Penn Baja Special anti-reverse problem

Started by steelfish, May 03, 2016, 04:37:16 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

swill88

Quote from: Cortez_Conversions on May 17, 2016, 01:12:46 PM
Quote from: swill88 on May 17, 2016, 04:56:55 AM
Tom... not immediate... but going for tuna the 27th, 28th on the Prowler out of SD.

113HN going with me

steve
Sounds good Steve,
Please PM your address.
Tom

Thanks Tom...  will take pics before during and after.

I want to be like Alan!

Steve

steelfish

Quote from: handi2 on May 17, 2016, 09:09:47 PM
It probably won't get fished at 30lbs. That's too much to hold for most folks.

I totally understand, on my last fishing trip I caught a big Sierra, which it was caught by a big fat Sea Lion, so it was me Vs the mad train, the line was holding, the lure was holding, the rod was holding and the reel was holding but I was about to go overboard if continue to hold the rod few more seconds, I had the release a bit of drag to let the line run and the the sea lion to chew on the fish more to get my lure back

The Baja Guy

Rancanfish

When all this is hashed out I'm going to get the bullet proof CORTEZ Baja!
I woke today and suddenly nothing happened.

jurelometer

Quote from: Robert Janssen on May 16, 2016, 04:04:41 AM
Still working on my morning coffee here, but the thing was that 435 was just a really big number. 435 lbs... that is like the weight of a motorcycle. How did we get from a fishing reel to a motorcycle? It seemed unright.

So I looked at it like you did, did the math the same way, same thing. Looked at it and reduced it bit more logically: Two levers, one minus the other, times the gear ratio.

So the 1.5 on the spool minus the 0.4 from the ratchet = 1.1, and then the 27 lbs and the gear ratio bit.

(two levers... the spool and the ratchet. Imagine they were pointing the same direction, upwards in a diagram. Now imagine they were of equal length. How would things work out then? The force on the ratchet woul become less as size increased, right?)

Quote...show what is wrong with my formula?

I think it is that part right there.... that divided by, ought to be an X. That's all.

Well, anyway, that about that then... going for a refill now.

Thanks Robert !!

I am sticking to my guns on this.  It looks like you are redefining  the force to torque formula for one of the legs.   

So here is an alternate description – I am going to do this backwards starting with the amount of force on the dogs and see how each moment arm and gear ratio  affects the force.
----
1.  The drag is tightended  until it will not slip until the dog post hits 435.375  pounds of force.

2.  Using the basic textbook formula (assumes a 90 degree angle at the moment arm, etc.)
   force*radius  =  torque
           435.375 *.4 =    174.15 pound-in
           
This is the torque on the main gear when the drag is slipping. 

3.  In order to place 174.15 pound-in of torque on the main gear,  we need to apply torque to the pinion. Since one turn of the main gear equals 4.3 turns of the pinion,  the torque is adjusted down proportionally.

   174.15 / 4.3 = 40.5  pound-in

So the drag won't slip until we have 40.5 pound-in of torque on the spool.   

4.  If the radius of the spool was one in inch then it would require 40.5 lbs of force pulling the line to make the drag slip.

At 1.5 inch spool radius, it takes less force to to turn the spool at the same torque value.  we can use the inverse of the force to torque function:

   torque/radius = force
   40.5/1.5= 27 lbs.


I still cannot see the error.  But being self (non)trained in physics- I  must confess to still not being completely confident.


On a related note:

1.   A star drag has to have the anti-reverse mechanism after the main gear (because that is where the drag is), but that multiplies the force on the dog/ratchet, and requires the gears to carry the load to the drag.   Lever drags have the ability to have the dog/ratchet all the way ahead of the pinon, bypassing the gear torque multiplier problem and eliminating stress on the gears.    But some lever drags still don't take advantage of this opportunity.   Many of the larger spinning reels also use the drag-anti-reverse ahead of the gears  technique.  Less force on the dogs/anti-reverse, and  no stress on the gears until  you wind under load (at which point you are informed that you have violated the warranty by using the reel incorrectly  ??? )

2. If you set the drag at the maximum supported value when the spool is full, you will violate the warranty if you are not continually backing down on the drag as line is being taken.   If you want to wait until the spool is half the original radius, you would have to set the drag at half the maximum.

