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
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.
Quote from: JasonGotaProblem on July 13, 2023, 03:39:19 PMOk 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
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!
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
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.
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
Quote from: jurelometer on July 13, 2023, 08:59:21 PMI 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
Quote from: Bora on July 14, 2023, 12:56:37 AMExcellent 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
Quote from: jurelometer on July 14, 2023, 04:14:59 AMBut 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.
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.
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.
(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
Nice expansion, Dave!
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.
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
Quote from: Bora on July 13, 2023, 02:00:42 PMHello 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 ...
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"
Quote from: JasonGotaProblem on July 18, 2023, 05:20:05 PMThis 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
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.
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
Quote from: jurelometer on July 18, 2023, 07:59:37 PMQuote from: JasonGotaProblem on July 18, 2023, 05:20:05 PMThis 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...?
Quote from: Barishi on July 18, 2023, 10:53:24 PMAssuming 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