Well I'm building a low (read as "no") budget 114H that I plan to load with 100 lb braid and use for kayaking big baits out off the beach.
This will be new for me since I've always casted all my baits.
Anyway, I looked at some of the ways that double dogs have been done here and decided on another option.
I mainly chose this route because I'm try to use what I have on hand and not spend any money on it.
The other reason is that I really like mounting the dogs on the bridge versus on the bridge screws since it's a lot easier to install.
Of course, I will be clearancing the side plate a bit.
I have a Motive Fab Insert kit that I'll be using and I'm saving up for a stainless gear sleeve to go with it.
All feedback is welcome!
(https://i.imgur.com/40R0VzY.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/k5aXToA.jpg)
I like where your going with this. I don't think I'd risk putting Adams insert kit in there until you have the stainless sleeve though. Those dogs will wear at the brass sleeve and adding that incredible drag pressure you will get with the insert kit, at least use it on light pressure while the brass is still in it! Should be smooth like melted butter.
On the 114H reels I do it what I think is an easier way.
I leave the gear sleeve off the bridge. I set the completed main gear with the gear sleeve intact. I set this unit in the opening and install the double dogs and springs.
I then slide the bridge straight down and into the gear sleeve. Super easy.
Just remember to put the pin back in :D
Looks sweet Chad! I notice you went with alternating dogs...I love the sound from those. Simultaneous is the way to go for max power, but those big 114H size dogs in stainless steel are very strong when crammed into a ss ratchet...even one at a time. With the insert kit and ss sleeve you'll have a powerful tool there. Three cheers for the low-buck build! 8)
Awesome, great job Chad!
Looks good Chad, I like the the idea of using screws for the spring posts.
Mike
Nice Chad, I've never done a DD upgrade and my 114H was going to be my first victim but was going to dremel the side plate. I like what you've done better but it's above my pay grade. I'll have to check it out next time I see you,hopefully soon!
What'er you using for dog posts, and spring posts. Are the d. posts peened or screwed? And what size taps are you usin?
I godda ss 114H bridge layin round if you want it. However it's onea those AT variations with the squared teeth on the bottom. PM mailing info if interested. Seems to work fine as a double dogger and sounded really cool "CLACK, CLACK, CLACK!..."
Chad I've got 500 meters of hi vis yellow braid. It's new, I just took it off the spool to wash a bit of the dye off. It's generic but free is a good price. Let me know and I will send it off to you.
I have a 5lb spool of 130 momoi mono if you need a top shot
Don't know if it is an option, but supporting the dog post on both sides (even if one side is bakelite) is most likely going to be stronger. I would consider using bridge screws for the dog posts.
-J
Quote from: David Hall on October 11, 2018, 09:28:01 PM
I like where your going with this. I don't think I'd risk putting Adams insert kit in there until you have the stainless sleeve though. Those dogs will wear at the brass sleeve and adding that incredible drag pressure you will get with the insert kit, at least use it on light pressure while the brass is still in it! Should be smooth like melted butter.
Thanks David! I will be sure to keep the drag set light until I can get the stainless sleeve.
Quote from: handi2 on October 11, 2018, 09:36:13 PM
On the 114H reels I do it what I think is an easier way.
I leave the gear sleeve off the bridge. I set the completed main gear with the gear sleeve intact. I set this unit in the opening and install the double dogs and springs.
I then slide the bridge straight down and into the gear sleeve. Super easy.
Just remember to put the pin back in :D
Keith, great idea, thank you!
Quote from: mo65 on October 11, 2018, 09:45:52 PM
Looks sweet Chad! I notice you went with alternating dogs...I love the sound from those. Simultaneous is the way to go for max power, but those big 114H size dogs in stainless steel are very strong when crammed into a ss ratchet...even one at a time. With the insert kit and ss sleeve you'll have a powerful tool there. Three cheers for the low-buck build! 8)
Thanks Mo! I went back and forth between making the dog alternate or sync. I like the sound of the alternating dogs, but now I'm thinking for this one the strength of synced dogs may be better.
Quote from: Darin Crofton on October 11, 2018, 10:02:34 PM
Awesome, great job Chad!
Thanks Darin!
Quote from: mhc on October 11, 2018, 10:47:33 PM
Looks good Chad, I like the the idea of using screws for the spring posts.
Mike
Thanks Mike!
Quote from: Swami805 on October 11, 2018, 11:57:38 PM
Nice Chad, I've never done a DD upgrade and my 114H was going to be my first victim but was going to dremel the side plate. I like what you've done better but it's above my pay grade. I'll have to check it out next time I see you,hopefully soon!
Thanks Sheridan! For sure, let's do lunch soon!
