record no. 60

Started by alantani, December 07, 2008, 04:52:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dave C

The spool ARB locks to spool shaft with outgoing rotation which makes the "fine adjust" bearing cap functional against spool shaft and spool for lure weight adjustment. On retrieval the spool ARB "unlocks" allowing retrieve without having to crank against "extra" tension of the "fine" adjust....spool rotates freely on shaft. Interesting engineering solution to a minor extra retrieve cranking resistance....I would imagine it may be more noticeable with heavier lures and settings of the "fine adjust" bearing cap.

jfred36

Currently awaiting ABEC 7 Bearings for Abu Garcia Record 60. I am not sure how you go about removing the center braking piece from the spool.

Has anyone changed out the bearings on this reel before?

Ken_D

Quote from: jfred36 on June 16, 2013, 07:13:58 PM
Currently awaiting ABEC 7 Bearings for Abu Garcia Record 60. I am not sure how you go about removing the center braking piece from the spool.

Has anyone changed out the bearings on this reel before?


Hi, Unsure why you want to remove the one way clutch needle bearing in the spool....That's what takes the Record into the bearings in the side plates. If you remove the one way, you no longer have a record.

SNAPS

Part number  5230 bearing anybody know the size ? I need to replace this on a friends reel.

Thank you all.

GulfOfBothnia

Quote from: SNAPS on November 24, 2013, 01:07:31 PM
Part number  5230 bearing anybody know the size ? I need to replace this on a friends reel.

Thank you all.

They are 3x10x4 mm.

Might be hard to find rounded style bearings.

Dwbuzzard

I hate to resurect an old post like this but...is there any way to increase the drag on this otherwise fantastic reel?

yota924x4

#21



Looks like the newest versions of the records have a dog

yarddogs

How new are the latest versions? ???

0119

Quote from: yarddogs on May 24, 2016, 12:50:39 AM
How new are the latest versions? ???
Came out 2 or 3 years ago. Slight color change for the Record. New design sideplate rims, removal of the handy thumb screw sideplate nuts in lieu of the new small screws. Lighter line guide and allegedly better cut gears.

Tiddlerbasher

In reply to Dwbuzzard's ancient post ???
You may be able to get slightly more drag by increasing the diameter of the cf washers. You want a snug fit in the main gear (same diameter as the eared washers). From the photos the cf doesn't occupy the full width of the gear. Also by going with .5mm thick cf and stainless washers you may get a 5+1 stack. That can give over 50% increase in drag. Measure the sizes and see what Dawn has. The cf is easy - but the stainless washers may be a problem ;)

spoolin01

Quote from: Tiddlerbasher on May 24, 2016, 10:10:51 AM
In reply to Dwbuzzard's ancient post ???
You may be able to get slightly more drag by increasing the diameter of the cf washers. You want a snug fit in the main gear (same diameter as the eared washers). From the photos the cf doesn't occupy the full width of the gear. Also by going with .5mm thick cf and stainless washers you may get a 5+1 stack. That can give over 50% increase in drag. Measure the sizes and see what Dawn has. The cf is easy - but the stainless washers may be a problem ;)
This used to make sense to me, but then I read http://tocatchafish.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html, and looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction (Amonton's 2nd Law), and (for now) it seems drag diameter (for a solid disc drag washer) is (by simplistic analysis) of no importance.  The physics is complicated by the fact that rotary motion/lever arm length is involved, but basically the star nut determines the force that is applied, and spreading it over a smaller, or larger, sized disc is not supposed to matter.  The fact that with a larger diameter washer some of the force is at greater distance from the axle and should enjoy greater leverage (like having a larger disc on your car's disc brakes), must be offset by the fact that the force per sq in is less since the total force (limited by the screw strength of the star nut) is now spread over larger area.  So, longer lever arm, but also less force.  The corollary then should be - for greater drag, beef up the threads on the drive shaft so it can be screwed down harder.  If the drag washers were annular bands, then I guess there would be something to using a larger diameter.

But if Amonton's 2nd Law applies, how would adding more washers to a stack make for higher drag?  The only thing that I can think of is that there must be some kind of non-simplistic friction behavior at higher psi loads -lock up, deformation of materials that changes the friction coefficient, change in heat dissipation - so that it still makes sense to spread the force over more surface area.  So then, maybe larger diameter offers the same improvement.  Hmmm.

Robert Janssen

It is a nice article Spoolin01, but some things need a little clarification.

The two criterion which greatest affect the sum total of drag are 1) the number of sliding surfaces, and 2) distance from center of rotation to center or mean diameter of friction surface.

Increasing the number of discs will give more drag.

