Disengaging vs Synchronized Levelwinds - some thoughts on durability

Started by jurelometer, May 03, 2020, 10:34:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jurelometer

There have been several good threads lately on levelwind designs that have discussed the relative advantages in terms of castability and wear.   It is pretty clear that a disengaging levelwind has less resistance when casting (less moving parts), but a synchronized (non-disengaging) levelwind will be subject to less wear (less load on the levelwind components),  I was curious as to how much load would actually be generated on the disengaging levelwind components that tends to wear out first (worm/line guide).

I did a bit of digging and figured out that the amount of force on the line guide is a function of the load of the line on the spool and the amount (angle) the line has to change direction when going through the line guide.   And equally interesting (to me at least :) ) is that the direction of force on the line guide will be at the center of the angle.  This means that the amount and direction of force on the line guide and worm will constantly change if you are winding under load, or if the line is being pulled out under drag. [corrected 05/04/20- thanks to Robert Janssen]

With a synchronized levelwind,  this angle should never be over a couple of degrees, just enough to take out any backlash in the system plus the size of the opening in the line guide.

But with a disengaging levelwind the angle and therefore the amount and direction of the load will constantly change and can reach some pretty substantial values if you are fishing under load.  The wear would be similar to sticking a crochet hook into the line guide and simultaneously pulling and twisting back and forth. Yikes!

So how bad can it get?   Well that depends on the amount of pulling force on the line, the width of the spool, and the distance from the line guide to to top of the spool.   The wider the spool and the closer the line guide, the greater the line angle.    

Which caused a lightbulb to go off.  One of the main advantages of the so called "low profile"  design is that it pushes the levelwind farther away from the spool than the so-called "round" reel.   Not as big a deal with a synchronized levelwind, but very important for the disengaging design.

I don't have a disengaging saltwater levelwind, so I drew up an example using the dimensions of my trusty Okuma Komodo 400 series.  Pretending that my Komodo was a disengaging levelwind, the worst case scenario with the  greatest angle of deflection would be about 36 degrees.  It would look something like this (note the direction of force):



So how much maximum force? I found several sources for the calculation online, but this one has the best description and a handy table about half way down:

https://www.ropebook.com/information/angular-vector-forces/

At  36 degrees, we are talking a bit more than 60% of whatever the force is on the line.   If we believe the manufacturers, and set the drag to 20 (or more)  lbs,  that would mean 12 lbs of angular force on the line guide.   Even at a more realistic 10 lb drag setting, we are still talking 6 lbs of force.  

I would expect that a typical synchronized levelwind would have a maximum angle of just a couple degrees, keeping the force at five percent or less.

To be fair, I would suspect that reels like the Tranx (which has a disengaging levelwind) probably make the spool a bit more narrow, and push the levelwind forward (maybe why the Tranx 400 has a third levelwind gear?).  But I would be surprised if  the numbers would end up that much lower.

It seems to me that for lighter usage like typical freshwater bass fishing, a disengaging levelwind makes plenty of sense.   But if you are buttoning down the drag for heavy saltwater use, you are giving up a lot of longevity for a few more yards of casting distance.  

It would be an interesting project to build a model with a line on a board, a couple eyelets and a couple line scales to verify the equations.  

-J

wfjord

And as baitcasters go, I don't have anything anywhere close to a Tranx.  I've got around a dozen disengaging levelwind reels I now use for freshwater --but they're all early vintage Bantams of various models from the 1980s.  I bought my first one in a shop in Largo FL; the Bantams were gaining popularity for snook fishing at the time, so that's what I originally started using it for.  Super braids didn't exist then and as snook fishing went, that reel was obviously useless around structure where a fish might need to be muscled away from dock or bridge pilings, but a load of fun and very functional on the flats where the fish could do it's thing and be controlled.

I think the ceramic eyelet insert in the line guide greatly reduced tension on the line during the cast since the line guide would be sitting stationary.  Upon cranking, the line guide is, of course, once again engaged. When a fish hooks up and pulls line out, the line guide is moving as line goes out, but it's out of sync with the position of the line coming off of the spool compared to, say, a Penn #9 or Ambassadeur 5000. That's probably where the slick ceramic insert is helpful, in addition to the reduced angle of the line coming off the lighter, smaller aluminum spools.

oc1

I've never seen a disengaging levelwind guide badly grooved.  The bottom line is which one casts better if you have to cast.  For dropping a synchronized levelwind is probably better.

Lew Childers tried to stretch the distance from spool to eye as much as he could.



Then there's this:













-steve

jurelometer

Quote from: wfjord on May 04, 2020, 02:49:41 AM
And as baitcasters go, I don't have anything anywhere close to a Tranx.  I've got around a dozen disengaging levelwind reels I now use for freshwater --but they're all early vintage Bantams of various models from the 1980s.  I bought my first one in a shop in Largo FL; the Bantams were gaining popularity for snook fishing at the time, so that's what I originally started using it for.  Super braids didn't exist then and as snook fishing went, it was obviously useless around structure where a fish might need to be muscled away from dock or bridge pilings, but a load of fun and very functional on the flats where the fish could do it's thing and be controlled.

