Reel Gearing Vs Inches Retrieved : Turn Of The Reel Handle And Mechanical Advantage

[J Francho]

Don't edit old posts.  Just restate what you mean in a new post.

[Josh Smith]

That is the new post, right above yours.

I posted instead of previewed is all.

Josh

[rippin-lips]

All I know, is some of you make me feel stupid when it comes to math.

[Josh Smith]

All I know, is some of you make me feel stupid when it comes to math.

 

But dude, you catch bigger bass than I do. 

[J Francho]

Of course we agree on the numbers - I used YOUR math.  What about the rest of the questions?

[J Francho]

 

With the stock handle, for every inch of handle movement, you retrieve 3.01" of line.

 

With the Hawgtech handle, for every inch of handle movement, you retrieve 2.72" of line.

 

I wasn't sure if this needs to be stated, but yes, that's how a ratio works.  You can substitute whatever unit of linear measure for inches.  I.E. for every 1 parcept of handle movement, you retireve 3.01 parcepts of line.  It doesn't have to be inches, but if that helps you.  I'm still not sure what that means when I'm comparing reels.  What's better?

[Josh Smith]

Of course we agree on the numbers - I used YOUR math.  What about the rest of the questions?

 

OK. 

 

If I turn the crank X number of inches, then I retrieve Y amount of line.

 

Where does this help?

 

A reel with gearing of 6.3:1 can have the same rate of retrieve as a 7.0:1 reel.

 

One must take the reel as a whole and not just look at the gearing. 

 

Because the purpose of the crank handle is to retrieve line, it seems more logical that the ratio should be distance of reel handle travel to inches of line retrieved instead of the ratio of the internal gears.

 

Where this helps me, and I'm only sharing what helps me, is that I can look at a new reel and say, "A 4.7:1 5500 has a retrieve ratio of 2" of line for every inch of travel of a 3.5" handle.  Therefore, this new reel I'm looking at, which also has a 3.5" handle, will feel just a bit faster at 2.5" of retrieve for every inch the handle turns."

 

Practical Application:

 

I bought a Black Max with a 6.3:1 gear ratio assuming it would be faster than the old 5000 and 5500 reels I was playing with.  It was not.  In fact, it retrieved about the same, maybe slightly faster.  I also have a few Quantum baitcasting reels with something like 5.2:1 gears.  They are noticeably slower than the 4.7:1 gears in the 5500 reels.

 

I sat down, did the math, and had a "duh" moment.

 

Francho, I'm not suggesting that this is for everyone.  It's a system I've moved to and it works for me.  It gives me the precision I demand. 

 

Comparison between two similar reels with similar spool diameters is done just fine with the internal gear ratio.

 

However, if I want to know how fast a low-profile reel will retrieve compared one of the round reels I'm used to, well, I can't use the gear ratio and must resort to overall ratio due to differences in handle and spool sizes.

 

I'm not forcing this view on anyone.  I just thought I might share it.

 

Regards,

 

Josh

[J Francho]

You basically reinvented rollout, and called it gear ratio.

 

A 4.7:1 5500 has a retrieve ratio of 2" of line for every inch of travel of a 3.5

 

 

So, are if you want a faster retrieve, are you getting a shorter handle with your reel, or faster gear ratio?  Does it even make a difference?  By your math the difference in line retrieved is nominal (<1/3 of an inch), compared to say the 8.5" difference between a low speed Zillion and a the SHA.

 

 

I bought a Black Max with a 6.3:1 gear ratio assuming it would be faster than the old 5000 and 5500 reels I was playing with.  It was not.  In fact, it retrieved about the same, maybe slightly faster.  I also have a few Quantum baitcasting reels with something like 5.2:1 gears.  They are noticeably slower than the 4.7:1 gears in the 5500 reels.

 

This has ZERO to do with handle length, and everything to do with gear ratio and spool size.  Sorry.  Bad math just popped up again.

 

 

However, if I want to know how fast a low-profile reel will retrieve compared one of the round reels I'm used to, well, I can't use the gear ratio and must resort to overall ratio due to differences in handle and spool sizes.

 

Ummm, doesn't your reinvented formula use gear ratio? 

