Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> Lures,Tackle, and Equipment -> tranx 400 Hg |
| Message Subject: tranx 400 Hg | |||
Pat Hoolihan |
| ||
Posts: 386 | Beastly Backlash - 2/10/2018 7:20 PM There is no comparing a Tranx 400 to the Lexa 400's or Komodo 400's because the Tranx 400 can't and won't hold up to the use that those other two reels can tank. Now I've heard everything. I needed some comic relief tonight. | ||
| Beastly Backlash |
| ||
Posts: 145 | anzomcik - 2/10/2018 10:36 PM Ok let’s try this again. If everything else equal and ipt is 34” , gear ratio of 5:1 and another reel 5:1 only bigger gears= No noticeable difference because your still bring in the same bait with the same feel from the user at the same ipt. Please prove how it could be different. Explain how the bigger gears have more torque? The shafts are turning at the same rpm, but one is more powerful. Using your logic we can increase the gear size so big that it eventually will reel itself in? Perpetual motion! You just discovered a huge break through in science, the world will finally breaks its dependence of fossil fuels! Maybe you should join the movement in favor of tiny gears like the engineer. I am sure you would have fun cranking a reel with a 10mm main gear. So tell me, why did Shimano not put a 20mm or 30mm main gear into the Tranx 500? | ||
| anzomcik |
| ||
Posts: 530 | Maybe you should actually answer the question and not deflect. I have asked you many questions that give you opportunities to put everyone in there place, and you just can’t muster up anything that resembles an answer It Is looking like you have no case, no evidence that you know what your talking about, and zero proof to back your claims. Please answer the question. | ||
| Sidejack |
| ||
Posts: 1082 Location: Aurora | Calm down you three.. New Shimmer's a floor wax AND a desert topping! Attachments ----------------  Shimmer.png (127KB - 263 downloads) | ||
| Zinox |
| ||
Posts: 1100 | I do not believe anyone said Tiny gears are better, a tooth needs to be a certain size in order to transfer the load without breaking. You can increase durability of the gears by increasing the size. HOWEVER there are so many factors that affects the performance of gears, that "just making them bigger" are basically the cave man way of increasing durability, You have to look at the material selection, tooth profile, helix ratio, gear alignment, surface finish, lubrication, and so on. If all these factors are the same, and you simply increase the size you will increase long term durability, but not their ability to transfer torque. | ||
| Beastly Backlash |
| ||
Posts: 145 | anzomcik - 2/11/2018 12:01 AM Maybe you should actually answer the question and not deflect. I have asked you many questions that give you opportunities to put everyone in there place, and you just can’t muster up anything that resembles an answer It Is looking like you have no case, no evidence that you know what your talking about, and zero proof to back your claims. Please answer the question. A bigger main gear equals higher ipt for less effort, one turn of the handle will result in more line picked up vs a reel with a smaller main gear. Torque is easily made up for with a long power handle and a smaller diameter spool in comparison to the main gear size. The bigger the gear is in this case, the more abuse it can handle, especially if the gear is made from a harder metal like SS. So, by using a very large main/drive gear that is bigger then the reel's spool, connect it to a small pinion gear you gain speed without loosing much in the way of torque, slap a big power handle on the reel and you could crank through a brick wall. So yes, the bigger the main gear, the better so long as it trumps spool size, or, as I already have pointed out multiple times, companies would have never bothered designing big low pros with drop down gear boxes to accommodate massive main gears. Inorder to reach the same number of ipt with a smaller main gear, it would require a larger spool, or, as what happens in most cases you just end up with a slow reel because a low profile reel is not going to be made with a spool the size of a Penn US Senator 113N just to gain speed. While a smaller drive gear can generate more torque, speed on retrieve is not necessarily gained efficiently unless you increase the size of the spool substantially. If you really want a reel with extreme torque you would end up with a tiny main/drive gear, massive pinion gear, and tiny spool. But, you don't see that. Regarding your statement that you really wouldn't notice a difference in torque between using a reel with a small main gear vs a reel with a large main gear (so long as ipt were roughly the same) I must concede, you are right that the torque wouldn't feel much different, but here is an example to consider. Let's go back to the US Senator 113N, excellent torque and decent speed, it gets 30ipt which is close to the speed of the Komodo 463SS in ipt. The Komodo has a much bigger main gear then US Senator. You may not notice a difference in torque, but you sure as hell will notice a difference in using the reels as the US Senator 113N is awkward as it gets if you tried using it for lure fishing. In the end, what is efficient to one person might not be efficient to another person. Are you a guys that feels it is easier to go slower with a faster reel or a guy that thinks it is easier to go faster with a slow reel? Would you rather cast lures all day with a Senator or a Komodo? | ||
| Pat Hoolihan |
| ||
Posts: 386 | I'd rather cast all day with a Shimano because then I don't have to worry about my reel going down like I would with Okuma or Daiwa. | ||
| anzomcik |
| ||
Posts: 530 | It clear to me now that you do not have no idea what your talking about. By you saying the bigger main equals more ipt and less effort. You do realize there are two gears in the system and it’s the realationship of size between those gears that give you the ratio. You can have two different size gear sets that do the job the same because the ratio is the same. The spool gear play as big a part as the main gear. You may find your favorite reels have tiny spool gears, remember if it has a ratio of 6:1 the spool gear is 6x smaller than the main. You can not just by a larger main gear swap have a faster IPT and Easier turn of the handle at the same time.its one or the other. By Adding a longer handle will make it feel lighter but you must move it further using more energy calorie burn will equal in the end. No free lunch | ||
| Beastly Backlash |
| ||
