First build - Might as well get a thread for questions!

Lewis Chessman

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
2,604
Location
Isle of Lewis
Hi, again. Great that you'd already tweaked it. You obviously have an eye for the job. :)

I don't know if one way is better than the other Bob. I can see the advantage of cutting short (no tag and no danger of inadvertant razor damage to the whips) but, as mentioned, I like to burnish then end with a pull to keep the captive thread snug. This can leave a tag but if one places the blade behind the thread and pulls the tag end upwards as well as out to tighten it slides against the razor, cuts itself and generally gives a neat finish. Some require trimming off after coat 1 but many cut neatly, tight to the whipping.

I'll be interested to read others' thoughts and I'll experiment more with the short cut on my next build.
Cheers,
J.
 

b13rux

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2020
Messages
167
Cut the thread short and when loop is pulled through the end is under the main wrap, no tag ends to worry about. Burnish tip to butt direction not the reverse as butt to tip you can loosen threads due to the taper.
This is the way I do it as well

also I would add a tip to make sure your thread isn’t under tension when you cut it, and you should get a nice clean cut.
 

rfcellis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
698
Location
London
Hi, Bob. That, my friend, is a cracking first go. Well done.

Have a look at the first pic (xxx06) and magnify up. To my eye the outer edge of the upper whipping just needs the tiniest touch to the left to straighten it up - above where the thread is pulled under it flares out a little.
A gentle touch will close the (again, tiny) gaps between the last wraps and straighten the threads that bear slightly to the right, giving you a near-perfectly straight edge at the finish.

Don't worry too much about the bump from the pull-through. I give a whipping a good burnishing before I cut the locked thread, then give the tag end a snug pull to tighten up and cut it off.
Burnishing can loosen a wrap, so I cut after a 'main burnish' and go gently after that's done.

You'll find that the bump becomes less obtrusive with each coat of epoxy and eventually you may have to search to see it. Don't forget, unless you're using a colour-preserved thread it will darken considerably once epoxied. A drop of water or IPA now will show the final colour you'll get. And, with the thread darkening, the bump pretty much disappears.

You will get little stubby bits of thread sticking out where you've cut them. Try to minimise the 'stalk' but don't worry about them. A sharp razor will remove them and any 'fuzzies' once you've applied the first coat of resin.

A wee tip. On the left wrap I can see one minute little fibre sticking out at the bottom. This could interfere with the finish so it's worthwhile just quickly flashing a cigarette lighter past each whipping to incinerate any 'fuzzies' before the first application of epoxy.

Also, don't feel that your whippings should be really tight. You may need to move the guides later for best allignment so sufficient tension to hold the guide in place is all one wants.
One builder told me he'd whipped his first rods so tightly that he created a dead spot which shattered the blank on the cast!

Really, though, my criticism is only because you've done such a good job that I think it could very easily be perfect with just a tiny touch.

Cheers,
James.

As another novice this is so helpful- thank you. Is there a way to tell if I’ve wrapped too tightly?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Lewis Chessman

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
2,604
Location
Isle of Lewis
As another novice this is so helpful- thank you. Is there a way to tell if I’ve wrapped too tightly?
Aye, see if the rod breaks when you cast it! 🤪
Nah. Essentially, if you can still adjust the guide when you need to by teasing it into its proper place, you're fine, but if it's rock-solid you've probably been a bit heavy-handed.

Think of the thread as a reinforcing matrix inside the epoxy rather than something which fastens the guide to the blank. The epoxy does that job.
If you bind your whipping very tightly it's harder for the epoxy to soak into it and adhere to the blank underneath than it would be if the thread was a bit less taut, so you actually end up with a stronger bond of guide to blank by not 'strapping the guide down' with the thread.
 

rfcellis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
698
Location
London
Aye, see if the rod breaks when you cast it!
Nah. Essentially, if you can still adjust the guide when you need to by teasing it into its proper place, you're fine, but if it's rock-solid you've probably been a bit heavy-handed.

Think of the thread as a reinforcing matrix inside the epoxy rather than something which fastens the guide to the blank. The epoxy does that job.
If you bind your whipping very tightly it's harder for the epoxy to soak into it and adhere to the blank underneath than it would be if the thread was a bit less taut, so you actually end up with a stronger bond of guide to blank by not 'strapping the guide down' with the thread.

Again really helpful. Thank you. I’ll be redoing a few of my guides then


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

bob_the_fish

Active member
Joined
May 12, 2012
Messages
32
You can use something like the Carlin calculator to find your ball park spacing, but then, like Ben said, fine tune with a static test.