Quote from: Gfish on October 12, 2018, 12:19:44 AM
What'er you using for dog posts, and spring posts. Are the d. posts peened or screwed? And what size taps are you usin?
I godda ss 114H bridge layin round if you want it. However it's onea those AT variations with the squared teeth on the bottom. PM mailing info if interested. Seems to work fine as a double dogger and sounded really cool "CLACK, CLACK, CLACK!..."
Thanks G!! That's really kind of you! I'll PM you my address!
I'll do a more detailed reply with more info soon.
Quote from: JRD on October 12, 2018, 01:26:23 AM
Chad I've got 500 meters of hi vis yellow braid. It's new, I just took it off the spool to wash a bit of the dye off. It's generic but free is a good price. Let me know and I will send it off to you.
Quote from: Swami805 on October 12, 2018, 01:48:21 AM
I have a 5lb spool of 130 momoi mono if you need a top shot
Thank you guys! I'll gladly use it! That should spool it up about perfect!
Quote from: jurelometer on October 12, 2018, 03:29:21 AM
Don't know if it is an option, but supporting the dog post on both sides (even if one side is bakelite) is most likely going to be stronger. I would consider using bridge screws for the dog posts.
-J
"J", you're right in that anytime you can mount something in double shear it will be stronger. In this case, I have the dog posts counter sunk into the bridge with a press fit and screwed on from the back side of the bridge so I believe it will be plenty strong. The only way to find out for sure though is to test it ;D
Nice, innovative work. Thanks for showing it. I can't make out the dog posts, though. Are they peened, or what? How do they relate to the bridge screws that used to be there?
On the issue of synchronized vs. alternating dogs, there was a discussion a few years ago. Sal was advocating for synchronized dogs, and finally was convinced that there is no such thing as dual dogs synchronized closely enough to provide the strength hoped for. I think that's true. (Haven't found the thread yet.)
--Mike
I like it..!!
Thanks for sharing your pictures and ideas. 🚣♀️ There's some thing about learning that's fun. I'm still learning and sharing your thoughts is great 👍. More of us have a dime than a dollar 💵🤦♀️
Put the gear sleeve inna mail today Chad. Turns out it's a regular style, with 10 teeth! My short-term memory sucks. Relatively new. Uh-oh, now you might gotta reshape the dogs? Hope not.
Quote from: mike1010 on October 12, 2018, 04:29:11 PM
Nice, innovative work. Thanks for showing it. I can't make out the dog posts, though. Are they peened, or what? How do they relate to the bridge screws that used to be there?
On the issue of synchronized vs. alternating dogs, there was a discussion a few years ago. Sal was advocating for synchronized dogs, and finally was convinced that there is no such thing as dual dogs synchronized closely enough to provide the strength hoped for. I think that's true. (Haven't found the thread yet.)
--Mike
I was in on that discussion, and I think we ended up concluding that both sides of the argument had some merit. While I still don't think there is significant load sharing, I no longer believe that extra non-alternating dogs are pointless.
The more elastic the system is and the tighter the tolerances, the more non-alternating dogs will share the load. For the type of reels we are talking about, I didn't think there could be much load sharing going on, therefore non-alternating dogs would not end up significantly increasing the max load.
When things go south, a complete dog failure means parts are jammed or broken off and floating around. Having a second dog may not help much in this situation.
BUT:
Even without any load sharing, a second (alternating or non-alternating) dog can up to double the dog lifespan at heavy load, as long as you don't exceed the limits of a single dog. Each dog is stressed half as frequently over the lifespan of both dogs combined. Also, once a dog starts to fail, it has a better chance of not gumming up the works with non-alternating dogs as there will be less travel before the secondary takes over.
What is more important (but gets less attention from us) than the number of dogs is the boring engineer stuff: how well the post is supported, how well the dog and ratchet stay aligned (e.g. twisting potential), the engagement surface area between the dog/ ratchet tooth, the diameter of the ratchet, if the force of the ratchet on the dog is on a tangent with the diameter of the ratchet at the center of the tooth, whether the dog is straight or curved, etc, etc. Basic mechanical engineering stuff that is centuries old.
Sticking more dogs in a reel can add value, but getting the engineering right is the big thing. If you look at the Cortez upgrade to the 113N, you will see that it addressed the design and manufacturing issues that caused a two dog 113N to be weaker than a one dog 113H. Tom didn't add a third dog.
Getting back on topic: It looks like Chad is paying attention to getting the posts as strong as possible, so it looks to me like he is on the right track. Do you think we can talk him into pushing the reel to failure in the interest of science? ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: jurelometer on October 12, 2018, 07:15:41 PM
Quote from: mike1010 on October 12, 2018, 04:29:11 PM
Nice, innovative work. Thanks for showing it. I can't make out the dog posts, though. Are they peened, or what? How do they relate to the bridge screws that used to be there?
