So, I decided I want to make a right-side plate and custom bull gear for the 209. I measured the standard gear, 34T, DP40, .9" tip dia, 9° Helical Angle. So far, so good, a "sort of" standard Imperial helical gear. But what is the pressure angle? The world standard is 20° now, but in Imperial gears in the past it was often 14.5°. Obviously an involute cutter for one pressure angle, even with all other specs consistent, will not mesh with a gear of the other angle. Sure, I can make both the bull gear and the pinion, so they will be the same pressure angle, but I want to be consistent with Penn specs so far as possible. I would guess that all of the 40's and 50's reels used gears of the same pressure angle and since vintage parts interchange with new China made reels, I would tend to guess that the old gears are all 20° pressure angle. Gear cutters are crazy expensive, too! I don't want to buy twice. Then again, Penn can and probably does give the Chinese very detailed specs and there is no reason why Chinese factories can't make Imperial gears with 14.5° PA. I am just a hobby machinist so maybe a pro out there can fill me in on the obvious stuff that is just flying right over my head.
Shooting for 6:1 ratio so 72 teeth and I want to stay with the same or bigger teeth, so DP40 or lower, meaning this is gonna be a pretty big gear, so yeah, I will need to make a right hand plate and I will probably make a left side one, too, for directly threading magnet holders of a "meaningful" size without using a threaded sleeve in a brittle bakelite side plate. Hey if you're gonna do all that, may as well make a solid one piece SS frame, too, I guess. But for now I want to get this gear stuff all figured out. Also this will be my first try at making helical gears. It's a lot mroe complicated than you might think. I think I can do it, once I know what PA to use.
Good luck. I have no idea what you are doing. Dominick
Just a hobbyist myself, but here goes:
Don't know the pressure angle, but I do know that it can be measured. Never tried it. Let me do a quick web search- here's one:https://www.brighthubengineering.com/machine-design/65216-how-to-measure-the-pressure-angle-of-a-physical-spur-gear/ (https://www.brighthubengineering.com/machine-design/65216-how-to-measure-the-pressure-angle-of-a-physical-spur-gear/)
Since a cross section of a helical gear is the same as a spur gear, I would expect this formula to work. [Update: not correct- more on this in subsequent posts]. But in the end, you will be better of cutting the pair, as the odds of getting a nice fit from a home cut main gear with a stock pinion would seem pretty low. In which case, you can chose the pressure angle.
On the project itself:
It sounds like you know most of this- but there are some details that are important:
In order to get a larger gear ratio with the same center distance you have to increase the main gear and decrease the (tangent) pinion gear pitch circle diameters to the target ratio. It is this ratio of the pitch circles that determines the gear ratio, You can think of the gear set as two wheels turning against each other. the teeth are there to provide the transfer of non-trivial load.
The problem with trying to get a much higher gear ratio with the same center distance on these older Penn reels is that the pinion diameter is already too small to shrink much. So now you are stuck increasing the center distance, which sounds like where you are headed.
BUT... You can't change the center distance without changing the bridge and sideplate design, as well as some other parts. So it is not just the sideplate that you will have to make - and the gearbox is going to hang over the cylinder that defined the original reel dimensions, so a bunch of things to consider there.
In the end, you will have built a mostly new reel that is a larger, heavier 6:1 gear ratio 209- which will still not be a very strong reel, and have too high a gear ratio for what it is best suited for (trolling with 20 lb mono or less).
Not trying to rain on your parade, just want to get you up to speed on what some of us have gone through on a similar path. I admire that you are willing to dive in and tackle some of the most difficult parts to make, especially without a gear hobber. And if you think this is till the project for you, by all means, go for it. Please keep us posted o your progress.
There are better reel designs to build from scratch, Or If you are looking for an interesting project to improve the performance of classic Penn reels, feel free to PM me.
-J
Thanks Dave you made clear as mud. I still don't know what is going on. Gears and ratio get mixed up in my brain. Dominick
Growley, it sounds like you could make the whole reel from scratch. So, why constrain your work by having to conform to a 209 platform. In my opinion, the 209 is not a very good reel to begin with.
You didn't mention spools. If you cannot make a spool then scavenge one from a 209 or something else about that that size.
