1 hour ago, Delaware Valley Tackle said:

I’ve repaired 4 rods just this week using OQuinns method.  I’ve done dozens over the years. 

I have done many as well!  It is amazing how many people want a broken rod repaired.

Not to take anything away from Ralph O'Quinn and his contributions to the rod building world, but he didn't necessarily invent this technique of repair.

 

In 1946 Dr. Howald repairs his split cane rod with a fiberglass stint. The Shakespear Co started making fiberglass rod via the "Howald Process" (fiberglass wrapped around a steel mandrel).

 

On 8/7/2025 at 6:56 AM, FloridaFishinFool said:

Its all a matter of personal opinion of likes or dislikes. But even doing an online search shows there are engineering reasons that give solid rods a slight edge, and it revolves around the joint and its ability to transmit vibrations across it:

 

So taking my opinion out of it, this is what comes up in a search on side by side comparisons:

 

Generally, a one-piece rod is considered to have a slight performance advantage over a two-piece rod, particularly in terms of sensitivity and casting accuracy, due to the absence of a joint. However, two-piece rods offer significant convenience for transportation and storage. Ultimately, the "better" choice depends on individual needs and fishing style. 

 

One-Piece Rods: 

 

Pros:

Improved sensitivity: The continuous blank of a one-piece rod transmits vibrations more effectively, potentially leading to better bite detection.

Enhanced casting accuracy: The seamless design eliminates potential weak points, resulting in smoother and more precise casts.

Greater durability: One-piece rods are generally perceived as more durable and less prone to breakage at the joint, especially under stress.

 

Cons:

Difficult to transport and store: Their length makes them more challenging to transport and store, especially for anglers with limited space or those using larger rods. 

 

Two-Piece Rods:

 

Pros:

Convenient for transport and storage: The ability to separate into two pieces makes them much easier to transport and store, particularly for travel or anglers with limited space. 

 

Cons:

Slightly reduced sensitivity: The joint can slightly dampen vibrations, potentially impacting sensitivity compared to one-piece rods. 

Potential for joint failure: While modern two-piece rods are generally reliable, there's a potential for the joint to weaken or fail if not properly cared for or if the connection is not snug. 

 

In Conclusion:

For anglers prioritizing sensitivity and casting accuracy, and who have the means to transport and store longer one-piece rods, the one-piece rod is often preferred. However, for anglers needing the convenience of portability or fishing from smaller boats, the two-piece rod offers a suitable and increasingly high-performing alternative. The choice ultimately depends on individual needs and preferences. 

 

----------------------------------

 

Putting my opinion back into it, I prefer the slight performance edge of 1 piece over 2 piece. And that is what this boils down to- personal opinions.

 

The above search results suggest anglers buy 2 piece rods for convenience, not performance. And I notice the only "pro" thing mentioned for 2 piece rods is convenience.

 

But as shown above it is not just me who thinks 2 piece rods are not there yet. I like how the search points out that performance of 2 piece rods is increasing because they are making better rods now.

 

I think in a forum like this its the best approach to offer all sides and let readers decide. Sometimes I play devil's advocate, but hopefully it all shakes out to improved fishing in the end for all of us.

 

I agree that the choice boils down to a personal preference developed, I hope, through experience and objective assessment.   However, if new to the choice I would never rely on comparisons that lack any objective data and is peppered with words like “generally”, “considered”, “slight”, “potential”, “potentially”, “often” or “preferred”.  Words like these convey to me little more than guesses or opinion.  

On 8/7/2025 at 9:59 AM, FloridaFishinFool said:

Why would the action slow? How can it change at all I wonder.

By the definition of action being where it begins to bend, and by the numbers of CCS, taking length off the tip will move the "bending point" down a little which by definition is "slower."  CCS Action Angle will decrease slightly reflecting this.  It really does make logical sense since one is taking the weakest part of the blank off.

11 minutes ago, MickD said:

By the definition of action being where it begins to bend, and by the numbers of CCS, taking length off the tip will move the "bending point" down a little which by definition is "slower."  CCS Action Angle will decrease slightly reflecting this.  It really does make logical sense since one is taking the weakest part of the blank off.

