Micro guide questions

[Sota]

I don’t know if this is the right place to post this. If not Mods feel free to move to appropriate place. 
 I’m trying to wrap my little pea brain around micro guides. 
 What are the pros/ cons to micro guides? Where do they excel in application? What applications do they come up short? 

[MikeK]

Pros:  less weight including finish and better line control with braid

Cons:  may need more to keep line off the blank, may hinder line flow with mono/fluoro, may ice or clog from stuff in water, and my favorite, hard to run line through in low light conditions!

[Jig Man]

I have 3 rods with them.  I only have one con, my line threader does not work with them.  Everything else is a pro.

[spoonplugger1]

Micro guides have been around since for many decades, just not so much in the US though G Loomis put them on his steelhead rods since the start of G Loomis if not since the inception of Loomis Composites (LCI) before that. Europe and Japan don't see them with the mystery we do as they have used them much longer then Gary on many types of rods. I have a light powered European match rod that I used for float fishing steelhead after seeing it done in Canada long before it came here, the spinning rod guides start with a 10 mm nearest the reel and progress the 4 mm quickly, with a Shimano 2000 and 8 lb. mono it has thrown my offering into next week for almost 40 years, on many streams I can fish both banks from one side on some decent sized rivers ere in the Pac. NW. Braid just a bit better. On a casting rod, just how much room does the line need to flow through a guide? The first guide isn't even on the rod, but the reel, what does the size, flow and angles exhibited on that guide in use tell us about the rod?

[Sota]

1 hour ago, spoonplugger1 said:

Micro guides have been around since for many decades, just not so much in the US though G Loomis put them on his steelhead rods since the start of G Loomis if not since the inception of Loomis Composites (LCI) before that. Europe and Japan don't see them with the mystery we do as they have used them much longer then Gary on many types of rods. I have a light powered European match rod that I used for float fishing steelhead after seeing it done in Canada long before it came here, the spinning rod guides start with a 10 mm nearest the reel and progress the 4 mm quickly, with a Shimano 2000 and 8 lb. mono it has thrown my offering into next week for almost 40 years, on many streams I can fish both banks from one side on some decent sized rivers ere in the Pac. NW. Braid just a bit better. On a casting rod, just how much room does the line need to flow through a guide? The first guide isn't even on the rod, but the reel, what does the size, flow and angles exhibited on that guide in use tell us about the rod?

Thanks for the info. 
 The micros are new to me as is bass fishing. 
I started my fishing up in Washington state. I went after steelhead mostly. The Cowlitz was usually my go to. I’d go to the dam first to see how it was. If it was crowded I’d go down river aways 

[spoonplugger1]

Born and raised in Longview/Castle Rock, became a lifer Coastie and fished both coasts, Great Lakes, and Florida. Ice breaker and drug patrols let me fish the Caribbean, Panama, New Zealand, etc. Been building rods for 40 years, there is only one rule in guide selection, build your rod with the lightest, smallest guide set that gets the job done and allows you to pass any interferences like knots. A 3 mm guide weighs almost 1/6 the weight of a SF 6 mm guide. A rod builder/ tournament angler built two identical pitching rods and used the same reel and line to compare, the only difference was the size of the final guides, 3 mm vs 3.5 mm, the 3 mm guided rod out pitched the larger guides easily, not even really close. 50 lb. mono in a 3 mm guide. One rule, use a 6 mm tip top for mono/fluor over 15 lb. line, line direction change can jam the line in the micro tip tops a bit increasing friction.

[Sota]

The more I’m looking into it. The more I’m thinking about a custom rod is needed.  I’m not finding much if anything I like without spending mo money mo money.  
 I’m thinking something in a 7’ med x fast able to handle 15-20lb braided and able to handle 5/8ish oz for Tex rigged senko. Spinning rod setup.  
My thinking is if I’m spending 250-300 on a factory rod. I should probably start looking at custom.  That way it’s setup exactly how I want/ need 

[MickD]

The line going through micros is not the issue; the issue with micros can be the knot size and clearing it cleanly through the guides.  If using leaders over about 15 with braid over about 20 you'll need to learn to tie small knots for braid to leader.  That can be handled, so it's not really a con as much as a caution.

 

Because micros have lighter weight, the recovery-from-deflection speed of the rod is less affected than it is with heavier guides.  Theoretically, this should lead to longer casts and in my opinion, increased sensitivity.  Another factor leading to longer casts in my opinion is that the line is constrained to a much smaller profile as is passes through the air.  It's more like a small cylinder passing through the air rather than loops of line passing through the air.  

 

Bottom line, micros make a lot of sense for certain applications.  I use them on every rod I make and have no rods left that do not have micros.  On baitcast I usually use runners of 5.5mm, and on spin, usually 4mm.  I do have baitcasters with 4mm micros , and they work just fine.  