You could also consider a taller but more narrow reel with the target line capacity. That will give you a longer center to work with on the side plate. As important, the IPT (inches per turn) will increase with the taller spool. This, in turn, will give you the speed/retrieve rate you want at a lower gear ratio. You come at the target from two directions
Quote from: Dominick on August 08, 2024, 04:39:24 AMThanks Dave you made clear as mud. I still don't know what is going on. Gears and ratio get mixed up in my brain. Dominick
I lurve gears :)
The bottom line is that putting 6:1 gears on a 209 means that the main is so large that you have to relocate it farther from the pinion, which means a brand new bridge, sideplate, and whatever else needs to be resolved from a jumbo gear pocket that no longer fits inside of the spool and frame diameters. It is doable, but is it worth it?
There are folks out there that think it is worth it to put a high HP v8 in an AMC Gremlin, so the answer depends on who you ask.
-J
Quote from: jurelometer on August 08, 2024, 04:21:20 AMJust a hobbyist myself, but here goes:
Don't know the pressure angle, but I do know that it can be measured. Never tried it. Let me do a quick web search- here's one:https://www.brighthubengineering.com/machine-design/65216-how-to-measure-the-pressure-angle-of-a-physical-spur-gear/ (https://www.brighthubengineering.com/machine-design/65216-how-to-measure-the-pressure-angle-of-a-physical-spur-gear/)
Yeah I have seen that page and due to the small size of the gear teeth and the necessity of measuring BP manually I decided that I would not be able to conclusively and reliably use that method. I am actually kind of eyeballing it right now and it looks more like 14.5° than 20°, TBH.
QuoteSince a cross section of a helical gear is the same as a spur gear, I would expect this formula to work. But in the end, you will be better of cutting the pair, as the odds of getting a nice fit from a home cut main gear with a stock pinion would seem pretty low. In which case, you can chose the pressure angle.
Yes, I believe you are right now that I consider it. Once I am tooled up for one gear I got what I need for the other one, anyway.
QuoteOn the project itself:
It sounds like you know most of this- but there are some details that are important:
In order to get a larger gear ratio with the same center distance you have to increase the main gear and decrease the (tangent) pinion gear pitch circle diameters to the target ratio. It is this ratio of the pitch circles that determines the gear ratio, You can think of the gear set as two wheels turning against each other. the teeth are there to provide the transfer of non-trivial load.
The problem with trying to get a much higher gear ratio with the same center distance on these older Penn reels is that the pinion diameter is already too small to shrink much. So now you are stuck increasing the center distance, which sounds like where you are headed.
BUT... You can't change the center distance without changing the bridge and sideplate design, as well as some other parts. So it is not just the sideplate that you will have to make - and the gearbox is going to hang over the cylinder that defined the original reel dimensions, so a bunch of things to consider there.
In the end, you will have built a mostly new reel that is a larger, heavier 6:1 gear ratio 209- which will still not be a very strong reel, and have too high a gear ratio for what it is best suited for (trolling with 20 lb mono or less).
That is quite true and is the reason I am looking at a solid frame. I generally remove the levelwind crap from the 209 and also the top post, and it has occurred to me that I am playing with fire, but the reel just casts a ton better and is a pleasure to use that way, except it takes forever to reel the darn thing in. I was first thinking something like Newell bars but then I started thinking about a solid frame but still leaving the top of the reel wide open. I think the net result would be a stronger reel, definitely strong enough for surf fishing. Bigger main gear also allows for bigger drag washers. Yes, absolutely the stock bridge can't be used, but a bridge plate is pretty simple to fabricate.
QuoteNot trying to rain on your parade, just want to get you up to speed on what some of us have gone through on a similar path. I admire that you are willing to dive in and tackle some of the most difficult parts to make, especially without a gear hobber. And if you think this is till the project for you, by all means, go for it. Please keep us posted o your progress.
There are better reel designs to build from scratch, Or If you are looking for an interesting project to improve the performance of classic Penn reels, feel free to PM me.
-J
Thanks for a well thought out reply. Reading it has been a good catalyst. I'll make both gears and not worry about the PA of the original, though it does look to my 65 year old eyeballs to be more like a 14.5. Yeah, this actually is building just about the whole reel, but it is a part at a time and not all at once and all or nothing. And if I did just start from scratch, there is still the question of "why?" when there are plenty of perfectly good 140's and 505's out there. But I am gonna go for it based on the 209 because it is there. And if I am busy enough out in the workshop I can weasel out of at least the more boring parts of the honeydo list.