 

Breaking any length of tip off of a rod does not "move" anything on the remaining rod shaft. The rod still bends identical to before. Just missing some tip is all.

 

Since the bend area cannot just get up and move up and down the rod shaft, by way of missing more of the tip, the fixed physical location of the bend area is now closer to the tip. Hence, a now faster rod reaction and response.

 

I'd agree with you if the rods would only do as suggested and move bending areas for us. But as I see it, once the rod is solidified, that is not happening. Bend area stays in same place. And no, it is not logical to me.

 

Let's just agree to disagree.

On 8/7/2025 at 12:16 PM, MickD said:

thought removing mass meant less weight means faster response

It is unfortunate that action is described by the terms fast and slow, normally speed describers.  I think it started with cane rods, faster and slower tapers.  Action by definition is where the rod begins to bend and is objectively measured by CCS.   The farther down the rod this point goes, the slower the action becomes, but the speed of recovery does not slow down.  That characteristic, proportional to TNF, true natural frequency, will increase as the rod is shortened. 

4 minutes ago, FloridaFishinFool said:

Breaking any length of tip off of a rod does not "move" anything on the remaining rod shaft. The rod still bends identical to before. Just missing some tip is all.

No it does not bend the same as it did before.  You have removed the weakest part of the blank.  CCS can be measured without destroying the blank by simply applying the force at different points in the rod, and in fact, the bend does change.  Do it yourself by hanging a weight from the tip of a horizontally supported rod, then hang it from the first guide.  Then the second guide, and on .  Would you argue that the rod bend is unchanged when you hang it from the butt guide?    An  inch or two doesn't change it much, but it changes with every inch taken off. 

TNF can be measured in more than one way.

 

You prefer to deflect tips and measure tip swings for some reason which can never be calibrated so cross rod comparisons results in compromised data.

 

I choose to use a digital frequency counter with transducer and measure the TNF of a rod that way. Like ringing a bell. Each time you hit the bell you hear the same tone. The same frequency. Rods are no different. Each has their own TNF as well but due to calibration issues I don't count tip swings to measure TNF.

 

This issue has confused custom rod building.

10 minutes ago, MickD said:

 

No it does not bend the same as it did before. 

Prove it.

 

As far as I know, the remaining rod is still the same. However it bent before losing a little tip, it will still bend the same after losing some tip. I see no reason why it should change. So I need objective data here. Proof. Physical evidence.

 

You are somehow suggesting that the 2 or 3 or 4 inches of tip dictates to the rest of the rod how to bend. I disagree.

2 minutes ago, FloridaFishinFool said:

TNF can be measured in more than one way.

 

You prefer to deflect tips and measure tip swings for some reason which can never be calibrated so cross rod comparisons results in compromised data

Yes, you are correct that it can be measured in other ways.  My TNF has the advantage of being fast and cheap, requiring no equipment that most peope don't already have.  A fellow builder measures it with video, and I accept that it is a little more precise than using a small screen like a Kindle. BUT, we did a three builder experiment with him using the video the other two using TNF with Android devices and the correlation was excellent.  To dismiss its accuracy is itself inaccurate. 

 

I have experimented with "ringing the bell", striking the butt onto a concrete floor , and it yields a prominent frequency which I agree does indicate the "modulus" of the blank.  However, once you add guides, there is no longer one distinguishable.  At least I haven't found a way to identify it.  TNF will change with added weight out on the blank and one can see the objective change in frequency with changing guide weights.  

 

Have you read the articles on TNF?  

True Natural Frequency: Enhancing Rod Performance and Sensitivity for Custom Builds - Anglers Resource

Seems like we are no longer talking about a rod repair tip.  But I hope some are learning some things about blanks and rods.  One thing obvious is that many aspects of rodbuilding are very controversial and misunderstood. 

I have. And I am planning on writing one to refute those claims.

 

Also I did not open the door to TNF and CCS and other subjects found here. You brought it up and included it for discussion.

 

When a rod is deflected how many times does it swing back and forth until it comes to a rest? Each rod is different.

