|
|
Post by kingfisher on Dec 30, 2009 21:10:36 GMT
Whats your views on the ever increasing numbers of multiple sections of rods?
Apart from the usage of tape, does more sections mean a compomise in casting quality? More sections are great for hiding away in a boot/hatch of a car, but in my opinion, feel that the action is compromised some what by the manufactures making the rods in 4-6 sections.
Whats your views on this?
kf
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Dec 30, 2009 22:21:28 GMT
Naebody takin' ye oan son?
|
|
|
|
Post by badcaster on Dec 30, 2009 23:14:41 GMT
personaly i think that it used to be a problem but with todays technology and computer desighn i dont think its a problem im glad of four pieces as you say i can fit the rod in my boot out of the way of prying eyes or when going on holiday as most of the time i go away its up north and with three kids space is at a premium so it makes it easier i would prefer less joints to worry about but with a 15 or 16 foot rod it isnt practical for me anyway im not so sure however about 6 or 7 piece rods unless a lot of traveling farther afield is on the cards and if i owned such a rod that would be its only usage
|
|
|
|
Post by kingfisher on Dec 31, 2009 7:33:32 GMT
Naebody takin' ye oan son?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2009 21:41:36 GMT
There are such a range of opinions on this topic, it is hard to know what to believe is best.
Clearly a 1-piece rod is not practical - unless you lived next to a river that you fished regularly!! There may be some - you never know
I understand from some sources that a 3-piece rod is less likely to break than a comparable 4-piece rod. Apparently, the stress is just that bit multiplied on the lowest section but I am no expert on this aspect. David Norwich is the man for answers on this aspect and he does 3 and 4 piece rods
On the other hand, a 3-piece rod of 15 ft or longer can be a right royal pain to transport in an average car boot unless you open the Rear Seat etc. A 14ft Rod seems to fit in a locked boot more easily.
Yet again, how many anglers have you seen with a 12-piece rod (like the ian Gordon Partridge or even a 6-piece rod which all seem primarily designed for ease of travel.
I suppose the key question for me is:
Can anyone prove that a 4 piece or greater multi-section rod casts better or at least the same as a conventional 3-piece Rod?
We need professional opinion on this, methinks
tweedbunnet
|
|
EV4
Forum Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by EV4 on Jan 1, 2010 14:49:00 GMT
Up to a certain number of sections I don't think it makes any difference if a salmon rod has more that three sections if the rod blank is designed correctly. Four section rods far outsell three with me. There is a limit though imho where performance drops off due to compromises in the design in multi section salmon fly rods. I consider five as a sound maximum for good performance. Over those number of sections and there has to be a compromise somewhere on the performance to get a short portable length that will fit into your luggage bag or case. Bend any of the multi section rods on the market and look at the hinges in the action below the joints. There is no way they can transfer energy efficiently through the blank. They do the job of getting the rod in your luggage but they do sacrifice a lot on performance. Just my opinion of course....  Happy New Year to all on the forum. I hope you all have a great year.  Regards, David. www.davidnorwich.comThere are such a range of opinions on this topic, it is hard to know what to believe is best. Clearly a 1-piece rod is not practical - unless you lived next to a river that you fished regularly!! There may be some - you never know I understand from some sources that a 3-piece rod is less likely to break than a comparable 4-piece rod. Apparently, the stress is just that bit multiplied on the lowest section but I am no expert on this aspect. David Norwich is the man for answers on this aspect and he does 3 and 4 piece rods On the other hand, a 3-piece rod of 15 ft or longer can be a right royal pain to transport in an average car boot unless you open the Rear Seat etc. A 14ft Rod seems to fit in a locked boot more easily. Yet again, how many anglers have you seen with a 12-piece rod (like the ian Gordon Partridge or even a 6-piece rod which all seem primarily designed for ease of travel. I suppose the key question for me is: Can anyone prove that a 4 piece or greater multi-section rod casts better or at least the same as a conventional 3-piece Rod? We need professional opinion on this, methinks tweedbunnet |
|
|
|
Post by badcaster on Jan 1, 2010 23:53:35 GMT
Up to a certain number of sections I don't think it makes any difference if a salmon rod has more that three sections if the rod blank is designed correctly. Four section rods far outsell three with me. There is a limit though imho where performance drops off due to compromises in the design in multi section salmon fly rods. I consider five as a sound maximum for good performance. Over those number of sections and there has to be a compromise somewhere on the performance to get a short portable length that will fit into your luggage bag or case. Bend any of the multi section rods on the market and look at the hinges in the action below the joints. There is no way they can transfer energy efficiently through the blank. They do the job of getting the rod in your luggage but they do sacrifice a lot on performance. Just my opinion of course.... Happy New Year to all on the forum. I hope you all have a great year. Regards, David. www.davidnorwich.commakes a lot of sense david thanks for that  |
|
heron
Forum Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by heron on Jan 9, 2010 4:49:05 GMT
when 4 piece rods became available, I was vaguely uncomfortable with the idea.