Quote from: Dominick on August 08, 2024, 03:56:25 AMGood luck. I have no idea what you are doing. Dominick
Just making something simple, more complicated and maybe more expensive.
Quote from: oc1 on August 08, 2024, 06:32:48 AMGrowley, it sounds like you could make the whole reel from scratch. So, why constrain your work by having to conform to a 209 platform. In my opinion, the 209 is not a very good reel to begin with.
You didn't mention spools. If you cannot make a spool then scavenge one from a 209 or something else about that that size.
You could also consider a taller but more narrow reel with the target line capacity. That will give you a longer center to work with on the side plate. As important, the IPT (inches per turn) will increase with the taller spool. This, in turn, will give you the speed/retrieve rate you want at a lower gear ratio. You come at the target from two directions
Oh, I can make a spool easy enough and I actually have some 6061 round that would make a nice spool body. A spool is easier than gears and a lot easier than helical gears. I definitely don't want a taller reel. Wider, maybe. Bigger spool arbor, maybe. I like how a wide spool casts. The only problem is all the torque on the frame with a big fish on, especially when the line is pulling from way over on the left side of the spool, which is why I am thinking solid frame. Why 209? I already got a bunch of them so they are basically free. I like the reel. I like the design and it is fun to tinker with. They are expendable.If I mess up a couple and cannibalize from a couple more, no big loss. I wouldn't do all that to my favorite 140, or even a Jigmaster, no. A no.9 maybe, but they are a big small for surf casting, which is my focus at the moment. I would do a 309 but I only got one of them, so not really expendable at the moment. So the 209, for me, is perfect for science experiments.
" Since a cross section of a helical gear is the same as a spur gear, YES, BUT I would expect this formula to work. NO. HELICAL GEARS ENTER A THIRD MATHEMATICAL DIMENSION, SO TO SPEAK. NOT ONLY THE USUAL PCD STUFF, BUT ADD THE COSINE OF THE HELIX ANGLE AND OTHER STUFF TO DETERMINE DIMENSIONS. LONG STORY. But in the end, you will be better of cutting the pair, YUP as the odds of getting a nice fit from a home cut main gear with a stock pinion would seem pretty low" ABSOLUTELY. AND CUTTING HELICALS MANUALLY IS TRICKY BUSINESS. STICK TO SPUR GEARS AND MAKE THE PAIR TOGETHER
SORRY, GOTTA RUN
:) Sounds like a interesting project . Since you are looking to make a side plate and some other parts , maybe think about a automatic two speed side plate . This may kill two birds with one stone .
Something like this https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,19277.0.html
And you can do a search for more information . Parts may be a little easier to find to fit your needs and keep the side plate a little smaller . Looking forward to see how this evolves .
I don't mess much with 209s, but the following should be correct. If, not it should be illustrative of the type of stuff that you will be dealing with.
Let's drill down a bit on one part of the project: the revised bridge plate. Sounds like a pretty easy 2D part, just shift the main gear post over something like half an inch. The plate is going to have to be bigger, and ideally no longer circular. The first problem you will encounter is that the original bridge plate on most (all?) of these old Penns is actually nested inside the spool lip. So the enlarged plate will not fit inside the spool lip and has to be shifted away from the spool. Cutting a new sideplate to accommodate this is one step, but you also have to ensure that the spool shaft is still long enough to accommodate the new pinion location, and the pinion might have to be redesigned depending on how far you had to move the bridge plate. Next you have to make a hardened post for the gear sleeve, and figure out how to attach it to the plate VERY rigidly, as this post is only supported on the bridge plate and the rigidity determines how much load the reel will take when winding and still maintain sufficient alignment. But since the plate has been shifted farther from the spool, you have more space to work with and probably don't have to peen it in like Penn did, which is a less than ideal method to begin with, and harder to duplicate with a one off attempt. And so on.... This is not the only design issue to resolve, just an example of going down one of the rabbit holes.
Here is another approach: If we were talking cars and you were hell-bent on making a hot-rodded Gremlin, you would figure out how to mount an existing motor on that puppy, not build a new motor from scratch and figure out how to mount it. So let's follow that analogy on your goal to get a higher gear ratio on your 209. If you took the handle side assembly from an existing 5or 6:1 reel and figured out how to mount it on your 209, frame (probably a new side plate), the remaining issue would be getting the pinion to work with the 209 spindle. This probably means a new spindle. Making a new compatible spindle is a more doable job than cutting small helical gears with non-optimal equipment. You will have to get the spindle hardened, and figure out if you want to press fit it into an existing spool or cut a fresh one. Just remember that it is still a Gremlin, and that you didn't turn it into a Ferrari.
