I have two spiral wrapped custom rods. One is a MHM jerk bait rod & the other is a HF jig rod. 

Any dragging rod (carolina rig/football jig) I build is spiral wrapped.  I just feel less torque in my hand from the line trying to twist (ie become shortest length).  They just renove one input I have to feel.  Also great for silver buddy type rods and Laker jigging

On 10/30/2025 at 10:17 PM, Darth-Baiter said:

so weird.  it looks like it was put together incorrectly.  I heard the term "Acid-wrapped" means the same thing??

 

no reel yet, so it lives in the neoprene sleeve it arrived in.  

 

this is for salt water jigging.    bass guys never use them right?

Acid wrapped rods have some significant and not just for jiggin.  The orientation of the tip helps to allows for more efficient use when pulling, particularly with vertical presentations.  The rod tip on a conventional wrap has a tendency to want to twist, notably when under heavy load.  

A well-executed acid wrapped blank, loads and unloads very clean, minimizing that twist and torsion.  Minimal torsion and twist equate to more efficient use of the blanks power due to increased stability, as a blank is strongest when its straight and round.

A spiral wrap helps to stack line evenly with narrow jigging reels by keeping the line centered.

Snap and slow pitch jigging works best with small dia braid.  Some of that braid can be on the soft side, which is good, but limp line can be prone to twisting around guides.  Guide wraps are pain bass fishing, but if that line wraps a guide snap jigging and you get hit before its cleared, that guides history and the rod 86d for the day.

You can get away with using less or smaller guides with an acid wrap vs conventional.  Anywhere you can save weight without compromising strength or performance is a win, particularly when you have to bounce a 6oz spoon for hours.  I'm not sure if you save too much weight with FW bass gear for it to be a major advantage, although I still think its notable.   

 

Not too many drawbacks really.  For me the biggest one is that the guides are a little more vulnerable because they cover half the dia of the blank.  The snagocity level is a little higher, especially if you carry a bunch of other in a yak and store them vertically on a crate.

Some rod socks don't have the room, but there are plenty available that do.

 

 

   

IMO the need for a perfectly straight line path is highly over-rated.  On all the rods the purport to have advantages due to a straight line path have one big angle in the line path right at the reel.  And it is most often ignored.  OK, unload, I can take it.

"

3 hours ago, MickD said:

IMO the need for a perfectly straight line path is highly over-rated.  On all the rods the purport to have advantages due to a straight line path have one big angle in the line path right at the reel.  And it is most often ignored.  OK, unload, I can take it.

 

Well the only thing I can say would be to post the published rules of custom rod building as Don Morton and others all agreed on and then published:

1. The line should run as straight as possible from the reel to the tip of the rod.
2. The line should form as small of an angle as possible with each guide.
3. The line should touch only the top or bottom of the guides in any fishing position.
4. The line should pass through the guides with no line chatter or vibration.
5. The line should not touch or pass the rod in any fishing position, casting or retrieving.
6. The rod should be balanced.
7. The rod should be stable in all fishing positions.
8. The rod should track in all fishing positions without experiencing torque or twisting.

 

I would say that the first 3 rules are quite clear. It might be overrated to some, but do ALL of us want to create custom rods built for optimal performance is the question? I followed these rules explicitly for the creation of my Cagey Hook Wrapping method. The photos show my results do align perfectly to the published rules on this subject. If people out there choose to ignore these rules is AOK, and their choice for sure.

 

Thanks to Don Morton, Terri Cheatham, And Pat VinZant and numerous other well known custom rod builders for their work in creating these now published rules for all custom rod building.

 

I'd also add the reels are ignored because we can't do anything about those. It is what it is, and we have to make the best of the materials we have to work with. The CHW method maximized this to reach the best case scenario with the available materials while trying to follow the published rules.

 

It took some time, but the results were worth the wait!

 

There is nothing quite like the hookup with a fish knowing as your rod loads up, the transition guides are moving into their most ideal alignment making reeling in the fish easier to do with less line flow friction than one would experience from rods with all guides on the top of the blank. Here is one comment from someone who wrote about their first experience with a custom rod in his hands following the rule book:

 

"But the one thing I had become accustom too was the torque generated when setting the hook, and these were serious try to remove their jaw hook sets, no braid then. The absolute second I set the hook with Kent's spiraled rod, I was in shock. Where was the twist, where was the reposition the reel in my hand moment? Kent is not paying me enough to embellish on the moment of truth hook set, I'm just sharing my experience. I've since caught bass on crank baits and experienced the same very smooth transition from fish to landing. I've since stripped two rods and plan on more."

