Reel Repair by Alan Tani

Hello,

Which reel is easier to crank/requires less force to turn with say both with a 30# fish.
The two reels both have 30" per handle turn retrieve. Both handles are the same length. The main differences is that REEL A is smaller with 3.7:1 gear ratio and the diameter of the spool is 2.5". REEL B the lareger reel has 3.4:1 gear ratio and spool diameter is 2.8".

What topic headings would I use to do an internet search on these concepts?

Thanx,

Leo

Probably wouldn't notice any difference between them. Same 30" per crank and same cranker.

Probably wouldn'T see much difference, though my knee-jerk would be that the larger reel would have a little more power.  I tried to explore the concept of applied power mathematically in another thread.  I believe the ratio of spool diameter to pinion gear diameter, and handle arm length to main gear diameter is the key.  Basically a larger gear set, longer handle arm, and smaller spool diameter will give you more applied power (i.e. easier to crank under the same load).

Thanx guys for responding,

This is a real world situation. John, I read your post/comments and others and was left "dazed and confused" and since the topic was a side topic I didnt want to hijack the thread. This is the actual situation: I have  300H (3/0 reel) and 400H (4/0 reel) Daiwa reels with the specs stated in the opening comments. Both reels have the same line retrieve rate and share the same handle, the difference is in the gear ratio and the spool diameter. Size is definitely a difference in these two reels.

Does anyone know some rule of thumb logic or the math that would allow me to determine force required for a specific load to compare the two reels? Lee, I hope you chime in for I know you were a millwright for many years and this should be a familiar deal for you.

Thanx,

Leo

Without getting scientific, hook up each reel to the same rod and try cranking up a ten lb weight and see if you can tell by feel. Once you figure out which one cranks easier by feel, than sit down and crunch the numbers, if you feel like it, to confirm your field test. I would think the larger spooled one would but you never know.

All other things being equal, the reel with the larger gears will be easier to crank.  Larger gears transmit power more efficiently.  But in your case, I doubt you could tell a difference. 

If you wanted to test it, tie a weight onto the line with the rod secured to something solid.  Use a fish scale to pull on the handle, and see which reel takes less force on the handle to lift the weight.

Quote from: LTM on September 07, 2015, 04:56:20 PM
Thanx guys for responding,

This is a real world situation. John, I read your post/comments and others and was left "dazed and confused" and since the topic was a side topic I didnt want to hijack the thread. This is the actual situation: I have  300H (3/0 reel) and 400H (4/0 reel) Daiwa reels with the specs stated in the opening comments. Both reels have the same line retrieve rate and share the same handle, the difference is in the gear ratio and the spool diameter. Size is definitely a difference in these two reels.

Does anyone know some rule of thumb logic or the math that would allow me to determine force required for a specific load to compare the two reels? Lee, I hope you chime in for I know you were a millwright for many years and this should be a familiar deal for you.

Thanx,

Leo

The simplest way to look at it is energy in = energy out, or work in =work out.

Take the handle side with one revolution:
 
Work_H=(F_H)(2)(pi)(R_H)

This results in work done retrieving line:

Work_L=(F_L)(IPT)

Neglect a little friction, set them equal, you have:

(F_H)(2)(pi)(R_H) = (F_L)(IPT)

F_H/F_L = (IPT) / ( (2)(pi)(R_H) )

Where

F_H = Force applied to handle
F_L = Force applied to line
IPT = Inches per Turn (which incorporates gear ratio and spool diameter)
R_H = Radius of handle


IPT varies (decreases) as line is remeved from the spool.  As IPT decreases,  F_L increases (they are inversely proportional)

So, if you crank with a constant force on the handle, and with the same handle R_H is constant as well, we have:

(F_L)(IPT) = Constant

Quote from: SteveL on September 07, 2015, 11:47:53 PM

Quote from: LTM on September 07, 2015, 04:56:20 PM
Thanx guys for responding,

This is a real world situation. John, I read your post/comments and others and was left "dazed and confused" and since the topic was a side topic I didnt want to hijack the thread. This is the actual situation: I have  300H (3/0 reel) and 400H (4/0 reel) Daiwa reels with the specs stated in the opening comments. Both reels have the same line retrieve rate and share the same handle, the difference is in the gear ratio and the spool diameter. Size is definitely a difference in these two reels.