This is sort of like what Accurate did with the Magnum series back in the day.
Or you might want to see if you can get lucky and see if something like a 505 has the same spindle and pinion junction dimensions, in which case you could skip the part about making the new spindle. Or you could just use the spool, gears and bridge assembly from a 505, at which point, you will realize that you have just simply swapped your 209 for Jigmaster, and just need to add the rest of the Jigmaster parts :) . This is where a lot of us kind of raise the white flag.
To some extent, it depends on what your idea of fun is.
BTW, there are lots of related threads here. It is worthwhile to peruse Robert's threads. He has done more of this stuff than probably any of us, and Steve (oc1) is a free thinker when it comes to customizing gear, so worth taking a look at his stuff as well. Me... my threads are more on the design side. It would be charitable to characterize my machining chops as "limited". Without CNC, I am pretty much doomed to failure.
Now forgive me why I temporarily slide a tiny bit off topic.
Quote from: Robert Janssen on August 08, 2024, 12:18:14 PM" Since a cross section of a helical gear is the same as a spur gear, YES, BUT I would expect this formula to work. NO. HELICAL GEARS ENTER A THIRD MATHEMATICAL DIMENSION, SO TO SPEAK. NOT ONLY THE USUAL PCD STUFF, BUT ADD THE COSINE OF THE HELIX ANGLE AND OTHER STUFF TO DETERMINE DIMENSIONS. LONG STORY. But in the end, you will be better of cutting the pair, YUP as the odds of getting a nice fit from a home cut main gear with a stock pinion would seem pretty low" ABSOLUTELY. AND CUTTING HELICALS MANUALLY IS TRICKY BUSINESS. STICK TO SPUR GEARS AND MAKE THE PAIR TOGETHER
SORRY, GOTTA RUN
Ooh, interesting...
When I use the CAD design software to make a helical gear tooth, it is just a spur gear tooth with the normal spur gear tooth inputs on the 2D drawing of the tooth profile, and then projected along the helix to make the 3D tooth. Don't see how the pressure angle changes. Am I doing it wrong, or does the pressure angle change in real life as a side effect of how the cut has to be made?
-J
And to wrap up on what I can contribute:
Here is chain of weakest links in the classic Penn star drag design. Address the first, and second becomes the weakest link.
1. Gear sleeve to handle junction rounds off winding under load.
2. Radial to axial load transfer when winding helical gears causes the main shaft to be driven off alignment, leading to shredded gears and or dog/ratchet failure. A longer aftermarket handle arm increases the risk.
3. Pinion to spool junction shredding due to throwing the reel into gear at high drag on a charging fish.
4. Spindle flexing or even bending under high drag settings. This varies by model.
5. Support posts allow reel to flex enough to cause spool rubbing at high drag settings (usually wider models)
6. Reel foot deforms under load (usually wider models, and in combination with 4 or 5)
Note that when you double the gear ratio, you are also doubling the load on all of the components on the main gear shaft for a given amount of pulling force on the line. Your proposed modification of going from 3:1 to 6:1, will actually makes the top three weakest links substantially weaker without further customization.
Here are some threads on the above topics. I have linked to most relevant post in each, but the whole threads are worth a read.
https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,9721.msg89805.html#msg89805 (https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,9721.msg89805.html#msg89805)
https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,14241.msg145326.html#msg145326 (https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,14241.msg145326.html#msg145326)
https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,31537.msg369742.html#msg369742 (https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,31537.msg369742.html#msg369742)
https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,37156.msg439389.html#msg439389 (https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,37156.msg439389.html#msg439389)
-J
Dave is the grim reaper of project ideas.
I have nothing technical to add or subtract from this discussion, but I sure hope that win lose or draw, you report back with the results if you do give it a shot.
And just because it's not worth it doesn't mean it's not worth it. Just my opinion. Almost no one-off project is ever worth the cost or effort to an accountant. But neither is a trip to an amusement park. Doesn't mean it isn't fun.
