Bait finesse system, or BFS as it is known

[tincanary]

I've been seeing some members here beginning to take interest in BFS fishing so I thought I'd start up a thread and try to answer any questions any of you may have.  Feel free to pick my brain, as this is probably my favorite way to fish at this point in time. 

What is BFS exactly?  BFS has its roots in Japan, namely the pay to fish ponds which typically stock bass and trout.  Being that these ponds are very easy to access, this makes them very highly pressured.  As many here know, highly pressured fish can be very reluctant to bite, thus the fishermen would downsize their offerings in order to entice a bite.  Early on, no baitcast reels were capable of throwing sub 1/4 ounce baits, so the Japanese modified the smaller ABU 1500C and 2500C as well as the Millionaire GS1000C and GS2000C to make them effective at throwing such small offerings.  This all took place around the early 1990s, and soon after the technique was adopted by mountain stream trout fishermen.  The manufacturers took notice and started to develop rods and reels specifically for the technique.  It would be in the early 2000s when bait finesse gear finally appeared on the Japanese market.

So what makes a bait finesse reel different from a more conventional baitcast reel?  The biggest difference are the spools.  Most baitcast reels, even the newer ones, have heavy spools designed to hold a fair amount of line.  BFS reels on the other hand, have much lighter and shallower spools with most holding about 50yd worth of 6lb monofilament.  The spools are shallow in order to keep the overall weight low.  A lot of line can be heavy, and having a lot of line will hinder casting performance for such small baits.  Some of the latest and greatest BFS reels will cast lures of 1g or 1/32 oz trouble free providing you're using a rod with a tip that loads with such a light weight.  This is ultralight spinning reel territory.  Secondly, the braking system.  There are no BFS reels with a friction oriented centrifugal braking system.  Strong brakes are needed to throw really light stuff as the spool is much better controlled.  As an example, the Abu Revo Premier has 5 magnets in its braking system, while the Revo ALC-BF7, which is the same reel outfitted for BFS duties, uses 10 magnets.  Lastly, the weight.  BFS is much better casting one handed, and with a heavy reel one handed casting can quickly become fatiguing.  BFS reels typically weigh anywhere from 4.5oz (Aldebaran BFS XG) to 7.5oz (Daiwa Millionaire CT SV), much lighter than their cousins. 

Now, the cost of admission.  There aren't many BFS reels on the market.  As a matter of fact, the US market got its very first BFS reel just this year, the Shimano Curado BFS.  The Curado BFS comes in around $200, which is an outright bargain for a factory made BFS reel.  In Japan, there are other models made by other manufacturers, some can break the bank, but a few do not.  The cheaper Japanese models are both made by Abu Garcia, the Ultracast BF8 and Roxani BF8, which run $250 and $130 respectively.  On the higher end of things, we have the Shimano Calcutta Conquest BFS ($475) and the Daiwa Millionaire CT SV ($450).  There are models in the middle of those, such as the Daiwa Alphas Air TW, Aldebaran BFS, Scorpion BFS, Revo LTX-BF8, and Revo ALC-BF7.  While they can be expensive, many of the US market reels, such as the Black Max/Silver Max/Pro Max 3 reels from Abu can be outfitted for BFS duties with a $30 AliExpress spool.  Same with the Daiwa Tatula CT and Fuego CT.  All of those perform wonderfully with BFS spools and can really bring down the cost of admission for those interested.  With that said, for not much more one can purchase the Curado BFS and go fishing, right now. 

For me, BFS shines on the trout streams.  I fish trout the vast majority of the time, and the control and accuracy of a baitcast reel makes fishing an overgrown creek much easier than trying to swing a spinning rod.  BFS is in no way shape or form a replacement for spinning tackle, but it's another technique that will give you different options depending on where and what you're fishing for.  It's a new and exciting technique, and I'm sure we will see more offerings on the US market in due time now that Shimano has broken the ice.  You can bet your behind the likes of Daiwa, Abu, and Lews will have an answer to the Curado BFS at some point.  When the Curado BFS was first released, it was backordered everywhere due to overwhelming demand.  To me, that's a good thing.  It means BFS is catching on here and that other competitors are soon to follow suit.