Does anyone know some rule of thumb logic or the math that would allow me to determine force required for a specific load to compare the two reels? Lee, I hope you chime in for I know you were a millwright for many years and this should be a familiar deal for you.

Thanx,

Leo

The simplest way to look at it is energy in = energy out, or work in =work out.

Take the handle side with one revolution:
 
Work_H=(F_H)(2)(pi)(R_H)

This results in work done retrieving line:

Work_L=(F_L)(IPT)

Neglect a little friction, set them equal, you have:

(F_H)(2)(pi)(R_H) = (F_L)(IPT)

F_H/F_L = (IPT) / ( (2)(pi)(R_H) )

Where

F_H = Force applied to handle
F_L = Force applied to line
IPT = Inches per Turn (which incorporates gear ratio and spool diameter)
R_H = Radius of handle


IPT varies (decreases) as line is remeved from the spool.  As IPT decreases,  F_L increases (they are inversely proportional)

So, if you crank with a constant force on the handle, and with the same handle R_H is constant as well, we have:

(F_L)(IPT) = Constant

This is a good, simplified means of looking at work in/out as it relates to retrieve (IPT), and will provide for a good means of comparison. 

However, it seems to me that it is also important to account for differences in the size of the different components in the drive train (in relation to one another) when looking at the applied force to force achieved differences between models.  For instance, we may have a large reel (large spool/pinion, long handle/large main with a 1:1 gear ratio) that has the same IPT as a small reel with a much higher gear ratio but the two have differing power in: power out ratios. 

Don'T mean to venture too far into the tall grasses here, but, (as was stated earlier) I think the simplest means to compare two reels is to put a weight on the line and test how much force is required (using a scale on the handle) to lift the weight with each reel. 

If the line ain't going out it should be coming in. Turn the turner!

Quote from: Tightlines666 on September 08, 2015, 12:07:37 AM

This is a good, simplified means of looking at work in/out as it relates to retrieve (IPT), and will provide for a good means of comparison. 

However, it seems to me that it is also important to account for differences in the size of the different components in the drive train (in relation to one another) when looking at the applied force to force achieved differences between models.  For instance, we may have a large reel (large spool/pinion, long handle/large main with a 1:1 gear ratio) that has the same IPT as a small reel with a much higher gear ratio but the two have differing power in: power out ratios. 

Don'T mean to venture too far into the tall grasses here, but, (as was stated earlier) I think the simplest means to compare two reels is to put a weight on the line and test how much force is required (using a scale on the handle) to lift the weight with each reel. 

Size of individual components are not really relevant.  The reel should be designed so that the max drag would effectively limit internal forces to prevent component failure (until people on certain reel repair forums start tweeking the reels  ).   That said, we compare the drag ratings of the reels if we want to know which can deliver more power.

Forget spool diameters,  gear ratios, gear diameters and such.   That gets bundled up in IPT.   One point is that larger main gears typically give at least two benefits:  1) more metal to act as a heat sink to absorb the energy from the drag, 2) larger gears usually have larger drag washers (forget the area of the drag washer, the torque transmitted by the washer depends on the mean diameter of the washer which is typically larger with larger washers).

While we may not know how much line was on the spool when the manufacturer quoted IPT, we can easily spool up and measure for our own comparison.

Quote from: SteveL on September 08, 2015, 01:00:33 AM

Quote from: Tightlines666 on September 08, 2015, 12:07:37 AM

This is a good, simplified means of looking at work in/out as it relates to retrieve (IPT), and will provide for a good means of comparison.  

However, it seems to me that it is also important to account for differences in the size of the different components in the drive train (in relation to one another) when looking at the applied force to force achieved differences between models.  For instance, we may have a large reel (large spool/pinion, long handle/large main with a 1:1 gear ratio) that has the same IPT as a small reel with a much higher gear ratio but the two have differing power in: power out ratios.  