Quote from: Robert Janssen on August 08, 2024, 12:18:14 PM" Since a cross section of a helical gear is the same as a spur gear, YES, BUT I would expect this formula to work. NO. HELICAL GEARS ENTER A THIRD MATHEMATICAL DIMENSION, SO TO SPEAK. NOT ONLY THE USUAL PCD STUFF, BUT ADD THE COSINE OF THE HELIX ANGLE AND OTHER STUFF TO DETERMINE DIMENSIONS. LONG STORY. But in the end, you will be better of cutting the pair, YUP as the odds of getting a nice fit from a home cut main gear with a stock pinion would seem pretty low" ABSOLUTELY. AND CUTTING HELICALS MANUALLY IS TRICKY BUSINESS. STICK TO SPUR GEARS AND MAKE THE PAIR TOGETHER
SORRY, GOTTA RUN
Well It's not like I was gonna use a dremel or something like that. I was going to use my rotary table and a dividing head, and drive it through a gear train from the lead screw. But I agree, tricky, nevertheless. I was just assuming that Penn had a very good reason to use helical gears so it didn't occur to me to make spur gears instead. Other than making the gears a little quieter, what benefit is there with helical gears in a reel? Anyway yeah I will just make both gears. Once I am tooled up for the bull gear, I may as well make the pinion, too, and then the PA question is moot. Gear fits gear, when both made with the same involute cutter
Quote from: oldmanjoe on August 08, 2024, 04:52:02 PM:) Sounds like a interesting project . Since you are looking to make a side plate and some other parts , maybe think about a automatic two speed side plate . This may kill two birds with one stone .
Something like this https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,19277.0.html
And you can do a search for more information . Parts may be a little easier to find to fit your needs and keep the side plate a little smaller . Looking forward to see how this evolves .
Wow, that's a really busy reel there. Very imaginative design. I suppose it works by having drag washers between the two handle gears? Nice robust gears there, too.
Quote from: jurelometer on August 08, 2024, 07:01:04 PMI don't mess much with 209s, but the following should be correct. If, not it should be illustrative of the type of stuff that you will be dealing with.
Let's drill down a bit on one part of the project: the revised bridge plate. Sounds like a pretty easy 2D part, just shift the main gear post over something like half an inch. The plate is going to have to be bigger, and ideally no longer circular. The first problem you will encounter is that the original bridge plate on most (all?) of these old Penns is actually nested inside the spool lip.
Darn. It didn't pop into my head about the guts nestling inside the spool rim.
QuoteSo the enlarged plate will not fit inside the spool lip and has to be shifted away from the spool. Cutting a new sideplate to accommodate this is one step, but you also have to ensure that the spool shaft is still long enough to accommodate the new pinion location, and the pinion might have to be redesigned depending on how far you had to move the bridge plate. Next you have to make a hardened post for the gear sleeve, and figure out how to attach it to the plate VERY rigidly, as this post is only supported on the bridge plate and the rigidity determines how much load the reel will take when winding and still maintain sufficient alignment. But since the plate has been shifted farther from the spool, you have more space to work with and probably don't have to peen it in like Penn did, which is a less than ideal method to begin with, and harder to duplicate with a one off attempt. And so on.... This is not the only design issue to resolve, just an example of going down one of the rabbit holes.
Here is another approach: If we were talking cars and you were hell-bent on making a hot-rodded Gremlin, you would figure out how to mount an existing motor on that puppy, not build a new motor from scratch and figure out how to mount it. So let's follow that analogy on your goal to get a higher gear ratio on your 209. If you took the handle side assembly from an existing 5or 6:1 reel and figured out how to mount it on your 209, frame (probably a new side plate), the remaining issue would be getting the pinion to work with the 209 spindle. This probably means a new spindle. Making a new compatible spindle is a more doable job than cutting small helical gears with non-optimal equipment. You will have to get the spindle hardened, and figure out if you want to press fit it into an existing spool or cut a fresh one. Just remember that it is still a Gremlin, and that you didn't turn it into a Ferrari.
Hardening and tempering are no problem. Got a Paragon kiln that goes up to 2000F and almost a full bucket of Parks 50, and plenty of good steel to work with.
QuoteThis is sort of like what Accurate did with the Magnum series back in the day.
Or you might want to see if you can get lucky and see if something like a 505 has the same spindle and pinion junction dimensions, in which case you could skip the part about making the new spindle. Or you could just use the spool, gears and bridge assembly from a 505, at which point, you will realize that you have just simply swapped your 209 for Jigmaster, and just need to add the rest of the Jigmaster parts :) . This is where a lot of us kind of raise the white flag.
