Shortening Rods

[The Bassman]

Question for you rod builders. I've had more than on rod modified (once because of tip breakage) to create a faster and more compact rod. A couple produced good results. One that started as a heavier action turned into a pool cue. I have noticed that the spacing from the last guide to the new tip placement (position of the previous last guide) is longer than it would normally be. My concern is that this spacing places excess stress on the tip under load by not distributing stress properly. Any thoughts?

[MickD]

Shortening rods from either end makes the action slower (under defintion of the CCS system)and more power.  Pool cues have powerful, but slow actions.  While shortening from the butt often works quite well, shortening from the tip has always resulted in a poor performing rod by my perception.  If you need to shorten a blank to make the rod you want, do not shorten from the tip.  To evaluate what will happen tape guides and reel seats in the new positions and try it out.  It's easy to slide a reel seat up the blank and tape it into position.  Not perfect, but works fairly well.  I would NEVER shorten a blank or rod from the tip.

 

In the case of doing a repair, there are ways to do repairs that work quite well.  Repairs that I've done when within a foot or so of the tip have all worked well using the method in the link below.  It sounds like you have a repair done with different tip section from the original.  I'd say all bets for success are off on that.  How does the spacing increase unless you are in fact using a piece from a different rod?  Please clarify.

 

Here is the right way to repair a rod, and it works.  https://www.rodbuilding.org/library/repair-oquinn.html

[The Bassman]

1 hour ago, MickD said:

Shortening rods from either end makes the action slower (under defintion of the CCS system)and more power.  Pool cues have powerful, but slow actions.  While shortening from the butt often works quite well, shortening from the tip has always resulted in a poor performing rod by my perception.  If you need to shorten a blank to make the rod you want, do not shorten from the tip.  To evaluate what will happen tape guides and reel seats in the new positions and try it out.  It's easy to slide a reel seat up the blank and tape it into position.  Not perfect, but works fairly well.  I would NEVER shorten a blank or rod from the tip.

 

In the case of doing a repair, there are ways to do repairs that work quite well.  Repairs that I've done when within a foot or so of the tip have all worked well using the method in the link below.  It sounds like you have a repair done with different tip section from the original.  I'd say all bets for success are off on that.  How does the spacing increase unless you are in fact using a piece from a different rod?  Please clarify.

 

Here is the right way to repair a rod, and it works.  https://www.rodbuilding.org/library/repair-oquinn.html

I'm not repairing a rod. I'm cutting down a tip on a 6'8" Zodias spinning light action to make app. a 6'4" medium which doesn't exist from the factory. I know I'm spoiling the taper but I've done it on other rods to my satisfaction. My concern after reading a Mud Hole link on guide spacing left me concerned that the disproportionate spacing between the last guide and tip top might create concentrated stress under load.  Thanks up front for your opinion.

[spoonplugger1]

There is no such thing as concentrated stress in a rod tip from guide spacing unless your out in excess of 6 inches, Sage fly rods have spacing that far out, not one has blown up. Rod tips under load start to and finish pointing right at the load. How can that produce concentrated stress. Until recently the average first guide from the tip would have been 4.5 to 5 inches away, second guide a half inch longer. You've never mentioned your spacing.

Second thing if you shortened the tip on that rod, you now have a slower, light powered rod. you can't change a blanks power by cutting it anyway, or anywhere. The lower limit you can cast will change on your cut tip rod, but the upper limit will be the same and so will be the intrinsic power originally built into the blank.

[The Bassman]

27 minutes ago, spoonplugger1 said:

There is no such thing as concentrated stress in a rod tip from guide spacing unless your out in excess of 6 inches, Sage fly rods have spacing that far out, not one has blown up. Rod tips under load start to and finish pointing right at the load. How can that produce concentrated stress. Until recently the average first guide from the tip would have been 4.5 to 5 inches away, second guide a half inch longer. You've never mentioned your spacing.

