Slow oscilation DAM Quicks?

[Bora]

Hello all,

I am wondering if any of you have experience with DQ models that have relatively 'slow' oscillation? By this I mean lower ratio of spool cycles [up/down] compared to rotor revolutions.

The few models that I have seen are pretty fast oscillation. For example, I use now a SL 121, and for 1 full cycle up/down of the spool it is 5 rotor rotations. Compare to my other reel, 20yr old Pfluger president, it is 13 rotor rotations for one full spool cycle.

I like the feel of slow oscillation reels. They seem to have have better line lay because the line criss-crosses less when spooling. But of course this could be a matter of preference.

So curious if there is any older reels with slower oscillations, DQ made or other models.

Thank you and all best,

Bora

[JasonGotaProblem]

Ok this is just my opinion, feel free to value it at what you paid for it.

The more a spool is cross-wrapped the better it casts. Loops of line packed next to each other like sardines is an easy way for line to dig in on a cast if the lure is heavy - relative to the line diameter.

My best casting spinners are my daiwa SS series. Those have very fast oscillation, the line is wrapped at a 15° angle line never digs in, even with 8# braid. and holy crap that thing casts a mile.

[philaroman]

Ok this is just my opinion, feel free to value it at what you paid for it.

The more a spool is cross-wrapped the better it casts. Loops of line packed next to each other like sardines is an easy way for line to dig in on a cast if the lure is heavy - relative to the line diameter.

My best casting spinners are my daiwa SS series. Those have very fast oscillation, the line is wrapped at a 15° angle line never digs in, even with 8# braid. and holy crap that thing casts a mile.

[CAVEAT: I may have UP/DOWN mixed up...  it happens]

are you sure you're not fixating on fast travel & drastic cross-wraps in one direction, ONLY (up?)
can't imagine the grooves in your worm are totally symmetrical like a leve-lwind?
isn't modern slow oscillation a misnomer?  ...just a timesaver for:
"variable speed oscillation with extra-slow downstroke (hence, fast up-stroke)"?

rare/expensive Suveran is the only "oldie" I can think of w/ BOTH:
worm oscillation like Jason's SS, AND worm drive like best DAM's (way better than SL)
vaguely recall something about some Mitchell Surf models w/ some older, simpler design for slower oscillation
if some older design is all-around slow going up AND down, can't imagine that being any good

[JasonGotaProblem]

The SS has worm oscillation, like a levelwind. If only that thing had a metal body it would be incomparable.

You hear that daiwa? Make a metal body SS!

[foakes]

I have never paid much attention to the amount of times the spool shaft cycles on DAM Quicks.

Since it corresponds directly to one complete rotation of the crank.

On a DQ —- the gear ratio would speed up or slow down the oscillation of the spool up & down.

Many DQ's are 1:3, some are 1:5, some are 1:4.25, some are 1:2.5, some are 1:4.

Lots of folks seem to think gear ratios are mysterious to figure out on a spinner.  They're not.  Just count the number of rotor rotations against (1) crank rotation —- that is your ratio.

I have always liked the Planamatic gearing on some Mitchells —- Caps, 304/314, 308/408, 306/406, some 302's, etc.

It helps to prevent "mono-digging" by accomplishing a cross-wind line lay instead of a straight line lay that could cause trouble after hauling in a few large fish.

As long as it works —- and the line lay is good —- it is as designed and manufactured. 

Best, Fred

[Bora]

Those are great points...

Indeed, I did not consider that with the worm DQs the spool oscillation would correspond to the gear ratio.

Likewise with the amount of load on the reel [lure or size fish]. I guess also line type plays a role. I guess cross wrapping being more important for braid than mono? I only use mono with light application so I don't have this experience.

[jurelometer]

I think the key is the ratio of spool oscillation to rotor rotation- which also is tied to spool length- which affects travel.    The gear ratio shouldn't matter for this discussion if I understand the question.

Less oscillation per rotation on a shorter length spool means that the spool does not have to travel as far per yard of line retrieved during winding, so less effort is expended. 

