aavery2

There are obvious differences between magnetic and centrifugal braking. There are also some less obvious, it is important to understand how magnetic braking effects the spool of your reel during the cast compared to centrifugal braking. Centrifugal braking has the most effect on spool speed during the beginning of the cast. Centrifugal braking relies on the high RPM of the spool to force the brake tabs outward and against the brake hub. This provides for more control during the start of the cast. As the spool speed slows the tabs do not have as much centrifugal force to deploy and the braking is reduced. This is where your thumb helps to finish off a perfect cast. Magnetic braking is very different, it applies a constant steady force to the spool throughout the entire casting sequence. During the beginning of the cast when the spool speed is the highest, the magnetic brakes have their least effect on the cast. When the spool speed is high it can overcome the magnetic force that is being applied to the spool and cause some nasty problems at the beginning of the cast. When the speed of the spool begins to slow the magnetic braking has the most effect on the spool and provides a more controlled spool speed. Many anglers prefer centrifugal braking for casting distance where you are throwing baits that benefit from long distance casts, spinnerbaits, crankbaits, and rattle traps come to mind. Spool speed is high and the centrifugal brakes help control the spool speed. Magnetic brakes work well with pitching and flipping, where spool speeds are not as high, and the magnetic force has good control over the spool. These speeds may be too low for the centrifugal brakes to have much effect. Obviously these braking systems will work for either type of casting, you only need to understand where you will need to use your thumb more to help control the cast. Centrifugal at the end of the cast and magnetic at the beginning of the cast. One thing that will aid in being successful at casting long distances without backlash using magnetic brakes is a smooth casting action, don't snap your wrist as hard during the beginning of the cast and generate that very fast spool speed, steady smooth cast will get you a very good distance with magnetic brakes without backlash. IMHO the best of both worlds is dual braking, you have some control over how much braking you would like at the beginning of the cast and also at the end. Hope this helps, good luck with your transition as you call it.

Caenan is a composite framed reel, the Citica is a aluminum framed reel, I would go with the Citica just based on this fact. 130 sounds a little high for a Citica, shop around and you will find a better deal.

Yes, many people prefer the longer handle as it provides for more leverage. A standard 80MM Abu or Daiwa handle will fit the Lews, you can also get a shorter handle from Lews. The grips from an Abu will interchange with the Lews but the Daiwa grips are different. You could probably work a trade easy enough as most prefer the longer handle..

Seems like unless you are using a very long leader and fishing shallow water, those weights are going to drag your bait down very quickly until they reach the bottom

My comparison was meant to be to finesse bait casters that were equally capable of throwing baits at around 1/8 of an ounce. I am aware of the high end market in spinning reels and they are nice indeed, but the fact is a 100 dollar or under reel will give you good service and is very capable of casting baits in the weight range. There is nothing in 100 dollar bait casting reel that is even close to capable of throwing 1/8 ounce baits well and BC reels designed to do so cost close to 4X as much. So my post was made in this respect.

What's your setup? Sounds like a nice one.

That tends to be the most common negative associated with InviszX. IMHO I believe that Tatsu has equal or better manageability at equal lb. test and noticeably less stretch. Those are actually the reasons I prefer it. There are several members here that use Tatsu, hopefully someone else will chime in.

I have never used the line, just heard about it, it is advertised to have 6% stretch. The thing that I would like to know is if that is measured at breaking strength or a percentage of. Who knows it may have even more stretch than advertised, many lines do.

Interesting, one of the most manageable FC lines that I have used in any lb. test is Seaguar Tatsu, it is expensive but it is fantastic line. If it is more expensive than you are comfortable with, Seaguar InviszX is another very manageable line. Good Luck

I own the NRX 853, it is a very good choice for plastics and jigs in this weight range.

Suffix stretch braid reports that it has double or triple that amount of stretch.

ehh, what do those guys know?

I use the Alberto or Albright knot to join lines, the knot is small and the joint is very strong.

I think you make an excellent point, and as Francho submitted, there are floating braided lines that have stretch built into their properties. I may end up having to eat my words if more companies develop nylon lines like the Sunline Defeir Armilo. While it is expensive, it certainly takes Nylon line to a whole new level, almost to the point of a floating FC. I am going to order a spool of this and check it out.

There are BC rods and reels that are capable to throwing all but the lightest of baits if you are willing to spend the money. Spinning setups are much less expensive and get the job done well. I think you would be missing out if you do not have a good quality spinning setup in your arsenal.

Tim, not sure what type of FC line you have commonly available to you in the U.K. but there are some great lines out there that should not give you problems in 6lb test. IMHO this is one area where I think braid shines, light braided line with a FC leader is a nice setup on spinning gear.