 

It is a very smooth transition because the guide alignment is done to a loaded rod. Not a static rod. Huge difference in how it performs and the magic moment the spiral wrap comes alive is as soon as the hook is set in a fish. That is when the spiral wrap comes alive to deliver its best for us. Its a great feeling too. The hookset and reeling in the fish are what spiral wraps are all about!

 

BTW, the rods he said he stripped down were recommended simple spirals that he did not like. I don't like them either. The simple spiral clearly does not follow the published rules because the simple spiral does have angular bends in the line going through transition guides. No way to really straighten it out on a simple spiral. Shame that idea was ever invented in the first place because to me custom rod building is all about improving performance. The rules were created over a number of years and then agreed on at a convention of custom rod building before they were published. I did not make them up. I just followed them. But each rod builder can choose what to do for themselves.

 

But if a person has to hire someone to make a custom rod for them, make sure you find out if your rod builder is going to follow the published rules or, do their own thing outside of the rules. In custom rod building today we see two sides- 1)100% pure performance driven rod builders, and 2)rod artists. These two camps do not mix together very well as the art side has kind of taken over and the performance builders break away from the art side completely and abandon it.

 

Guys who build performance rods don't much care about color matching, pretty shiny threads all over the blanks slathered in gobs of epoxy, and thread wraps extending beyond the guide foot, and snakeskin, and feathers on rods. That type of discussion is what performance rod builders run from. True performance rod builders are minimalists by Nature. Do only what it takes to make the tool to get the job done. Not one thread wrap more. No pretty art. A complete divide is where custom rod building is at today. The industry mixes us all together, but the performance rod builders separate themselves back out of it and have been for years. Science versus art. Not a good combo.

 

I'm on the performance rod building side 100%. I got no use for rod art. But as stated, to each their own! A lot of rod builders like to think they are doing both at the same time in building an art piece rod they also consider as having improved performance. We are all free to go in any direction we so choose regardless of the results or outcome.

 

5 hours ago, MickD said:

IMO the need for a perfectly straight line path is highly over-rated.  On all the rods the purport to have advantages due to a straight line path have one big angle in the line path right at the reel.  And it is most often ignored.  OK, unload, I can take it.

I have to agree. 

59 minutes ago, FloridaFishinFool said:

"

 

Well the only thing I can say would be to post the published rules of custom rod building as Don Morton and others all agreed on and then published:

1. The line should run as straight as possible from the reel to the tip of the rod.
2. The line should form as small of an angle as possible with each guide.
3. The line should touch only the top or bottom of the guides in any fishing position.
4. The line should pass through the guides with no line chatter or vibration.
5. The line should not touch or pass the rod in any fishing position, casting or retrieving.
6. The rod should be balanced.
7. The rod should be stable in all fishing positions.
8. The rod should track in all fishing positions without experiencing torque or twisting.

 

I would say that the first 3 rules are quite clear. It might be overrated to some, but do ALL of us want to create custom rods built for optimal performance is the question? I followed these rules explicitly for the creation of my Cagey Hook Wrapping method. The photos show my results do align perfectly to the published rules on this subject. If people out there choose to ignore these rules is AOK, and their choice for sure.

 

Thanks to Don Morton, Terri Cheatham, And Pat VinZant and numerous other well known custom rod builders for their work in creating these now published rules for all custom rod building.

 

I'd also add the reels are ignored because we can't do anything about those. It is what it is, and we have to make the best of the materials we have to work with. The CHW method maximized this to reach the best case scenario with the available materials while trying to follow the published rules.

 

It took some time, but the results were worth the wait!

 

There is nothing quite like the hookup with a fish knowing as your rod loads up, the transition guides are moving into their most ideal alignment making reeling in the fish easier to do with less line flow friction than one would experience from rods with all guides on the top of the blank. Here is one comment from someone who wrote about their first experience with a custom rod in his hands following the rule book:

 

"But the one thing I had become accustom too was the torque generated when setting the hook, and these were serious try to remove their jaw hook sets, no braid then. The absolute second I set the hook with Kent's spiraled rod, I was in shock. Where was the twist, where was the reposition the reel in my hand moment? Kent is not paying me enough to embellish on the moment of truth hook set, I'm just sharing my experience. I've since caught bass on crank baits and experienced the same very smooth transition from fish to landing. I've since stripped two rods and plan on more."

 

It is a very smooth transition because the guide alignment is done to a loaded rod. Not a static rod. Huge difference in how it performs and the magic moment the spiral wrap comes alive is as soon as the hook is set in a fish. That is when the spiral wrap comes alive to deliver its best for us. Its a great feeling too. The hookset and reeling in the fish are what spiral wraps are all about!