[steelfish]

thanks for the explanation amigo.

few years back I started to downsize my gear according to the targeted species, before I was using the same reel and rod for curvinas, grouper, bait even light trolling, now I use some light gear for Spanish macks, seatrout/curvinas, etc and fishing became for fun, looking on youtube for light baitcasting fishing on saltwater and UL jigging is the way I found BFS fishing, while the main target is trout fishing in the streams is also used in some places of the world for fishing saltwater from the shore and I would like to try that out in a chance, if using light freshwater gear for LMB in saltwater is fun Im pretty sure BFS which is trout gear would be a great challenge with similar sized fish as spotted bay bass, calico bass, but it would be a heck of a fight with a triggerfish or a Spanish Mack.

as of today my lightest gear for saltwater is a Daiwa AirD 100 with 20# braid and an Abu Garcia Revo Sx with 6# hybrid floro-mono line, both paired with bass rods 6ft 12lb but I have some UL spinning rods as the cheapo Abu Vigilante UL 5ft rod and a fenwick eagle UL 6ft that I dont use that Im thinking to swap guides and give them a try with the Revo Sx once I go for the BFS spool, still on plans only.

[Gfish]

What's the best line, mono or braid, and which types of each(size and brand/model).

[tincanary]

What's the best line, mono or braid, and which types of each(size and brand/model).

For mono, I like to use the 5lb Maxima Ultragreen, great line and has been a mainstay among trout fishermen for a few decades now.  I also use it as leader material for when I run braid.  For braid, I really like the 8lb and 10lb Berkley X9, great stuff and it doesn't lose the color too easy.  Power Pro is also really nice in the thinner diameters and is probably more widely available than most other braids.  I was using Daiwa J-Braid previously but that stuff is a little too soft for my tastes, but a lot of others use it and love it.

[oc1]

That was good.  Thank you for the history lesson.  

BFS reels typically weigh anywhere from 4.5oz (Aldebaran BFS XG) to 7.5oz (Daiwa Millionaire CT SV), much lighter than their cousins.

A stock Langley Target from 1957 is 4.0 oz.  With a Pfleuger Cub drag it's 4.2 oz.  With a hundred yards of braid, magnets and other user modifications it is 4.7 oz.

Five years ago you could pick them up for thirty bucks.  Now, they're closer to a hundred at the auction.

[nelz]

Great write-up Mr. Tincanary. I've been trying a little ultra-light recently but with spinners, but still enjoyed learning about this.

Btw, just out of curiousity, I looked up the Shimano Curado BFS on Shimano's website and read this: "Unlike traditional magnetic brake systems that maintain the same drag on the spool throughout the cast, Shimano's FTB capitalizes on the cast's centrifugal force and the magnetic brakes automatically adjust to slow down the spool only when braking is needed."

Hmmm.... as far as I know, all magnetic braking works this way on aluminum spools. Did they come up with some special gizmo for this reel? I doubt it. 

[philaroman]

curious if there was any early BFS tinkering w/ spool-forward lefty Daiwa's
(drastically different from RH versions of same model/year -- NOT "mirrors"!!!)
if you don't want/need a levelwind, looks like you could easily strip well over 3oz.
...then, maybe add well under 1oz. for structural support & better palm-rest
I've only handled older, wider 103-size TD-X/TD-S (can be found <$50)
seems like the later TD-Z in the narrow 105-size ($100+ ballpark)
should have some shallower, more-ported spool options

[tincanary]

Great write-up Mr. Tincanary. I've been trying a little ultra-light recently but with spinners, but still enjoyed learning about this.

Btw, just out of curiousity, I looked up the Shimano Curado BFS on Shimano's website and read this: "Unlike traditional magnetic brake systems that maintain the same drag on the spool throughout the cast, Shimano's FTB capitalizes on the cast's centrifugal force and the magnetic brakes automatically adjust to slow down the spool only when braking is needed."

Hmmm.... as far as I know, all magnetic braking works this way on aluminum spools. Did they come up with some special gizmo for this reel? I doubt it.  

Not all mag systems work that way.  The Abu Magtrax and Lews MCS are linear magnetic brakes that apply the same force throughout the cast.  The magnets are in a fixed position with no moving parts that react to the speed of the spool.  The Shimano FTB and Daiwa Magforce are both progressive braking systems.  Those are hybrid centrifugal/magnet systems.  With Magforce, the inductor in the spool is held by a spring.  The faster the spool spins, the further the inductor moves into the magnet assembly.  Shimano's FTB is similar, the banks of magnets are on springs and those springs extend dependent on how fast the spool is spinning.  Magforce can be tuned with different springs and inductors.  Some inductors are longer or made with thicker aluminum and some are even tapered at the end.  FTB can be tuned by adding or removing magnets.  

[nelz]

Wouldn't ya know, they actually do have a special gizmo! This is getting too high tech for me, lol. 

[oc1]

"Unlike traditional magnetic brake systems that maintain the same drag on the spool throughout the cast, Shimano's FTB capitalizes on the cast's centrifugal force and the magnetic brakes automatically adjust to slow down the spool only when braking is needed."