Don'T mean to venture too far into the tall grasses here, but, (as was stated earlier) I think the simplest means to compare two reels is to put a weight on the line and test how much force is required (using a scale on the handle) to lift the weight with each reel.  

Size of individual components are not really relevant...
Forget spool diameters,  gear ratios, gear diameters and such.   That gets bundled up in IPT....

I disagree here.  The ratio of spool diameter to pinion, and handle arm length to main gear is important when examining power/work ratios.  I have tested 14/0, 130H, and the 130ST (in High and Low gear)..in order to test my theory that power/work ratios are not simply a function of IPT.*

*Here is the thread where I discussed my theory.  The actual lbs input were not posted, but did follow the same list achieved by my rudimentary attempt at an equation accounting for these things, not that simply given by the above equation focusing on IPT.

The above closely approximates differences, but it does fail to account for the power benefits achieved by larger main and pinion gears.  It is easy to see the inherent differences in power/work ratios between reels with different sized spools/length handle arms..but testing reveals that the size of the gears is also a factor.

It is too bad manufactures don'T provide some meaningful number to indicate power, like they do with IPT.  Of course we all know that all manufacturer-provided specifications need to be taken with a grain of salt.. since IPT is often provided with a full spool, and max. drag numbers are sometimes reported with an empty spool, or worse yet, past where you loose free spool (on lever drags)..where damage might result (especially when cranking under load).  Still I wish they would give us something here..other then that this or that model has a 'Powerful low gear ratio'... when I know this is only part of the equation.  

Easiest way to tell is to test your reel yourself with different length arms, or gear ratios.  Or better yet compare 2 reels, such as the first 2 mentioned in this thread..with equal IPC, and see the difference for yourself.

BTW, I am not clining to fully understand this or hAve iT all figured out, just reporting mT atempt to enumerator observable differences between models.

The number of teeth has particular importance on the efficiency of a gear.  Small diameter pinions with few teeth are not very efficient at transmission power, and a larger portion of the input force is lost to friction between the gears. 

A 1:1 ratio gear with a tall spool that retrieves 30" per rev will be easier to crank at a given load than a small bait caster with a 7:1 ratio and a short spool that also retrieves 30 ipt.  The difference will be in the efficiency of the gearing.  The bigger the size difference between the pinon and main gear, the lower the gear efficiency. 

Quote from: Three se7ens on September 08, 2015, 03:32:15 AM
The number of teeth has particular importance on the efficiency of a gear.  Small diameter pinions with few teeth are not very efficient at transmission power, and a larger portion of the input force is lost to friction between the gears.  

A 1:1 ratio gear with a tall spool that retrieves 30" per rev will be easier to crank at a given load than a small bait caster with a 7:1 ratio and a short spool that also retrieves 30 ipt.  The difference will be in the efficiency of the gearing.  The bigger the size difference between the pinon and main gear, the lower the gear efficiency.  

I agree.  Similar sized main and pinions that are large in relation to spool diameter and handle length translate to greater power efficiency.

Sorry Guys I couldn't resist any longer. This was killing me all day.


The easiest reel to crank is the one connected to a fully charged battery. Just push the button.

Now I said it. I'm happy.

Mike

SteveL, Adam, John,

Thank you gentlemen for your critical analysis and Steve's math which is what I was looking for. Wish Lee/Keta would have chimed in as well. Im hoping I can use your analysis and math along with some practical tests to understand the results of the practical tests. I was initially hoping to get a direct formula to plug in the variables into and find out the approximate force. This way I can determine what pound test line would be best suited for me on a reel before I spool the reel. This kind of knowledge is important "intelligence" for my aging body parts. I also feel that this kind of "info" is complementary to "matching" the reel to upgrades and my performance. In regards to the practical tests; thanx for the suggestion of using a drag scale to measure force (I have several in various ranges for better accuracy).

Lee, RobertJ and others, your comments are welcome. Ive got some experimenting and documentation to do: this reminds me of some of my precision rifle reloading and data logs. So many similarities............

Thanx guys,

Leo