 

Physics dictates that as a rod settles down from being deflected, each swing of the rod back and forth are NOT the same. Each is different. Slightly weaker and less than and slower than the one before as it settles down. In other words, each tip swing is a different wavelength and rate of speed or frequency with diminishing energy.

 

So which tip swing does one measure exactly?

 

Number 1? Number 10? 15? 7? 25? 100? 75? 4? 32?

 

You see if everyone in the world mounts an indentical rod exactly the same and starts this tip deflecting measuring, everyone has to do it precisely the same all over the world. And if not, the results are uncalibrated and useless. Meaningless really.

 

You cannot accurately compare identical rods measured differently.

 

Another calibration issue with tip deflecting counting is how a rod is mounted. Every time the mount is changed the ability for a rod to vibrate changes. So if a rod is mounted in USA by first 3 inches of the butt end for this tip deflecting measurement, and some guy in Norway uses the same rod, but now mounts it by using 15 inches of the butt end to mount it, he will get drastically different results. Results cannot be compared or used for anything relevant. No accuracy.

 

Keep moving the rod mount closer to the tip and watch what happens. Tip swing characteristics change with each change of the mount. Am I to believe everyone in the world will do it exactly the same? If not, the results are of no value.

 

Scientific measurements must be calibrated! No exceptions. And since this tip deflecting idea can never be calibrated, what is the point?

 

There are huge calibration issues with trying to measure tip deflections. So I discount this method completely and would suggest it should be removed from custom rod building all together because it is not TNF and it is not accurate in any way, shape, or form.

 

Measuring TNF by way of a digital frequency counter and transducers can be reasonably calibrated globally. Science can be proven. It must be calibrated.

 

Another issue is the unit of measurement chosen is CPM. I spent an entire career in "frequencies" and I measure in hertz. CPM to me is misleading because the results of tip deflection counting places the actual hertz results down into the 5 to 11 hertz range as I recall from debating this same subject elsewhere- an extremely narrow window.

 

By way of upscaling the uncalibrated inaccurate results of tip swing counting it makes the results appear more useful when in truth they are stepping all over each other in a confined area. Spreading out the results does not make inaccurate data any more useful, just deceives the reader somewhat as I see it.

 

There are numerous issues clouding up custom rod building. This is one of them.

3 hours ago, MickD said:

 

I have experimented with "ringing the bell", striking the butt onto a concrete floor , and it yields a prominent frequency which I agree does indicate the "modulus" of the blank.  However, once you add guides, there is no longer one distinguishable.  At least I haven't found a way to identify it.  TNF will change with added weight out on the blank and one can see the objective change in frequency with changing guide weights.  

 

 

Once a blank is made and finished and its TNF can be measured with a digital frequency counter, its frequency does not change once guides and handles are added. It remains constant. It remains the same.

 

All those guides and handles do is mute the rod's ability to vibrate to show you its TNF.

 

Same as ringing a bell and then placing your hand on it to quieten it down.

 

My hand muting a bell's vibration is no different than guides and handles on a rod muting its TNF. It does not change.

32 minutes ago, FloridaFishinFool said:

Prove it

I have told you how to prove it yourself.  It's easy and obvious.

18 minutes ago, FloridaFishinFool said:

Once a blank is made and finished and its TNF can be measured with a digital frequency counter, its frequency does not change once guides and handles are added. It remains constant. It remains the same.

You obviously either don't understand what TNF is or have not really done it.  The natural frequency of the rod changes with added weight, especially weight added out on the blank.  On some blanks the frequency changes between a SS and a titanium tiptop.  Changes due to titanium vs SS running guides are obvious.  

I did not make the claim needing proof. Its not on me!

 

There are several claims in this thread I believe do not hold water.

3 hours ago, MickD said:

I have told you how to prove it yourself.  It's easy and obvious.

You obviously either don't understand what TNF is or have not really done it.  The natural frequency of the rod changes with added weight, especially weight added out on the blank.  On some blanks the frequency changes between a SS and a titanium tiptop.  Changes due to titanium vs SS running guides are obvious.  

