tiptop wrote:
I haven't but the topic has been discussed extensively on the classic fly rod forum. To summarize the opinions, some swear that these guides are far superior to traditional snake guides and many don't care about performance, think they're ugly, and prefer the traditional look of snakes.
All that discussion on the Classic Fly Rod Forum got my attention and aroused my curiosity. My intention was to make a comparison that would be as objective as possible. One of my rods seemed like a good candidate for trying those new guides out. It is built up as a fly/spin combination on an Aventik 6’7” 3-weight S-glass blank and it’s a work in progress. It had already been built using Fuji Alconite (?) single-foot guides. In my previous experience those guides had performed favorably when compared to the more traditional snake guides.
The rod was first taken out for some lawn casting, using a simple overhead cast with no double hauls or anything special. After getting what seemed like the best cast possible, the rod was laid down on the grass and the line out beyond the tip-top was measured and recorded.
Later on the guides were replaced, using the same spacing, with Silicon Nitride guides from Proof Fly Fishing of roughly the same sizes and with exactly the same spacing. The rod was again taken out for a session of lawn casting under similar conditions, with the same type of casting. When the line out of the tip-top was measured, it showed 50% more distance as a result of reduced friction. There was a noticeable difference when false casting to work out more line, in that the line went through the guides faster and much more easily. The same line was used on both occasions.
A more conclusive test would be to build up two rods on identical blanks: one with snake guides and the other one with Silicon Nitride/Torzite guides, using similar sizes and the same spacing. Anyway, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. One can take from it whatever they want.