Increasing the diameter of those discs will give more drag.

Increasing the pressure upon those discs will give more drag.

Increasing the surface area of those discs by utilizing the full face of the disc as a frictional surface as opposed to utilizing only a smaller peripheral portion of said disc as a frictional surface, will not increase drag.

Possibility of misunderstanding: Increasing the number of discs or their diameter will in fact likely also increase the sum total of the surface area, but this is secondary to the primary two criterion as per above.

For more fun, see http://alantani.com/index.php?topic=15510.0

.

spoolin01

Hi Robert - I can bet that this is a complicated and contentious topic, because it pits theory against the real world and people's experiences and expectations.  It's not always easy to bring those all together.  The simplest way to get something useful out of it would be to do bench testing.  I thought I recalled seeing some testing, or at least a claim of it, that supposedly confirmed that standard drag washer stacks did not benefit from increased diameter, but that was just one site and one claim.

If Amonton's law holds, then if you put say 10 lbs of force on a drag stack, it shouldn't matter how many washers or what size they are, you've got 10 lbs of force, and according to that "law", that's all that matters (this is a direct analogy to the brick-dragging example, aside from the rotary motion aspect).  The force is applied by how tight you screw the star wheel.  That's the force maintained by the wheel and shaft threads, and independent of what lies under the wheel, the same as the frictional force of the dragged brick depends on it's weight, not on what the shape or size of the face is.

In the few discussions of Amonton's Law I've looked at I've never seen it qualified for rotary motion, so I presume it must apply there or that exception would be discussed.  If that's the case, then the lever arm aspect must not be important - you gain some increased lever arm with a larger dia drag, but lose force over the closer-in diameter areas, since the total force is now spread out over a larger surface area. Net result must be no change, or the law isn't valid.  IF it is the case that a larger automobile disc makes a better disc brake, it must be because the frictional zone is only annular, so you really are applying the same caliper force at a longer lever arm, for more stopping power.  If the caliper swept the entire diameter of the disc instead of just an outer band, presumably diameter would no longer matter.

I have to agree, most of what you said seems right to me at a gut level (not the part about using the whole disc instead of just the peripheral portion - if I understood what you meant, I think that's backwards), but it does seem to contradict Amonton's 2nd law.  I remember when I read the brick-dragging example the first time, it seemed wrong that the force needed didn't depend on which face was down.

If both of you are right, then some assumption underlying the law must either be misunderstood or not in effect.  The law really just relies on two factors - weight and frictional coefficient.  If either of those two things change as a result of drag stack engineering, then that could explain the apparent disagreement.  To me though, it's not obvious how either of those would change as a result of diameter or washer count.

It seems like it would be a simple experiment to take a reel and weight and test the washer count effect.  If the weight takes a certain time to drop to the ground, then you change the washer count in the stack, does the drop time change?  Does that seem like a good way to test it?  The hard part might be making sure the star wheel force was a constant - how to measure that?... maybe by turning the wheel using a spring scale?  Maybe I'll try that, I'm servicing a bunch of Ambassadeurs today.


Robert Janssen

#28
 

There are many sources of information on how this works, and it has been discussed and explained numerous times here on this forum by myself as well as others. Lastly just a few days ago I think; johndtuttle and hafnor were talking about it.

Have a poke at the forum search button, or look into engineering texts concerning for example automotive or motorcycle clutches. You are obviously an intelligent guy; you'll find whatever it is you're looking for.

http://alantani.com/index.php?topic=7817.30

spoolin01

After some poking around, it's clear data is sorely lacking.  The link and recent discussion as you say are but a couple out of many iterations of the same discussion - theory on one side, on the other lots of assertions about the role of drag washer diameter, surface area, and count, most of which directly contradict the theory, but nothing to hang a hat on.

I've looked at some brake discussions in other contexts that similarly try to come to grip with this 2nd Law, express the same confusion at the counter-intuitive nature of the law, and suffer from the same lack of data.  Aside from undocumented claims by the Dragenstein guy - who claims to confirm the 2nd Law applies to reel drags - I haven't found an actual demonstration of anybody's point of view about the subject.

In the same vein, none of the "theoretical" discussion sites for drags, clutches, or brakes that I've found address any conflicts with that 2nd Law.  Some of the brake sites mention the law, and ascribe secondary benefits to increased contact area, not increased braking power per se.  Of course that could just be a feature of how much clutter there is on the internet.  Who knows.

You can always take the practical view - if the reel does the job, who cares?  But considering how much interest there is in washer size and count, it would be nice to see some actual data showing whether those factors are central to drag force, or more of importance for usable range, heat dissipation, fine adjustment, or other usability aspects.