 

BTW, the rods he said he stripped down were recommended simple spirals that he did not like. I don't like them either. The simple spiral clearly does not follow the published rules because the simple spiral does have angular bends in the line going through transition guides. No way to really straighten it out on a simple spiral. Shame that idea was ever invented in the first place because to me custom rod building is all about improving performance. The rules were created over a number of years and then agreed on at a convention of custom rod building before they were published. I did not make them up. I just followed them. But each rod builder can choose what to do for themselves.

 

But if a person has to hire someone to make a custom rod for them, make sure you find out if your rod builder is going to follow the published rules or, do their own thing outside of the rules. In custom rod building today we see two sides- 1)100% pure performance driven rod builders, and 2)rod artists. These two camps do not mix together very well as the art side has kind of taken over and the performance builders break away from the art side completely and abandon it.

 

Guys who build performance rods don't much care about color matching, pretty shiny threads all over the blanks slathered in gobs of epoxy, and thread wraps extending beyond the guide foot, and snakeskin, and feathers on rods. That type of discussion is what performance rod builders run from. True performance rod builders are minimalists by Nature. Do only what it takes to make the tool to get the job done. Not one thread wrap more. No pretty art. A complete divide is where custom rod building is at today. The industry mixes us all together, but the performance rod builders separate themselves back out of it and have been for years. Science versus art. Not a good combo.

 

I'm on the performance rod building side 100%. I got no use for rod art. But as stated, to each their own! A lot of rod builders like to think they are doing both at the same time in building an art piece rod they also consider as having improved performance. We are all free to go in any direction we so choose regardless of the results or outcome.

 

I believe form follows function for sure. One can give some significance to aesthetics as part of a high performance build though. Categorizing the published comments as “rules” or that “all” agreed is overstated imo but I agree that if you took a poll of experienced rod builders you’d get a consensus agreeing to them. Mick has a point too. A lot of rod builders have their own pet peeves or certain aspects they get so focused on that another detail can get overlooked completely or given short shifts. Experimenting and trying to build a better mouse trap is part of custom building that I for one enjoy. In the course of my own experiments and anecdotal evidence I’ve found that slight deviations from perfection can have little or no impact on real life performance. That’s not to say that striving for perfection is not admirable or important just that it’s a journey not a destination. 

To clarify that point about 'all agreed' on the rules... what I meant was that when these rules were being formulated, the group of custom rod builders, I think today they are referred to as "the guild" or back in the day I think called rodcrafters organization.

 

It was that group of custom rod builders who organized some type of custom rod convention calling together a large group of top custom rod builders of the day together at like a 3 day convention somewhere up north as I recall.

 

And it was during that convention that the custom rod builders who had gathered are behind the creation of this set of rules, and it was agreed on by all those present, and once passed unanimous agreement, this set of rules were moved forward into a published book that I gained access to when I worked for Terri Cheatham at her rod and reel shop in central Florida.

 

I did not mean to infer that all custom rod builders in all corners of the earth were in unanimous agreement on this set of rules. Only those present at the convention is the point I'd like to clarify.

 

I do agree some deviations from them may not be noticeable in real life performance, but for those of us who seriously pursue the greatest performance we can get from the materials at hand, for those of us deviations follow into use as nagging thoughts of what could I have done better? And quite often those rods are taken back into the shop and redone so those types of thoughts don't follow that rod around into use each time. But for the average Joe out there who does not build custom rods, those slight deviations may never even be noticed. So its a matter of perspective for sure. I read comments on various sites where some people say they love their simple spirals. Definitely a matter of perspective.

The so called “perceived rules” don’t matter to me. 
Optimal performance for me is if it’s balanced and sensitive enough in my hands with the right action and power for the presentation I’m making.

That’s it. 

I only care about how it fishes in my hands   
But Hey, that’s just me. 
Carry ON

 

 

 

 

Mike

 

When I was fishing off shore big game fish tuna and marlin the spiral wraps became a thing to try. The problem back then was the guide frame and foot wasn’t designed for sideway line loading for the transition guides. Under high speed power fish running the side guides would loosen and that killed spiral wraps at that time. 
I personally dislike spiral wrap rods because you can’t lay the rids down on the deck without guides hitting each other.

Just my 2 cents.

Tom

8 minutes ago, WRB-2.0 said:

...The problem back then was the guide frame and foot wasn’t designed for sideway line loading for the transition guides. Under high speed power fish running the side guides would loosen and that killed spiral wraps at that time. 

