Ok, forgive me if this has been discussed. I tried to no avail to search through google and yahoo and on this forum also but haven't found an answer to this question. A friend of mine has given me a nice penn long beach 60. It's a little rough around the edges corrosion wise, but the side plates are in excellent condition, it even has the nice fisherman casting inlay on the left plate witch I find to be very nice. I intend to put this old reel back to work as a light (20lb) inshore reel for sand bass etc. I'm intending on upgrading the drags to ht100 or carbontex with stainless washers, a stainless sleeve for durability, and an aluminum spool, and maybe replace the handle. I would like to know if any of the Tib or old stock accurate frames will fit this reel??? I prefer the one piece frames for a few reasons but haven't been able to find info on what is compatible, or I have read it and it hasn't clicked to what is compatible. Thanks for any info in advance, I know someone on here would know the answer to this.
As it happens, I have several of these sized reels and can tell you that unfortunatly the awnser is no. However, for 20 pound class line the factory stand is more than adequate. A standard 3+1 HT-100 drag configuration can give you enough drag for line twice as heavy so I'd invest my money somewhere else. I do wish that Penn made a stand that would fit this reel that used a clamp. It is the same size as a 2/0 Senator but the stands are not interchangable. The handle off the 49 is really nice on these reels, the cat's meow is Alan's Jigmaster handle and one of his new grips.
Ron
Ron,
Not sure this will work or not but it looks like a 30-49 stand has the same pattern as a 30-60 stand. The 49 stand in a little narrower but is has the holes for a clamp. Maybe by putting a couple of spacers between the 49 stand and 60 reel you can get stand that will work with holes for a clamp. Just now looking at a couple of reels it looks like the 60 stand is approx 1/8" wider that a 49 stand.
John
one thing about penn reels is that you can spend and infinite amount of money upgrading these. there is literally no limit to the amount of money you can spend on these. so let's go through this reel in order of increasing cost vs/ decreasing benefit.
1 - get an old toothbrush and some grease and scrub down all surfaces of this reel, leaving a light coat of grease everywhere. pay particular attention to all of the non-exposed metal surfaces.
2 - if you do not have carbon fiber drag washers, switch out all the stock drag washers for greased carbon fiber. you will need one carbontex drag washer to go under the main gear and three penn ht-100's inside. apply a light coat of cal's grease first.
3 - if the soft brass gear sleeve is damaged, replace it with another soft $6 brass gear sleeve. with a 5 pound drag setting, you will never need a $20 stainless steel gear sleeve.
4 - a $10 penn clamp? naw, this reel won't take one, but other's might.
5 - switch out the old stock handle for a $17 jigmaster power handle.
6 - if you seriously want a $20 stainless steel gear, go ahead and install it now.
7 - want a big handle grip? add a $27 3/0 grip.
8 - problem with the stock chrome/brass spool? the aluminum spool is $28.
9 - this reel would not take a $40-80 tib or accurate frame, but you would add this last.
start at the top of the list, work your way down!
I don't think anyone ever made an aftermarket frame (Accurate, Tib, etc) for the 60. The stock reel foot and post assembly is more than adequate for 20lb line. If you MUST have a rod brace, and you are replacing the spool, then get a slightly wider Longbeach 65 spool and a 30-66 reel foot and rod brace. Basically, you will be converting your 60 to the wider 65 with a rod brace. Of course, if you want to keep it in the stock width, then disregard all that I suggested. ;D
George
The problem with the 65 is you can't get an aluminum spool, Scott's doesn't list any spool available. The 49 idea might work. A little secret is that the narrow Jigmasters use the 49 stand and Newell made aluminum stands for them. I might try the spacer idea someday.
You can spend a bunch of money, but I think you can save compared to a mini tank, which is basically waht you would be building. Alan, who has stainless gears for the Penn 60?
Barring that, assuming you have a reel with a steel gear for 20 bucks you can get a sleeve for 20 bucks, a spool for 28, the Newell kit can usually be found on Ebay for 50ish and whatever handle you want. Lee will let you spend 10 bucks for two dogs and for the price of the Tiburon kit, not counting the 112h you have a 40 pound reel that is just a little slower than a factory Jigmaster. It would be nice to use the Newell bars, but Penn posts have fished 40 pound line for a long long time.
Ron
How nice! :( I wasn't aware that Penn didn't make an aluminum spool for the 65. Well, you can forget my suggestion.
George
You can find the 29M-60 spools on ebay. Bought a couple a few weeks ago NIB.
Quote from: Newell Nut on July 24, 2013, 04:11:00 PM
You can find the 29M-60 spools on ebay. Bought a couple a few weeks ago NIB.
The 60 and 85 spools are interchangeable. The 85 is pretty much a plain-jane 60.