To some extent, it depends on what your idea of fun is.
The Jigmaster gears I am told will fit in a 309 but I don't think in a 209 without a new end plate anyway. Also while the 505 and 500 are both great reels, the DP and so the tooth width are a bit finer and while I don't need to build a tank, I would like to avoid downgrading strength relative to the stock 209 gearset. If I could, I would make them stronger, but certainly not weaker. In fact I am thinking steel for the bull gear instead of bronze. I can then improve the drag a little while still using the drag for the "weak point" in the chain.
QuoteBTW, there are lots of related threads here. It is worthwhile to peruse Robert's threads. He has done more of this stuff than probably any of us, and Steve (oc1) is a free thinker when it comes to customizing gear, so worth taking a look at his stuff as well. Me... my threads are more on the design side. It would be charitable to characterize my machining chops as "limited". Without CNC, I am pretty much doomed to failure.
Now forgive me why I temporarily slide a tiny bit off topic.
Quote from: Robert Janssen on August 08, 2024, 12:18:14 PM" Since a cross section of a helical gear is the same as a spur gear, YES, BUT I would expect this formula to work. NO. HELICAL GEARS ENTER A THIRD MATHEMATICAL DIMENSION, SO TO SPEAK. NOT ONLY THE USUAL PCD STUFF, BUT ADD THE COSINE OF THE HELIX ANGLE AND OTHER STUFF TO DETERMINE DIMENSIONS. LONG STORY. But in the end, you will be better of cutting the pair, YUP as the odds of getting a nice fit from a home cut main gear with a stock pinion would seem pretty low" ABSOLUTELY. AND CUTTING HELICALS MANUALLY IS TRICKY BUSINESS. STICK TO SPUR GEARS AND MAKE THE PAIR TOGETHER
SORRY, GOTTA RUN
Ooh, interesting...
When I use the CAD design software to make a helical gear tooth, it is just a spur gear tooth with the normal spur gear tooth inputs on the 2D drawing of the tooth profile, and then projected along the helix to make the 3D tooth. Don't see how the pressure angle changes. Am I doing it wrong, or does the pressure angle change in real life as a side effect of how the cut has to be made?
-J
No prob with a little drift, AFAIC. It's a discussion, not a debate.
Quote from: GrowleyMonster on August 08, 2024, 08:33:39 PMI was just assuming that Penn had a very good reason to use helical gears so it didn't occur to me to make spur gears instead. Other than making the gears a little quieter, what benefit is there with helical gears in a reel?
1. Helical gears are smoother and quieter by virtue of having more than one tooth engaged at a time. Less of the gear backsliding going from tooth to tooth due to the necessary amount of backlash built in.
2. Helical gears are theoretically stronger by virtue of having a larger contact area, but only if you can keep them aligned, otherwise you end up with the gears walking toward the edges and edge loading, making them actually weaker. If I remember correctly, in passenger cars they would use helical gears in the drive train (differential?), but hot rodders would switch in spur gears.
3,Helical gears create significant axial load. Penn reverses the helix angles in the gears for left hand reels.
The chosen helix direction could be to take advantage of the axial load, to mitigate the effect, or both. Dunno.
I forget which direction the pinion is axially driven when you are winding, but I wouldn't be suprised if it was toward the spool in order to help it lock to those spindle tabs. The answer is in one of the thread links above)
They can put spur gears into lever drags with impunity because the pinion is held in place by the drag. I used to think that swapping out helicals for spurs would strengthen a star drag reel at the expense of adding a bit of noise, but I am less sure nowadays.
Quote from: JasonGotaProblem on August 08, 2024, 08:23:56 PMDave is the grim reaper of project ideas.
They don't call me Mr Buzzkill for nothing :)
But I do try to be open minded. It is rare to be a good mechanical designer, a good machinist, materials science specialist, and a logic driven fisherman all in one skin suit. So we all have some blind spots...
QuoteI have nothing technical to add or subtract from this discussion, but I sure hope that win lose or draw, you report back with the results if you do give it a shot.
And just because it's not worth it doesn't mean it's not worth it. Just my opinion. Almost no one-off project is ever worth the cost or effort to an accountant. But neither is a trip to an amusement park. Doesn't mean it isn't fun.
Yeah. The pretty much ideal version of the reel that the OP is describing is the older Shimano TR200 GT, Tons of these and the narrower 100 model at the auction site for around 50 bucks. These are really nice reels. Peak Shimano if you ask me.