Second thing if you shortened the tip on that rod, you now have a slower, light powered rod. you can't change a blanks power by cutting it anyway, or anywhere. The lower limit you can cast will change on your cut tip rod, but the upper limit will be the same and so will be the intrinsic power originally built into the blank.

Trust me from experience. A cut down rod has a faster and stiffer feeling even though it doesn't meet the definition of "faster". Thanks for your input on spacing, though.

[spoonplugger1]

With all due respect, you are mistaken, stiffer tip I agree with, but that doesn't equate to faster, it equates to slower. Been in the business 45 years, have done many tests over those years and read lots of articles from many rod building publications and books on the subject, and spent many hundreds of hours talking to others rod builders, all agree with Mick D and myself.

[WRB]

Fast action occurs at the upper 1/4 of the rod from tip down. If you cut off 4" where the most flex occurs that changes action to about 1/3 of the upper rod tip down, slowing action. You are better off cutting 1" off the tip end and 3" off the butt end and completely rebiulding the stripped rod blank. Easier to start with the right rod blank.

Tom

[The Bassman]

Thanks everyone but I wasn't trying to discuss rod action. I know that cutting a tip off changes diameter ratio hence no longer fast. I'm happy with the end result, wrong or not. My concern was how force was distributed between the last guide and the tip top because of the incorrect spacing.

[MickD]

Spence, I think part of the problem is that CCS uses the whole rod to measure its power and action, and when you cut any rod off, either end, it will "change" to a slower, more powerful rod.  According to that specific objective test.  But what people feel when they cut the tip off is different than that since they hold the rod in the same place they did before. So it's different than CCS.  And what people "feel" when they compare the two rods of different lengths is just a "feeling," and is whatever it is. 

 

I've broken tips off rods that were not restrained properly when travelling and the tips got jammed, breaking a little off.  I've never liked the "feel" of those rods again.  They just don't seem to have the same "livelyness" in the tip any more.  It doesn't take much.  Someone else may think that the rod an inch or two shorter "feels" better.

 

Next time I have a rod in my CCS fixture I'll test it the twice, once with the tiptop hanging the weight, and then with the first guide from the tiptop hanging the weight, keeping the butt support unchanged. 

 

[WRB]

If the rod had only 2 giudes, a tip and striper giude the rod will bend without breaking, but you can't cast it very effectively. Cutting off the butt end doesn't (IMO) change the rod blank power or action significantly from the reel seat forward. Rods were biult with removeable pistol grip handles for decades before one piece trigger grip through handle rods became popular in the '70's.

Liston to MickD, he builds rods, all I can do is offer an opinion. 

Tom

[The Bassman]

3 hours ago, MickD said:

Spence, I think part of the problem is that CCS uses the whole rod to measure its power and action, and when you cut any rod off, either end, it will "change" to a slower, more powerful rod.  According to that specific objective test.  But what people feel when they cut the tip off is different than that since they hold the rod in the same place they did before. So it's different than CCS.  And what people "feel" when they compare the two rods of different lengths is just a "feeling," and is whatever it is. 

 

I've broken tips off rods that were not restrained properly when travelling and the tips got jammed, breaking a little off.  I've never liked the "feel" of those rods again.  They just don't seem to have the same "livelyness" in the tip any more.  It doesn't take much.  Someone else may think that the rod an inch or two shorter "feels" better.

 

Next time I have a rod in my CCS fixture I'll test it the twice, once with the tiptop hanging the weight, and then with the first guide from the tiptop hanging the weight, keeping the butt support unchanged. 

 

I fully agree that modifying rod lengths is counter to their intended action and castability. I personally do not like a rod over 6'6" for a couple of reasons. For one I'm a shore fisherman and longer rods are not always convenient. Second, hand issues make a longer rod very fatiguing. Quality shorter rods are not the norm now hence this process. Thanks for your input. Not too many guys understand the mechanics of fishing rods (including me).