More oscillation per rotation on a longer spool gives you the wider weave benefit that Jason noted.  In addition to being less likely to dig in, the line is laying at at angle closer to the direction of travel during the cast (less friction on the spool lip and coil collision on the first couple of guide frames).  This also allows for a longer spool for the same capacity of line, which further befits casting performance (less spool lip exposed per yard of line cast).

Back in the pre-braid days when spinners used only mono and most were light tackle, designs were generally optimized to have a low oscillation ratios with short/deep spools.  Jump to modern reels optimized for braid, and we see more of the higher oscillation ratios with long/shallow spools.

For smaller reels and shorter casting distances, I am not sure that it makes much of a difference, but once you get into the bigger saltwater stuff, it is probably worth taking a closer look at, especially if you plan to fish braid.

More weave angle (cross weave) is generally beneficial. In addition to the casting distance benefit noted above, if you use a jerking style retrieve (like for poppers) where the winding tension can get fairly low, an agressive cross weave is less likely to pull extra loose coils off during a cast - spinners are susceptible to this kind of tangle, especially with braid.  The only downside that I can think of is a slightly lower spool capacity.

Or something like that.

-J

[Bora]

I think the key is the ratio of spool oscillation to rotor rotation- which also is tied to spool length- which affects travel.    The gear ratio shouldn't matter for this discussion if I understand the question.

Less oscillation per rotation on a shorter length spool means that the spool does not have to travel as far per yard of line retrieved during winding, so less effort is expended. 

More oscillation per rotation on a longer spool gives you the wider weave benefit that Jason noted.  In addition to being less likely to dig in, the line is laying at at angle closer to the direction of travel during the cast (less friction on the spool lip and coil collision on the first couple of guide frames).  This also allows for a longer spool for the same capacity of line, which further befits casting performance (less spool lip exposed per yard of line cast).

Back in the pre-braid days when spinners used only mono and most were light tackle, designs were generally optimized to have a low oscillation ratios with short/deep spools.  Jump to modern reels optimized for braid, and we see more of the higher oscillation ratios with long/shallow spools.

For smaller reels and shorter casting distances, I am not sure that it makes much of a difference, but once you get into the bigger saltwater stuff, it is probably worth taking a closer look at, especially if you plan to fish braid.

More weave angle (cross weave) is generally beneficial. In addition to the casting distance benefit noted above, if you use a jerking style retrieve (like for poppers) where the winding tension can get fairly low, an agressive cross weave is less likely to pull extra loose coils off during a cast - spinners are susceptible to this kind of tangle, especially with braid.  The only downside that I can think of is a slightly lower spool capacity.

Or something like that.

-J

Excellent clarifications here J. Good to have that analysis. And the observation that modern design indeed favours braid.

On the links between oscillation and gear ratio I was referring to the DQ worm drive specifically. I see there is a oscillating arm connecting directly the main dear and the shaft, so One full rotation of the handle will produce the same number of rotor rotations and spool oscillations (in my case 5 each).
All best,
Bora

[jurelometer]

Excellent clarifications here J. Good to have that analysis. And the observation that modern design indeed favours braid.

On the links between oscillation and gear ratio I was referring to the DQ worm drive specifically. I see there is a oscillating arm connecting directly the main dear and the shaft, so One full rotation of the handle will produce the same number of rotor rotations and spool oscillations (in my case 5 each).
All best,
Bora

Thanks for the kind words.  We all learn from each other here. 

In terms of gear ratio and oscillation, since all spinners are driven by the main (handle) shaft,  the ratios are always going to be linked on any design.  Each rotation of he handle will produce the same amount of oscillation. 


I would agree with the statement that simpler designs that do not have a separate gear train dedicated to oscillation have less options for both travel distance and spool oscillation/rotor rotation ratio.  This is true for those old worm gear Quicks, but also for other designs  with right angle gear drives, like the the old Penns.

But if the reel doesn't really need a long spool and rapid oscillation to get the job done, simpler is better, and usually more robust.   If you only need to cast a spinner  lure up to 80 feet and are using 3 lbs or less of drag, you really don't need all that extra complexity.