Hotrodding is rarely about getting a better machine for less money. It is the journey. I can respect that.
-J
Quote from: jurelometer on August 08, 2024, 08:10:56 PMAnd to wrap up on what I can contribute:
Here is chain of weakest links in the classic Penn star drag design. Address the first, and second becomes the weakest link.
1. Gear sleeve to handle junction rounds off winding under load.
2. Radial to axial load transfer when winding helical gears causes the main shaft to be driven off alignment, leading to shredded gears and or dog/ratchet failure. A longer aftermarket handle arm increases the risk.
3. Pinion to spool junction shredding due to throwing the reel into gear at high drag on a charging high
4. Spindle flexing or even bending under high drag settings. This varies by model.
5. support posts allow reel to flex enough to cause spool rubbing at high drag settings (usually wider models)
6. Reel foot deforms under load (usually wider models, and in combination with 4 or 5)
Note that when you double the gear ratio, you are also doubling the load on all of the components on the main gear shaft for a given amount of pulling force on the line. Your proposed modification of going from 3:1 to 6:1, will actually makes the top three weakest links substantially weaker without further customization.
Here are some threads on the above topics. I have linked to most relevant post in each, but the whole threads are worth a read.
https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,9721.msg89805.html#msg89805 (https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,9721.msg89805.html#msg89805)
https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,14241.msg145326.html#msg145326 (https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,14241.msg145326.html#msg145326)
https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,31537.msg369742.html#msg369742 (https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,31537.msg369742.html#msg369742)
https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,37156.msg439389.html#msg439389 (https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,37156.msg439389.html#msg439389)
-J
As before, all good points, most of which were already in mind here. I had already planned on making SS gear sleeves for all my Penn star draggers that don't already have one. I think the first time I was ever warned not to slam a reel into gear under a tight line would have been about 55 years ago. Aware of spindles bending on 209 because I have had to replace a couple for that reason, in fleabay rescues, but glad you reminded me. I can make a spindle that won't bend under less than "Jaws". Thinking S35VN, a hardenable SS that will do its part if I do mine. Posts flexing and leaning is a major concern and I will address that with a frame with integral foot and I hadn't considered foot deformation, but it was gonna get taken care of anyway. In fact of all of my scheme, I look at a proper frame as the most essential and worthwhile element. I will be doing at least one frame, no matter what.
Thanks for those links. Don't have time to visit at the moment but I will give them a read in the coming days. Don't worry about being a buzz kill. That helps me a lot more than "Yeah Bro, GO FOR IT!!!" You guys have already brought up a couple of points that made me do the face palm because frankly if I was not enthusiastic about the project, I wouldn't even start it, and enthusiasm always comes with a bit of disregard for the unconsidered details. I posted because I needed technical information and I needed a sounding board and critical eye, not a fan club of enablers.
Quote from: jurelometer on August 08, 2024, 11:36:28 PMI forget which direction the pinion is axially driven when you are winding, but I wouldn't be suprised if it was toward the spool in order to help it lock to those spindle tabs. The answer is in one of the thread links above)
Ah, OF COURSE! You nailed it! I should have thought of that. I was thinking of every other reason under the sun other than making that pinion seek and maintain engagement with the spool, under load. Maybe I will try to do helical after all, with spur gears as a backup plan. I will just need a stronger yoke, to make up for the spur gears.
" When I use the CAD design software to make a helical gear tooth, it is just a spur gear tooth with the normal spur gear tooth inputs on the 2D drawing of the tooth profile, and then projected along the helix to make the 3D tooth. Don't see how the pressure angle changes. Am I doing it wrong, or does the pressure angle change in real life as a side effect of how the cut has to be made?"
I can't see your design software from here, but it sounds a little dodgy, the way you describe it.
Helical gears have a larger OD and of course corresponding PCD for a given tooth count, as compared to a corresponding straight cut spur gear. That is, a 30 tooth straight cut gear will have an OD of say, precisely 1", but a 30 tooth helical gear will have a diameter of 1.1xx". Slightly larger, depending on helix angle, and increasing with increased helix angle. Have a quick look at the formulas for helical gears, and you will see that there is always a yadayada X the cosine of the helix angle part, to allow for this.
This ^^ is a different thing than pressure angle, and has nothing to do with the cutting itself.
