With this group of smart folks who are familiar with the era when reels had bushings instead of of bearings, I would be truly shocked to be the first to ask this question, so I assume it's already been answered:
If the pinion bearing is the weak point on a lever drag reel because of the axial load, would a brass/bronze bushing (aka plain bearing) be an improvement for that component?
Most likely not, plain bearings are not good at dealing with thrust (side loading) . The cure is bearings designed to handle thrust, and not deep groove bearings. Flanged angular contact hearings is what I would recomend.
To elaborate on Lee's point:
The pinion bearing is being used for both rotational and thrust load.
You can do the same with the right type of plain bearing, but you will still need a separate plain bearing surface for it to press against, so two bearings total.
With a pinion ball bearing, the load is on one race (typically the outer), and the resistance on the other (typically the inner). The balls get pressed towards one side of the track in each race instead of rolling right down the center. This is not good for the bearing, but reels don't spend that much time turning, and there is an axial load rating that if you stay under should allow for a decent lifespan.
The advantage with the ball bearing is cramming both the radial and thrust operations in a very small space with less parts.
I am of the belief that you could design a lever drag reel with better thrust management, but retrofitting something on an existing reel is much more difficult.
-J
Regarding angular contact bearings:
Angular contact bearings are a halfway point between a radial bearing and a thrust bearing, so a compromise in both directions.
They are also designed for high precision assemblies and are less tolerant of misalignment compared to standard deep groove radial ball bearings. This ability to handle misalignment in standard ball bearings is something that reel designs often take advantage of, because higher precision has higher manufacturing cost. Most lever drag reels are not super precise in alignment.
This is not to say that replacing a standard bearing with an angular contact bearing won't help accommodate more load on some lever drags, just that there are tradeoffs to using them in a device not designed with them in mind, including some that may take some time to manifest.
-J
Knew I had to be missing something
Angular contact bearings will work. Best would be a shoulder on the spool shift, a thrust bearing and a ball bearing. Penn has thrust bearings on the off handle side on Torque and Fathom lever drag reels but they need another on the handle side.
Good question Jason. I'm not getting the answers at all though. Why wouldn't a single bushing work?
They do not handle sideloading (thrust) well.
Quote from: nelz on February 17, 2025, 04:55:17 AMGood question Jason. I'm not getting the answers at all though. Why wouldn't a single bushing work?
The pinion needs radial (rotational) and axial (along the shaft) load support. Radial for rotation on the shaft and axial for the drag clamping force. With a ball bearing, you get both (within limits) inside of a single bearing. One race pushes against the balls, which push against the other race.
With a plain bearing (AKA bushing), the bearing slides around the shaft for radial load, but needs an additional flat surface (another plain bearing) to slide against to bear the axial load while rotating.
I would argue that thrust load is not an issue if you use the right type of plain bearing. For example, what we call a spacer under the main gear in a star drag reel is actually a plain thrust bearing.
It is just easier for the reel designer to put a single ball bearing in, and just use a larger ball bearing if greater thrust loads are needed for higher drag settings. It has just gotten a bit trickier because with modern braid, folks want smaller reels with higher drag settings, leaving less room for a larger pinion bearing relative to the reel size.
-J
My bearings knowledge comes from
40 years of real world experience working in heavy industry and several classes and seminars on bearings. Early steam turbine governors use flanged plain bearings but they are immersed in oil and have minimal thrust.
Standard balls bearings are not designed to take side loading and rapidly fail, deep groove ball bearings (Avet) are a half assed fix. A flanged plain bearing can handle some thrust but they tend to wear out fast and gauling can be a issue unless immersed in oil.
Star drag reels do not have enough sideloading to worry about, usualy from angular cut gears, but LD reels put a lot of side load on the pinion bearings. The best cure is two thrust bearings, second best is flanged angular contact bearings.
Penn is half way there with their Fathom and Torque LD reels. All they need to do is make minor changes in the spool shaft and handle side sideplate and add a second thrust bearing.
Penn 55T thrust bearing.