-J

jurelometer

Quote from: Cortez_Conversions on May 16, 2016, 12:38:20 PM
Quote from: oc1 on May 16, 2016, 09:01:59 AM
Having the spring under the dog may be part of the problem.  That lets the dog tilt upward and get more leverage against the post.  From the scoring on the bottom of the main gear it appears the dogs tilted upward (away from the bridge) when they failed.  If they had tilted the other direction they would have chewed up the ratchet.  The rounding of the ratchet when it was stamped may not have been a contributing factor.

Looks like there is plenty of room there to install something better.  But, shouldn't the fisher expect more from a reel designed and manufactured in the U.S.?
-steve

I agree Steve.

We are paying a premium for these reels because we expect quality from Penn.

I have new dogs made and am half way done with a new ratchet. The reel I'm using actually sounds different now that the dogs are held square. the dogs are ticking smoothly and because of proper engagement are a bit louder.
I still think the dog post splay is from the dogs breaking down, the reel losing anti reverse and pulling the dogs thru the gap.
With the dogs so poorly aligned, it wedges, and at that moment pushes the posts away.
I think I'll have everything done this afternoon.
Tom

Hi Tom,

First of all...   NICE!!!

Can the original stock posts just be punched out of the bridge, or is the process a bit more involved?

Looking forward to the test results.

Rivverrat

#80
Post are slightly peened to enlarge for tight fit. I've easily removed them with a punch.

Cortez_Conversions

You know, the more I think about it, I'm leaning towards a one piece gear sleeve.
There isn't much meat on the ledge where the handle sits. I had to file the deformed material off before I could get the drag stack and bearings off.
It's gonna cost you guys more, but you will only have to replace it once!
I think the kit will consist of the following:
Hardened stainless steel gear sleeve.
Hardened stainless steel dog set with springs.
Modified Bridge. I want to ream the dog post holes true before pressing in the new posts.
Stainless screws and washers for the dog posts.
Thoughts?
Visit: cortezconversions.com
Forget about all the reasons why something may not work. You only need to find one good reason why it will.-Sal

vilters

Tom, my thoughts are:

it sounds like you are on the right path - fix all potential issues 1st time around

your engineering and products are top quality

I will upgrade my Baja with whatever you come up with, or get rid of it.

thanks for all you do, keep up the great work, really glad you have taken up this project.

steelfish

Quote from: vilters on May 19, 2016, 04:51:35 PM
Tom, my thoughts are:

it sounds like you are on the right path - fix all potential issues 1st time around

your engineering and products are top quality

I will upgrade my Baja with whatever you come up with, or get rid of it.

thanks for all you do, keep up the great work, really glad you have taken up this project.

.. you took the words from my mouth.



now this is the best example for the next image


whatever you come up to fix this, Im in

The Baja Guy

swill88


jurelometer

Quote from: Cortez_Conversions on May 19, 2016, 03:55:26 PM
You know, the more I think about it, I'm leaning towards a one piece gear sleeve.
There isn't much meat on the ledge where the handle sits. I had to file the deformed material off before I could get the drag stack and bearings off.
It's gonna cost you guys more, but you will only have to replace it once!
I think the kit will consist of the following:
Hardened stainless steel gear sleeve.
Hardened stainless steel dog set with springs.
Modified Bridge. I want to ream the dog post holes true before pressing in the new posts.
Stainless screws and washers for the dog posts.
Thoughts?


A bunch of thoughts:

1.  If the goal is to make the most useful upgrade, then the fewer/cheaper parts needed to get the job done the better.  On the other hand if the goal is hotrodding the reel, then getting the most performance  out of each upgrade makes the most sense, with less emphasis on cost and complexity.

2.  We don't know what the next failure down the line will be.   A highly robust fix for the current problem doesn't help much if we are talking about a short trip to the next failure under load.

3.  Based on this and other threads, the leading candidates for the next failure are the gear sleeve (your fix could take care of this), and the floating pinion/spool junction. 

