Sorry if this is a repeat topic. Did some searching, but couldn't find anything. Just getting started on rod building. I am wanting to build 3 piece 6' fly rod. Wanting to build a 1 weight for small streams. Saw an inexpensive 8' 1 weight that was a four piece. Can I build this and not use the bottom section. My thoughts I would have a 3 piece 6' 1 weight. Not sure. Not wanting to start with more expensive rod blank that will fit my needs until I become more comfortable putting rods together. This way any mistakes any will be learning experiences. Please refer me to any posts related to this if already out there.
Thanks

Ralph O'Quinn was sometimes proponent of dropping the bottom section of a 3 or 4 piece rod to get a shorter version. But keep in mind that it's that bottom (butt) section where most of the power is so if you drop it, the power will be reduced measurably, as well as the action becoming much slower. But it may still work for you. Or, you could try a 8 foot, 2-weight and drop the bottom section of that and probably come closer to maintaining a 1-weight. It really all comes down to how you plan to use the rod and at what distances. But as long as you understand how the rod will change when you drop the butt section, there is no reason not to give it a try.

..........

As Tom says - will work as long as you keep the fish small - no big Browns. Blanks are reinforced in the grip area and a little above to handle the load. You are not going to have that by eliminating the bottom section(s).
Many people break rods by supporting the rod too far above the grip to gain leverage with a big fish on.
Herb

Thanks like the idea of shortening the 2 weight. The blank is less then $30, not out much if this doesn't work out. Looking to fish wild brook and wild browns. Most likely 4" - 9" range . Just something fun to start with. It's been over 10 years since I built a rod.

Should be fine.
Herb

Just some more info, I am in the process of developing my own taper for a 6'-9" 3wt 3pc, just for the heck of it my friend and I took an 8-9 5wt 4pc blank in Fiberglass and dropped the butt section. Rough build out of the top 3 sections is a very close 3wt for all ranges from 10 to 50ft with a DT3 line. I also played around with both WF-4 and DT-4 lines on it, worked just fine for short distance stuff. While the prototype needs a bit of refinement it is close, so your idea is workable, I'd just get the 8ft blank in 2 or 3wt, or by both if they are cheap enough. You won't find much difference between a 1 and 2wt.

Stan Grace out of Helena, MT left quite a bit of work on that subject in the archives here and on the Common Sense Data site to the left.

You may want to look at Hook and Hackle, as they have several blanks from 6 - 7.5 feet, though I think they are 4 pc not 3.

When does a tenkara rod become more effective than a conventional fly rod - fly-reel - fly-line - fly-leader combination?

I would say it doesn't. It is just a different method of fishing with a fly. Casting distance is of course limited. And in some ways the size fish you can catch is also limited. Tough to cover steelhead rivers or even the Yellowstone with Tenkara.

Tough to fish a 7 foot fly rod with fly reel and line in a seven-foot wide creek lined with osier willows. The line's weight keeps pulling the leader through the guides and the fly into the tip-top?

I am not knocking Tenkara. If folks want to fish that way, all the power to them. Short skis, lone skis, fatties or thin, it is up the user. Rather than having standard fly gear and Tenkara gear, I think a hybrid approach is viable. [troutbitten.com]

Tenkara from a kick boat in old grist mill ponds of delaware or new jersey is unbelievable, pure fun..