(https://alantani.com/gallery/39/1583-170225143103.jpeg)
Quote from: Keta on February 17, 2025, 02:20:40 PMMy bearings knowledge comes from
40 years of real world experience working in heavy industry and several classes and seminars on bearings. Early steam turbine governors use flanged plain bearings but they are immersed in oil and have minimal thrust.
Standard balls bearings are not designed to take side loading and rapidly fail, deep groove ball bearings (Avet) are a half assed fix. A flanged plain bearing can handle some thrust but they tend to wear out fast and gauling can be a issue unless immersed in oil.
Star drag reels do not have enough sideloading to worry about, usualy from angular cut gears, but LD reels put a lot of side load on the pinion bearings. The best cure is two thrust bearings, second best is flanged angular contact bearings.
Penn is half way there with their Fathom and Torque LD reels. All they need to do is make minor changes in the spool shaft and handle side sideplate and add a second thrust bearing.
From what I have read, deep groove is pretty common for ball bearings. In other words, if you order a "regular" ball bearing, it is highly likely to be of the deep groove variety.
Agree on the second thrust bearing. I have always wondered about that. I guess it is trickier to fit one on the sideplate side.
Disagree on the star drag comment. There is significant side loading on the thrust bearing (AKA under gear washer) on a star drag. the star forces the main gear against it based on the drag setting. But there is not much need for a super low coefficient of friction, since the main gear only rotates on the thrust bearing when the drag is slipping. This means that the thrust bearing only needs to have static and kinetic coefficients of friction that are relatively close to help avoid a sticky drag. That is why Alan likes to use a drag washer for a thrust washer in this situation (I don't). You end up effectively adding another drag surface to the stack.
But I would agree with a more general claim that the demands are different. I think that you would have a valid point if you were say that a lever drag needs a thrust bearing with a lower overall coefficient of friction. This is because the thrust bearing surface pair on the pinion side is rotating under whatever the drag load is set at whenever the handle is being turned vs. rotating only when drag is being taken- which is the case with a star drag.
Plain thrust bearings can come with pretty high pressure/velocity ratings, so I suspect it is theoretically possible to use them in this situation. For example a thin Rulon thrust bearing can handle something like 10000 PSI at 100 SFM (surface feet per minute), which comes out at around 500 RPMs on an average diameter of 5/8 in. Faster than you can wind. Plus no lubricant needed.
As to which would be better in terms of balancing performance/cost/space required, you could very well be right. I have no opinion here.
The question at hand is could you use a plain bearing in place of a ball bearing for a lever drag pinion bearing. I think we are in agreement on the answer to that: Nope - you would also need a thrust bearing surface pair of some sort.
-J
The pressure on the ratchet of a star drag is not a issue. How many ratchets on gearsleves have you seen fail not counting stripped teeth? Zero for me. How much handle resistance does cranking down a star drag cause? None. Delron or HT-100/Carbontex underwashers hardly ever fail, if at all, due to thrust.
Outting a side load on a non thrust bearings wear them out quick and do not take a shock load, like dropping a Avet MX 6' with the drag set and on a rod. This can crack the inter race and/or dammage the cage. Ihave seen this happen.
(https://alantani.com/gallery/39/1583-170225213721.jpeg)
MAybe a thick nylon or delrin bushing in place of the bearing?
Worse than a bronze plain bearing. There is a lot of side pressure being put on the pinion bearings and they would deform.
Thrust isn't a new thing and it has been addressed a long time ago. There are bearings designed to take sideloading that have been used for over 100 years.
While working at Dell, an engineer was designing hard drive carriers and showed me how a tool he used could calculate stress on the latch mechanism. This intrigued me and I almost took a job at Ansys because their tool was impressive and they needed a software engineer at the time.
I often read the back-n-forth conversations on this board and wonder to myself, if reel companies have investigated using software tools to help them engineer better designs.
So I checked online and discovered there is some heavy design engineering with bearings. If you're interest check out this article - skf-bearing (https://www.ansys.com/blog/skf-bearing-app-in-mechanical). Interesting enough the article was a blog on the Ansys website.
I haven't ran across an article on reel design :( .
Quote from: Keta on February 17, 2025, 02:20:40 PMStar drag reels do not have enough sideloading to worry about, usualy from angular cut gears, but LD reels put a lot of side load on the pinion bearings. The best cure is two thrust bearings, second best is flanged angular contact bearings.