I don't disagree, I know my own style is not like this, but then again I do suffer from elbow pain after fishing all day. I am sure that like the perfect golf stroke, someone has taken the time to break the cast down into ergonomics and such, and this is just what it would look like if you were to obey the science of it all. In the end we all have to do what works for us.

This question has been raised many time across multiple forums. I looked at trying to find a definite answer to the question. What I considered the best answer was that it has to do with what is considered the proper casting technique. I can't recall all the details but it was largely due to what is considered the proper grip. Most of us cast with our thumb running parallel with the rod and at the top. The " proper" casting technique would have you place the V that is created between your thumb and forefinger in this position. Further it would have you slightly **** the reel so that for right handed casters the handle is slightly higher than the spool and the opposite for lefties. What all this is suppose to accomplish is letting your wrist have a full range of motion rather than becoming locked during the backcast, the ability to use your forearm as an extension of the rod, and several other things that I cannot recall. I felt like after reading the article that it applied more to BC reels that were far less developed than that of modern day equipment and that this was a way to help with casting distance and reduce stress in the casting motion. This technique probably still applies today but with lighter and more efficient equipment is a lot less crucial to being able to make long, accurate casts. I have a link to an article that explains this in some detail if anyone is interested.

With all things being equal, my bet would be that you are going to see repeatable casts somewhere in the range of 35 -40 yards from both reels. IMHO what changes with the advent of better braking and lighter materials is the ease that repeatable casts can be made. IMO, distance has not been greatly affected by newer reels and materials, the average to good angler can repeat casts somewhere close to 40 yards. Casts longer than that usually occur when heavier weights or longer rods are introduced. There are exceptions to everything and some exceptional anglers like KVD report repeatable casts of almost 50 yards in great conditions.

Tom, we agree no panacea, and no line is. Think about how much the entire fishing industry has changed since 94, rods, reels, line, hooks, boats, etc. etc.etc. FC line has it's roots in Japan, as leader material mainly for saltwater fishing. It was stiff and expensive. Since its development it has become an everyday fishing line for approximately 80%of the Elite level Pro's, you know the guys who make a living at fishing. Think where it will be in the next 5, I assure you Nylon line is a thing of the past, and someday our kids, grandkids will look at it and think, how the heck did they fish with this, much like the braided Dacron line that Nylon made obsolete. I respect your time on the water, but history is nothing but a great lesson, what we have is today, and we live for tomorrow, I choose to use the best line available to us today, and in my opinion that it FC line, and most of the best Anglers around agree.

This was only a reference to how heavily weighted the abrasion resistance part of their new testing was going to be. Your quote is being used out of context and the key word is IF, FC will always out perform other lines in abrasion, so the only contest is between other FC lines to determine who is best. The next line in that paragraph went something like this, "Nylon monofilament is not as sensitive as fluorocarbon nor does it possess the mystical refractive index, but the cost is significantly less." So other than cost what does it have to offer over FC?

Bud... Weis...Er

Thanks for the research, I knew porous was not the correct term, but hygroscopic was not one that I was familiar with. Anyway my point being that nylon line absorbs water which reduces its abrasion resistance greatly. Also I did not say that nylon is elastic, only that it compares to elastic in terms of the way it stretches. 30 -40 yards are average casts with modern equipment, so I don't know that I would consider that a long distance. The polymers that the KVD line and Lure are made from are hydrophobic, and most certainly do not absorb water. Anyway thanks for sharing, I will continue to use FC line as I feel that nylon has just about out lived its usefulness as it relates to fishing line, its primary benefit being cost at this point, and will eventualy go the same way as silk.

Please take a look at post #20, I asked the OP if he felt this was a hi jack and if so I would start an additional thread. He did not reply so I assumed it was close enough to the original topic to continue. Good luck to you also.

In my experience FC line does not stretch in the same manner as mono-nylon line. mono-nylon line is similar to a rubber band or elastic in that it stretches and then returns to original shape or close there to, only when you reach its breaking strength does it deform. FC line does not stretch in the same manner, it deforms when stretched, it does not return to its original shape. You generally see this when snagged and have a break off. FC line that is deformed is easy to see, and only needs to have the deformed portion removed, usually a few feet. I have never had or heard of any issues with using FC line for many outings as long as it was not nicked or had abrasion issues. Nylon line is also porous so it soaks water, this greatly reduces its abrasion resistance it also brings water back to your spool and subsequently to your reel. FC line is much harder and does not soak water. IMHO a good quality FC will nearly always outcast Nylon, the reason being is hardness, FC line has less drag through your guides, all poor lines suck to cast, but if you compare good line of both types, I will choose FC for casting distance.