 

When I first started building I bought a very nice and pricey Loomis spinnerbait blank and made my first casting rod on it.  Another builder, mistaking the type of rod I was building, recommended guides much too large, and I didn't know the difference, so built it.  Didn't like how it fished, and realizing my error, rebuilt it with what would be called traditionally sized casting rod guides.  Still didn't really care for it.  Then micros came into popularity, and I rebuilt it with a first guide of 6mm (Fuji RV6, a tall 6mm double foot), and the rest 5.5mm micros.  The rod finally felt right.

[Sota]

Has anyone figured out the weights of say regular height, micro guides, titanium micro guides? Is the weight difference going to make a difference or not that much? Does the guide insert material make a big difference in the feel? 

[spoonplugger1]

Ring material doesn't affect feel, Pac Bay made Ti guides in their Minima series that had the SS chromed rings in them, they had a complete set of SS and Ti match guides selected like you would see on a 4-8, 6-10 lb. lined 9 1/2 ft rod and they were bound together with a wire tie at a Lamiglas rod builder get together years back, 2014 I think, 20 mm to 4 mm, it was very easy to tell which guide set you had in each hand.

[Sota]

11 hours ago, spoonplugger1 said:

Ring material doesn't affect feel, Pac Bay made Ti guides in their Minima series that had the SS chromed rings in them, they had a complete set of SS and Ti match guides selected like you would see on a 4-8, 6-10 lb. lined 9 1/2 ft rod and they were bound together with a wire tie at a Lamiglas rod builder get together years back, 2014 I think, 20 mm to 4 mm, it was very easy to tell which guide set you had in each hand.

When I was asking about the weight differences. I meant in regards to the recovery from deflection. 
 As for the guides and inserts. To me the insert and guide material would make a difference in feel. My little pea brain is thinking. The fish transfers its information “ for lack of better term” through the line. The line transfers info from the line through the insert, to guide, to rod, and ultimately into your hands.  
To me if an inferior guide insert/ guide is used. The feel would be affected. Better insert/ guides better feel.  
 If my thinking is flawed. By all means someone let me know. And explain where my thinking took a turn when I should have gone straight. 

[J Francho]

Unless the guide is made from peanut butter, the differences are hardly detectable. The main gains in sensitivity have always been the in the blank construction. 

[MickD]

The biggest gain in sensitivity, in my opinion, was the introduction of braided line.  If one is not using braided line he is way down on the sensitivity scale.  (If there were to be a sensitivity scale).  But yes, I agree, insert material is immaterial.

 

Guide weight is NOT immaterial, especially out away from the butt.  If one wants to objectively measure how it affects the rod's recovery from  deflection it's pretty easy to run a  "True Natural Frequency" evaluation.  All it takes is an Android device and a way to solidly mount the butt of the rod.  The difference between stainless steel micros and titanium micros is significant.

[Sota]

4 hours ago, J Francho said:

Unless the guide is made from peanut butter, the differences are hardly detectable. The main gains in sensitivity have always been the in the blank construction. 

Ok ummm

 Are we talking Jif or Goober grape? Crunchy or smooth Jif? 
I mean that can make a big difference. 

[J Francho]

Choosey moms choose Jif.  Anything else is the wrong answer.  Crunchy gets caught in the smaller guides.

[Sota]

4 hours ago, MickD said:

The biggest gain in sensitivity, in my opinion, was the introduction of braided line.  If one is not using braided line he is way down on the sensitivity scale.  (If there were to be a sensitivity scale).  But yes, I agree, insert material is immaterial.

 

Guide weight is NOT immaterial, especially out away from the butt.  If one wants to objectively measure how it affects the rod's recovery from  deflection it's pretty easy to run a  "True Natural Frequency" evaluation.  All it takes is an Android device and a way to solidly mount the butt of the rod.  The difference between stainless steel micros and titanium micros is significant.

So the newest and greatest inserts don’t really matter much? It’s more a marketing thing? 
 I get the weight can make a difference. Ti being lighter than stainless. Is there carbon graphite guides now? I thought i saw something about that.  
 I kinda know about the frequency idea. From my old days in golf. Brunswick golf did away with calling the shafts regular, stiff, x stiff. They gave it numbers instead. Like 5.0 regular. 6.0 stiff 7.0 x stiff. You just had to put the shaft butt in a holder and measure the cycles per minute/ frequency.  I think they started that in late 70s early 80s. 

[MickD]

The new inserts are better than the older ones because they are harder and last longer without grooving.  But they do not affect sensitivity unless they are large and heavy, but modern micros are not.  Yes there are carbon fiber guides.  They are definitely lighter, but are getting mixed reviews for durability.  I have not tried any yet.  Probably won't because I think they are ugly.  

