Slow oscilation DAM Quicks?

[jurelometer]

My guess is that there were several reasons why they used aluminum or other soft metals for the gearing. But it boils down to not needing anything better back in the mono days, and the alternatives were much more costly with the manufacturing technology available at the time.

For example, the gears need to be smooth to help maintain momentum.  You have probably noticed that the first half rotation  or so of the handle takes  more effort to get all that mass rotating and oscillating, but not so bad afterwards.  To have low resistance with hard teeth, everything needs to be much more accurate in terms of both manufacturing and assembly alignment.  That costs money, and was probably even more expensive back in the pre CNC days.

Still seem to use softer metals to this day, even in some relatively high end spinners.  They just tell you that if you blow out the gears, it was due to pilot error. " Don't use the reel as a winch", yada yada yada.   Conveniently ignoring the fact that a reel is pretty much just a winch with a slip-clutch.

- J

[oldmanjoe]

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

A quick answer to your question ,Yes .
    If you look at the larger size reels , 5000 has a 3 and one half turns rotor to one up and down cycle

                                          550 has 3 and one quarter turns rotor to one up and down cycle
                                          270 has 10 rotor turns to one up and down cycle
      I don`t have a 550n to give that number .
I am only using the large reels as a example here only because they were in front of me now , we can do this with the smaller reels ...

[JasonGotaProblem]

This thread started good and then got better. A few minor additions

Line digging becomes a huge problem when retrieving under heavy load. Or if you have to break off a snag and didn't bring a pipe section. But it's also a major concern when casting heavy weights. And frankly that's where I feel like it's a bigger concern.

And I believe modern high end spinners are moving toward narrower spools is because it allows them to hit higher drag numbers for a given drag stack. Look at the 750SS vs the 850SS. Same drag disks. 850SS has a lower max drag. The longer radius means less force is needed to cause a stationary spool to start turning.

Then there's "oh the 5000 size doesn't have the line cap for the fish you plan to fight? Have you seen the 7000 size? It's only $____ more"

[jurelometer]

This thread started good and then got better. A few minor additions

Line digging becomes a huge problem when retrieving under heavy load. Or if you have to break off a snag and didn't bring a pipe section. But it's also a major concern when casting heavy weights. And frankly that's where I feel like it's a bigger concern.

And I believe modern high end spinners are moving toward narrower spools is because it allows them to hit higher drag numbers for a given drag stack. Look at the 750SS vs the 850SS. Same drag disks. 850SS has a lower max drag. The longer radius means less force is needed to cause a stationary spool to start turning.

Then there's "oh the 5000 size doesn't have the line cap for the fish you plan to fight? Have you seen the 7000 size? It's only $____ more"

Agree with the point on radius and drag, but I am confused as to the exact point you are making on the rest.

I think that the main issue that they wrestle with on spinners and high drag is the cantilever effect on the spool shaft. The longer the spool, the longer the cantilever.

I guess I should expand on what I mentioned earlier in this thread: In physics terms, the spool shaft is primarily loaded in the form of a cantilever, so the farther the load point from the fulcrum, the greater the leverage.   The fulcrum location doesn't change. It is always the final point on the frame where the shaft is supported. 

The longer the spool, the farther the bail roller needs to be from the frame.  When winding, the load point on the spool shaft (cantilever beam)  will always be the same distance from fulcrum (the distance from the fulcrum to the bail roller), regardless of where the shaft/spool is in the oscillation cycle.  But under drag/non-winding load, the load point is going  vary, depending on where the line is on the spool, and where the spool is in the oscillation cycle.

The worse case scenario is when the spool is fully extended in the oscillation cycle, and the fish takes line against drag until the it unwinds to the front of the spool. Now the cantilever load point will be several inches farther from the fulcrum on a saltwater sized long-cast  spinner.  More leverage, more  shaft bendo.

If you watch the new Spinfisher VII (Roman numerals make it even more advanced ) video on the Penn University board, about 2/3 of the way though, Steve Carson notes that the same model with the long cast spool cannot support as high of a drag setting.  I would give him a 95% accuracy score for the technical explanation, which is a rare high score for  reel marketing/promotion.

Agree that this has been a fun thread.  Thanks to all the folks sharing their insights!

-J

[JasonGotaProblem]

I guess what I was attempting to say was that the drawback fo a narrower spool is less line capacity. To the marketing dept that's not a bad thing because in theory it forces folks to buy the larger more expensive model.

