Reel Repair by Alan Tani

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,14241.msg145326.html#msg145326

https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,31537.msg369742.html#msg369742

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.