Quote from: Keta on February 17, 2025, 09:32:50 PMThe pressure on the ratchet of a star drag is not a issue. How many ratchets on gearsleves have you seen fail not counting stripped teeth? Zero for me. How much handle resistance does cranking down a star drag cause? None. Delron or HT-100/Carbontex underwashers hardly ever fail, if at all, due to thrust.
I think you might be missing my point, which is simply that the undergear washer in a star drag is an example a of highly loaded thrust washer (plain bearing) being used in a reel. It is also noted that the coefficient of friction demands are different between the star drag and lever drag cases- so it is not an exact comparison.
Don't know how far we want to go down this rathole. I think there is a reasonable discussion to be had on what type/size/design with a thrust washer might work on a lever drag pinion bearing, and how that would compare to a solution with a ball style thrust bearing, or just a ball bearing. But somebody has to be willing to do the design work and a bit of math. At this point, I just don't see any evidence to categorically rule out a thrust washer based design.
QuoteOutting a side load on a non thrust bearings wear them out quick and do not take a shock load, like dropping a Avet MX 6' with the drag set and on a rod. This can crack the inter race and/or dammage the cage. Ihave seen this happen.
Interesting about dropping and shock load.
I don't think I would go as far as saying that any amount of axial (side) load is on a deep groove bearing is unacceptable. Manufacturers publish an axial load rating (usually around 25% of radial load) that is supported for continuous operation. I would tend to follow their specifications with a bit of a safety factor for longevity. Once the axial load requirement gets too high, upsizing the deep groove ball bearing is no longer practical, and then you need something else to handle the thrust- such as a thrust bearing.
Getting back to deep groove ball bearings: I think that the bigger problem is that the lever drag design with a preset knob and a cam on a lever makes it easy to blow past the axial load limit. It is too late once you go a bit too far past the load limit. The bearing will be trashed.
I have thought a bit about how to design a lever drag that would prevent you from setting the load too high. An easy problem to solve if you are measuring and setting one reel at a time, but a bit harder problem if you are churning out reels in a factory. It would add some cost, but I think should still be doable. But it may be the same cost/complexity to just go to thrust bearings, and not have to worry about it at all.
-J
Quote from: nelz on February 17, 2025, 10:06:08 PMMAybe a thick nylon or delrin bushing in place of the bearing?
you need a flat round surface (think like a disk) for the thrust. It turns out that you can get higher load ratings by using a thinner thrust washer for PTFE based products (e.g. Rulon). These have to be mated to a stiff metal backing. and the sliding surfaces have to be well aligned, which may make it more difficult to pull off in a pinion/shaft/cam assembly. But if (a big if) the surfaces can be kept well aligned, the material itself won't have a problem with heavy loads at lower RPMS. It is not going to squish, melt or need lubrication.
For example Both Rulon and Delrin are used used for the sliding surfaces (ways) on metalworking machinery such as lathes and milling machines. This is more demanding than a fishing reel.
Nylon is softer, absorbs water, and does not maintain dimensional accuracy. So not a good match.
Also, a ball type thrust bearing has an advantage in handling misalignment.
-J
Deep groove pinion bearings fail in LD reels, a well known fact. Under continously side load they wear out and fail prematurely.
The load on the underwasher of a star drag is of no concern.
The cure for handle loading at reasonable drag settings is easy, put in real thrust washers.
Quote from: jtwill98 on February 17, 2025, 11:02:18 PMI often read the back-n-forth conversations on this board and wonder to myself, if reel companies have investigated using software tools to help them engineer better designs.
Anything coming from a big company nowadays is being designed with software suites that allow them to draw up the parts, combine parts into assemblies, select and drop in third party parts like bearings, output gcode for input into the CNC machines to cut parts and make molds. Not mention stress/load analysis tools that works well on parts, and so-so on assemblies.
Not super hard to do the software, I taught myself, and could design and churn out the easier parts on CNC machines, but I never got beyond rudimentary load testing. The pros go through a training program. I expect that this is part of a college mechanical engineering curriculum nowadays.