I think that is part of the reason why the older freshwater spinners still have some popularity.

-J

[Midway Tommy]

But if the reel doesn't really need a long spool and rapid oscillation to get the job done, simpler is better, and usually more robust.   If you only need to cast a spinner  lure up to 80 feet and are using 3 lbs or less of drag, you really don't need all that extra complexity.

I think that is part of the reason why the older freshwater spinners still have some popularity.

-J

One aspect that has been kind of forgotten over the years, especially with the advent of the smaller, longer and shallower lipped spools introduced to obtain longer casts, is that larger diameter spools like many of those used on spinning reels from decades past create a lot less line twist. 

[Gfish]

Fred mentioned the planamatic gears on the Mitchell's. I have 6th version(early '60's) 300 and a 2nd or 3rd version 300(1940's). The older reel has 10 handle cycles/ 1 up-down cycle of the spool. The newer one has 4.75 handle cranks/ 1 up-down spool cycle. The difference is in the transfer gear size. Note in the picture the tiny dark colored gear with about 8 teeth(right side). Note the size difference in the bottom gears, also.
Also note the round solid aluminium knob as opposed to the better shaped, but !plastic! Knob for the version 6.

I couldn't see any difference after lining the spools from each reel, i.e., the line lay looked the same on each reel. Old reel in the top picture. I've heard the gears on these older 300's referred to as "levelwinders".

So, I took 'em both out to test the cast distance, thinking the levelwinder would out-distance the crosswinder: no difference! Same rod, weight and as close as I could come to the same arm power. Hmmm.

[Midway Tommy]

Greg,
Personally, I think the advantage of the crosswind design really only comes into play if there's a lot of excessive drag/tension applied when reeling in. That, in my mind, would be when mono, or possibly even braid, would pack in between rounds on the level wind scenario. If there's not a lot of resistance I don't think it probably matters that much.

[jurelometer]

(BTW, Tom could explain better, but I thought that the 300s are not Planamatics.  Doesn't the Planamatic use a nested planetary gear inside of the main gear to drive the crosswind block?)

Agree with Tom.  I wouldn't expect much difference on a 300. To add a bit more detail, the longer the spool and/or the smaller diameter the line and/or the greater the winding load, the more the benefit of aggressive crosswinding.  I hope that I don't offend any Mitchell fans, but their classic spinners seem a bit odd to to me.  The reels are filled with extra gears and other parts to provide more crosswinding on  what amounts to just a slightly longer spool. Much more complexity, but not much of a meaningful jump in actual fishing performance.  I gave up on my fussy Mitchell spinners pretty quickly back in the day.

Getting back to Tom's earlier comments,  agree that a larger diameter makes less twists per rotor revolution when the spool is at its fullest, but an aggressive crosswind loads the line more diagonally, so more line gets loaded per revolution at a given diameter.  And a longer spool looses less diameter during a cast.  Not sure if it comes out as a wash or not.  Either way, twist becomes much less of a headache with braid.

I did notice that the largest ("bluewater") modern saltwater spinner designs go back toward a more narrow spool.  I would attribute this to one of the weaknesses inherent in spinning reel design.  The spool/oscillation shaft cannot be supported on the drag cap side of the spool.  A longer (wider) spool requires longer oscillation, and therefore a  longer unsupported section of shaft, causing greater leverage from the line roller when under load.

-J

[Midway Tommy]

Nice expansion, Dave!

[Gfish]

Yeah J, great expansion. Also yeah, you're right, the planamatic gears are in my 302 and the reels Fred mentioned, not the 300's. Cool arrangement, a gear inside of a gear, but a "B" to get back together when reassembling the whole reel.
They used a-lot of aluminum on their reels, including almost all the gears. The pinion and the gear molded into the aluminum rotor were brass. Wonder why so much Aluminum? Prolly was cheaper and lighter? What could they have been the thinking with all those different gears? Good thing is I have yet to see a properly positioned gear on a Mitchell have loose mesh tolerances. The gear posts must all be steel.