 

42 minutes ago, WRB said:

If the rod had only 2 giudes, a tip and striper giude the rod will bend without breaking, 

Tom

My initial concern was borne in a thread about micro guides where a Mud Hole link was provided. It illustrated the closer spacing reducing stress at small points on the rod that typical spacing usually creates. My rod "butchery" creates a space of app 5" between tip and first guide, hence the concern.

[WRB]

As long as you don't high stick the rod creating excessive bending between the 5" spacing it shouldn't over stress the rod. If concerned add the missing guide back in the middle of the 5" space.

Tom

[spoonplugger1]

Mudhole is pretty decent, but in the scheme of things they are there to sell products, just how much less stress does their micro system negate? One of the things I've never understood is why the same person who tells you something needs to be different for a casting rod to protect a blank, doesn't also have similar needs for that same blank as a spinning rod, or a spiral wrapped rod? I've been using micro guides on spinning rods for maybe 40 years, they have been around since the Second World War time period. None of those rods have been overstressed by the older systems we have used over the years, nor by the factory guides spacing which is usually heavier, more prone to stress, and incorrectly laid out.

When your talking guide systems, stresses, etc. stress tests to failure can teach you a lot, especially just how resilient our blanks/rods really are and how they all will only fail in the same place near the foregrip and nowhere else unless highsticked, or damaged in some way.

Lastly, St. Croix, MHX, and NFC among others still make the shorter blanks.

I bought up quite a few shorter blanks from other blank manufacturers when they were being discontinued because I still see a value in the shorter, lighter, more sensitive short rods also, about twice a year at least get requests for the short rods. 

[The Bassman]

8 hours ago, spoonplugger1 said:

Mudhole is pretty decent, but in the scheme of things they are there to sell products, just how much less stress does their micro system negate? One of the things I've never understood is why the same person who tells you something needs to be different for a casting rod to protect a blank, doesn't also have similar needs for that same blank as a spinning rod, or a spiral wrapped rod? I've been using micro guides on spinning rods for maybe 40 years, they have been around since the Second World War time period. None of those rods have been overstressed by the older systems we have used over the years, nor by the factory guides spacing which is usually heavier, more prone to stress, and incorrectly laid out.

When your talking guide systems, stresses, etc. stress tests to failure can teach you a lot, especially just how resilient our blanks/rods really are and how they all will only fail in the same place near the foregrip and nowhere else unless highsticked, or damaged in some way.

Lastly, St. Croix, MHX, and NFC among others still make the shorter blanks.

I bought up quite a few shorter blanks from other blank manufacturers when they were being discontinued because I still see a value in the shorter, lighter, more sensitive short rods also, about twice a year at least get requests for the short rods. 

Thanks for the info.  My whole concern arose from an incident last summer when I broke a tip on a Shimano Zodias (unaltered) rod. All I did was lay the rod over as I was landing a bass and the tip broke cleanly at the first guide. The rod was an E-Bay purchase so no warranty. Everything I read cites user error not defect as being the culprit. Never had issues before.

[Brad Reid]

Excellent topic!

 

Nerd Alert: I offer this as something few will want to read in its entirety. In essence, it describes the authors' attempts to predict the various metrics of tapered rods under loads using a formulaic approach that jibes with real life results. 

 

Pretty cool. Dust off your Calculus textbook.

 

Brad

 

Nerdy rod stuff

[Delaware Valley Tackle]

"Fast" and "stiff " tips are separate things and often confused with each other. Trimming a blank from either end results in a slower action by definition. How it feels or fishes only experimention can tell. I don't advise trimming a tip but I know it's done. In this case, at most I'd take an inch off the tip and the rest off the butt if overall length is critical. There are so many good blanks out there I seldom need to trim anything 

[.ghoti.]

Bassman, I suspect you do not feel you have received an answer to your question. Allow mw to take a shot at it.

 Do a little test. With reel and line installed, tie off the line to something substantial. Start putting a load on the rod, and observe the tip flex. You will notice that as th applied force increases, the part of the blank flexing moves towards the butt. It doesn't take much to get past the tip. You will know when you've gotten past the tip flex when you see the tip section pointed straight at the load, with no flexing. Tip flexing only occurs at light loads. With that in mind, you should realize you have cery little to worry about. 