Hmmm.... as far as I know, all magnetic braking works this way on aluminum spools. Did they come up with some special gizmo for this reel? I doubt it.  

I'm with you Nelz.  The Lenz's Law eddy currents should be be proportional to spool speed.  I always thought that was the beauty of magnetic brakes.  Proportional braking.

I'd have to see a comparison of casting with the two systems when all other factors are the same.  I'd also like to see an expertly done comparison of normal centrifugal brakes and magnetic brakes.  The selling point of magnetic brakes was always that they could be adjusted from the outside knob instead of opening the reel and fumbling with the centrigugal pads.  If the manufacturers have already done these comparisons then they should present us with the details and see if it can stand up to outside review.

[jurelometer]

"Unlike traditional magnetic brake systems that maintain the same drag on the spool throughout the cast, Shimano's FTB capitalizes on the cast's centrifugal force and the magnetic brakes automatically adjust to slow down the spool only when braking is needed."

Hmmm.... as far as I know, all magnetic braking works this way on aluminum spools. Did they come up with some special gizmo for this reel? I doubt it.  

I'm with you Nelz.  The Lenz's Law eddy currents should be be proportional to spool speed.  I always thought that was the beauty of magnetic brakes.  Proportional braking.

I'd have to see a comparison of casting with the two systems when all other factors are the same.  I'd also like to see an expertly done comparison of normal centrifugal brakes and magnetic brakes.  The selling point of magnetic brakes was always that they could be adjusted from the outside knob instead of opening the reel and fumbling with the centrigugal pads.  If the manufacturers have already done these comparisons then they should present us with the details and see if it can stand up to outside review.

This type of system could also be adjustable.  The knob could control the swing range  for the magnets or  the amount of centrifugal force needed to move the magnets closer to the spool.  Curious if any of these reels are adjustable.  I think that the basic idea of this hybrid system is to make the braking force more aggressive at higher RPMs, providing a different shape for the rpm/ braking curve compared to what we would see with fixed magnets.  

This seems like a useful mechanism  for lighter lures combined with shorter distances, where that initial acceleration at the release of the cast requires much heavier braking. Once the lure is in flight,  it does not have much mass or velocity, so the braking needs to back off more aggressively than would occur with fixed magnets.

To go off on a bit of a tangent:  It always burns my hide when the reel companies claim that centrifugal or magnetic brakes take effect  "only when braking is needed".  Aargh.  Braking is needed when the spool is turning so fast that the surface speed is faster than speed of the line being pulled off the reel by the cast object. These systems simply provide resistance at higher RPMs, whether it is needed or not.  That is why brakes need to be tuned for loads, and why the tournament guys turn adjust the brake  during the cast.  

Even those fancy electronic/digital cast controls are just approximating the amount of braking needed without comparing surface speed to exit velocity. I think that they do this by detecting the changes in RPMS, and apply  braking to make the RPM changes better match what they expect a non-backlash cast to look like.

There are some other systems that are more interesting, if not more effective.  There was a recent reel that used an internal pendulum mechanism that applied braking only during deceleration, but it was reported to make a lot of knocking noise and vibration, and had problems with more powerful casts. Might be useful on finesse reel though?  

And then there were the aftermarket crossbar on a spring mechanisms available for saltwater reels in the 50s.  As long as the cast line was under tension, the bar was held down, but if the surface speed exceeded the exit velocity, the slack in the line relieved the tension on the bar.  As the bar lifted, it engaged the braking.  I assume this mechanism had its own problems, because it never took off.  The mechanism  probably worked best with bigger loads and longer casts.  At least it was an honest attempt to provide braking only when needed.  

-J

[tincanary]

I'm with you Nelz.  The Lenz's Law eddy currents should be be proportional to spool speed.  I always thought that was the beauty of magnetic brakes.  Proportional braking.

I'd have to see a comparison of casting with the two systems when all other factors are the same.  I'd also like to see an expertly done comparison of normal centrifugal brakes and magnetic brakes.  The selling point of magnetic brakes was always that they could be adjusted from the outside knob instead of opening the reel and fumbling with the centrigugal pads.  If the manufacturers have already done these comparisons then they should present us with the details and see if it can stand up to outside review.

The centrifugal brakes on modern reels can be adjusted externally like a mag brake.  For instance, the Shimano SVS and Abu IVCB are externally adjustable.  When you turn the knob, the distance between the brake shoes and the brake ring increases or decreases.  You can also engage or disengage individual brake shoes to fine tune the braking as most will have 4 to 6 shoes mounted on the palm side of the spool.  Back to mag brakes, the linear mags found in Abu and Lews reels are better for short range pitching, making them ideally suited to fishing around docks or tight structure, while the progressive brakes are better for distance or skipping baits.  Here's a good article about braking systems on more modern reels https://japantackle.com/tackle_topics/brake_system.htm

[jurelometer]

One other thought.