4.  If you do make  a  new gear sleeve, there were some complaints that it was a thread or two short for the handle nut.  I think this can be found in one of the later posts  in Alan T's original review of the reel.  Maybe part of the problem in the area of "meat on the ledge"?

5.  There are other reels with ratchets separate to the gear sleeves, it allows for a much larger ratchet without machining down tons of material.  While a new stainless gear sleeve looks like a good idea, would it be cheaper to have a separate ratchet?  But it looks like some sort of gear sleeve upgrade is probably part of the necessary fix. Also,  it would be  nice to avoid a re-machined bridge if the goals favors minimized cost.

6. The post under the gear sleeve probably doesn't have to be very strong if the reel also has the Penn supplied upgrade that includes a bearing in the sideplate that supports the other side side of the gear sleeve.  I think this upgrade is included in the US Senators and later versions of the Baja Special.   So anybody building out this reel probably wants this upgrade as well.  Less value in having  a stronger assembly if the main gear (and ratchet) can be can be levered under force.

7.  Testing! 

This is something that doesn't necessarily have to be done by Tom.

It might be worthwhile to bench test the existing reel to the point where damage starts occurring, and then see how far any upgrade goes before the next failure (either in the anti-reverse or some other system) occurred.  Field testing is also useful, but a bench test demonstrating greater load capacity would be useful in both verifying the fix is ready for field and generating confidence.

I can think of three interesting types of load testing.  The first is steady load - line being taken at constant smooth rate.  The second is the fast spinning freespool to engaged under load.  The third is the angler cranking under heavy load (lateral load on the gear sleeve), then letting the handle swing back until the dog engages.

The first two tests are not too tricky to set up,  the third is probably too difficult, and better suited to field (real life user) testing.

It would also be interesting to mount  a fully assembled bridge, dog, drag stack, handle, etc on a flat surface and watch/film/photo what the dogs and ratchet do as backward winding load is increasingly applied to the handle (use a drag scale and the amount of force could be replicated when testing  an upgrade).

Jeff (Riverrrat) has been doing some testing and photographing the outcome of load testing on these reels, so I don't know if he has anything to add here.

8.  I wonder if Penn went down this path, and found enough issues that they decided an upgrade was not cost effective for them (not us), especially considering the limited number of these reels out there  (and only a fraction of these regularly pushed to the limit).   Just too many things to fix to get it right for the amount of customers with problem reels.    If this is correct, it seems the folks that would be interested in a viable upgrade will be limited to the hotrodders and hardcore Penn fans (you know who you are  :D).  At this point, cost becomes much less of a factor.   

-J

BryanC

Quote from: jurelometer on May 18, 2016, 02:30:21 AM

I still cannot see the error.  But being self (non)trained in physics- I  must confess to still not being completely confident.


Be confident.  Your physics is correct.

Tightlines667

Quote from: Cortez_Conversions on May 19, 2016, 03:55:26 PM
You know, the more I think about it, I'm leaning towards a one piece gear sleeve.
There isn't much meat on the ledge where the handle sits. I had to file the deformed material off before I could get the drag stack and bearings off.
It's gonna cost you guys more, but you will only have to replace it once!
I think the kit will consist of the following:
Hardened stainless steel gear sleeve.
Hardened stainless steel dog set with springs.
Modified Bridge. I want se ream the dog post holes true before pressing in the new posts.
Stainless screws and washers for the dog posts.
Thoughts?


Quote from: jurelometer on May 19, 2016, 06:23:06 PM
Quote from: Cortez_Conversions on May 19, 2016, 03:55:26 PM
You know, the more I think about it, I'm leaning towards a one piece gear sleeve.
There isn't much meat on the ledge where the handle sits. I had to file the deformed material off before I could get the drag stack and bearings off.
It's gonna cost you guys more, but you will only have to replace it once!
I think the kit will consist of the following:
Hardened stainless steel gear sleeve.
Hardened stainless steel dog set with springs.
Modified Bridge. I want to ream the dog post holes true before pressing in the new posts.
Stainless screws and washers for the dog posts.
Thoughts?


