the guide remain in the exact same location if it were attached in a conventional method which would maximize the casting distance.

 

Does what I wrote make sense?

If you look at the crappy drawing I did below I think you will be able to understand what I am talking about. You can keep the actual guide in the exact same location but move the attachment location of that guide forward as to not interfere with the strongest part of the rod.

 

Now all the rod companies have to do is base a bogus study based on this theory. One more bogus study to make noise...thanks

[Marko]

Looks like somebody dropped a ball in outgoing final inspection hahah

The more i read about it the more stupid it sounded...really. Just make the rods to look normal

[JohnF]

Looks like somebody dropped a ball in outgoing final inspection hahah

The more i read about it the more stupid it sounded...really. Just make the rods to look normal

 

This is just the first step in going down the road to govt bailout of the rod industry.

 

JF

[solopaddler]

Obviously a larger first guide would help casting extreme distances.

The answer is NOT to put one on backwards though LOL!

Start with a #30 instead of a 20 or 25, problem solved.

[douG]

I find it interesting the only one's to buy into this 'mistake' are apparently the educated members of the board( or so it seems in part due to the techo(no) gobble-dy-gook), except fer Spiel, who is an actual rod building enthusiast (wow, another big word).

 

Some, but definitely not all, Jed.

[hirk]

You are right DouG,we don't guess at thing's.I don't have supporting data but it wasn't really off the top of my head either,I put some analytical thought into it ,came up with a no-brainer,for the average fresh water fisherman around here it's worthless and adds zero value ,now snatch that pebble

[Rich]

Yeah, if I were to pick up a rod and see that I'd assume it was defective and put it back on the shelf.

[snag]

...But our rod guides go up to 11....

 

Edited December 15, 2008 by SNAG