Fully Ceramic Line Roller Bearings Observations

[Fisherman2]

Hey all,

Recently I acquired some fully ceramic ball bearings to put into the line rollers of some Saragosas.

Bottom line is, I'm stunned by the performance and feedback increased by replacing the stainless steel ball bearings with fully ceramic.

They definitely are louder and I reckon they'd be no good inside the reel. But for the line roller? They're fantastic


What are the thoughts on them from you guys?

[philaroman]

that bearing on a spinner is a corrosion magnet -- hence, great place for ceramics
otherwise, can't imagine much functional benefit over clean lubed steel 

only reason to run ceramics dry, is to squeeze a few extra feet of distance 
from casting spool bearings -- nothing on a spinner even approaches that RPM range
no reason to tolerate noise -- at best it's annoying; at worst it's
vibration that can't be great for adjacent mechanisms/systems
the noise is indeed feedback on how hard the roller is working, but how useful is that?
are you going to play a fish differently, just 'cause the line-roller is crying? 

[Fisherman2]

that bearing on a spinner is a corrosion magnet -- hence, great place for ceramics
otherwise, can't imagine much functional benefit over clean lubed steel

only reason to run ceramics dry, is to squeeze a few extra feet of distance
from casting spool bearings -- nothing on a spinner even approaches that RPM range
no reason to tolerate noise -- at best it's annoying; at worst it's
vibration that can't be great for adjacent mechanisms/systems
the noise is indeed feedback on how hard the roller is working, but how useful is that?
are you going to play a fish differently, just 'cause the line-roller is crying? 

Agreed, are you sure the line roller won't get up there in terms of RPM though?

They're quite small and when a fish is taking meters of line per second, I'd imagine that's a very high RPM?

Charlie

[Brewcrafter]

I can't imagine why you wouldn't lubricate it with some TSI321 or equivalent.  In a conventional reel, some claim dry ceramics have their place with less drag/improved casting performance.  But all of that is irrelevant with a spinner, where the bearing doesn't come into play in a cast.  The highest loads/rpms that bearing will see will be with a fish on, and if anything to my mind the minimal resistance introduced with lubrication would be a plus, if anything. - john

[Fisherman2]

I can't imagine why you wouldn't lubricate it with some TSI321 or equivalent.  In a conventional reel, some claim dry ceramics have their place with less drag/improved casting performance.  But all of that is irrelevant with a spinner, where the bearing doesn't come into play in a cast.  The highest loads/rpms that bearing will see will be with a fish on, and if anything to my mind the minimal resistance introduced with lubrication would be a plus, if anything. - john

Regarding TSI321, I've avoided it larger because of the claimed interactions it has with other lubricants.

I sprayed it with Shimano spray oil as an alternative

Charlie

[JasonGotaProblem]

Issues with other lubricants is a non-concern in a spot like a line roller where it won't come in contact with any other lubes. That might be more of a thing if you were considering using it on the inside sliding face of a pinion gear that has grease on the outside of the gear (I still use TSI for this but i can understand that a spot like this might be a valid concern).

Also I'm at least partially convinced that those who speak of TSI having issues with other lubes are using TSI 301 (which contains a solvent) as opposed to TSI 321 (which does not contain a solvent).

I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. This might be one of those times.

[Fisherman2]

Issues with other lubricants is a non-concern in a spot like a line roller where it won't come in contact with any other lubes. That might be more of a thing if you were considering using it on the inside sliding face of a pinion gear that has grease on the outside of the gear (I still use TSI for this but i can understand that a spot like this might be a valid concern).

Also I'm at least partially convinced that those who speak of TSI having issues with other lubes are using TSI 301 (which contains a solvent) as opposed to TSI 321 (which does not contain a solvent).

I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. This might be one of those times.

One day I'll get round to trying it, sounds very interesting in terms of a lubricant

[jurelometer]

Regarding RPMs,

Let's do some math:

1. First  multiply the roller diameter by pi to get the amount of line per roller revolution.

For example, 8mm diameter is about 25 mm per revolution, or 0.025 meters.

2.  Pick a max speed for the run.

I will go with 15kph, which is way on the fast side. Translate that into minutes and we get about 240 meters per minute. So almost three football fields worth of line in one minute at top speed.

3.  Divide  to get RPMs

Divide 240 by 0.025 and we get a burst of 9600 RPMs.  meh.  Nothing for a ball bearing.

Maximum RPM rating for a small stainless ball bearing of decent quality is probably somewhere north of 50,000 RPM.

Regarding interactions of other lubricants with  TSI 321: A no-no with grease, ok with some oils.  check out this thread: https://alantani.com/index.php?topic=32359.0

-J

[JasonGotaProblem]

Regarding RPMs,

Let's do some math:

1. First  multiply the roller diameter by pi to get the amount of line per roller revolution.

For example, 8mm diameter is about 25 mm per revolution, or 0.025 meters.

