The reason why the 2 piece is so much different then the 1 piece is because of the tooling, when you build a 2 piece rod, it has to be assembled completely different. The Tip sections and the Butt sections are made at different times. Then the tip is fit to the butt of the rod and trimmed accordingly. It is very difficult to make a 1 and 2 piece rod feel the same. and maintain the rod's integrity. If Rod Manufacturers still used spigot ferrules it would be a different story. But with the tip over ferrules that is the way it ends up. I hope this helps have a great day.

The XSRA models do not seem to have a pronounced a difference as the SSUs ( at least in 11 ft). Is that because the materials in the two different rods are different or was it Lamiglas' intent to make a "stronger" or "better" two-piece with the SSU? I have not have any problems with my factory XSRA 131-2 and 1322-2.

We were looking to build a stronger rod because of the braided lines. They are built with a better guide and also have a under wrap under the guide foot. They are stronger for sure.

Jason I am a little confused, as to the reason why Lamiglas has not placed an underwrap, under the signature rods guides?

Also I am confused as to your comments in regards to building a stronger rod to handle braid. Are we saying that the signature rods are not designed to handle braid and therfore Lami is attempting to rectify a problem and it has identified a reason for this new concept?

I have over 100 Lamiglas rods some going back over 40 years . If the blank is put together properly one should never have a problem with the rod, unless it is abused. At least that would be my opinion in the matter of line use. ?

If we use the analogy in regards to the butt difference between a two piece Arra and a two piece ssu's it would seem to be contrary to your comment in this matter and I would appreciate further input as to the butt end on one being more uniform as apposed to the ssu's.

Can we say, that we in fact, have predermined what modifications are needed to make a blank that will be able to handle braid and not impact the design in a negative manner? Does this mean that Lami feels that the signature series rod does not meet the present use of braid in todays market place?

I realize I have asked you a bunch of questions for the first post, so I thank you for time to answer.

Ancient Angler these are all good questions.
The reason we do not put an under wrap on the signature rods is partly because of cost and because it is not a necessity on a spinning rod. The RA is for the most part a spinning series.

As for there being a problem with the rods because of braid. Just because we have made a new series more durable does not mean the RA rods are not ADEQUATE for use with braid.

Braid is harder on rods no matter what the line size. It does not stretch and therefore puts more shock on the blank. Does that mean one should not use it on a RA rod? No if I were fishing any of the RAs I would probably be using braid. The SS rods are just a bit more durable and better fit to do it.

As for the difference in the two. The tooling for the Ra rods does not lend its self for use with the materials used in the SS models so the Larger Dia tooling was used on the two piece SS rods with great success.

I hope that make sence.

Thanks for the replies, Lami Gurus. I guess I will be sticking with my XSRAs in 11 foot 2-piece for a long time. The butt sections on the 2-piece SSUs are a bit too uncomfortable for me for casting plugs.

The GSB132-1M and the SSU132-1MH are near identical in specs. Aside from the price, what improvements can we expect from the SSU vs GSB......blank vs blank? It seems like butt diameter, tip, and weight of each blank is fairly close to each other.

The SSU is made of a blend of materials that will give it a little more durability and strength. Yet will still maintain a light responsive rod.

Coop,thanks for the reply.

I understand the point that you make in regards to why Lami chsoe to not place an underwrap and just wrap the giude to the blank it self on the Arra series. If, as you stated it was done as a cost cutting measure. That troubles me from a different point of veiw as to actual overall quality of a rod put together by Lami as apposed to being custom built by an independent rod builder. I would think that Lamiglas would have placed such a wrapping under the guide to prevent the rod from being damaged from the guide, now sitting on the blank itself. It has been a long time practise of placing an underwrap to just protect the rod from being damaged during the loading and fighting of a fish.

I do not own any Lamiglas manufactured complete rods , but as I have indicated I over 100 rods that have been custom built over the years and every one does contain an underwrap under each guide and in some cases some of the guides have a second wrap over the guides themselves. This process prevest the guides to some point, from moving out of aliegnment,when into a large fish.

Are you saying that you have nothing under the feet at all when you folks attach the guides to the rod or am I missing something? From all my experiences, if that is the case, In my opinion that would be contrary to what most rod builders have been doing for four generations and could account for breakage and warranty problems . Does the cost ofset, by not underwrapping, account for warranty damages that the company must pay on the other end, on rods being returned under the warranty?

From my perspective it may seem like penny wise and pound foolish if that is the actual case.

Ancient Angler. No, Under Wrapping does not cost us anything more than maybe 1 rod every 2500. The process of under wrapping is much like the East Coast Idea that less guides on a surf Spinning Rod will let you cast further. It has been disproven many times but people still think it can be an issue. My last comment applies to surf spinning rods and not offshore rods or other casting rods put under lots of pressure with the guide on top. I would say that maybe 1% of the rods broken are broken under a guide foot. If we sell 100 rods and 2 come back (Average) That means we would have to sell 2500 rods before we see 1 problem with a rod not being under wrapped. With so many other ways people are breaking rods I think this is a non issue. You yourself have said you do not even own a rod that is not under wrapped. So I assume you are taking someone’s word for it that it needs to be done. I have seen with my own eyes that it is not a problem, in the years I have been here I have seen maybe 3 times where the guide caused the rod to break and none of those were on spinning rods. If none of the custom builders build them without under wraps than they are going off of theory and not facts. Does it look nice yes does it serve a large function on anything other than offshore rods no. I hope this make sense.