It's hard to beat a basic original 60 (with CF drags!) as a 15-20 pound reel. Not real fast (2.35:1) but it's a good (make that economical ;)) starter, loaner, bait-catcher, or backup reel.
Scott's has spools also. That spool is why I think this reel makes scence. In fact, Lee hot rodded one a few month ago.
http://alantani.com/index.php?topic=6003.0
Ron
What is the point of all these upgrades? If you're going to replace every part on the reel, why not just get a different reel? I have been using Penn reels all my life. I have never needed a so-called "up-grade". I think you will find that the reel will do just fine the way it is. Just give it a good clean and lube. My two cents.
step one and step two are the most important. if you can do this to your reels, you will be well ahead of the game.
To put it plainly the point of these upgrades is braided line and carbon fiber drag material. It is now quite easy to turn what used to be a 20# reel into a 40# reel with adequate line capacity. You can also significantly increase the drag pressure previously available which makes the 40# line make sence. Unfortunatly if you do that you run the risk of rounding off the brass gear sleeve, their is also a concern about the stand being strong enough to handle the drag. Even with the modifications recomended to fish the reel this hard you are still saving money over a new reel and you have a much more convenient reel that a 40# mono reel.
By the way, welcome to the forum!
Ron
Quote from: noyb72 on July 25, 2013, 07:13:37 PM
To put it plainly the point of these upgrades is braided line and carbon fiber drag material. It is now quite easy to turn what used to be a 20# reel into a 40# reel with adequate line capacity. You can also significantly increase the drag pressure previously available which makes the 40# line make sence. Unfortunatly if you do that you run the risk of rounding off the brass gear sleeve, their is also a concern about the stand being strong enough to handle the drag. Even with the modifications recomended to fish the reel this hard you are still saving money over a new reel and you have a much more convenient reel that a 40# mono reel.
If you used that money to buy a used 113H you could upgrade the drags & service it & have change left over & still have the smaller reel for lighter duties. If you have a fish pulling with 50-60# of pull does it matter if the reel weighs 1 lb. or 4 lb.? And how long will those smaller, thinner drags going to take the heat before they fry? Besides a 113H will hold twice as much braid of the same size. High output small reels have their use but it is limited. You don't hold the reel all day, its either leaning against a rail or in a rod holder so the weight is not that big of a factor. When you are fighting a fish do you think about how heavy the reel is or how much pressure the fish is putting on you? The heavier reel is also going to take the shock better. Lots of pros & cons to think about, including cost.
To each their own. I do a lot of shore casting and I use plastics from boats a lot. It does make a difference when you are casting all day. I haven't seen lubed carbon fiber drags burn up anywhere near as often as materials that were used in the past. I love the 114H, but today it can be fished as an 80-100 pound reel. I have a 112H that is a 60# reel and the 2/0's work with 30. I'm the kind of guy who spends more money on reloads than comercial ammo to put my best foot forward and who wears both a belt and suspenders. I will spend the money to build a reel to the maximum extent feasable just because I can.
Ron
Quote from: noyb72 on July 25, 2013, 08:16:01 PM
I haven't seen lubed carbon fiber drags burn up anywhere near as often as materials that were used in the past. I love the 114H, but today it can be fished as an 80-100 pound reel. I have a 112H that is a 60# reel and the 2/0's work with 30. I'm the kind of guy who spends more money on reloads than comercial ammo to put my best foot forward and who wears both a belt and suspenders. I will spend the money to build a reel to the maximum extent feasable just because I can.
Ron
First, who was talking about a 114H? Second, who was comparing CF to older material for drag washers? Third, you spend money to the max but you pinch pennies on reloads. Fourth, I'm at the beach or boat & I don't need suspenders or a belt on my bathing suits, just a draw string. Sure is nice here in sunny S. Florida. ;D ;D ;D
First, OK I meant 113H
Second, I read the small drags as old drags. I've never seen greased CF give up or seize on a fish, although it may actually be cool to see that fight, bigger drags do not mean more drag pressure so in this case does size really matter?
Third, many of my handloads are way more expensive than factory rounds. They shoot really small groups and perform exactly how I want though.
Fourth, good luck at the beach, I've never worn a suit on a boat.
Few would argue that it don't get nicer than Oahu!! 8) ;D
Ron
Easy there big fella ;D
Ron, I've heard that myself about bigger drags not giving more drag pressure. It might all make sense on paper and statistics, but I've found on my reels that bigger washers do put out more drag pressure. :-\
Sal
Sal,
I've actually put some thought into that. The fact that size doesn't matter is a law of physics that many things in this world are based on, so it is the truth.