 

 

Francho, I'm not suggesting that this is for everyone.  It's a system I've moved to and it works for me.  It gives me the precision I demand.

 

I think I know what your getting at, but it doesn't work.  If you want to know speed, use IPT.  Measure the spool, and use the gear ratio to get the product.  Spinning reels often take up 34 IPT or more, yet have much lower gear ratios.  I can pretty much guarantee that in a race, long handle or short handle, it matters not.  One may be more comfortable than the other, but when you tell me that 1/3" of handle travel is more meaningful gives you more information about the speed of a reel than 6-8 IPT (and this is even arguable by many that use high speed reels for everything) then I'm call bologna.

 

If it makes you feel better about what you purchase, then have at it.  I think very few can understand it, let alone appreciate what you're trying to quantify, in the context of the pros/cons of a longer handle.

[rippin-lips]

Does this mean the Jdm tdz I bought off Francho is worth more because he's a frikin' genius?

[J Francho]

No, it's worth more because it has the longer handle.  Remember, I kept the knuckle buster, lol.

 

And I'm not a genius.  I just like turning maths into pictures, so managers can understand the numbers.

[QUAKEnSHAKE]

You basically reinvented rollout, and called it gear ratio.

 

Thats what I was alluding to in other thread

[Josh Smith]

Francho,

 

I don't know what rollout is.  Larger tires?  Never heard it called that, but OK.  Cool.

 

Francho, it's all good.  I don't expect it to work for everyone.  Small changes in mechanics can feel like big, subjectively, like a 2.2" reel handle vs a 3" reel handle.  One feels better than the other.

 

Like I said, I only wanted to share what I found works for me, an I'm not forcing it on anyone.

 

The old 5500 reels did have much smaller handles than modern reels and could therefore be spun faster (smaller distance covered by the reel handle for inches of line retrieved.)  Therefore, handle length is not irrelevant.

 

However, I do think we agree on all other points.

 

Josh

[rippin-lips]

No, it's worth more because it has the longer handle. Remember, I kept the knuckle buster, lol.

And I'm not a genius. I just like turning maths into pictures, so managers can understand the numbers.

It has an even longer handle now because I sold that one and bought a 94mm hawgtech.

Nope, I'm sticking with genius.

[J Francho]

Never said handle length was irrelevant. I don't think your math generates a useful number to describe what effect it has on how a reel feels.

[Josh Smith]

Never said handle length was irrelevant. I don't think your math generates a useful number to describe what effect it has on how a reel feels.

 

I think it does.  At least, it does for me.

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, though.  Ever notice how two people can look at the very same thing and draw vastly different conclusions?  That's what we're doing.

 

I'm looking at it from an engineering (I grew up with an engineering father) and gunsmith's point of view, and you're looking at it from the point of view of your profession.

 

You're looking at reaction times in terms of reels and drumsticks, and I'm looking at reaction times in terms of reels and escrima sticks.

 

Regards,

 

Josh

[I.rar]

I'm with rippin on this one. All of these elaborate math equations and quantum physics formulas are way over my head.

I just like fishing.

[Maico1]

Francho,

 

I don't know what rollout is.  Larger tires?  Never heard it called that, but OK.  Cool.

 

Francho, it's all good.  I don't expect it to work for everyone.  Small changes in mechanics can feel like big, subjectively, like a 2.2" reel handle vs a 3" reel handle.  One feels better than the other.

 

Like I said, I only wanted to share what I found works for me, an I'm not forcing it on anyone.

 

The old 5500 reels did have much smaller handles than modern reels and could therefore be spun faster (smaller distance covered by the reel handle for inches of line retrieved.)  Therefore, handle length is not irrelevant.

 

However, I do think we agree on all other points.

 

Josh

 

Please do me a favor and count the teeth on your main gear and your pinion gear . When you have done that please explain to me how you have changed the teeth count on either gear by changing the length of your handle. Your analogy reminds me of the guy who changed his tire size and thought he changed his rear end gear ratio in his car.....

[aavery2]

There is a simple formula you can use to figure how much using an extended length handle reduces the amount of torque required to achieve the same result.

 

Using an 80mm handle as a standard we can use arbitrary numbers and say that if it takes 1 ft lb of torque to move the spool with this length handle it would then only require  0.8 ft lbs of torque with a 100mm handle.