[The Bassman]

29 minutes ago, .ghoti. said:

Bassman, I suspect you do not feel you have received an answer to your question. Allow mw to take a shot at it.

 Do a little test. With reel and line installed, tie off the line to something substantial. Start putting a load on the rod, and observe the tip flex. You will notice that as th applied force increases, the part of the blank flexing moves towards the butt. It doesn't take much to get past the tip. You will know when you've gotten past the tip flex when you see the tip section pointed straight at the load, with no flexing. Tip flexing only occurs at light loads. With that in mind, you should realize you have cery little to worry about. 

Honestly, I've been waiting for your input. Your knowledge is much appreciated.

[FCPhil]

On 1/15/2019 at 1:29 PM, .ghoti. said:

Bassman, I suspect you do not feel you have received an answer to your question. Allow mw to take a shot at it.

 Do a little test. With reel and line installed, tie off the line to something substantial. Start putting a load on the rod, and observe the tip flex. You will notice that as th applied force increases, the part of the blank flexing moves towards the butt. It doesn't take much to get past the tip. You will know when you've gotten past the tip flex when you see the tip section pointed straight at the load, with no flexing. Tip flexing only occurs at light loads. With that in mind, you should realize you have cery little to worry about. 

Makes perfect sense.

 

I agree rods feel faster and more powerful after breaking a tip because they don’t deflect as far under the same amount of load. Action and power though are not directly related to deflection per unit of load but are a more complex characteristic (I believe...)

 

Try a topwater walker on this broken tip rod though, it will give you the ability to make extremely abrupt “walks”, my favorite way to fish them...

[The Bassman]

I came to terms with the broken rod that I had re-tipped last year. What started this topic was the idea that I wanted to do something similar on a lighter action rod. Did so this past week and I'm real happy with the result. I learned one thing by way of this thread. Fast and stiff are two very different things.

[LionHeart]

On 1/12/2019 at 4:32 PM, MickD said:

Shortening rods from either end makes the action slower (under defintion of the CCS system)and more power.  Pool cues have powerful, but slow actions. 

Say what?  

[.ghoti.]

2 hours ago, LionHeart said:

Say what?  

It does sound a bit counter-intuitive, but trimming the tip does indeed slow the action. It does not increase the power either. 

 

When thinking of action, think about where the rod flexes. When you remove from the tip, you are eliminating a portion of the most flexible part of the rod. It will require more force to deflect the rod, but the bend will be more moderate because you will have removed the most flexible section.

 

By removing a piece of the tip section you will have increased the lower lure weight rating. For example, if your rod initially have a lure weight range of 1/4-3/4oz, removing a few inches of tip will alter that range; maybe to 3/8-3/4oz. Notice the upper end did not change. The power did not increase. 

 

Trimming from the butt technically slows the action because the same flex is now working across a larger percentage of the rod length. Using the same lure weight range as the previous example by trimming a few inches from the butt, your new lure weight range may be 1/4-5/8oz. 

 

Trimming from the tip is something I never do. if you've ever broken a tip and installed a new tip at the broken end, you know what I mean. It is not the same rod.

 

Trimming from the butt end produces changes in action and power, but are much more subtle in effect. If a rod must be trimmed, do it from the butt end.

[LionHeart]

2 hours ago, .ghoti. said:

It does sound a bit counter-intuitive, but trimming the tip does indeed slow the action. It does not increase the power either. 

 

When thinking of action, think about where the rod flexes. When you remove from the tip, you are eliminating a portion of the most flexible part of the rod. It will require more force to deflect the rod, but the bend will be more moderate because you will have removed the most flexible section.

 

By removing a piece of the tip section you will have increased the lower lure weight rating. For example, if your rod initially have a lure weight range of 1/4-3/4oz, removing a few inches of tip will alter that range; maybe to 3/8-3/4oz. Notice the upper end did not change. The power did not increase. 