What I have noticed is that we can get more drag from bigger reels with bigger stars and bigger gear sleeve's. I hypothesize that one reason that is is that we can physically put more torque on the bigger star and larger gear sleeve. The thread pitch may also have something to do with it.
Some supporting evidence:
The 500 with Bryan's drags can hold simillar pressure to a 113H with a 5 stack when the Jigmaster is really cranked on.
The drag you got from your upgraded 49 was simillar to what everyone else gets with 3 drag washers.
Most importantly, Alan has said 5 pounds per disk, and I think he is right.
Ron
Larger area with equal pressure means more stopping power. Try stopping a semi with Kia brakes.
Quote from: noyb72 on July 28, 2013, 11:04:34 PM
Sal,
I've actually put some thought into that. The fact that size doesn't matter is a law of physics that many things in this world are based on, so it is the truth.
What I have noticed is that we can get more drag from bigger reels with bigger stars and bigger gear sleeve's. I hypothesize that one reason that is is that we can physically put more torque on the bigger star and larger gear sleeve. The thread pitch may also have something to do with it.
Some supporting evidence:
The 500 with Bryan's drags can hold simillar pressure to a 113H with a 5 stack when the Jigmaster is really cranked on.
The drag you got from your upgraded 49 was simillar to what everyone else gets with 3 drag washers.
Most importantly, Alan has said 5 pounds per disk, and I think he is right.
Ron
Ron generally speaking, yes 5lb per washer is very close, but not always accurate.
I'm getting 22lb at almost max on this reel:
http://alantani.com/index.php?topic=7315.msg62039#msg62039
This one has the 6-950 washer. With that same washer, I'm also getting 22lb with my 9500ss spinning reel :-\
Sal
A rather interesting conversation going back and forth, here. Reminds me of the Hatfields and McCoys. ;)
On the subject of handloads/reloads; I have several firearms who's barrels have never been polluted with a factory round ;D with the possible exception of some testing the factory may have done.
Gear ratio is another thing that factors in to the drag equation. For example, all else being equal, a 1:2 geared reel will get a higher maximum drag than a 1:4 ratio. I believe Robert Janssen mentioned this on another thread.
George
OMG did I just write that! :o Now I have to worry about the NSA knowing what I may have. ;)
Quote from: RowdyW on July 28, 2013, 11:16:42 PM
Larger area with equal pressure means more stopping power. Try stopping a semi with Kia brakes.
I agree that you can't stop a semi with Kia brakes. However, 4 disks and 4 pistons with some hydraulic pressure behind them are totally different than 20 S-cams pushing against rotors with 140 pounds or so of pressure. 10 disks with 10 pistons would have a better shot if you could figure out a way to keep them cool. All braking is a shift of energy from kinetic to heat.
You can argue with the PHDs about surface area. I only know that my submarine and torpedoes have dome pretty nifty stuff that work based on the principle.
Ron
Since when did they start putting brakes on OUR torpedoes? Who makes a reel with hydraulic pressure to apply drag pressure? Maybe you should invent one.
Look, you can believe what you want. I'm really not trying to get into anyone's breakfast cereal. For the record, you brought up the hydraulic system, all I did was describe it in order to show that your example didn't hold water. If that's not the way you see it then that's fine. Let's just get back to fishin'.
Ron
I didn't bring up hydraulics only that bigger brakes have more stopping power. Drags on a reel are brakes & more surface area equals more stopping power. If that wasn't true then why doesn't Penn or any other company put 155 sized washers in reels like a 16/0 reel?
OK, this is as clear as I can make it.
The formula for friction is F (coefficient of friction)x normal force. Notice the lack of surface area. The reason bigger drags are better all else being equal is because big areas of material can absorb more heat before experiencing a degradation in F. As a rule, in standard configuration each drag disk can be expected to provide about 5 pounds of drag with a Jigmaster gear sleeve everything else notwithstanding. That means 3 disks=15 pounds weather it is a 155 or 500. Increase the size of the star and the gear sleeve and you can put more pressure (normal force) on the disks and therefore get more drag from each disk but again the surface area has no bearing. Please understand that this discussion is talking only about drag disk performance and does not consider spool diameter, gear ratio or anything else.
Like I said, I'm fine with you disagreeing, but I recomend you do some research. Surface area just does not matter.
Ron
Your calculations are all wrong. You are just picking 5 lbs. per washer of any size out of the air. Get out your test equipment & prove it not just to say something to get the last word in. You always have to have the last comment even if its not called for. You always have to have the last post on any subject here to satisfy your ego. Get a few more years of experience under your belt before you think you know how to solve every problem on this site. Now go to your room & stand in the corner for a while. Don't forget to leave the last post.
With the same force being applied the more contact area the more friction thus more "breaking".
That's correct Lee, as I have said all along. Some people think they have the answer to any problem. They just don't sit back and listen once in a while.
