itsjaywhatsup wrote:...

After reading your post I measured my rod. For some reason my measuring tape doesn't have cm so I'm stuck with ft/inches. At the 10'8" setting, measuring endcap to tip of rod (not including lillian) my rod is perfect at 10'8". At the 11'10" setting I am at 11'7.25" - kinda disappointing.... At the 12'9" setting, I am at 12'6".

....

Well I wouldn't let the length discrepancy ruin enjoying fishing with the rod.

There is always the disqualifier of :

* There may be slight discrepancies in their extended length of tenkara rods.

So it depends upon how you define "slight". What is too much: 1.2%, 1.5% , 2% ?

On past models I generally found the stated metric length to be the most accurate specification of the lengths I actually measured on my rods. And in general the the stated imperial measurement was just a rounded number that was close to the metric spec without getting into fractions of an inch. A number for people to use who are not familiar with or comfortable with metric. And a stated length that was close to the lengths of rods people were already used to thinking about. People in America were perhaps used to thinking about something being 12 ft long, and not used to thinking of something being 11 ft 8 3/4 inches long. Looking at the Sato though the imperial/ metric numbers seem to disagree more than in the past.

For reference. The Iwana 12 is listed as a 12 ft or 360 cm rod. But 12 ft converts to 365.76cm. ( 5.76 cm = 2.27 ") Close but just a little over 360 cm.

When I measured my Iwana 12 is was darned close to 360cm just a little under 360 actually. So I wasn't concerned that it was 8 cm or so short of the 12 ft length. It was only 2 or 3 cm short of 360 cm. And 3/360 = .8% short.

The Sato is listed as 330/360/390 rod. Implying that each extension increases by 30cm or 11.81 inches.

But that is not the step increase you find if you convert the imperial measurement printed on the rod to metric.

It is easy to convert imperial measurement to metric. Just convert the feet and inches to inches and multiply by x 2.54. ( 1 inch = 2.54 cm)

Printed imperial length converted to metric:

10' 8" = 128 " = 325 cm ( not 330 cm)

11" 10" = 142 " = 360.68cm. Really close to 360. ( 360.68cm - 325 = 35.68cm, not a 30 cm increase)

12" 9" = 153" = 388.62cm ( not 390cm and 388.62 - 360.68 = 27.94cm, call it 28cm, so 2 cm short of a 30 cm increase in length. )

Or looked at a different way.

10' 8" = 325cm

11' 10 " - 10' 8" = 1" 2" or 14 " = + 35.56 cm

12' 9" - 11' 10" = 11" = + 27.94 cm

Thus 325 cm + 35.56cm + 27.94cm = 388.5 cm or 152.95 inches = 12' 8.95" Real close to the 12' 9" specified in imperial units.

But - A bit different from 330 + 30 + 30 cm as expected by the metric spec.

Converting the spec in imperial measurement to metric the Sato would be a 325/361/389 rod to round the numbers up only a little. Or close to 325/360/390. Your actual measurements, rounded off would be 325/354/381 cm.

Your short length is accurate to the stated short imperial measurement. And the jump from the actual middle length to full length is close to accurate to the jump in length as given by imperial spec, a 27cm increase vs 28cm. It is the jump from short length to the middle length that is only 29cm and not the ~36cm increase that the imperial specs imply, but it is close to the 30cm increase specified by the metric spec numbers.

A couple of interesting observations is that 30 cm = almost 12 inches. 11.811 inches or about 11 13/16 inches. The imperial lengths should have jumped in 1 foot increments. 10'8", 11' 8" , 12' 8". So why they printed 10' 8", 11" 10' and 12' 9" is a mystery.

Also at the shortest length 10' 8" converts to 325.12 cm. You measured 10' 8" or ~ 325cm. Tom's Sato measured 324 cm. So both your rods were 325 cm at shortest setting. If TUSA relabeled the Sato as 325/355/385 or 10' 8" / 11'8"/12'8" both of your Sato actual measurements would be very close to the specs. Perhaps closer to being a slight variation from stated length. Tom's Sato at longest extension measured 378cm if compared to 385cm it would have been 7cm short , perhaps still to much to be called "slight". But 7/385 = 1.8% short of expected length. Or only 2.75 inches short. Which is probably seen as a slight variation from spec and more acceptable than being 12 cm ( 5.72") short of 390cm. Where 12/390 = 3.1% error.

It"s just human nature to be upset at getting a rod shorter than spec , yet no one complains when their rod happens to be a few cm longer than spec.

Oddly the imperial vs metric lengths printed on the Rhodo match within a fraction of an inch or cm and do not have the discrepancies printed on the Sato and is much more accurate. For the Rhodo: 270cm = 8' 10", 297cm = 9'9" and 320 cm = 10'6". The Rhodo jumps 23 cm and 27 cm in length.

The QC is lacking a bit from the design goal or the way it is listed by metric spec length. And TUSA ought to either improve the QC or re-write the specs to be more accurate to what they are actually building. However, I wouldn't obsess over it.

Most people have stated the Sato is a fun rod to fish with and quite capable of landing nice fish. Just go out and enjoy fishing with it.

D