 

Trimming from the butt technically slows the action because the same flex is now working across a larger percentage of the rod length. Using the same lure weight range as the previous example by trimming a few inches from the butt, your new lure weight range may be 1/4-5/8oz. 

 

Trimming from the tip is something I never do. if you've ever broken a tip and installed a new tip at the broken end, you know what I mean. It is not the same rod.

 

Trimming from the butt end produces changes in action and power, but are much more subtle in effect. If a rod must be trimmed, do it from the butt end.

I get what you mean on a lot of this, and I guess in a weird way, trimming the butt technically would mean that the rod bend would go further down the now shortened blank.  Making it by definition slower.

 

I'm still scratching my head on the statement that trimming the tip would slow the rod, and would still assert that the opposite is true.

 

Let's say just for the sake of my thick skull, you have a moderate action rod that is 10 feet long and bends half way down, or 50% of the blank (for argument sake).  Let's say you lop off 2 feet from the tip and now have an 8 foot rod.  Only the first 3 feet will bend, which means now only the first 38% of the rod bends.

 

Sounds faster to me.  Again, I'm sure I'm gonna kick myself once this clicks but I just ain't getting it.

 

All the other statements make total sense.  Maybe after all this time, I am still confused on the meaning of rod action.  I think I may as well make up my own words to describe it.

 

When I think slow or moderate, I think bendy.  In my mind, fast is the converse.

 

[MickD]

13 hours ago, .ghoti. said:

It does not increase the power either. 

My mistake.   Readers who doubt .ghoti's comments should keep in mind that he and I are speaking about action and power changes as defined by the CCS system.  Which I believe is the only objective system for measuring action and power.     http://www.common-cents.info/

 

I agree with earlier comments that trimming from the tip almost invariably results in an action that is unpleasant to the user's "feel" when compared to the original blank.  Before cutting from the tip use a guide down the blank the distance you want to cut and try it out.  The guide may be simply taped onto the blank and will last long enough to evaluate.

 

Before cutting from the butt move the reel seat up the distance you are considering and try it out.  

 

Never do something that you cannot undo without cobbling a way to try it out first.

[FCPhil]

13 hours ago, LionHeart said:

I get what you mean on a lot of this, and I guess in a weird way, trimming the butt technically would mean that the rod bend would go further down the now shortened blank.  Making it by definition slower.

 

I'm still scratching my head on the statement that trimming the tip would slow the rod, and would still assert that the opposite is true.

 

Let's say just for the sake of my thick skull, you have a moderate action rod that is 10 feet long and bends half way down, or 50% of the blank (for argument sake).  Let's say you lop off 2 feet from the tip and now have an 8 foot rod.  Only the first 3 feet will bend, which means now only the first 38% of the rod bends.

 

Sounds faster to me.  Again, I'm sure I'm gonna kick myself once this clicks but I just ain't getting it.

 

All the other statements make total sense.  Maybe after all this time, I am still confused on the meaning of rod action.  I think I may as well make up my own words to describe it.

 

When I think slow or moderate, I think bendy.  In my mind, fast is the converse.

 

I’m not and expert but here is my best shot at explaining it. It is counter intuitive.

 

When you cut 2 feet off the rod in your example, the rod just became a lot stiffer, since the tip you cut off was the softest point. This means that now, when you apply load to the rod, the lower portion of the rod that previously flexed only a very small amount will start to flex more because the top end of the rod is stiffer. 

 

The truth is, the entire rod flexes always, it’s just the lower section flexes very little compared to the top. The stiffer the top becomes, the more the lower portion will flex, making it a “slower rod”. How much one section of the rod flexes is affected by how much the other sections flex. 

 

(You’re example would be correct if you had a rod that was a steel pipe for 50% of the length and a soft rod for the next 50%. The steel pipe would never flex and shorting the tip would shorten the flexing part making the action faster. Although the bottom of a real rod is very stiff, it still flexes some and will flex more and more as the top gets stiffer.)