Quote from: Keta on August 06, 2013, 01:19:55 AM
With the same force being applied the more contact area the more friction thus more "breaking".
Actually, no.
Quote from: RowdyW on August 06, 2013, 02:02:58 AM
That's correct Lee, as I have said all along. Some people think they have the answer to any problem. They just don't sit back and listen once in a while.
Again: actually, no. This subject has been discussed several times in the past at this forum, as well as any number of physics and engineering texts for a couple of hundred years. If people would just sit back and listen or read once in a while, or use the search feature here or on their browser...
To be honest, I am no longer interested in explaining it. But you can start here for example
http://alantani.com/index.php?topic=4593.msg36161#msg36161
PS: Please do bear in mind the subtle differences between mean diameter and surface area, as well as number of sliding surfaces.
Quote from: RowdyW on August 05, 2013, 07:47:30 AM
...Who makes a reel with hydraulic pressure to apply drag pressure? Maybe you should invent one.
Garcia Corporation invented one in the '70s. I guess the idea didn't pan out.
Quote
Larger area with equal pressure means more stopping power.
No. It may seem strange at first, but no. Given the example of two drag washers of equal diameter but where one has a very small hole and the other a very large hole (= different surface area) under equal pressure, the resulting drag will be the same.
If said drag washers are coupled or paired in tandem, the resulting drag will be doubled. (=greater number of sliding surfaces)
In the case of differing drag washers where one washer is of large diameter, and the other of small diameter, the one of greater diameter will provide greater drag. This is so even if one were very thin and the other very broad, so as to provide frictional surfaces of equal area.
:
Thank you Robert, I figured you would be along eventually. I would apreciate some aplication on your last point, I don't quite follow what you are saying.
Ron
For us that went to school a long time ago...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSfAut5GMq4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSfAut5GMq4)
This next video demonstrates how surface area doesn't affect the frictional force. I actually felt like a kid again watching this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idYX7kkRqbs
The second video is almost exactly my 8th grade advanced science project. I used flat 4 oz sinkers and my question was why do Surfmasters and Jigmasters have the same drag with different sized washers. My Grandfather laughed his butt off when I thought I was doing something wrong (he recommended the experiment.) Thanks for that Mandelstam, haven't thought of that story for quite a few years. :)
Ron
Quote
Larger area with equal pressure means more stopping power.
In the case of differing drag washers where one washer is of large diameter, and the other of small diameter, the one of greater diameter will provide greater drag. This is so even if one were very thin and the other very broad, so as to provide frictional surfaces of equal area.
:
[/quote]
Quote from: RowdyW on August 06, 2013, 08:51:47 AM
Quote
In the case of differing drag washers where one washer is of large diameter, and the other of small diameter, the one of greater diameter will provide greater drag. This is so even if one were very thin and the other very broad, so as to provide frictional surfaces of equal area.
:
[/quote]
Ah, got it.
You were referring to mean diameter. So basically, when Sal bored out the 49 drags to accommodate the 113H gear sleeve he didn't reduce drag pressure for a given star setting because the mean diameter is the same, even though he reduced the surface area. I understand that mean diameter is effectively a measurement of torque, but I'm not sure how much it comes into play when the difference in diameter is so small. Robert, would you happen to have an equation? My mind works better with numbers.
Thanks
Ron
Let me start by saying that unfortunately, I'm not as smart as you guys, I didn't have the opportunity to proceed with school :(.
I'm just a mason/carpenter. One good thing though, after 37+ years, I'm able to build a house on my own ;).
Here is my take on the test above with the gentleman using the (4) 2x4 pieces.
To me, the test is inaccurate and it would never be accurate.
He is showing that pulling four block stacked on top of each other is the same as pulling four blocks next to each other.
He never mentioned the vertical weight, the single block had 4x the weight as the 4 spread out blacks directed at the same area.
To me, the only way that test it accurate is to pull the block twice using the same stack :-\
He could have probably use 16 block and divide the total by 4, but that wouldn't have been accurate as well, other things to take in consideration.
....just my two cents....
Sal
Quote from: Alto Mare on August 06, 2013, 10:31:40 AM
Let me start by saying that unfortunately, I'm not as smart as you guys, I didn't have the opportunity to proceed with school :(.
I'm just a mason/carpenter. One good thing though, after 37+ years, I'm able to build a house on my own ;).
Here is my take on the test above with the gentleman using the (4) 2x4 pieces.
To me, the test is inaccurate and it would never be accurate.
He is showing that pulling four block stacked on top of each other is the same as pulling four blocks next to each other.
He never mentioned the vertical weight, the single block had 4x the weight as the 4 spread out blacks directed at the same area.