The software just takes some of the cost out. You still need somebody to come up with the design. And you have to be willing to invest enough time and and money to go through enough iterations (including real world testing) to get the best product possible.
-J
CAD and CNC are some of the best tools ever invented. Complex parts can be cut that in the past were either time consuming or impossible to manufacture.
I watched my watercutter put a block of aluminum a jig in his triple axis CNC mill, 20 minutes later he flipped the block and 10 minutes later a AR 15 lower receiver was done.
https://www.nationalprecision.com/info-library/technical-data/miniature-bearing-information/
The angular contact bearing is designed with a relieved shoulder to allow for a greater number of balls, thereby increasing its load-carrying capability. The angular contact design also allows for the use of a full section cage which is desirable for high speed applications. This type of bearing can handle thrust loads in one direction only.
The on direction side loading is why I suggest a flanged angular contact bearin. They would have to be left and right.
From what I have read, the angular contact bearings that are generally available are designed for tight tolerances, which means that you need excellent alignment (which you are not going to find on a fishing reel). I don't know if this a function of market demand or something inherent about angular contact bearing design.
One of the desirable attributes of standard deep groove ball bearings is the ability to tolerate a decent amount of misalignment.
Higher RPMs are not that useful for this particular bearing, because it only turns when you are turning the handle. Not that useful for the other side of the spool either.
I haven't tried dropping in an angular contact bearing, but seem to remember seeing a report or two where it did not help much. Maybe there was an implementation issue or maybe a problem with alignment.
There are more reels coming out nowadays with a single thrust bearing, but cannot recall one advertising an angular contact bearing. There must be a reason. ACBs are pretty well known.
-J
So on a vintage spinner, the pinion rides on a brass bushing, and a spool shaft slides up and down inside of it with, for the most part, no trouble. But I imagine there's not a ton of load present and the issue seems to be what happens when load increases.
I'm probably wrong, but I'm wondering if two concentric bushings (the inner one being able to slide back and forth a bit within the outer) might be able to handle the axial load better? I think I need to draw a sketch.
LD reels put a lot of thrust on the bearings.
Even with Avet's relitively loose but more than acceptable tolerance(actualy a good thing on reels) angular contact bearings will work. The RPMs are far lower than a trailer hubs and spindles and the tolerances of modern reels is as good or better. Properly set up and lubed trailer bearings get far more "miles" on them than a reel. Real world not book.
However true thrust bearings on both sides of the spool is the real answer.
(https://alantani.com/gallery/39/1583-170225143103.jpeg)
Quote from: JasonGotaProblem on February 18, 2025, 11:58:17 AMSo on a vintage spinner, the pinion rides on a brass bushing, and a spool shaft slides up and down inside of it with, for the most part, no trouble. But I imagine there's not a ton of load present and the issue seems to be what happens when load increases.
I'm probably wrong, but I'm wondering if two concentric bushings (the inner one being able to slide back and forth a bit within the outer) might be able to handle the axial load better? I think I need to draw a sketch.
I am confused. The axial load issue comes into play on spinning reels in two ways:
1. Drag clamping force (isolated to the drag stack)
2. Oscillation when winding under load ( isolated to the oscillation assembly)
There should be little axial load on the pinion. Depending on the gear design, some radial load is transferred to axial load, but that is about it.
Can you enlighten us a bit more on what exactly you are trying to address?
-J
Quote from: Keta on February 18, 2025, 03:22:13 PMLD reels put a lot of thrust on the bearings.
Even with Avet's relitively loose but more than acceptable tolerance(actualy a good thing on reels) angular contact bearings will work. The RPMs are far lower than a trailer hubs and spindles and the tolerances of modern reels is as good or better. Properly set up and lubed trailer bearings get far more "miles" on them than a reel. Real world not book.
However true thrust bearings on both sides of the spool is the real answer.
Have you tried putting angular contact bearings in an Avet, and if so how did it turn out? Or is your claim based on experience with other machinery?
On the real world vs book learning thing:
I admit to having little patience for engineering folk who think they can design a mechanical device without significant real world feedback and even less patience for anti-intellectualists that discount the value of a scientific approach.
We have pretty good discussions here when we combine both. When we pit one side against the other things usually go sideways.
