I imagine that the ultimate rod would be a one-piece simply because the transfer of forces would approximate the ideal along the rod blank. Since the most flex would occur at the surface of the rod and the least in the centerline, the joints along the way would at the very least tend to have their effect, whatever that might be. Thus, have any of you heard of any commentary regarding the action of a rod versus its number of component pieces? Have any of you a preference? Have any of you felt a difference? I wonder what a high end rod maker would choose for himself if portability were not a concern…
I have heard that the multis of today can be very much like the two and three piece rods of the same length and weight by the same manufacturer. There is a perceivable difference to some casters. But the same casters would probably detect a difference in rods of the same length weight and number of sections by the same manufacturer. If I were a traveling man I’ll bet I could find a multi section rod that I would like as much as my two piece rods. IMHO The advantages cannot be denied.
Snipe makes a good point. As you progress through casting and become more and more proficient, you can notice a difference between mult-piece rods. The difference is mostly dependent on the rod manufacturer. For instance, the Cabela’s 7-piece and 5-piece rods feel more stiff, and more “clunky” than their 2-piece rods. This is a slight difference mostly an experienced caster can feel.
On the other hand, the 5-piece Sage SLT’s are softer and smoother than the 2-pieces. Go figure!
The one thing you can’t escape with multi-piece rods is the added weight. The overlaps in the blank at the ferrules have to weigh more than a tubular blank. The joints which are held together by friction are not as strong as a solid piece of material relative to their weight, so more material is needed to provide consistent strength.
Putting more weight on a given length and strength of a rod will make it feel different, affecting feel and balance, if not action. This can work the other way too. Putting lighter titanium guides on a blank that Jerry Seim designed to have chromed steel guides may make it the most painfully stiff rod you’ve ever cast, instead of the pleasant fast action of a factory built XP.
The bottom line is, while it is true that the better rod manufacturers can construct ferrules that are just as strong and flex the same as a solid blank would, they cannot avoid adding weight at each union. This will make the rod feel different and will often require a different reel be used in order to attain optimum balance.
(In case you are wondering, I think three piece rods are ideal and am pained to see them being phased out in favor of 4+ piece rods.)
This topic has been hashed around many times before. Each rod, be it 2,3,4,5 or even 7 pc. has its drawbacks and merits and own casting characteristics. I believe its up to each individual to make the choice and know the trade offs. As for myself I own and fish everyone of the above except the 3 pc and thats only because I found the 4pc. packs down smaller than a 2…Ha
Yes, adding ferrules does increase weight which will affect the feel of the rod, but that requires the assumption that a 9’ rod in “x” wt is simply the same 9’ blank cut into whatever number of pieces and ferrules added. Don’t most blank manufacturers compensate for that in their design? A 9’ 4wt 7 piece rod is not just a 9’ 2pc rod cut into seven pieces with more ferrules added is it? Like the example of a blank being designed for with a certain weight of guide on it - aren’t multipiece blanks designed to compensate for the added weight of the ferrules?
From a purely transfer of forces standpoint, the ideal rod would also have no guides on it, as each guide foot and corresponding wrapping/finishing also create “stiff spots” in the flex pattern. However, it would be a little hard to cast a rod with no guides on it.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by your theory of most of the flex “occurring at the surface of the rod.” In a tubular rod, isn’t the flex already occuring at the surface since there is nothing but air in the center to flex?
To answer Smernsky:
Even though the subject might have been hashed before, I am sure a great many people purchase via mail order, or catalog, being unable to handle the rod themselves. Thus, they need the commentary expounded by the others in the list. I was in Miami, considering a Winston rod, but no one sells Winston in Miami. These comments would help me choose when there is no physical test possible.
To answer chascomly:
“Most of the flex occurs at the surface of the rod” means that in any matter being subjected to flexure, the fibers farthest from the centerline are submitted to more stress and therefore more strain. Think of bending a rectangular sponge, and note the surface has to stretch more than the innermost part of the sponge. In the rod, this transfer must happen by some other means at the point of the joint between to sections of the rod, as there is no continuation of the surface fiber there.
Migs
I see what you are saying Migs…I was thinking more in the way that rods being tubular and (mostly)hollow there is nothing in the center to flex. But yes, looking at it in planar form, the plane of view being perpendicular to the plane of the flex, changes that.
Which brings another question to my mind…how exactly does a rod flex? Is the assumption that the center line is more or less static(which also assumes that the outside of the curve elongates and the inside compresses) accurate, or does the tubular shape of a rod become more ovoid as it flexes(and inner compresses)? Think of bending a piece of garden hose…the more you bend it the more oval shaped the hose becomes…thus showing that the centerline also is subject to flex, but actually in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the arc. I’m guessing that rods flex in much the same manner(never really gave it a lot of thought til now) which would mean that the centerline is exposed to a significant amount of force(flex).
I understand the basis of your theory, but it somehow seems faulty to me. Perhaps were you referring to two simple planes(middle and outer) that would hold up, but we’re leaving out the third plane(inner - compressive). Adding a third dimension(tubular) to the problem creates a whole other set of variables.
It would seem to me that if the flex were purely about outer and center then the optimum rod would be two flat pieces of material 9’ long by 1/4"(?) held parallel to each other and joined at one end(handle) and other end(tip).
However, maybe I just have too much time on my hands…
I don’t believe you should worry about weight increase in multi piece rods. Rod weights vary quite a bit in two piece rods. The lightest rod I own in a 5wt is a five piece Redington Wayfarer. The newer, 4 or more, multi piece rods I have tried are very nice, and feel better than some of the older two piece rods. They are also very light. I think manufacturers have really done a great job on the new designs. Because of the convenience of the multi piece travel rods and the performance of new designs, I lean towards them when I think about getting a new rod.
chascomly, have you ever seen a “quad” split cane rod? It just may be your “optimum rod!”