Really though, this is all way beyond the scope of a fishing reel forum (although i did see some of the gear math in an engineers notebook at one of the big reel companies recently. Hooooboy that guy did his homework all right. Lotsanlotsanlots of math)
Another thing about possible advantages of helical gears, is that they can allow a lower tooth count on the pinion.
Gotta go
Quote from: Robert Janssen on August 09, 2024, 09:59:18 AM" When I use the CAD design software to make a helical gear tooth, it is just a spur gear tooth with the normal spur gear tooth inputs on the 2D drawing of the tooth profile, and then projected along the helix to make the 3D tooth. Don't see how the pressure angle changes. Am I doing it wrong, or does the pressure angle change in real life as a side effect of how the cut has to be made?"
I can't see your design software from here, but it sounds a little dodgy, the way you describe it.
Helical gears have a larger OD and of course corresponding PCD for a given tooth count, as compared to a corresponding straight cut spur gear. That is, a 30 tooth straight cut gear will have an OD of say, precisely 1", but a 30 tooth helical gear will have a diameter of 1.1xx". Slightly larger, depending on helix angle, and increasing with increased helix angle. Have a quick look at the formulas for gears, and you will see that there is always a yadayada X the cosine of the helix angle part, to allow for this.
This ^^ is a different thing than pressure angle, and has nothing to do with the cutting itself.
Thanks!
This CAD program (Autodesk Fusion) isn't dodgy, just a usability nightmare.
I probably used a third party plugin to define helical gears, which could possibly have been dodgy. Most likely it is just my memory being sketchy. But since I only 3D print gears, I am not going to notice if the plug-in is cheating a small amount.
I'll define two gears with the same pitch diameter, etc., with one spur, one helical and compare the two. And do some reading too. One way or the other, I will learn something.
QuoteReally though, this is all way beyond the scope of a fishing reel forum (although i did see some of the gear math in an engineers notebook at one of the big reel companies recently. Hooooboy that guy did his homework all right. Lotsanlotsanlots of math)
No doubt that gears are fun for the mechanical engineer types, but kinda of surprised that this guy did the math by hand and didn't trust the (right) software. It leaves more time to do things like, I dunno, design a two speed lever drag shift mechanism that is actually durable :)
-J
Quote from: Robert Janssen on August 08, 2024, 12:18:14 PM" Since a cross section of a helical gear is the same as a spur gear, YES, BUT I would expect this formula to work. NO. HELICAL GEARS ENTER A THIRD MATHEMATICAL DIMENSION, SO TO SPEAK. NOT ONLY THE USUAL PCD STUFF, BUT ADD THE COSINE OF THE HELIX ANGLE AND OTHER STUFF TO DETERMINE DIMENSIONS. LONG STORY.
So I did my homework, and (of course) Robert is right. The gear profile has to be perpendicular to the path of the tooth, a helical path in this case. Seems kind of obvious now. Unlike a spur gear, the cross section is angled at the face of the gear, not parallel. So that formula to find the pressure angle will not be accurate.
It looks like they use the same cutters for milling both helical and spur gears, so while to face of the tooth is entirely different from a spur, it seems to me that the tooth profile perpendicular to the tooth path is going to end up the same as well, give or take a bit depending on how you cut it. It is just that the path is different.
I will correct my previous post.
Thanks again.
-J
Quote from: GrowleyMonster on August 09, 2024, 01:40:55 AMIn fact of all of my scheme, I look at a proper frame as the most essential and worthwhile element. I will be doing at least one frame, no matter what.
IMHO, if you are starting with a classic Penn, addressing gear alignment and handle junction shredding is the most worthwhile element. You need to replace the sleeve design with a solid shaft supported on both ends, or at least move to a beefier sleeve. On those smaller reels, the stock frame structure is rarely going to flex you intro trouble under load because the gears will have shredded first.
Nobody does the solid shaft replacement on a hotrodded Penn because (a) they didn't start with a failure analysis and fixed the wrong stuff first, or (b) realized that this would require a new bridge, sideplate and shaft design, and decided it was not worth it to basically make a brand new reel with just the old reel's spool and gears.
Until you fix the gear sleeve issue, the main benefit from a solid frame is the opportunity to have better alignment of the bearings at both ends of the spool shaft, which can improve casting performance.
-J
A tube frame is solid and cheaper than a billet as long as you can find the right size tubing stock. If tube frame doesn't ring a bell then check out the Meisselbach Tripart to get the idea.