The example of a car/trailer spindle is useful (although in my limited experience I have only seen tapered roller bearings used): Unlike deep groove ball bearings, angular contact bearings always need a minimum amount of axial load to work properly. The clamping load on these bearings has to be set to a specified load for the bearings to last. Too loose is no bueno.
More on this in a separate post.
-J
Spinners in general baffle me. I have no problem doing 2 and 3 speed lever drag reels and have been successful with Diawa e-reels but hate dealing with most modern spinning reels.
The spool only spins when line is going out under drag, the only "side loading" is the tension from the drag knob. The thrust a LD drag cam puts on a pinion bearing is far greater than what you can get with the drag knob on a spinner. A bronze plain bearings or possably a "plastic" like Orkot are more than adequate.
Ok bear with me. I do cad for a living but it's civil engineering work not mechanical, And I didn't put too much time into this.
Assume oil everywhere.
The pinion can spin in the inner bushing, which can spin in the outer bushing, and the inner bushing can slide in as drag is increased and the very light Belleville helps it slide back out as drag is decreased.
Didn't say it was a good idea. But I did say I'd sketch it. And I'll be clear that even if this is a viable approach it would need oiling more often than a ball bearing
The bellville will create friction and reduce the travel of the drag plate more than the existing bellville washers, reducing the maximum possible drag. The drag loss issue can be addressed by redesigning the existing drag cam. Replacing the bellville washer with a thrust washer would work but then you have extra parts taking up space.
Quote from: JasonGotaProblem on February 18, 2025, 08:53:23 PMOk bear with me. I do cad for a living but it's civil engineering work not mechanical, And I didn't put too much time into this.
Assume oil everywhere.
The pinion can spin in the inner bushing, which can spin in the outer bushing, and the inner bushing can slide in as drag is increased and the very light Belleville helps it slide back out as drag is decreased.
Didn't say it was a good idea. But I did say I'd sketch it. And I'll be clear that even if this is a viable approach it would need oiling more often than a ball bearing
On the reels that I am thinking about there are threads at the end of the shaft for tightening the drag knob. Then there is the spool and drag assembly. Then something on the shaft that acts as a stop for the drag to tighten up against. This is the end of the axial load. It can't reach the pinion.
Could you point to a schematic of a representative reel of the design that you have in mind?
-J
The pinion gear press against the inter race of the pinion bearings putting a side load on the bearing on Torque, Fathom and Avet LD reels and most likely all others.
Any reason the pinion couldn't slide back and forth in the inner race? Of a traditional layout, Or inner bushing of my mess? If the outside of the pinion (the part that goes inside the bearing not the part with teeth) was smooth enough and oily enough couldn't we circumvent this whole issue?
Quote from: jurelometer on February 19, 2025, 12:11:21 AMQuote from: JasonGotaProblem on February 18, 2025, 08:53:23 PMOk bear with me. I do cad for a living but it's civil engineering work not mechanical, And I didn't put too much time into this.
Assume oil everywhere.
The pinion can spin in the inner bushing, which can spin in the outer bushing, and the inner bushing can slide in as drag is increased and the very light Belleville helps it slide back out as drag is decreased.
Didn't say it was a good idea. But I did say I'd sketch it. And I'll be clear that even if this is a viable approach it would need oiling more often than a ball bearing
On the reels that I am thinking about there are threads at the end of the shaft for tightening the drag knob. Then there is the spool and drag assembly. Then something on the shaft that acts as a stop for the drag to tighten up against. This is the end of the axial load. It can't reach the pinion.
Could you point to a schematic of a representative reel of the design that you have in mind?
-J
Can't say that I can. But I will update my idea a bit to go more into detail on that on my next iteration if this turns out being more worthy of exploring. I was merely drawing what the bushing assembly might look like.
So this all started from buying one of Bryan Young's boxes. I think #148 specifically because it looked like some junk that nobody wanted (seemed like a way to help), other than that 50LD daiwa, and some mystery small silver lever drag that turned out to be an omoto VS10, which would be a decent reel, apparently other than the tiny pinion bearing that has already failed. That got me thinking about pinion bearing concepts in general, which led to this random landing spot.
Clear as mud, right?