I have this old clunky 5 piece fiberglass with those huge metal ferrules. Got it cheap. Took it out with a 5 wt. line and the thing cast like a rocket. I do not know what action it has but as awful and awkward as it feels in my hand, it sure casts nicely.
Charlie:
I understand what you are saying, and I agree that the tube must become and “ovoid” on bending. Have you or anyone test cast the same rod with different quantities of sections? I cant help but think the less the sections the “better” the rod, whatever “better” may mean. On the other hand, I have an LL Bean traveller rod with 7 pieces that really feels good. I wonder how much “better” it might be with only 2 sections.
Migs
I believe all these rod companies are going to multi piece rods and dropping 2 piece rods for one main reason…To sell more rods. Same reason they keep going back and forth with 2 and 3 button sport jackets. Since I don’t fly I don’t need a rod in short cases, but then neither do many anglers. I like my one piece short bamboo’s and 2 piece rods of both bamboo and graphite. I have a few 3 piece rods and I find them all a bit stiffer. It is easier to pack shorter rod tubes in the smaller cars they build now a days. Funny how we accumulate rods. I must have 30 or more now and only fish with 3 or 4 of them. Go with what feels right regardless of the number of sections…Personal choice. Buying a rod without trying it out is pretty chancy .
I’d wager big money that 99 percent of the people who think they can tell a difference are full of it.
About 3 or so years ago Fly Fish America ran a casting test of 5 weight rods. All were 8 1/2 or 9 foot in length, and all were multi-piece rods varying in pieces from 3 to 7.
They covered all identifying marks on the rods and the prefered rod for the overwhelming majority of casters was an 8 1/2 foot 5 piece Cabela’s Stowaway.
Rod makers have spent considerable time and effort in designing ferrules for multi-piece rods. They are no longer aluminum or brass.
I have cast a 4 piece and a 2pc 9’ 4 wt by the same manufacturer. However it wasn’t side by side, and I’m probably not a good enough caster to notice the difference. Yes, they did have a slightly different “feel.” But “feel” is totally subjective. For me, they did not perform any differently.
I would bet that 95% of casters would experience very little difference in their casting using a 2 pc and 4 pc of the same make/model. For most of us, our skills are not limited by our equipment. I’ve been involved in several different sports that require a good bit of specialized equipment. Only about 5% of participants in any sport are pushing their equipment to the perfomance limits of that equipment. Sure, there are those of us who have broken rods, but that’s usually from slamming them in a door or beaning them with a bead head, not because we just have such an awesome cast that it was too much for the rod.
A study was done with tennis players some years back to see what affect, if any, equipment had on an “average” player. According to the study, there was only one instance when players experienced improved performance with a change of equipment. That was when they broke their racquet and had to borrow another one. The conclusion of the researchers running the study was that the improved performance was caused by psychological factors - the player had to borrow a racquet that they were unfamiliar with - leaving the player with the notion, “How can I be expected to play well when I’m using an unfamiliar racquet?” When the pressure was off, he played better.
Yes, an optimal rod in terms of efficiency would probably be one piece. But like Tim, I think most of us would probably never be able to tell the difference if we couldn’t see the rod we were casting. And if your LL Bean traveller feels good and does what you want, isn’t that all that matters? And I’d hate to try to fit a one piece 7’ into my backpack for a three day hike…
Chas, I meant to say that rod manufacturers absolutely can and do build the ferrules to make the rod just as strong and to flex the same as a straight tubular blank. But there still is additional weight out there because of the overlaps. 3/100ths of an ounce may not seem like much until you put it 7’ away from the pivot point and move it 500 times in a given day.
When a rod builder makes a multi-piece rod, saying that they cut a 9’ blank into pieces and add ferrules is not anywhere near an accurate explanation of what goes on. Every one of those pieces and their respective ferrules have to be designed individually and made to match up with the rest of the pieces that make up that rod. This does become very expensive for the manufacturer and the cost is reflected in the rods.
I think Sage made the Xi2 rods all in 4pc config for cost saving reasons. The old RPLXi rods were made in 2pc, 3pc, and 5pc config’s. This would make engineering, manufacturing, and warranty coverage quite a challenge for Sage.
I am amazed that the newer companies like TFO and ECHO are able to offer so many four piece rods at such good prices, but I guess thats one of the benefits of globalization.
I have to disagree with those who can’t tell the difference. I would really have to say maybe they haven’t been fishing enough. Just for an instance. When Orvis first came out with their 7’9" Far and Fine 5 wt It cast like a dream. Years later I was able to pick up another for my son…It just wasn’t the same rod. Later I found out they changed the engineering on the blank specs. I can tell the difference blindfolded. I certainly agree their are some very inexpensive rods out their. At one of the shows before it opened I tried out a nine fot 5 wt and it was satisfactory for the price. I wanted to pick one up for my brothers son in law who was going out for the first time. As I bought it AK called me back over to the casting pool and handed me an 8 1/2 footer he was using, same Korean made Castle Arms rod and it cast like a charm and I would have to say it would be hard to tell apart from my more expensive graphite rods. Bamboo of course is another thing all together. As far as the contest referred to all I can say is maybe it was a bunch of guys who only fish a dozen times a year or less and have tried or own very few rods. Just like polls, these type of contests are usually set up to get the results they want. Not saying some wouldn’t be similar, but all? No way!