The theoretical ideal spool for casting has zero moment of inertia.   This is attempted  in two ways.  The first is to eliminate friction as much  as possible, by improving alignment, lubrication, and  to a lesser extent bearing quality.

The next is minimizing the moment of inertia.  A loaded  spool with zero inertia would turn only while  line is  pulled off of it, and would not  funnel some energy off the cast to start  turning.    Perfect for casting.  Leaving out changing  the overall spool geometry ( not an option for this situation),   We  have to mess with mass, but not just by decreasing total mass, but also where the mass is located.

I slept through Physics, but I think that it works like this: Inertia in this case is measured as torque and is calculated this way:  I =M R²

Where M=Mass, and R=Radius (distance from center)

For all the points that mak up the spool.  And since we are squaring the radius, weight farther from the center has a much more significant effect.  The moment of inertia for one gram of mass at 5 mm from the center of the spool would be  25,  but  one gram at 12 mm  for the center  would change that to 144!

So if I got all this right, it is not enough to just make the spool lighter.  We also have to consider if the design shifts weight outward, which a BFS spool  probably does with the larger arbor. It is entirely possible to design a lighter spool that has higher inertia.

My guess is that the there is still a net benefit in inertia on these aftermarket BFS spools, but it is probably much less than the difference in loaded spool weight might lead us to believe.  That may be part of the reason why these reels need such hefty brakes.

I  wonder if there is a better spool design that might increase arbor diameter with a hard skin foam.  It would probably also  require some well balanced porting of a standard spool, so not something that could be attempted at home. 

There must have been  folks that attempted a quick and dirty BFS reel by using foam or cork to build a larger arbor.  I wonder how well that worked.

I have to admit that the first thing that came to mind when I found out about BFS was "Big effin Scam", but now I am leaning toward it being similar to some of the other recent fishing trends coming out of Japan.  Strip off all the marketing BS, clothing lines, lifestyle products, overpriced tackle and innovator hero-worship, and a kernel of something pretty interesting remains.

-J

[Gfish]

"without comparing surface speed to exit velocity". From Dave's post#10. "Surface speed", is that the spool speed at the line surface? "Exit velocity", is that maybe where the line leaves the spool, or where it goes through the level-wind guide, or maybe the rod tip?

Haven't looked at digital cast control reels yet.

Makes me think of sensor technology. Maybe one on the reel for "surface speed", but what about reading "exit velocity"? Oh, boy! A reel with an ECU(brain)and at least 2-sensors, think of the possibilities...
'

[jurelometer]

"without comparing surface speed to exit velocity". From Dave's post#10. "Surface speed", is that the spool speed at the line surface? "Exit velocity", is that maybe where the line leaves the spool, or where it goes through the level-wind guide, or maybe the rod tip?

Haven't looked at digital cast control reels yet.

Makes me think of sensor technology. Maybe one on the reel for "surface speed", but what about reading "exit velocity"? Oh, boy! A reel with an ECU(brain)and at least 2-sensors, think of the possibilities...
'

Surface speed is the speed that the surface of a rotating object is moving.  A  rolling wheel's surface speed will be the same as the speed it is moving over the road.   It is a function of the RPMs and the diameter.    On a cast, the surface speed is how fast the spool is releasing the line measured in feet per second.   Exit velocity is how fast the line is actually leaving the spool (as a result of being pulled by the cast object)  If the surface speed is greater than the exit velocity, the line unwinding from the spool doesn't have anywhere to go.  Eventually the line forms a loop large enough that it cannot move as fast as the surface speed, so a fresh loop forms underneath.  Over and over. A backlash is simply a stack of of these loops with a few twisted around others.   It makes it easier for me to clear backlashes to think of them this way.

I think that the story for digital cast controls will be something like this:  Cheap digital sensors can track time and revolutions, but they cannot easily measure surface speeds with a shrinking diameter and exit velocities (both optical based and hard to measure for a bunch of reasons).  So what they can do instead is use some test data to get an idea of what to look for in terms of changes in RPMs over time that means a cast probably needs more or less braking at a given moment and adjust accordingly.  The specific algorithms will be some sort of secret, but if you watch a tournament caster play with the thumb and mag knob, you will probably have a good idea.  So without getting a Shimano engineer liquored up, this is probably as close as we are going to figuring out how digital cast controls work, unless somebody has a better theory.

-J