A bunch of thoughts:

1.  If the goal is to make the most useful upgrade, then the fewer/cheaper parts needed to get the job done the better.  On the other hand if the goal is hotrodding the reel, then getting the most performance  out of each upgrade makes the most sense, with less emphasis on cost and complexity.

2.  We don't know what the next failure down the line will be.   A highly robust fix for the current problem doesn't help much if we are talking about a short trip to the next failure under load.

3.  Based on this and other threads, the leading candidates for the next failure are the gear sleeve (your fix could take care of this), and the floating pinion/spool junction. 

4.  If you do make  a  new gear sleeve, there were some complaints that it was a thread or two short for the handle nut.  I think this can be found in one of the later posts  in Alan T's original review of the reel.  Maybe part of the problem in the area of "meat on the ledge"?

5.  There are other reels with ratchets separate to the gear sleeves, it allows for a much larger ratchet without machining down tons of material.  While a new stainless gear sleeve looks like a good idea, would it be cheaper to have a separate ratchet?  But it looks like some sort of gear sleeve upgrade is probably part of the necessary fix. Also,  it would be  nice to avoid a re-machined bridge if the goals favors minimized cost.

6. The post under the gear sleeve probably doesn't have to be very strong if the reel also has the Penn supplied upgrade that includes a bearing in the sideplate that supports the other side side of the gear sleeve.  I think this upgrade is included in the US Senators and later versions of the Baja Special.   So anybody building out this reel probably wants this upgrade as well.  Less value in having  a stronger assembly if the main gear (and ratchet) can be can be levered under force.

7.  Testing! 

This is something that doesn't necessarily have to be done by Tom.

It might be worthwhile to bench test the existing reel to the point where damage starts occurring, and then see how far any upgrade goes before the next failure (either in the anti-reverse or some other system) occurred.  Field testing is also useful, but a bench test demonstrating greater load capacity would be useful in both verifying the fix is ready for field and generating confidence.

I can think of three interesting types of load testing.  The first is steady load - line being taken at constant smooth rate.  The second is the fast spinning freespool to engaged under load.  The third is the angler cranking under heavy load (lateral load on the gear sleeve), then letting the handle swing back until the dog engages.

The first two tests are not too tricky to set up,  the third is probably too difficult, and better suited to field (real life user) testing.

It would also be interesting to mount  a fully assembled bridge, dog, drag stack, handle, etc on a flat surface and watch/film/photo what the dogs and ratchet do as backward winding load is increasingly applied to the handle (use a drag scale and the amount of force could be replicated when testing  an upgrade).

Jeff (Riverrrat) has been doing some testing and photographing the outcome of load testing on these reels, so I don't know if he has anything to add here.

8.  I wonder if Penn went down this path, and found enough issues that they decided an upgrade was not cost effective for them (not us), especially considering the limited number of these reels out there  (and only a fraction of these regularly pushed to the limit).   Just too many things to fix to get it right for the amount of customers with problem reels.    If this is correct, it seems the folks that would be interested in a viable upgrade will be limited to the hotrodders and hardcore Penn fans (you know who you are  :D).  At this point, cost becomes much less of a factor.   

-J

Good stuff!

This all makes sense to me. 

Any ideas on the feasability/cost of producing an upgrade kit here?

John
Hope springs eternal
for the consumate fishermen.

steelfish

Quote from: jurelometer on May 19, 2016, 06:23:06 PM

8.  I wonder if Penn went down this path, and found enough issues that they decided an upgrade was not cost effective for them (not us),

I have seen the guys of PENN checking this thread lately, yep, peekaboo !! I have seen you guys (tunanorth and Penn users).
Im sure they are checking the thread and see if some upgrade comes up, like the ones already made on the tank 113h.

Also, Im pretty sure, the fix issue fall in what you said in your last sentense, its not cost effective for Penn, I can understand dont fix what is not broken but this since this reel has the Senator name and Baja on the same plate needs to be " at par" with his sibblings Senator reels and last years with no mechanical problems.
The Baja Guy

oc1

#89
The Baja Special model was replaced with the US113N.  Do the US113N, US113 and US113W all have the same design flaw as the Baja?
-steve