 

Sorry it is you who do not understand.

 

A rod's TNF measured without anything on it does NOT change once guides and handles are added. The rod's physical properties have not changed.

 

If I added guides and handles to a solid metal bell are you going to tell me that the guides and handles can now somehow magically change the bell's physical properties and change its tone?

 

I disagree. Tone remains constant. Ability to vibrate does not. That is the only change.

 

Remember now, TRUE NATURAL FREQUENCY. Tip swings is NOT TNF since every swing of the tip is a different frequency to measure. Don't have that problem with the calibrated method.

 

Counting tip deflections is not true natural frequency. Its not physically possible. Wrong title on wrong method with wrong results.

 

Time for a podcast! Ha! Already got one to further confuse us all.

Just now, FloridaFishinFool said:

I did not make the claim needing proof. Its not on me!

 

There are several claims in this thread I believe do not hold water.

You are advocating a position that is against simple physics when you say the shape of the bend does not change and that the natural frequency doesn't change with added weight out on the blank, like big heavy guides.  It's obvious you are unwilling to consider that physics is at work here, and is in control.    

 

I did not take issue with your ringing the bell testing; I only said I cannot find that predominate frequency after guides are added.  With the apps I have tried the response is too messy to identify the "bell's" frequency.   What app are you using to measure it. 

Apps are not calibrated. Another reason why tip deflection counting produces no worthwhile results.

 

I consider physics. Just yours and mine are not the same.

 

I'll let readers decide.

1 hour ago, MickD said:

By the definition of action being where it begins to bend, and by the numbers of CCS, taking length off the tip will move the "bending point" down a little which by definition is "slower." 

@MickD OK...I can see that (for fast and x-fast).

But...if you take some tip off a slower rod you make it "faster". Take some tip off a medium rod you make it "faster".

 

54 minutes ago, FloridaFishinFool said:

Apps are not calibrated.

The app measures time between events.  Time on Android devices is measured by crystals or similar absolutely accurate devices.  There is no calibration to go out of whack.  

 

There is only one physics.

 

I believe most readers have enough info and have already decided what the facts are. 

17 minutes ago, Chris Catignani said:

But...if you take some tip off a slower rod you make it "faster". Take some tip off a medium rod you make it "faster".

Not by the traditional definition of action.  It will be faster responding to deflection but the action, where it bends, will be slower.  

9 minutes ago, MickD said:

The app measures time between events.  Time on Android devices is measured by crystals or similar absolutely accurate devices.  There is no calibration to go out of whack.  

 

There is only one physics.

 

I believe most readers have enough info and have already decided what the facts are. 

 

 

Physics: Each tip swing is different. No two tip swings are the same length or rate.

 

Each tip swing presents a different frequency to measure. When everyone is measuring different tip swings there are no calibrated results worthwhile to mean anything of relevant value to a fishing rod.

 

Also be aware where apps are concerned, yes each may base their reading off calibrated crystals to some degree, but it is the software of each app that is where the primary difference in lack of calibration would rest.

 

Again, which tip swing do you count? 1, 50? 100? 3? 10? 12? 9? 32? 27? 2? 5?

 

None of them are the same. So your results are as all over the place as the tip swings are.

 

Science must be calibrated. Tip deflection counting or measuring does not produce TNF. TNF is one frequency. Not many. TNF or true natural frequency is measured with calibrated frequency counters, not various anonymous uncalibrated together apps found all over the world.

 

TNF is measuring a rod's tone. TNF cannot be the endless variety of tip swings to measure. That idea needs to be removed from custom rod building all together.

 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-natural-frequency-an-additional-tool-for-better/id1692842400?i=1000712671461

 

It is a shame custom rod building is now confused and cluttered with ideas contrary to performance rod building. Its why I left there. To get away from what I call junk science misinformation. A whole list of them. 57 minutes of it. An hour I can never get back!

 

We need custom rod building to get back onto performance dictated by engineering according to calibrated physics, not unprovable ideas.

