The load, however, is nowhere near the same. To get that kind of loading fishing or pulling on a fish you'd have to be superhumanly strong. You keep on about the higher rod angle, but you fail to mention the line angling out and away from the angler. This opens out the triangle, bringing the rod butt angle closer to perpendicular to the direction of the applied load (along the line).

Ted,
Yes, I think that I see your point which is, the effective angle is a function of not only the angle that the rod is held but also the angle to the load or fish and I would agree.
I think that we would both also agree that when fishing the load is not always primarily on the butt section of the rod. The load can be distributed on the rod so that much of the load is on the mid section of the rod where the ferrule is or even toward the tip section. When a significant portion of the load is on the mid section then, all other things being equal, the rod without a ferrule in this mid section will be a little stronger than a rod with a ferrule in this section of the rod. If it is a well designed ferrule the difference will not be large but there will be a difference.

Emory,

That is not the point I am arguing - I certainly understand stress as I studied it for several years. Please don't take this the wrong way, but as far as the quotes, my response is... "Duh!" I would hope most 5th graders would know what happens when you change a structure's shape, particularly if you do it abruptly.

I never said there would not be a stress concentration of some amount forward of the ferrule (and behind it as well) What I'm saying, is that when we talk about the strength of a rod blank, the manufacturers use a deadlift test to determine how much weight the blank will support before failure. In those tests, all the blanks are going to break in the butt area (lower 1/3rd) just as they are designed to do. The ferrule doesn't even enter into the equation of blank "strength" due to the fact that that area of the blank will already have been bypassed and won't be carrying the bulk of the applied load.

Now if you're talking about high sticking a rod, which rods don't like and which inherently can and will damage them, then you can break any rod at much less than its maximum load carry capacity. But in that case, you haven't tested its "strength." And you can break 1-piece rods doing that just as easily as you can break a 2-piece rod doing it.

But the fact remains that rods are designed to handle a certain amount of abuse. Some abuse, not all. Most high sticked rods will break up near the tip, as you pointed out earlier. Most that are handled well and are not forced to move beyond 90 degrees to the load will break in the butt section. Ferrule breakage or breakage in that area just ahead of the ferrule does not make up a high percentage of overall rod failure rates. The ferrules and surrounding areas are designed and constructed so that such a thing isn't much of a problem.

Some years ago I talked to a rod builder who had "proven" that RodBond wasn't very strong. He had used it in a test assembly and then frozen the assembly, removed it, heated it, froze it, heated it, and froze it again. Then he beat it with a hammer. The assembly failed at the joint that had been adhered with the RodBond. Obviously RodBond isn't very strong. According to him, anyway.

My point has nothing to do with stress but with how you would rate the strength of a rod blank. In my mind, perhaps not yours, the only way to compare the strength of two blanks would be to deadlift with them until failure and record which was able to carry the greater load before failing. This would entail handling the two rods in such a way that the absolute maximum load possible could be carried - in other words, making sure the load fell on the butt section which is designed to carry the greatest load.

If you choose an angle that puts the load somewhere other than where it was designed to be carried, what is it you're really testing? Strength? I don't think so. You may disagree.

And for what it's worth, few ferrules suffer a truly abrupt change in shape or cross section just ahead of the ferrule. "Belled" ferrules do, of course, and for this reason there is an increase in wall thickness just forward of that type ferrule. The male ferrules are typically beefed up in wall thickness as well to handle the stress that gathers just behind the ferrule joint on the male end. Of course, good blank designers understand stress and this is why they manipulate the diameters and wall thickness in those areas where such stress concentrations occur so that they're better able to cope with it.

I never said you couldn't break a rod at or near the ferrule. I never said there wasn't a stress concentration there. I said that if you test 2 rods for maximum load carrying capacity, the ferrule won't be an issue - both rods will break in the butt area which would indicate, to me at least, that having a ferrule in one of the rods didn't make it "weaker."


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

Tom,
Well, it appears to me that we are going in a circle and I think that maybe you are engaging in a little sophistry.
But I still take exception to the statements you made about it just being myths that rods with ferrules are not as sensitive as one piece and also not as strong as one piece. There is no myth involved. Rods with ferrules in them are neither as sensitive nor as strong as one piece rods, all other things being equal. I think that your argument about dead load testing is just a smoke screen, a red herring , though maybe not intentional, that just confuses what are really simple issues. A rod with a ferrule will weigh more and therefore will be less sensitive and a rod with a ferrule will have an area in front of the ferrule where the stress will be concentrated and will not be as strong as a result as a rod without that ferrule. Neither the weight nor the stress concentration can be eliminated with an improved ferrule design. They can only be minimized. Your implication that the ferrule can be beefed up actually will make the problem worse not better driving up both the weight and the stress concentration. The stiffer the ferrule is the higher the stress concentration.