To me, the only way that test it accurate is to pull the block twice using the same stack :-\
He could have probably use 16 block and divide the total by 4, but that wouldn't have been accurate as well, other things to take in consideration.
....just my two cents....
Sal
Not entirely sure about your arguments here Sal, but what he's doing is dragging the same amount of mass (total of four blocks), therefore the same amount of force against the table, but with different surface areas depending on how they are stacked. Don't think of them as four individual blocks, think of them as one big block.
Quote from: Alto Mare on August 06, 2013, 10:31:40 AM
Let me start by saying that unfortunately, I'm not as smart as you guys, I didn't have the opportunity to proceed with school :( I'm just a mason/carpenter...
Not true, man.... I have greater respect for that than much else
Quote
Ah, got it.
You were referring to mean diameter.
Yup
QuoteSo basically, when Sal bored out the 49 drags to accommodate the 113H gear sleeve he didn't reduce drag pressure for a given star setting because the mean diameter is the same, even though he reduced the surface area.
Precisely.
QuoteI understand that mean diameter is effectively a measurement of torque, but I'm not sure how much it comes into play when the difference in diameter is so small. Robert, would you happen to have an equation? My mind works better with numbers.
Thanks
Ron
Mmm, maybe. I'm not particularly up-to-date with such things, often falling back on the it-is-what-it-is method.
Here, try this, borrowed from a car clutch website:
Torque and force calculations
Torque and Power Transmitted by a clutch
With reference to the figure, let
W= total spring force (N)
r1 = ro = external radius of friction (m)
r2 = ri = internal radius of friction (m)
n = number of pairs of friction surfaces
in contact
μ = coefficient of friction between disc
and driving surfaces.
Now,
Mean or effective radius, R = ½ (r1 + r2) = ½ (ro + ri)
Tangential force acting at distance R from centre of rotation,
F = μ W
\ Friction torque transmitted,
TF = F ´ R
= ½ μ W (r1 + r2)
Since there are n pars of friction surfaces in contact (for a single-plate clutch, n = 2), then the torque transmitted by a clutch is given by:
TF = ½ μ W n (r1 + r2) (N m)
If N is the rotational speed of the clutch in rev/min, then,
Power transmitted = TF ´ (2 π N/60) (W)
Area of clutch friction lining (A)
Allowable surface pressure for the lining material 0.05 N/mm2 to 0.20 N/mm2 (p)
Normal force (F)
F = A p = (π/4) (D2-d2) p
Ff = n μ F
Torque transmitted
(Constant wear)
(Constant pressure)
μ = 0.2 : 0.3
p = 0.02 N/mm2
Tc = 50% : 100% Te max = 1.5 Te max : 2.0 Te max
From http://www.thecartech.com/subjects/design/Automobile_clutchs.htm
.
When I say equal force I'm referring to equal force per square inch, with equal amount of force PER SQUARE INCH more contact surface = more friction.
Quote from: noyb72 on August 06, 2013, 07:35:26 AM
The second video is almost exactly my 8th grade advanced science project. I used flat 4 oz sinkers and my question was why do Surfmasters and Jigmasters have the same drag with different sized washers. My Grandfather laughed his butt off when I thought I was doing something wrong (he recommended the experiment.) Thanks for that Mandelstam, haven't thought of that story for quite a few years. :)
Ron
Ron, I wonder if the surfmaster and jigmaster are an ideal comparison. Despite the fact that the surfmaster has smaller drags, it has a mechanical advantage over the jigmaster because of the gear ratio. Doc explains this in the following link:
http://alantani.com/index.php?topic=6203.msg52156#msg52156
Here is the specific paragraph that illustrates what I mean:
(quote)
About spool radius and gear ratio:
Yes, that matters too. Not only as a result of the greater lever arm and inherent moment of torque of a larger diameter spool vs a smaller one, but it should also be considered that the reel's gear ratio offers a mechanical advantage when operated in reverse- as is the case on an outgoing line.
(unquote)
I noticed this gear ratio thing when when comparing drag numbers on a 349 (1:2.3 gear ratio) and 349H (1:3.25). Even though the 349H drag washers are larger in diameter than the 349, I installed the same diameter drag washers in both reels. The 349, it's lower gear ratio having the mechanical advantage when operating in reverse with the outgoing line, had the higher drag numbers. Installing the correct larger diameter drag washers in the 349H would have increased it's drag.
Until we are able to accurately apply a specific pressure to the drags, as opposed to just tightening the star by feel, ACCURATELY comparing drag figures between two reels is difficult.
George
Mentonemoose,
We've really digressed from your original question. ;D
George
Quote from: Mandelstam on August 06, 2013, 11:32:12 AM
Not entirely sure about your arguments here Sal, but what he's doing is dragging the same amount of mass (total of four blocks), therefore the same amount of force against the table, but with different surface areas depending on how they are stacked. Don't think of them as four individual blocks, think of them as one big block.