[spoonplugger1]

I and others weighed the SS and Ti micros back in the day which was an expensive proposition as you had to have at least 20 of each to get a consistent repeatable measurement, as you went smaller, and the Ti guides weren't made as small as the available SS guides out there, SS was always lighter. But when you got into the smallest sizes that were available from both, the difference was a minute difference becoming unnoticeable except with a scale and many guides. The less size/mass you have the smaller the difference. When a guide is 1/6 the weight of another and 5 ft. of a lever away from your hand that's a 30 time difference in weight felt by you and the rod as you accelerate and stop the rod, multiply that by all the guides and their distance from your hand and you see things can get lighter, more balanced, and your rod can cast and react much crisper in a hurry. When we were doing this in SS guides, all the micros, all sizes were retailing under a dollar a piece, the three smallest sizes were all $0.67 each, probably more now but if you can't afford to test and try something new, at that price, you need to look at another hobby.

[BassinBrett]

I just started building rods and have used size 4 and 5.5 guides.  What size and smaller is a micro guide?  Is a 5.5 Fuji alconite considered a micro?
 

The only down side to micro guide is for winter fishing.  The smaller guide seem to freeze up faster.

[spoonplugger1]

Not for me, but many will disagree, Berkeley Series One, cast and spinning and the Shimano Aero rods the came out with their first long spool reels all had smaller guides then that in the late 80's, 4 mm and smaller would be my definition. Got to remember what we have now hasn't really been with us long in production rods, not long ago the tall SV style guides in 8 mm for running guides and 16 mm first guides from the round reels was the norm, everything evolves as reels and lures changed, things went smaller and lighter as bass presentations that won tournies changed, now they seem to be going heavier again. After all dropshotting is not new, it lost interest here, succeeded hugely in Japan, than came back. 

[WRB]

On 9/6/2024 at 9:17 AM, Sota said:

So the newest and greatest inserts don’t really matter much? It’s more a marketing thing? 
 I get the weight can make a difference. Ti being lighter than stainless. Is there carbon graphite guides now? I thought i saw something about that.  
 I kinda know about the frequency idea. From my old days in golf. Brunswick golf did away with calling the shafts regular, stiff, x stiff. They gave it numbers instead. Like 5.0 regular. 6.0 stiff 7.0 x stiff. You just had to put the shaft butt in a holder and measure the cycles per minute/ frequency.  I think they started that in late 70s early 80s. 

I am not a rod builder but micro guides can be confusing as the size is measured OD of the ring not ID.

For example;

#4 OD is 3.8mm, ID is .074, 

4.5 OD is 4.3mm, ID is .92

#5 OD is 4.8mm, ID is .110

As you can see ID is what matters to anglers when trying to determine if braid with leader knot will pass through.

Tom

[MickD]

But keep in mind that all rings are not of the same proportions, so stating the ID's of the nominal OD sizes isn't accurate for all micros.  But I believe the only way of knowing if your line/knot combination will clear to your satisfaction is to try it out with the micros on your rod.  If it doesn't clear correctly then you need to go down on leader or get a better knot.   But for most bass fishing, a combination is easily possible for micros down to size 4, probably below.  Keep in mind that if there are no knots, any micro of any size will work with any line.  Go back in this string and look at Spoonplugger's image.

[WRB]

What is the ID of the #3 Micro Guide referenced? 50 lb Big Game mono is .058D.

Realize guide ID’s vary with mfr.

Tom

[spoonplugger1]

Bringing up the same old thing like it's some kind of argument to make a point for your choices makes little sense, we all know that selecting the smallest guide that will pass your line and connections is the many decades old mantra in rod building, I hope we also understand that what you do as a bass angler in one area of the country where you are fishing bass in trashy conditions is not the way an angler fishing clean, clear reservoirs would want to build their rods. I can successfully fish 10 lb. braid with an 8 lb. fluoro leader here in the west than I ever could of expected to do so when I lived in FL. I have and many others have built identical rods with conventional thought guides vs our dramatically smaller guide sets using the above line combo and every time the smaller guide set out performs the conventional set in casting distance and is a wash when throwing mono. I have pretty much had to come to the conclusion that many out there really aren't trying anything else for themselves and that is ok, but staying behind that bulwark when others are trying to improve and learn something is a disservice to all. Everyone has to use what works for their situation otherwise we are building off the rack rods, all rods are handmade by someone and pass through many hands to do so in a factory.

[Sota]

Tbh

 I’ve not tied braid to FC. My fishing experience is river fishing for steelhead mostly. 
 The rig I used there was corkies and yarn.  The corkie would be tied above the hook. The yarn was tied behind the corkie hiding the hook. The line was like 8’ long and connected to a clip. The clip was tied to the main line. The hook and leader was pre tied and stored in a pip box.