Please observe the weights of the following:

Rainshadow IP844 (1 piece) - 2.0 ounces
Rainshadow IP844F (2 piece) - 1.9 ounces

Rainshadow IP904 (1 piece) - 2.31 ounces
Rainshadow IP904F (2 piece) - 2.15 ounces

Not all multi-piece blanks are heavier than their single piece counterparts, I have found the same thing with fly blanks. In addition, I have IMX blanks that weigh MORE than GL3 blanks of the SAME model. Engineering is a wonderful yet mysterious thing.

What I will concede is that it has become almost impossible to market a multi-piece rod outside of the fly rod market. Old wife's tail or not, the masses have spoken and single piece rods will be built in mass AND 'returned to vendor' in pieces due to doors, rod lockers and ceiling fans.

Emory,

Please go back and read my initial post again. I did not say they were just as sensitive as a one piece and in fact said that the change in size and mass at that point meant there would be some loss in sensitivity. My point was that it would not likely be enough that a fisherman would ever notice it. That's what I said.

If we define blank strength as the maximum deadlift capacity that a blank can handle, then 2-piece rods are every bit as strong as their 1-piece counterparts. In such a "load to failure" test, the 2-piece rod will not break at the ferrule. You may define strength as something entirely different, which I also mentioned above.

Nor did I advise or suggest "beefing" up a ferrule. That's not how you would design something to handle such stress. Your goal would be to move the stress over a larger area that can more easily withstand it without harm.

I can assure you that I understand "stress" extremely well. If I were to come in here and proceed to give you a lesson on the difference between voltage, amperage and resistance, I suspect you would be offended.


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

If the ferrule is strong enough there shouldn't be any problems? Maybe newer ferrules are just stronger than the older ones.

Ferrule strength is rarely an issue. In most cases, “beefing up” a ferrule is counterproductive. In fact, what you want to do is exactly the opposite. You need to create something that allows for a good continuity of properties across that area. This is why Scott bores a hole completely through their spigots, why Winston counterbores the ends of their spigots and why most good tip-over-butt ferrules have flag patterns that gradually taper off on each revolution around the mandrel - the idea is to more closely preserve the same properties of the blank completely across the ferrule and surrounding areas. Simply putting a stiff, stout, “strong” ferrule in the middle of a highly flexible area will certainly result in failure. That’s why good blank makers don’t do that. It's also why so many rod repair people aren’t able to splice a broken rod back together with much success - they're simply concentrating on making an extremely strong splice and ignoring the fact that if the splice is stronger/stiffer than the surrounding area, they're creating a problem.

I have no idea how many ferrules you’ve ever built. How are yours holding up? If you’re getting breakage, I’d suggest changing tack and trying a different design. The one’s I’ve built don’t break nor cause breakage a few inches ahead of themselves. A buddy of mine has 3 rods that Ralph O’Quinn built ferrules for. He’s been using them on trophy fish for several years now. No problems.

If we loaded any of these rods to failure, they wouldn’t break at the ferrules. They’d break in the butt sections. The ferrules didn’t make them weaker from any sort of practical standpoint. I’m sure I could break the rods anywhere I wanted to if I tried, including at the ferrules - but I can do the same thing and in the same place if I were using 1-piece rods. Nothing is ever going to be idiot proof.

When most fishermen talk of a 2-piece rod being weaker, they're not talking about something being marginally weaker but rather not being up to the task at hand. In other words, they believe that the 2-piece model is surely going to break because it's inherently flawed. Same with sensitivity. When they say a 2-piece rod is less sensitive than a 1-piece, they're not saying that it's 2% or something less sensitive, they're saying that they won't be able to feel the fish bite if they move to a 2-piece rod. They're talking about things that are simply myths. If they moved to a 2-piece rod they'd not likely have any problems with rod breakage that they're not having now, nor would they suddenly catch less fish because they couldn't "feel" them. They're cheating themselves out of greater portability and ease of use based on assumptions that from a practical standpoint are simply not correct.

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

Tom that's very true. As custom rod builders we have to be very careful how we phrase things to our potential customers. If a guy asked me about the sensitivity difference and I only answered him in the absolute and said that no, two piece rods aren't as sensitive, he won't bother to ask how much difference are we talking about. He'll just go away thinking that two pieces will make it impossible for him to feel the strike.

I've seen the arguments here about whether or not a spiral wrapped rod will cast as far as a conventional. My experience is that you really can't tell any difference unless you wanted to get out a measuring tape and really do some accurate testing which might reveal a couple percent difference. So when I tell a guy that no, there is no difference in casting distance between them I'm incorrect in the absolute sense but very correct in terms of what he's really asking and needs to know in order to make a good decision.

Good salesmanship requiries getting to know your customer so you really understand what he's asking and then providing him an answer that addresses what he's really talking about.