I understand what the professor was showing us on the video about surface area, but here is what got me puzzled:
let's say that the block of wood was 8mm x 16mm, that would equal 128 sq. mm. Let's also assume that the same block of wood was 1lb in weight. He was dragging 4 blacks of wood stacked on top of each other, that means 4lb on an area of 128 sq. mm.
When he was dragging 4 block next to each other, the 128sq. mm area didn't have the same weight it only had 1lb, the force of 4lb was spread out to 512 sq. mm.
Quote from: Alto Mare on August 06, 2013, 04:58:29 PM
Quote from: Mandelstam on August 06, 2013, 11:32:12 AM
Not entirely sure about your arguments here Sal, but what he's doing is dragging the same amount of mass (total of four blocks), therefore the same amount of force against the table, but with different surface areas depending on how they are stacked. Don't think of them as four individual blocks, think of them as one big block.
I understand what the professor was showing us on the video about surface area, but here is what got me puzzled:
let's say that the block of wood was 8mm x 16mm, that would equal 128 sq. mm. Let's also assume that the same block of wood was 1lb in weight. He was dragging 4 blacks of wood stacked on top of each other, that means 4lb on an area of 128 sq. mm.
When he was dragging 4 block next to each other, the 128sq. mm area didn't have the same weight it only had 1lb, the force of 4lb was spread out to 512 sq. mm.
It sounds as you maybe mix up pressure with force. Force is in this case the gravitational force from the blocks on the table. Doesn't have anything to do with surface area. Pressure is then how much force per square unit is done to the table.
The force is the same because the mass of the four blocks is the same (4lb= 1.8kg x 9.8= 17.64 Newton). That is independent on the surface area.
The pressure on the table is dependent on surface area though and in the stacked example will be 17.64 (N)/128 (mm2)=0.13 N/mm2. In the side by side example it will be 17.64/512=0.03 N/mm2. (N/mm2 isn't a correct unit I know...)
THANK YOU SAL!!
You are describing exactly what we are saying. Because the star is putting the same force on a larger disk their is less force per square inch (thanks Lee.) That reduction in force reduces friction by exactly the same amount that the increased surface area would iincrease friction. So surface area makes no difference. As you pointed out if you used more blocks (increased total force) stacked on top of each other you would increase friction. That would be demonstrated on a reel by tightening the star drag.
Ron
Wow, since its about the time of year that I start to get images of bluefin and yellowtail dancing in my head, and start going through my reels to freshen them up for the upcoming season. I decided to check back here to see if I could gather some inspiration of what I should do with that little box of old corroded parts that is my Long Beach 60, and saw to my astonishment that you guys have expanded this post to 3 pages. But upon reading said 3 pages I'm now wondering, OMG what did I start? Hehe LOL :-\ ;D
Quote from: Mentonemoose on March 21, 2014, 04:16:58 PM
. But upon reading said 3 pages I'm now wondering, OMG what did I start? Hehe LOL :-\ ;D
I'm beginning to wonder myself.
You asked a question nine months ago and now you return looking for an answer.
A lot of guys have given you great advice and I'm sure they are thinking "why bother?"
Were you serious?
Absolutely serious. Just as far as my reels are concerned the LB 60 has been on the back burner. And is still a pile of parts. Just been very busy. Just recently picked up a nice old California Tackle chocolate Sabre for this reel, but still haven't decided how to approach the rebuild. It's not that I don't know how to rebuild the reel, it's just I don't want to do the "typical" rebuild/restore. I am now leaning toward the more narrow width (such as the 501) as I have a base and bars that will work/fit, but I'm not sure what spool would swap in at the more narrow width. Perhaps the 29L-100. Only problem is I am not sure if the spool diameter will match up. Anyone have any suggestions to NARROW the LB60 to that width.
You can't narrow a sixty, but a narrowed 112h is the size spool you are looking for. Got to get the kit from Tiburon.
Ronald
Then what is this??? LB60 with 30-49 stand with matching clamp and bars. But what is that spool? I would love to copy/clone this with an upgraded jig master handle (witch I already have) and upgraded internals. Oh btw NOW I see the "notify me of replies" box. Duh! ::)
The reel is a factory width Penn 60, they use a 30-49 base. The spool appears to be a factory plastic one but you can replace it with a 29L-85 aluminum or a 29M-60 (if you can find one).
What you want is a factory 60 with a 24-49 or 24-66 handle, 29L-85 spool, SS gearsleeve and AR dog, and 5+1 drag.
It's thinner than the 30-60 stand.?.