Tom

 

Exactly right! For bass fishing rods this is not such a big deal, but as stated on large game fish it can be a problem.

 

Here in Florida I have seen some custom rods built that do not even include any transition guides. On those really heavy jigging rods, on some of them the line leaves the reel and shoots past the blank right straight into the 180's on underside. What they did was turn the first one or two of those 180's to the side of the incoming line and called it a day. Now they can take the heavy loads and have no guides to side load at all or break off the rod- which is why rules #2 & 3 were created to try and prevent.

 

I'm working with a rod builder in the NW now who is making spiral wrapped rods for steelhead and large salmon and saltwater use as well. So this is an issue that comes up a lot. Another good reason to build rods based on a loaded state versus static. This harsh reality has forced change upon the rods and rod builders for sure.

then there is the neutral spiral wrap with that one second guide going opposite direction a few degrees..

 

it is all too much.  hahha

4 hours ago, FloridaFishinFool said:

1. The line should run as straight as possible from the reel to the tip of the rod.
2. The line should form as small of an angle as possible with each guide.
3. The line should touch only the top or bottom of the guides in any fishing position.
4. The line should pass through the guides with no line chatter or vibration.
5. The line should not touch or pass the rod in any fishing position, casting or retrieving.
6. The rod should be balanced.
7. The rod should be stable in all fishing positions.
8. The rod should track in all fishing positions without experiencing torque or twisting.

It is my opinion based on my experience that these "should be's" are highly over-rated.   All these "should be's" are simply opinions of goals for rod design, and no give no sense that conflicting priorities may sometimes be present.  For example, achieving the balance goal often requires an evaluation of preferences and priorities. So do the others, but balance is the easiest to understand in terms of preferences and priorities.  

 

Everyone gets an opinion.   For the most part these forums are opinions passing as gospel. 

I remember rods like this being built back when I could consider myself a 'young man'. 

 

I enjoy seeing the group picking the fly feces out of the pepper as much, almost as much, or not nearly as much as the next angler, but I wonder if there has been any way to objectively quantify the real world advantages, and how many more fish might that land for anglers of varying skill levels?

 

IOW, could Berkley or Lews do this for a $50 Lightning and truly outperform the competition in the hands of an angler that would be in the market for a $50 rod?

 

If not, at what point and for whom does this become meaningful (for bass fishing)?

@Big Hands

silly me, I thought my first post answered everything - vertical fishing, big weights, unlikely to break the blank.  

1 hour ago, bulldog1935 said:

@Big Hands

silly me, I thought my first post answered everything - vertical fishing, big weights, unlikely to break the blank.  

 

When building my own rods, I pretty much ignore balance. I fish moving baits tip down, and bottom contact rods are built as light as budget allows. I'm just not going to move the handle/reelseat out of my comfort zone, or add weight to a light build for the sake of balance. 

The closest I come to worrying about balance is getting liberal with epoxy on the butt-grip.

 

1 hour ago, Lead Head said:

The closest I come to worrying about balance is getting liberal with epoxy on the butt-grip.

Keep in mind that the most frequent failure of commercially made rods is probably loose grips and seats due to too little epoxy.  I don't skimp.

On 11/1/2025 at 5:39 PM, Delaware Valley Tackle said:

Spiral wraps, micro guides, minimalist grips, high modulus blanks, etc. 

Man after my own heart right here

On 11/2/2025 at 9:00 AM, FloridaFishinFool said:

I'm on the performance rod building side 100%

I'm with you on this

 

Now how do you feel about adding weight to a rod?

I can't imagine a simpler topic - yet look above.  

I'll buck the trend. They aren't for me, I can't get past the aesthetics.

8 hours ago, Banned User said:

Now how do you feel about adding weight to a rod?

 

Minimalist. I don't add weight to a rod unless I have to. This is why the smaller guides, least amount of thread wraps. Least amount of epoxy. Least amount of everything to simply construct a tool offering most benefit. And I don't add weights to balance out a rod.

 

Keeping the weight down helps make casting it easier and over a longer period of time. Adding any unnecessary weight adds more work for muscles to do in each cast. Trying to minimize that. 

 

Not sure if anyone remembers this, but Bass Pro tried to sell the rod balancing weights years ago and made most of the rods they sold also fit their weight sets. I tried it then when Bass Pro did this and quickly left rod balancing weights behind, and out of the picture. It was a good learning curve to go through that era. I still have some of those rods and a few weight sets, but today its more or less an old joke I don't even bother with any more. So no, no adding of balancing weights either.

 

I just try and keep the rod builds as minimal as possible and that keeps them as light as possible.