Unfortunately the myths held about and fostered about two piece vs one piece rods deprive us of the opportunity to enjoy the transport advantages of the two piece rod. Two piece rod blanks are not as readily available due to these beliefs in the spinning and casting blanks. Interestingly however four piece fly rods have become widely accepted and used due to ease of transport. At one time I owned G Loomis two piece 9', 5 weight rods in four and two piece configuration. Frankly I couldn't tell them apart in use and when I sold them I received a better price for the four piece rod. My experience backs Tom's with regard to discerning practical differences between the two.

Stan Grace
Helena, MT
"Our best is none too good"

One of the problems dispelling myths - and there are hundreds of them held by anglers, some approaching superstition - is they often have a "common sensish" appeal. "Common sense tells you a one piece blank is stronger than one with a joint" or another favorite "oversized guide rings are better because the line doesn't touch the ring, there is less friction and the rod casts further". If you respond with "that can be technically true or it was at one time or maybe Lefty says so, but ...." they will never hear the "but ...". Primarily because the myth has been reinforced by their "practical" experience - i.e., they have never broken a 1pc (or a multi-piece for the simple fact they've never fished one) or the new rod does cast better (for a host of reasons we all know has nothing to do with the oversized rings). This why I find it helpful to avoid the tendency to use what I call "highly precise but inaccuate" responses. Precise because they are technically correct (and often obtuse) but inaccurate because they are not relevant to the real point of the myth (the difference in performance is not relevant for the intended purpose of the rod). For example, I ask the customer if they have ever broken a rod on a fish while fishing. If the answer is no (which is the vast majority of the time) I tell them first that they will not break a multi piece rod fishing it either. If they say yes (seldom), we discuss what they were doing and it is almost always high sticking. I tell them they will break a multi-piece if they high stick. Then I ask if they have ever broken (or lost by an airline) a rod while transporting it. A lot more yeses (car doors, trunk lids, and especially car-top boxes). I tell them a multi-piece can help solve this problem and there is no loss of fishability because of modern ferrule design (appealing to most anglers' "new and better gadget" syndrome). This often works but not always. The deciding factor for success dispelling the myth tends to be the "authority source" on the TV fishing shows or seminar circuit that keeps perpetuating the myth with no acknowedgement that common sense also tells you the world is flat.

So here is why I personally don’t use (or haven’t up to this point built multi piece blanks)

It has nothing to do with weight, or sensitivity, or weak points, or ferrules or any other performance reason.

Some twenty five years ago while using my wife’s two piece rod with out asking. I got a spinner bait hung up in the water. As I was flexing the rod back and forth rather aggressively to loosen my bait the line broke.

At which point the top half of the rod catapulted off the bottom half straight out into the lake about thirty or forty ft.

After having to come home and tell her and the look of hurt in her sweet little eyes. I decided between that and the actual event not to ever use a multi piece rod again.

No myth just the facts. End of story

But at the same time Tom has me thinking about building a fly rod for a specific technique that may require me to break a long standing commitment. That is if I can’t find what I’m looking for in one piece.

On ferrule split out and wrapping... gotta tell on myself here.

I began building rods in 1981. A few years later a fella moved here to Williston. He LOVED fly fishing and I'd never done it. I ordered a two-piece Pflueger graphite blank and built myself a fly rod. I was just starting building, remember...

This fella and I became good friends and fished for about 4 years together; the new rod got a lot of use and some abuse, too! Then, he moved away. No other friends who fly fished, and I kinda quit doing it.

Last year, I dug out that rod and WHAT???? I hadn't wrapped the ferrule on it!!!! I looked it over really close remembering all of the old hatchery female rainbow trout that had been stocked into an area lake of which I'd caught hundreds over 3 pounds and on up to 5, 6 pounds on that rod.

There's NO damage that I can see to the ferrule with any splitting.

Now, I would have told you before seeing this that I've ALWAYS wrapped the ferrule on every multi-piece rod that I've ever built and I likely always will in the future, but...

As far as two piece rods & sensitivity go, I've always been of the opinion personally that I can't tell the difference between the same brand/grade in a one piece or a two piece.

But try and tell that to the walleye fishermen here... that's another da*#ed story.

Putter
Williston, ND

Sorry Guys, but more and more my customers ask for 2pce or 3pce blanks.

That is because they want to travel with their rods in the back of their vehicles or on the back seat.

The modern rod can be built with very little difference in action or feel, be it one or two piece, or ten piece .

My suppliers catalogues show heaps of one piece blanks. Great, but if the customer does not want that. What is the point.

If you can build a 9pce fly rod in 9 sections, why can't we supply our customers with 2 or 3 pice casting rods.

I have a wall full of them, !!!!!!!!!!! from the 1960s and 70s.

What has changed,? The size of our vehicles

I fish therefore I am.
www.hookeduprods.com

Steve Rushing's comments are very insightful and certainly explain the bulk of the reasons why some myths die so hard. Repeat something often enough and it tends to be accepted as the truth. Years go by and suddenly folks even stop thinking that it might not be true. On a daily basis I still have guys call me worried about their rods twisting if they don't align the spine "correctly." I'm at the point where I don't think that myth will ever die.

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