There is no such thing as a 30-60, the 60 uses a 30-49 stand. Penn was good at using parts from other reels when ever they could to keep their parts inventory down. Several reels use the 5-60 gear.
https://www.mysticparts.com/Assets/images/pennparts/schematics/60.pdf (https://www.mysticparts.com/Assets/mages/pennparts/schematics/60.pdf)
"Edited as per Moderators to correct Scott's Bait & Tackle over to their new store name Mystic Reel Parts / www.mysticparts.com"
Wow, that's a new one, I didn't know the 60 and the 85 had the same size base. I need to look into that. So a T3NK spool and a 85 spool are the same size?
Ron
For the Long beach 60? I'm confused. The reel came with the 30-60 stand. And I have a spare 30-49 stand from a jig master that I upgraded to a Tib frame. The 30-49 is thinner than the 30-60. The reel in the pic uses the 30-49.
Quote from: noyb72 on March 23, 2014, 08:08:38 PM
So a T3NK spool and a 85 spool are the same size?
Ron
I think the shafts are different. Before Tiburon made the 112HN kits I was trying to make a 60 spool work in a 112H and was not successful.
Quote from: Mentonemoose on March 23, 2014, 08:11:04 PM
The reel came with the 30-60 stand
Early 60's might have come with a 30-60 stamped stand. I have to run to my shop to cut some aluminum for a downrigger bracket, I'll look at my 60 and 49 and get back to you.
I know the shafts are different,I meant capacity and general dimensions, sorry.
Ron
Quote from: Mentonemoose on March 23, 2014, 08:11:04 PM
For the Long beach 60? I'm confused. The reel came with the 30-60 stand. And I have a spare 30-49 stand from a jig master that I upgraded to a Tib frame. The 30-49 is thinner than the 30-60. The reel in the pic uses the 30-49.
It looks like you helped fond another mistake at MysticParts. The 49 stand is 2-5/8" the 60 is 2-13/16. The 60 stand is used on the Surfmaster 100, Squidder 146 and Jigmaster 501.
You're getting mixed up with the numbers Lee. The 30-49 is 1 5/8", the 30-60 is 1 13/16".
The narrow 112H spool will not work on the 60.
112HN spool 1 3/4"
60 spool 1 7/8"
standard 112H spool 2 1/4"
Also, spool shaft on the 112H is longer than the 60.
Quote from: Alto Mare on March 23, 2014, 10:31:24 PM
You're getting mixed up with the numbers Lee. The 30-49 is 1 5/8", the 30-60 is 1 13/16".
The narrow 112H spool will not work on the 60.
112HN spool 1 3/4"
60 spool 1 7/8"
standard 112H spool 2 1/4"
Also, spool shaft on the 112H is longer than the 60.
D'oh!!!! I measured off the 1" mark and pulled a bonehead apprentice move.
I've been measuring for over 40 years on my job and still do as you did ;D.
Quote from: Alto Mare on March 23, 2014, 10:53:46 PM
I've been measuring for over 40 years on my job and still do as you did ;D.
Yup, me too.
I loose more board feet of lumber that way!!
Ron
Measure Twice & Cut Once
How about the 29L-100 spool? It has the right width. Is it the same height as the 60?
Never mind, I can tell just from looking at Scott's that spool is not tall enough. ???
So apparently the only "reel" formula for this reel would be, what Alan said.
Quote from: alantani on July 24, 2013, 12:22:27 AM
one thing about penn reels is that you can spend and infinite amount of money upgrading these. there is literally no limit to the amount of money you can spend on these. so let's go through this reel in order of increasing cost vs/ decreasing benefit.
1 - get an old toothbrush and some grease and scrub down all surfaces of this reel, leaving a light coat of grease everywhere. pay particular attention to all of the non-exposed metal surfaces.
2 - if you do not have carbon fiber drag washers, switch out all the stock drag washers for greased carbon fiber. you will need one carbontex drag washer to go under the main gear and three penn ht-100's inside. apply a light coat of cal's grease first.
3 - if the soft brass gear sleeve is damaged, replace it with another soft $6 brass gear sleeve. with a 5 pound drag setting, you will never need a $20 stainless steel gear sleeve.
4 - a $10 penn clamp? naw, this reel won't take one, but other's might.
5 - switch out the old stock handle for a $17 jigmaster power handle.
6 - if you seriously want a $20 stainless steel gear, go ahead and install it now.
7 - want a big handle grip? add a $27 3/0 grip.
8 - problem with the stock chrome/brass spool? the aluminum spool is $28.
9 - this reel would not take a $40-80 tib or accurate frame, but you would add this last.
start at the top of the list, work your way down!