The side loading is not from the gears, it is from pulling or pushing the spool and drag assembly together. Floating pinion gear/gears will misalign the main gear/gears and cause issues with the shift mecanism on multi speed reels.
I just sold a used Avet JX single speed reel I would have donated to you to learn how they work. Keep thinking though, unconventional thinking sometimes comes up improvements.
This thread is getting a bit messy.
First of all, let's do a refresh of the difference between a standard radial ball bearing and an angular contact bearing (ACB).
As I understand it, a radial bearing has grooves for the balls to run in that are centered on both races. This helps keep the races aligned when there is no axial load.
An ACB has a left groove on one race and a right groove on the other, so the bearing does not do a good job of centering the races and supporting radial load until you add some axial load to push the grooves toward each other. This minimal load is called a preload, and is required when installing ACBs on things like wheel spindles.
Running an ACB with radial load but without the required minimum axial load preset will damage the bearing, or at least wear it out faster.
Let's look at a cross section of an ACB:
(https://alantani.com/gallery/39/11927-190225054522.jpeg)
Note the contact angle. This is amount that the grooves are "tilted" from being perfectly perpendicular to the shaft. The greater the contact angle, the closer the ACB gets to being a thrust bearing and the farther that it gets from being a radial bearing. A greater contact angle requires a higher preset load as well.
ACBs come in different contact angles, so choosing the right contact angle is part of the selection process.
So what does this mean for reels? First of all, we can't just drop in an ACB wherever there is a radial ball bearing. We have to ensure that there is sufficient axial load whenever the bearing will be turning, and we also need to ensure that the bearing to shaft alignment is within the tolerances specified by the bearing manufacturer (ACBs usually require tighter tolerances). Plus there should also be a requirement for significant axial load support.
Having said all that, it seems like the pinion bearing in a lever drag could be a reasonable candidate. When the drag is turned to freespool, the axial load may be a bit lighter than ideal, but there will not be any radial load on the pinion until you flip the lever and start winding, at which point the axial load will have been ramped up.
But if you are going to do an ACB, you might need to address axial load on the other side of the spool, which means another ACB or a thrust bearing.
I went back and looked at the threads here on dropping in ACBs into various lever drags. It looks like there were some attempts that were successes, some claims of success that looked a bit dubious, and some claims of minimal or no success (but not much detail here).
The other problem noted was finding corrosion resistant ACBs in the small sizes required for drop in replacements for pinion bearings. I did a quick look and couldn't find anything smaller than a 10 mm shaft size in 440c stainless.
So if you want to try this at home, you probably will be stuck with high carbon steel ACBs and dealing with the corrosion risk. And ACBs are not cheap.
But Lee might be right about the concept.
-J
The bearing on the right is a poor fix for thrust and I think is what Avet uses. What I am refering to is like Timkin wheel bearings with rollers rather than balls.
Quote from: JasonGotaProblem on February 19, 2025, 12:50:05 AMAny reason the pinion couldn't slide back and forth in the inner race? Of a traditional layout, Or inner bushing of my mess? If the outside of the pinion (the part that goes inside the bearing not the part with teeth) was smooth enough and oily enough couldn't we circumvent this whole issue?
Good luck finding a material that makes both a nice strong gear and a nice smooth bearing, especially without a pressurized oil bath.
And dont't forget that you still need a thrust bearing surface.
-J
Yup, and the "cure" is a true thrust bearing.
(https://alantani.com/gallery/39/1583-170225143103.jpeg)
It might take adding a bit of width to the handle side side plate (pull drags) or the off handle side (push drags) and a shoulder on the spool shaft. Or a screw in bearing carrier for the radial load bearing like on Penn Senator reels.
Penn Fathom and Tork LD reels are half way there.
Quote from: Keta on February 19, 2025, 06:01:05 AMThe bearing on the right is a poor fix for thrust and I think is what Avet uses. What I am refering to is like Timkin wheel bearings with rollers rather than balls.
if you are referring to this graphic, the bearing on the left is a radial bearing, and the one on the right is an angular contact bearing. Avet would be using the one on the left.