Now that I own about 10 of them, I am less uncomfortable with the idea.
Still, I'd love to own a 1 piece 15'er...but I'd need a HUUUUGE freaking truck to transport it to the river.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2010 9:35:55 GMT
EV4
Thanks for the recent post which will certainly inform my thinking on this topic.
I had wondered why one or two other makers were marketing 5 piece rods.
It is something I do need to think about as I will probably fish in Ireland again and require a rod longer than 10 or 11 ft (which has covered the bulk of my fishing needs there in the past)
tweedbunnet
|
|
EV4
Forum Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by EV4 on Jan 13, 2010 10:36:59 GMT
Hi, As an example of why multi section Salmon rods are getting popular, baggage allowance is getting tighter with airlines. Weight and length of what you can carry on board is now severely restricted. Not that long ago I could take a 4 piece 15 ft rod on the plane and they would let you put it under the seat. That option on security grounds has long gone now. Now we are charged heavily for the privilege for taking a rod on a plane. Fishing is also getting less expensive abroad. Good Salmon fishing can be had abroad that is cheaper than it is here on some rivers. The demand for easily transported rods was undoubtadly driven by the ease of access we have now to fisheries outside the U,K. An long standing customer phoned recently and said he was fed up with being fleeced by airlines and getting charged exorbitant fees for taking a rod that was outside the size limit. Rods where regularly not turning up at the destination at the same time he arrived. He worked out that if he could get a rod that broke down into 35.5" sections it could go safely into his case. He now has a custom built 13ft 6inch #9/10 rod being built that breaks down into five sections that are just under that length. A classic example of demand and supply in action.... Regards, David. www.davidnorwich.comEV4 Thanks for the recent post which will certainly inform my thinking on this topic. I had wondered why one or two other makers were marketing 5 piece rods. It is something I do need to think about as I will probably fish in Ireland again and require a rod longer than 10 or 11 ft (which has covered the bulk of my fishing needs there in the past) tweedbunnet |
|
EV4
Forum Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by EV4 on Jan 13, 2010 11:21:24 GMT
Hi Heron, Greeting and a Good New year to you from a very snowy Scottish Borders.... You may have been very disappointed with that one piece 15 footer if it could ever have been made. It's a common misconception that a one piece rod would likely perform better than one made in several sections. I understand though that Hugh Falkus did glue his rods together to make them one piece....... That's a different solution though. ... The problem with one section rods is the spine. All blanks long or short have a spine. It would take an exceptional carbon rod craftsmen to do a pattern wrap on a 15ft one piece blank mandrel and get the start and finish point of the wrap to run accurately down a 15ft one piece blank on exactly the same line. If the overlap went round the blank in a spiral or deviated off true - as likely it would - thus putting the spine all over the place..... likely the finished blank would never track accurately during the cast. There is a definite case that can be considered, and proves the worth of multi section rods over break down length storage convenience alone. The advantage of multi section rod performance over one piece (or even over two or three sections) is that the spines or the preferred plane of bending of each section can be aligned much more accurately through each section on shorter adjoining sections - even if the overlap is slightly off centre. The rod blank when assembled with the spines or the preferred planes of bending in line, are not then fighting with each other for the dominant postion on each adjoining section when flexed during the cast. Blanks made in this way don't "throw a wobbly" and are much sweeter casting tools. Regards, David. www.davidnorwich.comwhen 4 piece rods became available, I was vaguely uncomfortable with the idea. Now that I own about 10 of them, I am less uncomfortable with the idea. Still, I'd love to own a 1 piece 15'er...but I'd need a HUUUUGE freaking truck to transport it to the river. |
|