On the issue of synchronized vs. alternating dogs, there was a discussion a few years ago. Sal was advocating for synchronized dogs, and finally was convinced that there is no such thing as dual dogs synchronized closely enough to provide the strength hoped for. I think that's true. (Haven't found the thread yet.)
--Mike
I was in on that discussion, and I think we ended up concluding that both sides of the argument had some merit. While I still don't think there is significant load sharing, I no longer believe that extra non-alternating dogs are pointless.
The more elastic the system is and the tighter the tolerances, the more non-alternating dogs will share the load. For the type of reels we are talking about, I didn't think there could be much load sharing going on, therefore non-alternating dogs would not end up significantly increasing the max load.
When things go south, a complete dog failure means parts are jammed or broken off and floating around. Having a second dog may not help much in this situation.
BUT:
Even without any load sharing, a second (alternating or non-alternating) dog can up to double the dog lifespan at heavy load, as long as you don't exceed the limits of a single dog. Each dog is stressed half as frequently over the lifespan of both dogs combined. Also, once a dog starts to fail, it has a better chance of not gumming up the works with non-alternating dogs as there will be less travel before the secondary takes over.
What is more important (but gets less attention from us) than the number of dogs is the boring engineer stuff: how well the post is supported, how well the dog and ratchet stay aligned (e.g. twisting potential), the engagement surface area between the dog/ ratchet tooth, the diameter of the ratchet, if the force of the ratchet on the dog is on a tangent with the diameter of the ratchet at the center of the tooth, whether the dog is straight or curved, etc, etc. Basic mechanical engineering stuff that is centuries old.
Sticking more dogs in a reel can add value, but getting the engineering right is the big thing. If you look at the Cortez upgrade to the 113N, you will see that it addressed the design and manufacturing issues that caused a two dog 113N to be weaker than a one dog 113H. Tom didn't add a third dog.
Getting back on topic: It looks like Chad is paying attention to getting the posts as strong as possible, so it looks to me like he is on the right track. Do you think we can talk him into pushing the reel to failure in the interest of science? ;D ;D ;D
jurelometer great explanation of some of your knowledge on this subject, I'm trying to learn all I can on how a reel works and this was very insightful, thank you, Darin
Thanks guys!
Quote from: Gfish on October 12, 2018, 06:56:09 PM
Put the gear sleeve inna mail today Chad. Turns out it's a regular style, with 10 teeth! My short-term memory sucks. Relatively new. Uh-oh, now you might gotta reshape the dogs? Hope not.
Thank you so much Gfish!!!
Quote from: jurelometer on October 12, 2018, 07:15:41 PM
I was in on that discussion, and I think we ended up concluding that both sides of the argument had some merit. While I still don't think there is significant load sharing, I no longer believe that extra non-alternating dogs are pointless.
The more elastic the system is and the tighter the tolerances, the more non-alternating dogs will share the load. For the type of reels we are talking about, I didn't think there could be much load sharing going on, therefore non-alternating dogs would not end up significantly increasing the max load.
When things go south, a complete dog failure means parts are jammed or broken off and floating around. Having a second dog may not help much in this situation.
BUT:
Even without any load sharing, a second (alternating or non-alternating) dog can up to double the dog lifespan at heavy load, as long as you don't exceed the limits of a single dog. Each dog is stressed half as frequently over the lifespan of both dogs combined. Also, once a dog starts to fail, it has a better chance of not gumming up the works with non-alternating dogs as there will be less travel before the secondary takes over.
What is more important (but gets less attention from us) than the number of dogs is the boring engineer stuff: how well the post is supported, how well the dog and ratchet stay aligned (e.g. twisting potential), the engagement surface area between the dog/ ratchet tooth, the diameter of the ratchet, if the force of the ratchet on the dog is on a tangent with the diameter of the ratchet at the center of the tooth, whether the dog is straight or curved, etc, etc. Basic mechanical engineering stuff that is centuries old.
Sticking more dogs in a reel can add value, but getting the engineering right is the big thing. If you look at the Cortez upgrade to the 113N, you will see that it addressed the design and manufacturing issues that caused a two dog 113N to be weaker than a one dog 113H. Tom didn't add a third dog.
Getting back on topic: It looks like Chad is paying attention to getting the posts as strong as possible, so it looks to me like he is on the right track. Do you think we can talk him into pushing the reel to failure in the interest of science? ;D ;D ;D
Thank you Jurelometer!
There are definitely a lot of variables and even as I play with this more, I'm thinking of new ideas.
I have another bridge that I'm going to try another idea on and see how it looks.
Thanks for all the feedback!
I might be enticed to push it to failure ;) I'd really like to see what happens as well ;D
Thank you, jurelometer, for correcting my memory.