Bill Stevens made a post in another thread: "Many of the high end light weight bass production rods brought into this country are made using a different metholology of construction. The rods are not one piece construction They are utilizing the same back end units on many different power and action blanks which is resulting in a lower weight total build. They are actually saving money by using one rear unit consisting of of split grip, trim rings and seats on several diferent blanks. I believe some of the "joins" are under the butt guide and some are internal to the seat/foregrip - has anyone torn one of these things down to take a look see? Sure would make the build simpler if it would work -"

Let's talk about this. Which HIGH END production rods are not using through handle construction? Where are the two pieces joined?

This reminds me of the old Lew's speed sticks where the blank slid into the handle and you cranked down on the nut to hold it there.

Is there something different about the construction methods used today vs. yesterday? Are the parts joined differently?

Unfortunately I haven't had the chance for one of the high ends to come in the shop for repairs because all the guys I know take them back for a refund or a new one.

Next question: What impact does two piece construction (as is being done on these rods) have on durability, sensitvity, weight, etc...

-----------------
AD

I have rebuilt several older rods that were not “through handle construction”. A couple of them had the old “Lew’s Speed handles”. It was no different than extending any other blank. On some of them, the splice is 3” or 4” ahead of the reel seat and has the appearance that you might see on a telescoping rod, except that it’s wrapped and finished. Aside from a slight weight increase because of the short (2 ½”) section of double wall, the rods perform very well. No issues with durability.

It has been standard practice for about 50 years, to build the handles on a separate section of rod blank and build the rods on another. Then the 2 pieces are brought together and joined, either under the reel seat or foregrip, or just forward of that point.

This isn't new and it's done to facilitate the process of building the rod by allowing one company or sub assembly plant to do nothing but build handles which can then be used on a number of different rods. It has more to do with cost and efficiency than it does with rod performance.

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

ICAST Best of Show Winner 2006 Airrus Pulsr -

All rods with filament wound rear unitzed sections -

Does a three piece fly rod effect performance when done properly?

Offshore rods that use Unibut assembly - only that short pin keeks them together quite well -

Get ready this stuff will be on us soon in the bass fishing world

Do custom builders just sit back and wait for crumbs?

Already here Bill
Another builder asked me to help with one of these setups he had purchased a couple of weeks ago.

Mud Hole’s Custom Handle System is designed from the ground up exclusively for custom rod builders. Designed by experienced rod builders to meet the same exacting standards as their Japanese counterparts, our handle kits are mounted on a 1K Twill Woven Graphite tube and feature Fuji® deluxe graphite reel seats. Every handle system comes with your choice of high quality Portuguese Cork or EVA grips and is accented with machined aluminum trim parts, available in 6 anodized colors. Select from several fine pre-assembled handles or mix and match the Handle System parts to create your own custom handle.

Handle kit was set up so you could just glue the blank inside and go from there except the blank was to small for the tub

Could give another example buy they not sponsored here.

Things have a way of coming around, again.

What you guys are talking about was the standard practice for nearly all rods from 1900 until about the early 1980's. It's now making a comeback.

Through handle, 1-piece construction is a fairly recent thing.

Why not ? One handle made to fit several blanks. Just make ferrules on all the blanks to fit into the female on the handle. Similar to this [www.rodbuilding.org]

I am doing one now with glass ferrules in the handle. Sammy used metal.

Bill - willierods.com

Very true Tom... many times when the old is brought back though, it's a better version. Many times by improvement in technology....

Kinda like the window unit for A/C. Now it's a mini split. Same concept, far better technology - almost good enough they can't be compared except in concept - climate control for a specific area. Now being used extensively in residential and commercial applications.

Heeds builders to pay attention. Maybe there is a reason for it other than cost, then again, maybe not. Only figure that out with some discussion.

Here's a question - using MudHole's handle as example - what's the advantage over buying the kit and attaching vs buying the individual parts (which they also offer) and putting right on the one piece blank?

-----------------
AD

Tom Posted: "Through handle, 1-piece construction is a fairly recent thing."

Which means, if we are seeing things go back to the way they were prior to the 1980's, that 1 piece through-the-handle was not all it was cracked up to be or that fishermen (mainly rod builders) could only be snookered for a couple of decades or so.

Alex - were you in Steve's micro seminar? If so, you might recall seeing him remove a rod from a handle. Stupid me...I forgot to look at it after the seminar!

Yeah I saw it. Top secret stuff (HA HA!). BUT it had a very different purpose than cost savings - Steve presented it as a way for a coangler to carry seperate handle/reels for a spinning set up and casting and only needing one "rod". Two handles, interchangable, one rod with one set of guides. But I'm sure that set up costs MORE!!!! It was not designed for cost savings...

But one heck of an idea.