I havent seen the SSVII marketing video. In fact I don't think I've ever seen any reel's marketing video. That's just willingly watching a commercial. Maybe that's just me. But I am glad to hear the marketing department is beginning to respect our collective intelligence.

[jurelometer]

Looking at the specs for the Spinfisher VI 7500:  the long cast variant actually has a bit less line capacity (and a lot lower max  drag rating). 

Agree that there is the potential to support more line capacity in a long cast spool, but I would guess that most manufacturers keep the long cast spools on the shallow side, like Penn does. 

And, yeah,  I just burned off  a couple minutes that I will never get back on the "VII" update.  Looks  to me like the same as the previous generation, but with a brass main gear.   

-J

[Barishi]

This thread started good and then got better. A few minor additions

Line digging becomes a huge problem when retrieving under heavy load. Or if you have to break off a snag and didn't bring a pipe section. But it's also a major concern when casting heavy weights. And frankly that's where I feel like it's a bigger concern.

And I believe modern high end spinners are moving toward narrower spools is because it allows them to hit higher drag numbers for a given drag stack. Look at the 750SS vs the 850SS. Same drag disks. 850SS has a lower max drag. The longer radius means less force is needed to cause a stationary spool to start turning.

Then there's "oh the 5000 size doesn't have the line cap for the fish you plan to fight? Have you seen the 7000 size? It's only $____ more"

Agree with the point on radius and drag, but I am confused as to the exact point you are making on the rest.

I think that the main issue that they wrestle with on spinners and high drag is the cantilever effect on the spool shaft. The longer the spool, the longer the cantilever.

I guess I should expand on what I mentioned earlier in this thread: In physics terms, the spool shaft is primarily loaded in the form of a cantilever, so the farther the load point from the fulcrum, the greater the leverage.   The fulcrum location doesn't change. It is always the final point on the frame where the shaft is supported. 

The longer the spool, the farther the bail roller needs to be from the frame.  When winding, the load point on the spool shaft (cantilever beam)  will always be the same distance from fulcrum (the distance from the fulcrum to the bail roller), regardless of where the shaft/spool is in the oscillation cycle.  But under drag/non-winding load, the load point is going  vary, depending on where the line is on the spool, and where the spool is in the oscillation cycle.

The worse case scenario is when the spool is fully extended in the oscillation cycle, and the fish takes line against drag until the it unwinds to the front of the spool. Now the cantilever load point will be several inches farther from the fulcrum on a saltwater sized long-cast  spinner.  More leverage, more  shaft bendo.

If you watch the new Spinfisher VII (Roman numerals make it even more advanced ) video on the Penn University board, about 2/3 of the way though, Steve Carson notes that the same model with the long cast spool cannot support as high of a drag setting.  I would give him a 95% accuracy score for the technical explanation, which is a rare high score for  reel marketing/promotion.

Agree that this has been a fun thread.  Thanks to all the folks sharing their insights!

-J

Assuming a shaft would not bend, I wonder if rear drag reels have better shaft support than front drag reels, given that there's a whole setup holding the shaft in place at the bottom. Then again, most spinners nowadays have some support on the oscillation block, like ball bearings riding against the body.

Maybe I'm seeing this wrongly? I think the load bearing stuff at the bottom of the shaft is to prevent twisting of the shaft due to high drag, not bending...?

[jurelometer]

Assuming a shaft would not bend, I wonder if rear drag reels have better shaft support than front drag reels, given that there's a whole setup holding the shaft in place at the bottom. Then again, most spinners nowadays have some support on the oscillation block, like ball bearings riding against the body.

Maybe I'm seeing this wrongly? I think the load bearing stuff at the bottom of the shaft is to prevent twisting of the shaft due to high drag, not bending...?

The cantilever effect does not change if you switch to a rear drag.  And the designs with the drag and anti-reverse ahead of the gear train are more robust than the other options. So rear drag is not going to be as strong, just easier to adjust.

It seems to me that the cantilever load is more of a challenge than the torsional load.  Lots of stories out there about bent spool shafts.  Never heard of one twisted off, but I guess it is possible with a strong enough drag, and a thin enough shaft.  But a thin shaft is going to bend first.

Too much to get into on optimizing the design to handle torsional load, but you have to look at how to lock the metal drag washers to the shaft, how to prevent the shaft from rotating, and how far the torsional load is from the rotational lock.  Not really tricky to keep from being the weakest link, and that is all you need.

-J