(https://alantani.com/gallery/39/11927-190225054522.jpeg)
-J
Quote from: Keta on February 19, 2025, 06:08:00 AMYup, and the "cure" is a true thrust bearing.
And if we are going to veer into ball vs. roller bearings, I am going to politely extract myself from this thread.
Eject in three, two, one...
-J
From the failed Avet pinion bearings I have torn apart the pinion bearing is like the one on the right. Avet pinion bearings have black shields, their radial bearings have blue shields. I keep at least a dozen Avet pinion bearings in stock and I replace them every time I service a Avet, needed or not.
Quote from: jurelometer on February 19, 2025, 06:03:23 AMQuote from: JasonGotaProblem on February 19, 2025, 12:50:05 AMAny reason the pinion couldn't slide back and forth in the inner race? Of a traditional layout, Or inner bushing of my mess? If the outside of the pinion (the part that goes inside the bearing not the part with teeth) was smooth enough and oily enough couldn't we circumvent this whole issue?
Good luck finding a material that makes both a nice strong gear and a nice smooth bearing, especially without a pressurized oil bath.
And dont't forget that you still need a thrust bearing surface.
-J
Actually, I don't like my response. To be more accurate, it is difficult to replace the thrust bearing duty performed by the pinion bearing with a bearing free design. I think that you could very possibly get away without having a radial bearing of some kind.
-J
Beryllium bronze might do both but it is is not cheep and beryllium is toxic.
I didn't say the pinion and the bearing need to be the same material. Just smooth. Like how a spool shaft slides up and down the inside of a spinner, in contact with the pinion, but if both are polished the resistance is negligible. One is steel the other is brass or bronze, on any spinner worth talking about.
Maybe a nice slippery sleeve of a teflon-based material between the two?
Also, how do spherical bearings stack up for this task? I imagine those are very deep groove bearings?
Quote from: JasonGotaProblem on February 19, 2025, 08:22:38 PMAlso, how do spherical bearings stack up for this task? I imagine those are very deep groove bearings?
You can look it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_bearing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_bearing)
Reels don't have an intentionally changing rotational axis or the room to stuff in a large bearing
Beryllium copper and now spherical bearings. I think that we are running on fumes at this point.
At this point ,pick a reel to dissect . I thought this started with spinners than swayed to levers .
Two different animals and the real estate to play with bearings .
It's always been about lever drags I just took some inspiration from an aspect of spinner innards.
Maybe that inspiration was misguided. But I'm enjoying this thread so far.
Side note that there was a revision of the Omoto VS10, the original ones had a _tiny_ pinion bearing that would die a horrible death very quickly, they upsized it considerably in the revised design but it still doesn't last long.
Have a read of the threads in the Okuma forum about upgrading either Makairas or Metaloids with angular contact bearings. It works very well in the pinion position to reduce binding when increasing the drag, however as we (myself and Redsetta) discovered, the next weakest point is the left side spool bearing, which is extremely hard to find in an ACB in that size, so a really deep groove was the best we could come up with.
Re. the designs so far, I think you're mistaking where the problem is by trying to solve friction with the pinion. That is not the issue. The problem is that to produce drag you have to have a clamping force, which is applied by pulling the spool towards the drive side plate via the spool shaft, compressing every component on the spool shaft. This pushes the inner race of the pinion bearing towards the sideplate, transferring the entire clamping load to the sideplate via the balls of the bearing and then the outer race. You can have all the doohickeys you want surrounding the pinion, but you need a thing that spins and can transfer an axial load.
Okuma largely solved this in the Solterra X by putting a thrust bearing on top of both the left side spool bearing and the pinion, and it works superbly, in my opinion.
Quote from: boon on February 21, 2025, 02:01:34 AMOkuma largely solved this in the Solterra X by putting a thrust bearing on top of both the left side spool bearing and the pinion, and it works superbly, in my opinion.
completely agree with you.
that Solterra SL-X is one of the most smooth leverdrag reels I have used, with smooth Im referring to increase the drag with the lever and still have a pretty freely sensation when turning the handle, on that same amount of drag (lets say 17#) the penn fathom show a resistance on the handle but the handle on the Solterra X still turns as freely as a star drag reel and Im talking about the small model Solterra 10 SL-X