Back on track... we're not talking about rods manufactured in a two piece design for flexibility... I haven't seen a casting Steez that converted to a spinning rod. Two piece construction for a dedicated one way set up.

Advantages/disadvantages?

-----------------
AD

Alex,
I bought some of the Mudhole components and not all of them work well without the graphite tube. The problems I've run into are fitting the rear anodized ring, it's designed to fit over the sleeve and the end cap. The plastic/ rubber end cap is designed to fit the sleeve, so you have no way to finish off the rear split grip which is open. I plan on trimming an end piece down and fitting an EVA mushroom cap to see how that looks. Something else to consider, the EVA they use is very light and much softer than the EVA kits I've been using from Swampland.

To your original question, I owned a Steez rod a few years back and my only complaint was that it wasn't as sensitive as I expected it to be. You'll occasionally now see reference to this in a review which is unbelievable considering how much the rod cost. I didn't realize until just recently that it wasn't a through design.

Robert

Alex, I know you don't have 24 inches of ice where you live. What advantages are you looking for? You must be going somewhere with this. ;)

I might be wrong, but I can't imagine anything being cheaper or lighter/simpler/faster for a small custom builder than through the handle construction. I can see advantages for large production outfits to do something like this, but they will need to use clever marketing to convince us that it is better.

Unless you are trying to extend a blank, or do some creative two-piece stuff like Steve did for whatever reason - I think adding anything to a rod will add mass, and then we need to talk about the S word (sensitivity).

Any time you join 2 pieces, rod blank and handle blank, there will be some loss in sensitivity. However, I doubt many fishermen could ever tell the difference from this type system to a 1-piece straight through design. From a practical standpoint, we're not talking about very much.

Major commercial rod companies manufacture and sell a lot of rods. Hundreds of thousands. It becomes more cost effective in many situations to build sub-assemblies and then join them elsewhere/later. Daiwa and others have been using this method of making handles in one plant and rods in another for 40 years now. Daiwa, and probably others as well, have even gone so far as to color the handle blank the same as the rod blank so that on a blank exposed reel seat the 2 sections will match. Obviously, this led many fishermen to believe that the shaft they saw under the reel seat was the same one they saw further up the rod, leading them to believe that these were 1-piece straight through rods. I'd be willing to bet that many of the rods that fishermen think are 1-piece straight through models, aren't.

It was the Lew's Laser rods of the mid-1980's that fully led the charge away from chuck type handles and into 1-piece straight through design. But even then, many of the rods you thought and think are 1-piece straight through models, aren't.


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

Alex's original post had a quote by Bill. A portion of that quote said that this was "resulting in a lower weight total build". My question is, how could adding materials and glue accomplish that?

Chuck,

I thought the same thing. Then I thought some more.

1. You do not need to taper the handle blank.
2. You know where extra support will be on the handle section and what material will be there, so you do not need extra material in the handle blank, read thinner walls.
3. You could use a handle blank that is larger diameter than the rod blank with a ferrule near the front to slide the blank into reducing material used on the handle. You could cover the step with a cork ring on the rod section of the build.

And perhaps there are other ways, but these are the ones that popped into my head quickly.

Joe

Chuck -

You are on to me. Yes I have an agenda... I'm looking at this from a sales perspective. The well armed sales man not only understands his product, but that of the "competition" as well (granted I don't try to compete with factory rods - different market, but we all get the questions especially from first time buyers!). So when I have a prospective customer walk in and say "Tell me why your rod is better than a Steez (using this since it's already been thrown out there.)."

Well after explaining the advantages of a custom built rod, he can hear something along what Tom said "I see one advantage to my rods being a one piece construction. Any time you join 2 pieces, rod blank and handle blank, there will be some loss in sensitivity."

Personally I would follow that up with "However, I doubt many fishermen could ever tell the difference from this type system to a 1-piece straight through design. From a practical standpoint, we're not talking about very much." remaining 100% truthful and ethical. No mumbo jumbo.

Now you're in the mind of a tournament bass angler though. You're talking loss of some competitive advantage (sensitivity), touching the ego a little that he can't tell the difference in sensitivity, etc...

So prodding this further gives all of us a little more info to help sell... the other side of the business besides just building.

I'm big on the business side. I think it needs to be talked about more.

-----------------
AD

Okay, sounds reasonable, Joe. If we were to assume that the custom builder could save a fraction of an ounce on the handle, what would that cost us in time and material? Surely it will cost more than through the handle construction. If it is transparent (not noticeable), and does not enhance performance or hurt us to a noticeable degree, what could the advantage be? I'm struggling with this... Do we want to be copying the manufacturers?

Only thing I'd add to that Chuck is every little thing contributes to the greater whole... Can't always look at one small piece.

-----------------
AD

Make enough little differences in a rod to improve performance and sensitivity and the end result adds up to a whole lot of improvement.