I think the ceramic eyelet insert in the line guide greatly reduced tension on the line during the cast since the line guide would be sitting stationary.  Upon cranking, the line guide is, of course, once again engaged. When a fish hooks up and pulls line out, the line guide is moving as line goes out, but it's out of sync with the position of the line coming off of the spool compared to, say, a Penn #9 or Ambassadeur 5000. That's probably where the slick ceramic insert is helpful, in addition to the reduced angle of the line coming off the lighter, smaller aluminum spools.

That "out of sync" issue was the point I was attempting to make.  And the load from being out of sync is a lot more than I would have guessed.  Definitely enough to wear down a worm. 6 lbs of force may not sound like much until you tie a gallon jug filled 3/4 with water to your line guide and start lifting!

But friction is  not the same as the force from the angular load. Friction is a function of force and and the coefficient of friction of the two materials rubbing.   Being out of sync will increase the force, which will increase the friction.  Improving the coefficient of friction with a ceramic insert will decrease the friction, but not affect the force.  While friction does come into the picture a bit from a wear perspective, I would guess that it is the amount of force twisting the line guide from the worm  is doing most of the damage.

I would bet that if we took a saltwater disengaging levelwind, got it out of sync, and cranked in a couple dozen spools full of line slightly under the listed max drag, we would put some noticeable wear on the worm and guide.  I don't think they can handle anything near the max listed drag for extended use, but would be happy to be proven wrong.

Quote from: oc1 on May 04, 2020, 05:28:53 AM
Lew Childers tried to stretch the distance from spool to eye as much as he could.

-steve

Lew was on the money.   Those  last couple photos are pretty cool!   

The problem with extending the guide instead of extending the distance to the worm, is that the guide becomes a naked lever, and you lose more from the lack of rigidity than you gain from from decreasing the angle.  Might help with casting distance by decreasing the friction (probably what Lew was going for),  but my guess is not as strong under heavy load as a stock setup. But that reel was probably not designed for much load anyways.

No free lunch in engineering.  All give and take :)

Thanks for posting those photos.

-J

wfjord

I don't have an engineering background and can't speak on that level, so I'll take your word on the technical issues involved.  I have used some of those reels extensively for decades and never wore out a worm or line guide. I never buttoned the drag down tight on them, either, and certainly couldn't use them as winches.  I had other reels for that.  But these are just small, lightweight little reels, and out on the grass flats the snook, reds, and other fish I caught with them generally weren't the size of the ones hanging out in the deeper passes around bridge pillings and boat channels. It was always pump & crank anyway with a challenging fish. All said and done, they've held up remarkably well. Caught plenty of stripers on them, too, and countless bass. I don't know about a Tranx, but it would sure be fun to give one a try; the gear looks to be way more substantial than on the old predecessors.

mo65

Quote from: wfjord on May 04, 2020, 12:13:28 PM
  I have used some of those reels extensively for decades and never wore out a worm or line guide. I never buttoned the drag down tight on them, either, and certainly couldn't use them as winches. 

   I'd have to agree with this statement.

Quote from: jurelometer on May 04, 2020, 05:57:59 AM
I would bet that if we took a saltwater disengaging levelwind, got it out of sync, and cranked in a couple dozen spools full of line slightly under the listed max drag, we would put some noticeable wear on the worm and guide.  I don't think they can handle anything near the max listed drag for extended use, but would be happy to be proven wrong.

   I'd have to agree with this one too.
~YOU CAN TUNA GEETAR...BUT YOU CAN'T TUNA FEESH~


Rancanfish

The waters too deep for me here, but wfjord,  I can totally relate to your use of Bantams.  I currently have somewhere in the neighborhood of 10.  3 different models. All mags.  Several NIB.  Not the best reel ever but the one that feels the best in my hand out of all the reels I own.
I woke today and suddenly nothing happened.

Cor

I have caught enough strong fish on the Tranx to know after 6 years of use that the levelwind mechanism is strong enough to handle any reasonable pull on it.    The only discerning permanent damage I have is that after catching a Yellowfin tuna of 150lb the extra idler gear "axle" is quite badly scarred and worn.   Otherwise I keep replacing the worm shaft  and line guide pawl.

What bothers me is that from day one these reels have a fair amount of slop or play in the levelwind mechanism.   The reel in the picture is 5 Y old but has mainly served as a spare and not worked excessively.   
The line guide moves 1.2 mm laterally.    The height of the line guide from the centre line of the worms haft, to the lowest part of the "line opening" is 11.7 mm which could put a lot of leverage on such a small part.

I am unable to tell if there is any wear on the plastic or metal parts and they are too pricey to simply replace continuously.
These are parts other then the worm shaft or line guide pawl.

I have attempted to reduce this slop by making 0.1mm shims and fitting them everywhere eliminating play as far as possible.   I do this in an attempt to space the line lay equally on either side of the spool with limited success.