2.  Pick a max speed for the run.

I will go with 15kph, which is way on the fast side. Translate that into minutes and we get about 240 meters per minute. So almost three football fields worth of line in one minute at top speed.

3.  Divide  to get RPMs

Divide 240 by 0.025 and we get a burst of 9600 RPMs.  meh.  Nothing for a ball bearing.

Maximum RPM rating for a small stainless ball bearing of decent quality is probably somewhere north of 50,000 RPM.

Regarding interactions of other lubricants with  TSI 321: A no-no with grease, ok with some oils.  check out this thread: https://alantani.com/index.php?topic=32359.0

-J

Ok I actually have the energy to tale this one on today, so I'm gonna argue a point thats bugged me for a while about the use of RPM ratings as a means of choosing a bearing. I mean first and foremost looking for some kind of literature to aid in decision making is inherently a good idea and I don't wanna sound like I'm discouraging that. But I am arguing that those RPM ratings are related to what the bearing can handle before friction from the imprecise surfaces rolling makes it overheat or otherwise tear itself apart.

Imagine for this example an even lower quality bearing. Like one that's only rated for like 12000 rpm. It might be so sluggish that the line may slide across the roller before the bearing actually turns. But the demand load is within the bearing's ratings so that bearing won't take any damage. That doesn't mean it's a good choice for a reel you care about.

Now granted you didn't recommend a crap bearing but a quality stainless one. And that would do the job. I'm just attempting to illustrate my issue with that line of thinking. my point is that the max rpm rating wouldn't be my first choice of a metric for a performance bearing application.

[jurelometer]

Regarding RPMs,

Let's do some math:

Ok I actually have the energy to tale this one on today, so I'm gonna argue a point thats bugged me for a while about the use of RPM ratings as a means of choosing a bearing. I mean first and foremost looking for some kind of literature to aid in decision making is inherently a good idea and I don't wanna sound like I'm discouraging that. But I am arguing that those RPM ratings are related to what the bearing can handle before friction from the imprecise surfaces rolling makes it overheat or otherwise tear itself apart.

Imagine for this example an even lower quality bearing. Like one that's only rated for like 12000 rpm. It might be so sluggish that the line may slide across the roller before the bearing actually turns. But the demand load is within the bearing's ratings so that bearing won't take any damage. That doesn't mean it's a good choice for a reel you care about.

Now granted you didn't recommend a crap bearing but a quality stainless one. And that would do the job. I'm just attempting to illustrate my issue with that line of thinking. my point is that the max rpm rating wouldn't be my first choice of a metric for a performance bearing application.

Well, the question was about RPMs   I was trying to stay on topic for once. 

But I'll bite:

For a ball bearing's standards based performance specs, you have radial load, axial load, max speed, and tolerance/roundness (ABEC rating). Some bearing manufacturers publish alignment range as well.  Not aware of a friction rating, but real world friction is going to be mostly a function of whether you cleaned out all of the factory goobricant that the bearing came packed with, what lubricant you replaced it with, how well aligned the reel parts are, what type of shields or seals- and whether you removed them, and maybe the cage construction.

Ceramics probably seem faster relative to stainless than they actually are because they come dry, and are run dry, and are often compared to stainless bearings that were never properly de-goobed.

Compared to other machinery, reels are not very demanding on ball bearing performance, with the exception of axial load on bearings going into certain spots on a lever drag.  It is probably worth checking the axial load rating in this case, but it was always pretty close on deep groove ball bearings for the  manufacturers that I looked at. Cheap brands don't usually supply specs.

I am mostly inclined to buy whatever 440c bearing is the combination of cheapest/most convenient. No issues so far.   I have a soft spot for bearings with snap rings holding the shields/seals. 

Bearing speed rating is measured by surface speed (of the race surfaces or balls?) but they usually publish the RPM number for a given size.  When a number was listed, they all seem to be around 50-60K for the sizes used for conventional reel casting.
 
Don't want to speak for the reel repair pros here, but I seem to remember seeing posts stating that some of them are not too finicky about brands.

So, what is your criteria for selecting a ball bearing?

-J

[JasonGotaProblem]

I feel I may oversimplify things. I go to the bin and see if I already have it. Keith bought quality bearings by the sleeve, so that part has been super easy lately. Thus far all my searches these past few months have stopped there. But back when I lived in the real world where parts cost money I just bought my bearings from reputable sellers and decide on a case by case basis how much i feel like paying. Beyond being stainless it feels like I'm pretty much only ever concerned with quality on spool bearings anymore.