+ all the cosmetic parts that need replacement. New base, rings ( would anyone happen to have a NOS handle side original ring?), posts, eccentric lever. Then the mechanicals, new bearings, gears, drags, will Alan's stainless sleeve with the fine pitch threads fit this post? (would be nice to have the more finite drag adjustment) and the aluminum spool. Then 40# spectra topped with 20# mono. Does all of this sound about right?? Any additions, comments? ???
I know that it has been a while, but it's always good to share some information from my good friend Ted.
Here is what he sent me:
Hello Sal, just been visiting the site (alantani) and saw a lengthy discussion about a penn 60 and possible upgrades. Someone pictured a 60 that has a clamp and others claimed it was from a 49, then it just kinda went away.
Well here it is, the 1941 long beach with the rod clamp and in same picture is optional accessories listed in the #9 catalog from 1941. The 4 different widths offered in the catalog pretty much covers most of penns lighter reels at that time, but it was a $2 add-on to a $6.50 reel(long beach 60), so it is very tough to find them. I believe they discontinued offering the 1-13/16 clamp stand(60) prior to 1950 or somewhere thereabout.
Perhaps you could share this pic with those on that thread.
P.S. This one is not for sale, and yes, it is all original to 1941 and it is a rare beauty.
Tight Lines my friend, Ted
(http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx305/pescatore3/penn60_zpsd4731790.png) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/pescatore3/media/penn60_zpsd4731790.png.html)
WOW! That reel is almost as old as Dominick! ;D
Wow, would like to see additional pics. I keep trying to lift up the edge to see the handle knob. ;D
Lugs for a harness?
Thumb Brake.
Ha ha, I added the thumb brake. It came off a same era penn del mar reel.
I have a first year (1936) 9/0 senator that has the same thumb brake, just slightly larger lol.
OK,
You Win. That reel is older than Dominick! ;D
A long beach 60 frame may become a reality if I can get a decent price for CNC cutting them.
This is what it may look like.
I am thinkning of making the LB-60 frame a kickstarter project. It will require that I get a prototype cut before I can start it.
I have got some quotes on making them, but still they are a bit too expensive. I am working on getting the price down.
A kickstarter project may reach out to more people and may increase the number I can make and by this get the price down to an acceptable level.
If any of you know a CNC machinist that will take on the task cutting the frames for a reasonable cost, please PM me!
It doesn't matter if it is in the US or elsewhere in the world.
Chineese crooks that wants more than $100 a piece won't get the job. :)
Quote from: Alto Mare on November 06, 2014, 03:15:27 AM
I know that it has been a while, but it's always good to share some information from my good friend Ted.
Here is what he sent me:
Hello Sal, just been visiting the site (alantani) and saw a lengthy discussion about a penn 60 and possible upgrades. Someone pictured a 60 that has a clamp and others claimed it was from a 49, then it just kinda went away.
Well here it is, the 1941 long beach with the rod clamp and in same picture is optional accessories listed in the #9 catalog from 1941. The 4 different widths offered in the catalog pretty much covers most of penns lighter reels at that time, but it was a $2 add-on to a $6.50 reel(long beach 60), so it is very tough to find them. I believe they discontinued offering the 1-13/16 clamp stand(60) prior to 1950 or somewhere thereabout.
Perhaps you could share this pic with those on that thread.
P.S. This one is not for sale, and yes, it is all original to 1941 and it is a rare beauty.
Tight Lines my friend, Ted
(http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx305/pescatore3/penn60_zpsd4731790.png) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/pescatore3/media/penn60_zpsd4731790.png.html)
So the consensus here is that the reel previously rumored to be a 49 width Long Beach was actually a standard width (1-13/16") Long Beach 60 with an optional stand that was discontinued around 1950.
Quote from: Alto Mare on November 06, 2014, 03:15:27 AM
I know that it has been a while, but it's always good to share some information from my good friend Ted.
Here is what he sent me:
Hello Sal, just been visiting the site (alantani) and saw a lengthy discussion about a penn 60 and possible upgrades. Someone pictured a 60 that has a clamp and others claimed it was from a 49, then it just kinda went away.
Well here it is, the 1941 long beach with the rod clamp and in same picture is optional accessories listed in the #9 catalog from 1941. The 4 different widths offered in the catalog pretty much covers most of penns lighter reels at that time, but it was a $2 add-on to a $6.50 reel(long beach 60), so it is very tough to find them. I believe they discontinued offering the 1-13/16 clamp stand(60) prior to 1950 or somewhere thereabout.
Perhaps you could share this pic with those on that thread.
P.S. This one is not for sale, and yes, it is all original to 1941 and it is a rare beauty.
Tight Lines my friend, Ted
(http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx305/pescatore3/penn60_zpsd4731790.png) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/pescatore3/media/penn60_zpsd4731790.png.html)
That's another 'Ted Beauty'