 

And you are right. Most can see right through it. As soon as a person realizes how important calibration is to the results each can decide real fast if an idea holds water or not. I did. And I vote no on tip twanging. A waste of time for me and everyone else. Now if you want useful data get a frequency counter and correct transducers and calibrate it. Then you would have something I can agree with.

1 minute ago, FloridaFishinFool said:

...

And I vote no on tip twanging. A waste of time for me and everyone else. Now if you want useful data get a frequency counter and correct transducers and calibrate it. 

Totally agree...to a point. I'll go a little further and say the frequency of a rod is just a bogus number. Alex at NFC and (trumpets blasting) Gary Loomis have stated that its not a correlation to sensitivity.
If it not that...then what's the purpose? Lets measure a rods viscosity next.

 

10 hours ago, Chris Catignani said:

Totally agree...to a point. I'll go a little further and say the frequency of a rod is just a bogus number. Alex at NFC and (trumpets blasting) Gary Loomis have stated that its not a correlation to sensitivity.
If it not that...then what's the purpose? Lets measure a rods viscosity next.

 

 

Bingo! We have a winner! Thanks to Chris, Aleks, and- Gary Loomis the world's greatest rod blank builder to ever live! (IMO)

 

 

59 minutes ago, Chris Catignani said:

Alex at NFC and (trumpets blasting) Gary Loomis have stated that its not a correlation to sensitivity.

Alex promised a test on his "sensitivometer" a couple years ago, and tested two blanks that were miles apart in length, action, and power. That is obviously a bogus experiment.  Then he promised to have the tool at the rod building show and do the test on two similar blanks, which he never did.  And as far as I know, still has not.  Lots of trumpets and noise, no action.  

 

While I agree that TNF  is not an absolute measure of sensitivity, I believe with two blanks of identical or similar length, action, and power, THEN TNF will be higher for the higher mod rod and that rod will be more sensitive than the other.  Manufacturers, including NFC, tout their high mod blanks as being more sensitive.  It is harder to argue of these two similar blanks with differing TNF that the higher TNF will be less sensitive.  There is no scientific logic that supports that argument.   

I think I can agree with that for the most part. On this point we do agree that a higher TNF can be more effective at transmitting rod tip vibration signals to the hand.

 

At ICAST this year I spent nearly all of my time divided between state of Florida biologists and rod blank designers and builders.

 

I met a Canadian rod blank designer and builder, and as we discussed his blanks he put one in my hand and then put the tip on his throat and talked to me. I could feel his words in my hands.

 

This idea of measuring a rod blank's ability to transmit vibrations can be measured. It is really simple to do.

3 hours ago, FloridaFishinFool said:

Nothing more than input/output A/B comparison on right gear that is calibrated. On an oscilloscope you can see it as well as measure it.

So what does this rig cost?  Are you sure sensitivity as felt by the hand is the same as vibration transmission?  That's debatable too, and getting into that opens an entirely new can of worms. 

 

If you bought top of the line gear all calibrated it could cost thousands. Buy some old used junk NOT calibrated and you can do it for probably around $500+. But keep in mind, NOT calibrated.

 

No one with a phone can invent TNF out of counting tip swings that are not the same. Each with different wavelength and different rate or speed of swing. Each swing has a different frequency so it is not possible to use a phone to measure tip swings to generate something called "true natural frequency" by randomly choosing which variable tip swing to count since all tip swings are a different frequency- as in multiple frequencies. Picking and choosing this one or that one does not cut it.

 

And when people all do it differently the world over, no way any of that data can be compared or deliver any useful information when the data itself is inaccurate and uncalibrated. Science testing must be calibrated.

 

This method is debunked based on that alone. NO ONE can get TNF from tip twanging. Not physically possible. It does NOT produce anything close to a true natural frequency. Not even close! Life is too short and sweet to waste it on useless ideas that are not true. Not about to go that route. It unscientific plain and simple.

Anyone with an Android device,( phone, Kindle, or tablet, ) can for NO INVESTMENT within 5 minutes know the true natural frequency of a rod or blank, storing no equipment other than a way to hold the rod.  Which wrapping stands will do just fine.  I know which option I'll stick with.  

 

I appreciate your answering my question, but I'm not about to go that route.