And it's been easy to decide. Am I casting it? If so will it ever see more than 20# of drag (entirely arbitrary line i drew in the sand because ceramics are reportedly not as strong).

Really I think it's a where one settles on the curve of diminishing returns vs non diminishing incremental prices.

[Fisherman2]

Regarding RPMs,

Let's do some math:

1. First  multiply the roller diameter by pi to get the amount of line per roller revolution.

For example, 8mm diameter is about 25 mm per revolution, or 0.025 meters.

2.  Pick a max speed for the run.

I will go with 15kph, which is way on the fast side. Translate that into minutes and we get about 240 meters per minute. So almost three football fields worth of line in one minute at top speed.

3.  Divide  to get RPMs

Divide 240 by 0.025 and we get a burst of 9600 RPMs.  meh.  Nothing for a ball bearing.

Maximum RPM rating for a small stainless ball bearing of decent quality is probably somewhere north of 50,000 RPM.

Regarding interactions of other lubricants with  TSI 321: A no-no with grease, ok with some oils.  check out this thread: https://alantani.com/index.php?topic=32359.0

-J

I would say large Pelagics/sharks will hit closer to 30-50kph for a bit running

Charlie

[jurelometer]

Regarding RPMs,

Let's do some math:

1. First  multiply the roller diameter by pi to get the amount of line per roller revolution.

For example, 8mm diameter is about 25 mm per revolution, or 0.025 meters.

2.  Pick a max speed for the run.

I will go with 15kph, which is way on the fast side. Translate that into minutes and we get about 240 meters per minute. So almost three football fields worth of line in one minute at top speed.

3.  Divide  to get RPMs

Divide 240 by 0.025 and we get a burst of 9600 RPMs.  meh.  Nothing for a ball bearing.

Maximum RPM rating for a small stainless ball bearing of decent quality is probably somewhere north of 50,000 RPM.

Regarding interactions of other lubricants with  TSI 321: A no-no with grease, ok with some oils.  check out this thread: https://alantani.com/index.php?topic=32359.0

-J

I would say large Pelagics/sharks will hit closer to 30-50kph for a bit running

Charlie

Here is how I came up with 15 KPH:

There is a bit of debate about how fast these fish really swim.  But the scientists  throw around 10-20 fork lengths per second short burst speed for smaller scrombroids, and something around 5 for swimming fast-  based on measuring fish in a tank,   The problem is once you get into bigger fish, there is a question of how a fish can swim 50KPH+ without shredding the fins from cavitation.

And then we have to account for drag from the reel and the line in the water,

the other way of looking at it is that if we were to triple that 15 KPM in my estimate, that would mean that the fish would have gone about three football fields distance in 20 seconds (or one in 6.3 seconds). I don't think that is going to happen in real life, and if it were to happen, you aren't stopping that fish with a Saragossa.  The last thing that you need to worry about is line roller performance. But you would still be well within the bearing specs.
 
But feel free to plug into the equation  whatever numbers you are think are more suitable/accurate, and see if you are pushing the bearing toward the RPM limits.

-J
 

[Cor]

"The fastest recorded species is the yellowfin tuna at around 46 miles per hour" 
https://a-z-animals.com/blog/the-10-fastest-fish-in-the-ocean/

I can only make a subjective comment here.
If you hook one of these fish on a chunk of bait, they take off in too the deep and your reel zings, but 46 MPH, I sort of doubt that when on a line.   Maybe a huge Bluefin?

We often catch Yellowfin on the surface on a lure, then they take off at speed, but usually remain on the surface where we can see them.   In this case we need to use the boat to follow the fish as our tackle is made for casting and not strong enough to subdue a large Yellowfin on its own.

I can estimate the boat speed fairly well and do not think when following a hooked tuna we exceed a boat speed of 7 knots and nor is the Tuna opening the gap even at short bursts, at a speed much higher than that, so my simple guesstimate is fish speed in water = 15 knots.

So my independent guess agrees close enough with jurelometer's scientific one

[JasonGotaProblem]

So what i realize I did not say in my last post, but meant to, was that when we work on our reels we often aren't just doing the bare minimum to get them to function acceptably. I don't think I'm the only one here tuning them for optimal performance.

I'll bet just about nobody has a spool that'll ever spin fast enough to require an abec 5 or above bearing. Probably not an abec3 or above But I probably don't need to convince you that quality spool bearings matter both for casting far or casting light lures. We agree that there's diminishing returns as one goes fancier on a bearing, but steal a world record chaser's casting rig and swap their fancy ceramics for a true abec 3 steel bearing from a reputable manufacturer and ask them to throw a long cast. I'd be willing to bet we'd see a difference in distance.

And I'll bet the long cast enthusiast wouldn't take any solace in being told that the shorter cast is no big deal because the spool's speed never got above 1/5 the bearing's RPM rating.