The whole levelwind would have been far sturdier if it had also had an upper track, similar to an Abu Garcia 6600C4.   Perhaps this design needs the slop to operate properly, because as I said in my opening remark, it does seem strong enough which is the critical requirement.
Cornelis

Robert Janssen

QuoteI would bet that if we took a saltwater disengaging levelwind, got it out of sync, and cranked in a couple dozen spools full...

Yeahbut, the spool and line guide only remain out of sync for like, one revolution. They sync up again  as soon as you start cranking in line. Only upon releasing line in freespool do they cyclically occur to be out of sync. At least on any reel I have seen; perhaps others are different.

So, not a reaĺ-world issue, but an intriguing thought experiment and discussion. Thats always fun.

wfjord

Quote from: Rancanfish on May 04, 2020, 02:22:25 PM
The waters too deep for me here, but wfjord,  I can totally relate to your use of Bantams.  I currently have somewhere in the neighborhood of 10.  3 different models. All mags.  Several NIB.  Not the best reel ever but the one that feels the best in my hand out of all the reels I own.

I agree, they do feel good in the hand. I have all mags except for two. My favorite is the Bantam Mag Plus 250SG XHS, of which I have four.  Regularly serviced, CF drags, and properly lubed they are a pleasure to use and can get good casting distance when set up properly. All the internal workings are metal on the models I have.

jurelometer

Quote from: Robert Janssen on May 04, 2020, 06:02:35 PM
QuoteI would bet that if we took a saltwater disengaging levelwind, got it out of sync, and cranked in a couple dozen spools full...

Yeahbut, the spool and line guide only remain out of sync for like, one revolution. They sync up again  as soon as you start cranking in line. Only upon releasing line in freespool do they cyclically occur to be out of sync. At least on any reel I have seen; perhaps others are different.

So, not a reaĺ-world issue, but an intriguing thought experiment and discussion. Thats always fun.

Oops!  You are right!  It will catch up on the wind in no more than  a few revolutions.  Don't know how I missed that one.   I believe that the problem still holds for taking out line under drag if the levelwind gear runs off the handle shaft (such as the Tranx).   If it runs off the  main gear, I would think that after the first  run  (presumably the longest),  the line lay would be synchronized.   So the problem is real,  but overstated in my original post.   I will wait a bit an see if I got anything else wrong and add a correction to the original post.  

Thanks!

-J

oc1

I was stuck on the Penn Peerless for a long time.  The primary maintenance headache was always the levelwind.  It doesn't take long to blow out a Peerless levelwind.  So much so, that they included a spare pawl onboard the reel.  Then I was stuck on ABU round reels for a long time.  Primarily 5000s.  The maintenance headache was the levelwind on these too.

The disengaging levelwind did not happen in a vacuum.  It came about as part of a low-profile revolution that included smaller, lighter and more narrow spools, wider and more robust levelwind carriage and smaller diameter lines. 

I begrudgingly went to the low profile and was stuck on Curados and Lews Speed Spool for a long time.  The maintenance headache shifted from the levelwind to the ball bearings.  If there is an inherent weakness in the disengaging levelwind then the designers did a good job of compensating for it.

These days I have reverted to much older and simpler technology that does not include levelwind, ball bearings, drag and antireverse.  Reel abuse has increased but reel maintenance has decreased.  Some of you seem to enjoy reel maintenance.  I don't.
-steve

jurelometer

Quote from: oc1 on May 04, 2020, 07:55:00 PM
If there is an inherent weakness in the disengaging levelwind then the designers did a good job of compensating for it.

I think that this  weakness only appears when pulling against high drag settings which are only possible with the new "heavy duty" saltwater levelwinds.

Quote
These days I have reverted to much older and simpler technology that does not include levelwind, ball bearings, drag and antireverse.  Reel abuse has increased but reel maintenance has decreased.  Some of you seem to enjoy reel maintenance.  I don't.
-steve

Likewise - I put reel maintenance right up there with cleaning up the garage.

Brewcrafter

Lots of experience on this site, and always enjoy the discussions, theoretical or otherwise.  While I have never owned or played with one, how would a Penn Leveline bear on this discussion?  In looking at them, (again, I've never held one/had one apart) the leveling bar appears to be pretty robust, and with the line sliding across the bar I would guess that side loads would be minimal in any sort of an "angular" situation? - john

mo65

Quote from: Brewcrafter on May 06, 2020, 01:00:17 AM
Lots of experience on this site, and always enjoy the discussions, theoretical or otherwise.  While I have never owned or played with one, how would a Penn Leveline bear on this discussion?  In looking at them, (again, I've never held one/had one apart) the leveling bar appears to be pretty robust, and with the line sliding across the bar I would guess that side loads would be minimal in any sort of an "angular" situation? - john

   I have a Leveline 350, but I have never messed with it(aside from spooling some line on it...which went on very well), so I can't really say how it performs. I'd have to think it must work well just by looking at it. I've heard guys say the levelwind bar is so high it interferes with casting...I can't imagine that really being much of a problem. 8)
~YOU CAN TUNA GEETAR...BUT YOU CAN'T TUNA FEESH~