Forgive the novice question.

Why the abundance of one-piece spinning blanks? I leafed through a couple catalogs the other evening and was sort of shocked at the number of blanks, even those over 6' in length, that are single piece. I guess this is a carry-over from dealing with fly rods so much - which rarely are one-piece.

Curious as to why. Certainly not transportability. Is there a performance or strength issue? Price? (I see the ferruled blanks are most costly).

I'm gonna build a new spin rod over the winter for some freshwater largemouth bass fishing - mostly tossing smallish plugs and some rubber products. Recommendations would be appreciated (single piece or otherwise). Typically use 6lb mono with 3/16 - 1/4oz lures.

Bob

Hi Bob,
I find most bass fishermen overwhelmengly will want a one piece rod, and also my personal preference. The place for a two piece is in the utility of transport. This is not to say there are not some extremely good quality 2 piece or even 3 piece spinning blanks on the market. Perhaps the idea of continuity within one piece without the 'break' will make for more sensitivity. I tend to think that, whether true or not, it also is just the one piece rod feels good when casting.

Two piece blanks are generally more costly than one piece.

Bob, my recommendation for an overall good bass spinning blank is the St. Croix 3S63MXF (one piece) has a crisp tip for getting the lure out there and very good overall 'feel'. Either Titanium Fuji guides or TiGold would be an excellent complement in building this with the concept guide setup. Either a cork tennessee handle or the deluxe handle spin kit from St. Croix with either cork reel seat or matching hood wood insert and you have one nice bass rod. You'll find tossing baits down to 3/16 should be no problem and also be surprised by the strength in the butt.
Of course, if you care to go more deluxe, substitute the 3S blank for a 5S63MXF. The finest spinning blank around IMHO.

A quality multi-piece rod is just as strong, sensitive and durable as any 1-piece rod. But it is consumer demand that drives the market. Most fishermen would rather have 1-piece rods when transportation is not a problem. Thus, most rods and blanks are made in the 1-piece configuration. There are some good multi-piece spinning and casting blanks around though, you just have to hunt them down.

..................................

This a good subject, all my rods are one peice from 7' to 9' I have no problem stowing them away in my 20' Flatsmaster but I have allways wanted an 8' , 10-20 lb. saltwater rod to transport in my truck . I can't tell you how many times I have been driving down the coast and see schooling fish close to the shore line and not have a rod . 3 peice would be ok to , any suggestions ?.

Hey Cap
check with Todd Vivian at lamiglas we discussed just that recently a 3 piece hvy duty blank
John

Thanks John I will Do that. Now that you mentioned that (Lamiglas) , an 8' , 10-20 lb. , 3-piece Perigee blank would be awesome .

Those top over butt design is never good enough. I understand Lamigalss use that design too. To be frank, I do not mind paying 50% more on a design that Scott use. Too bad, no one truly believe that there is a need for a really high end beautiful multi piece spinning, or casting blank. I have to use a Scott Heliply HP84153R and convert it to a good travel casting blank. I mate it with a Daiwa CVZ300A, with 330 yard of PowerPro 30 and make an awesome travel all purpose rod.

Good fishing (catching) <*)))))))><{

I don't know. I've had failures with the plug ferrule like Scott and others use but never a problem with the tip over butt style. I was under the impression that it was the superior technology.

I had to get in on this one. I use only Lamiglas blanks have used them for over 20 years I fish the Kenni River in Alaska every year for King Salmon iv boated 60lb + kings on a 3 piece lamiglas tip over butt I have never had a problem ever.i have built over 100 lamiglas 3piese rods like the one I built for my self not one problem ever.the tip over is the best design.that is why Lamiglas uses it.they don't make 2nd rate stuff.regards John

So has anyone out there done any real testing on this? Maybe Tom or Ralph know of any information on this issue?

Mick, John, I personally believe there is no better and more cost effective method than tip over butt design. It is simple,
efficient, cost effective, easy to manufacturing. But the fact remain that a bigger tube is closing on a smaller tube. No
matter how well the design is the hard spot on the blank remains. But on the other hand an internal ferrule is actually a cut
of blank then using not one but three section to form the furrel (in case of scott). With the attention to extreme detail, there
is virtually no hard spot. Not to mention that ugly bulge in the furrel. Companies like Fenwick, Sage, ABU all use that
and MAY I add they do it very well and close to no able to see the transition. I fully understand that internal furrel is a
VERY costly design and only a few can do it right (scott as one of them). Companies like Daiwa, after many year of
research come back to that design on their highest end ($700.00+) 7' 2 piece trout rod use double internal furrel....

It is not a matter of 2nd rate, it is a matter of cost and what customer is willing to pay for perfection. I am certain
lamiglass will be able to give us 3 piece internal furrel Kenni Killer and it would probably cost a good $450.00 for just the
blank (which by the way, I WILL be the first one to buy). To be frank I begged scott to make one and they said they are
fly rod people and they shall stay with fly rod. Currently I own 23 rods with tip over butt design, from Loomis,
Fenwick, ABU, Sage, St. Croix, Talon, Orvis, and I love them all.. The fact remains that if perfection is what one aim
for and money no object, you have Scott, Gamakatsu, Conoflex, Daiwa, Shimano, Ryobi has ALL chosen this design on
their HIGHEST end rods where light, smoothness action and perfection is expected.

Good fishing (catching) <*)))))))><{

Tip-over-butt ferrules are not necessarily more cost effective than spigot ferrules. In order to provide a good continuity of action and strength there is quite a bit of R&D that must be done on each model. Properly designed and executed, a tip-over-butt ferrule retains the same flexibility, strength and durability as the rest of the blank. There is no compromise in action, flex or strength. The better tip-over-butt designs feature a "belled" area at the female ferrule. Early integral tip-over designs often used the entire tip section as the ferrule, with the entire tip section being oversized to accomodate the male ferrule below. And of course, there are many of the tip-over ferrules where the ferrule is actually an oversleeve made separate from the blank and then attached to it. (Ralph has written an outstanding article on how to do this to make your own multi-piece rods in the new issue.)

The spigot or plug ferrules are not superior to the tip-over design in any way, shape or form. Yes, in most cases they perform admirably but they have many drawbacks. Like the tip-over design, they require careful design attention to prevent any stiff spots from occuring. Most of the better ones have a spigot that is either hollow or counterbored at the ends to provide some degree of flex at the extreme ends. Wear is a problem on most and that is why you see the "gap" between the sections - it allows for some amount of wear before you must trim back the tip and resize everything.

We can argue about the advantages and disadvantages of each, but there is no question that both, when properly designed and executed, work very well. But the overall feeling from most fishermen, rod builders and industry people, is that the tip-over-butt design gets the nod for the best overall design.

................