Looking at the calculator, I wanted to be clear on a couple of things on the calculator if I may - sorry to be slow on this.
1) "Number of guides" - does that include the stripping guide and the tip ring?
eg; 1 x stripping guide + 1x tip ring + 6 x guides = total 8
2) "Distance to First Guide" - from this I am guessing (deducing?) that the stripping guide does NOT count and this is the distance from the stripping guide?
3) "Stripping Guide (from butt) plus Guide #8 equals total rod length so tip ring counts as a guide in (1)?
 

bob_the_fish

Active member
Joined
May 12, 2012
Messages
32
Looking at the calculator, I wanted to be clear on a couple of things on the calculator if I may - sorry to be slow on this.
1) "Number of guides" - does that include the stripping guide and the tip ring?
eg; 1 x stripping guide + 1x tip ring + 6 x guides = total 8
2) "Distance to First Guide" - from this I am guessing (deducing?) that the stripping guide does NOT count and this is the distance from the stripping guide?
3) "Stripping Guide (from butt) plus Guide #8 equals total rod length so tip ring counts as a guide in (1)?

Doh - I should drink more coffee before posting in the morning.
The numbering and distances are all from the tip (not the butt) so that makes much more sense.
Just to confirm, tip ring does not count, but stripping guide does.
So in my example 7 guides + tip ring
 

b13rux

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2020
Messages
167
Doh - I should drink more coffee before posting in the morning.
The numbering and distances are all from the tip (not the butt) so that makes much more sense.
Just to confirm, tip ring does not count, but stripping guide does.
So in my example 7 guides + tip ring
Well Kudos for answering your own question! Only thing I would add is there can be differing opinions about where to measure from, the tip ring (fitted) or the blank tip.

most calcs are from the blank tip, but sage for example when they provide the recommended spacing go from the tip-ring, so measurements are taken once that’s fitted. And you’ll find there are differences in opinions on whether to fit the tip ring or not, I suspect it doesn’t make a huge ammount of diffence but of courses there is a a small deviation, the tip ring changes where you are measuring from.

if you do a static test it’s all fairly irrelevant as well as you’ll end up tuning the guides anyway, but something to be aware of.
 

bob_the_fish

Active member
Joined
May 12, 2012
Messages
32
Well Kudos for answering your own question! Only thing I would add is there can be differing opinions about where to measure from, the tip ring (fitted) or the blank tip.

most calcs are from the blank tip, but sage for example when they provide the recommended spacing go from the tip-ring, so measurements are taken once that’s fitted. And you’ll find there are differences in opinions on whether to fit the tip ring or not, I suspect it doesn’t make a huge ammount of diffence but of courses there is a a small deviation, the tip ring changes where you are measuring from.

if you do a static test it’s all fairly irrelevant as well as you’ll end up tuning the guides anyway, but something to be aware of.
I have read similar things.
I love the idea that anyone thinks I am measure any of these things to that accuracy! :cool:
A millimetre here or there? You are kidding me - maybe a centimetre here or there?
(Don't start me on 1/32nd of an inch that you see on a lot of the sites. You will be telling me 01/03/2022 is the 3rd of January next)
 

bob_the_fish

Active member
Joined
May 12, 2012
Messages
32
A tiny alternative here.
I put a light weight on the line, just enough to give tension through the guides. I then place a paperclip on the tip ring, hook a bag to it and place my weights as desired in the bag to add or remove stress.
The advantage is that one is placing the weight on the blank, not on the taped guides via the line, making the guides easier to adjust when and to where required.

As this is your first build you might find it interesting to try both the Static Test and the Carlin Method, just to see how much difference there is.
It's a bit nerdy, I know, but might be revealing if you used the Carlin method first, then set the blank up in the Static test position. Any large 'bridges' between the guides would be immediately apparent and could be tweaked as your eye sees fit - or left as if - if ideal.

Just so you know, the Sage Spacing Chart page states, "Our R&D Department suggests that you keep the guide placement within a ¼ inch of the measurement that we provide .....", so if ever following a blank's recommended spacings, that gives you an idea of Sage's acceptable margin of error.

I've had to use the Static method many times now and have no complaints about the result. One very competant angling friend rated his rod "10/10 on the cast!" which I thought high praise from him, typical dour Wicker that he is. ;)
One is simply trying to minimise the depth of the line 'bridge' between two guides, relative the the blank, curved under stress.
I tend to have a go, go away for a cuppa, then return with 'fresh eyes' and tweak again, repeating till I'm satisfied, but that's just me. I'm sure many will see the best path much quicker than I.
Anyway, try it, it's a fun exercise in itself and kinda personalises the rod, too.

Btw, if you really want to splash out, these Rubber O Rings are £3 incl. p&p on eBay. They make repositioning the guides much quicker and easier than with tape, simply sliding into position as desired.
Cheers,
James.

Excellent advice on the static testing - I used a paperclip for most of the weight and then added a little weight to the line tied back to the butt. Worked a treat, and on my little rod the spacing from calculator were fine. All consistent gaps.
Heath Robinson would be proud:
IMG_3646.JPG
 

Latest posts

Top