 

Or said another way, it would take about 20% less torque to move the spool with the extended handle.

[tomustang]

All this to complicate that a longer handle equates to longer time traveled/more energy spent on rotation..

There's relevance in many things, I understand where you went with it, the longer handle takes more time per revolution thus creating the sense that the ratio is slower.

I believe there's a lot of things people over think or complicate when it comes to fishing, and IMO this one of them. I'm not discrediting your thoughts but I look at other factors when selecting a reel such as spool capacity, smoothness, weight, ergonomics.

[Maxximus Redneckus]

I have a question does this count for LH reels also??? The reels that look handicapped

[Basswhippa]

In 1991 Shimano changed the fishing reel industry for good.   They introduced a reel that truly was superior to anything that had been released before.  It was the Shimano Calcutta.  They made there attempt to build a perfect fishing reel and got pretty darn close.    Trivia. Do any of you remember exactly how the handle looked and how it was constructed on that breakthrough reel?  

 

Within a year or two, they discarded those handles and used the handle that used for all Calcuttas, Curado B's, Chronarch 100A and SF and Castaics, etc.

 

Again, what did the handle look like on that inaugural legendary reel, the Calcutta...?  Maybe someone should use the design again.  It is an old and great idea.

 

Unfortunately I misplaced the one that I had.

[WRB]

Francho,

 

I don't know what rollout is.  Larger tires?  Never heard it called that, but OK.  Cool.

 

Francho, it's all good.  I don't expect it to work for everyone.  Small changes in mechanics can feel like big, subjectively, like a 2.2" reel handle vs a 3" reel handle.  One feels better than the other.

 

Like I said, I only wanted to share what I found works for me, an I'm not forcing it on anyone.

 

The old 5500 reels did have much smaller handles than modern reels and could therefore be spun faster (smaller distance covered by the reel handle for inches of line retrieved.)  Therefore, handle length is not irrelevant.

 

However, I do think we agree on all other points.

 

Josh

You need to factor in human engineering, there is a reel handle length that is optimal for anglers to turn fast that includes all the factors of how the reel is being used. The first thing that became an after market item for the original 5000 and 5500C reel was a longer reel power handle with gator grips. Why do you think this accessory became essential for bass anglers? Today the reel manufacturers make their reel with handles that are very similar to the after market handles. The human hand can't spin a short reel handle any faster the optimal handle length and the longer handle provided more torque power to retrieve deep diving lures with the most popular gear ratios.

Tom

[timsford]

This is getting a little out of hand. HE IS NOT SAYING THE LENGTH OF THE HANDLE CHANGES IPT HE IS SAYING THAT THE RATIO OF HOW FAR YOUR HAND TRAVELS(dependent on handle length) TO HOW MUCH LINE IS RETRIEVED(ipt) IS A BETTER GAUGE OF REEL SPEED THAN GEAR RATIO. No one is debating whether it changes ipt, of course it doesnt, and no one is saying handle length changes gear ratio. Handle length does determine how far your hand travels to reel in said amount of line but not how much is retrieved in one turn. A longer handle means your hand moves farther in one turn than a shorter handle. Im not even gonna argue about the math i worked it out and joshs math is right. And pluto is a planet whether some scientific convention decides it is or not. Everyone can sit on uranus and debate this for eternity im going fishing! :-)

[WRB]

Let me state this fact one more time; the manufactures published IPT is based on the reels spool outside diameter, not the spooled line diameter....therefor has little practice use other than determining how fast the circumference of outside diameter of the spool is turning with 1 turn of the reel handle.

The only factor that is meaningful is how much line the reel spool can retrieve with 1 turn of the reel handle and how much effort the angler uses to turn the reel when fishing. The IPT changes during the length of each cast about 30% if the cast is about 100' for a standard low profile narrow spool bass reel.

Significant factor that most anglers are unaware of and over come by reeling faster when needed.

I started using 8.1:1 gear ratio reels this year and find this to be an advantage over the 6.3:1 reels I fished the past 30 years. It is easier to hook and control bass when making long cast. The higher ratio reels put more load on the drive train, therefor the reel should have state of the art components.

Tom

[rippin-lips]

He's a genius I tell ya.