The formulas used give a starting point. I am glad to see you will adjust based on a stress test.
This fuji system is flawed in several ways. It biggest problem is that it does not account for the action of the rod.
A better method is graph the equation y=X*GF where GF is the growth factor of the space between the guides and X is the spacing of the first guide from the tip.
Now go to an excel spread sheet and in the first column top cell (first column /first row) enter 1. Define the second cell down in that column (first column/second row) as the value of the cell above it times 1.2. The value 1.2 will appear in that cell. Now copy the equation in that cell down the column ...say 15 rows.
Now go to column 2 and inter 1 in the top cell (second column/first row). Define the second row in that column as the cell above it times 1.4. The value 1.4 will appear in that cell. Now copy that formula down 15 rows.
Now go to column 3 and in the first cell enter .5. In the cell below it (row2/column3) define that value as the cell above it times 1.2. The cell will read .6. Now copy that cell formular down 15 rows.
In column 4 enter .5 in the top cell. Define the cell below it (row2/column4)
as the cell above it times 1.4. The cell will show a value of .7. Now copy that formulas down 15 rows.
Now the fun part.
Highlite all 4 columns and hit the graph button on the tool bar. Choose the line equation function. Create the graph of the 4 columns. You will see 4 curved lines. Now expand the X axis way out and envision that these curved lines are actually bent fishing rods. Each line is a rod with a diferent cation from very fast to very slow.
The data sets you created to describe the action of each of those bent rods required two inputs by you. In these examples , the multiplier of 1.2 or 1.4 is the multiplier to calculate the distance between the guides as you go towards the butt. Its a meaningless number to describe the bend in the rod without the first number (in this case 1 and .5) which represents the spacing from the tip you choose for the first guide.
Their formula would be totally bogus except they do supply you with pictures. These pictures in the own way (either you see this or you don't , its too hard to explain in words) attempt to define the rod action but they in fact do not. What they define is the number of guides to choose based on rod length. They adjsut the spacing of the first guide from the tip by having more or less guides but its based on the length you have to fill with guides (different rod lengths with the same butt spacing and gathering guide spacing or same rod lengths with different butt and gathering guide spaces). No where are they accounting for the difference in the way the rods bend based on their fast or slow action. (remember action defines where the bend takes place and how much , not just how much. Fast action more towards the tip and slow action deeper towards the butt).
So that's the weakness of the fuji method just interms of the raw math and geometry problem. They also do not account for your fishing prference. I;ll be damned if I;m going to be stringing 12 guides 6 times a night in the pitch black of fishing at 1 AM. So me as the fisherman should be choosing how many guides based on my own prefernce as a fisherman as well as based on the geometry of the rod.
So the better builder will take all this into account and then on top of it all , see if he can get away with the number of guides he chosed based on fishing prefernce by looking at the rod after its all strung up with line going through the guides in the stress test.
The best factors to use (in the equation I show above) for the first guide spacing and the growth exponent require experience looking at the rod action. If you have a nimble mind and can roll the equation around in your brain , you soon get to know how to closely estimate the first guide spacing and growth exponent just by looking at and building many rods.
The second decision about how many guides is arrived at by experience with the various fishing applications and input of prefernces from the customer to the rod builder.
Botton line is that equations can be very useful in estimating the layout of the rod but only if you have the right equation and the experience to choose the two main factors in that equation. You also must keep in mind that fishing experience of the builder and the customer overrides all suggestions generated by the equations. So its rod building experience and fishing experience and customer preference that should determine the layout of the rod between the tip and the reel seat. The butt length behind the reel seat is almost totally dependent on the cistomers preference.
Hybrid Mode