Posts: 145 | anzomcik - 2/11/2018 9:05 AM It clear to me now that you do not have no idea what your talking about. By you saying the bigger main equals more ipt and less effort. You do realize there are two gears in the system and it’s the realationship of size between those gears that give you the ratio. You can have two different size gear sets that do the job the same because the ratio is the same. The spool gear play as big a part as the main gear. You may find your favorite reels have tiny spool gears, remember if it has a ratio of 6:1 the spool gear is 6x smaller than the main. You can not just by a larger main gear swap have a faster IPT and Easier turn of the handle at the same time.its one or the other. By Adding a longer handle will make it feel lighter but you must move it further using more energy calorie burn will equal in the end. No free lunch Say what you want. At this point all you are going to do is continue to fish for things to argue about. I have yet to see you actual answer my questions. I have yet to see you acknowledge misstatements regarding line capacity by Shimano. And, I have yet to see you acknowledge that reel manufacturers design reels with over sized main gears for the purposes I pointed out. And if I am incorrect in my understanding, you have failed to put forth your own reason. I have yet to see you answer the question, why don't reel manufacturers just design their baitcasting reels with tiny main gears? You like to cry a lot and disagree a lot, but you can't step up and actually say something that actually defends your point of view. Tell me, why was the Tranx 500 not designed with a 10mm diameter main gear? If you can't answer that question, you need no longer speak. | ||
| Zinox |
| ||
Posts: 1100 | Well i just explained why you don't just make small gears. Zinox - 2/11/2018 3:05 AM I do not believe anyone said Tiny gears are better, a tooth needs to be a certain size in order to transfer the load without breaking. You can increase durability of the gears by increasing the size. HOWEVER there are so many factors that affects the performance of gears, that "just making them bigger" are basically the cave man way of increasing durability, You have to look at the material selection, tooth profile, helix ratio, gear alignment, surface finish, lubrication, and so on. If all these factors are the same, and you simply increase the size you will increase long term durability, but not their ability to transfer torque. | ||
| Beastly Backlash |
| ||
Posts: 145 | You also missed my point that what is efficient to one person may not be efficient to another. And, yes, slapping a longer power handle onto a reel does make it easier to crank, regardless of gear ratio. Why on earth do you think that add power handles to reels? It increases your leverage. And yes, if I can pull in 40in of line with one crank, I consider that to be more efficient then having to make 2 turns of the handle at 20ipt to equal 40in. It is a heck of a lot easier to bring in 100yds worth of line when I am casting with my surf gear at 40ipt vs 20ipt, tell me it isn't and I will tell you that you have never had to retrieve 16oz of weight and bait quickly, from 100yds out, in your life. Keep trying to argue, you seem driven to argue for the sake of a4guing, that much is obvious about you anzomcik. | ||
| anzomcik |
| ||
Posts: 530 | Beastly Backlash - 2/11/2018 Say what you want. At this point all you are going to do is continue to fish for things to argue about. I have yet to see you actual answer my questions. I have yet to see you acknowledge misstatements regarding line capacity by Shimano. And, I have yet to see you acknowledge that reel manufacturers design reels with over sized main gears for the purposes I pointed out. And if I am incorrect in my understanding, you have failed to put forth your own reason. I have yet to see you answer the question, why don't reel manufacturers just design their baitcasting reels with tiny main gears? You like to cry a lot and disagree a lot, but you can't step up and actually say something that actually defends your point of view. Tell me, why was the Tranx 500 not designed with a 10mm diameter main gear? If you can't answer that question, you need no longer speak. 1. I could care less about your spool capacity statement. 2.a reason for an over size could be to allow clearance of internal parts as mfg try to make the reels smaller. It could also be because of the material they are using, or the manufacture it process they are applying to make the gear would lend to larger work pieces. All of those are possible reasons. 3. A gear can only be so tiny to be effective, also see above answer for other possible reasons 4. As for defending my view, I’m pretty sure my example that you were changed your view on after the second time I posted it. My view is I don’t believe you have a full understanding of what your trying to prove. 5. To have a 10mm main gear you would need a 1.5mm spool gear. Not very conducive to manufacturing would be my guess since I was appointed to the representative for reel makers. | ||
| anzomcik |
| ||
Posts: 530 | I am driving hard on this because you are spreading a lot of misinformation and want people to know that you are. Some people put a lot of weight on opinions they read and the misinformation is very detrimental. That’s why I’m not letting up | ||
| curleytail |
| ||
Posts: 2687 Location: Hayward, WI | Your questions have been answered consistently by others, multiple times in multiple ways, but you choose to ignore them. Maybe it will go away if we ignore it. | ||
| Beastly Backlash |
| ||
Posts: 145 | Zinox - 2/11/2018 9:51 AM Well i just explained why you don't just make small gears. Zinox - 2/11/2018 3:05 AM I do not believe anyone said Tiny gears are better, a tooth needs to be a certain size in order to transfer the load without breaking. You can increase durability of the gears by increasing the size. HOWEVER there are so many factors that affects the performance of gears, that "just making them bigger" are basically the cave man way of increasing durability, You have to look at the material selection, tooth profile, helix ratio, gear alignment, surface finish, lubrication, and so on. If all these factors are the same, and you simply increase the size you will increase long term durability, but not their ability to transfer torque. People sure are arguing as if they think tiny gears are better, however... I liked the points you brought up and I agree with everything you mentioned. In the previous post, I acknowledged that I was wrong in that larger gears do not increase torque. A larger drive gear connected to a smaller secondary gear, pinion gear in the case of the reels, results in increased speed, but not increased torque. With increased speed, you loose out on torque, but if you build the main gear to have a larger diameter then the reel's spool, some of the torque that is lost can be recouped to an extent as the larger main gear is ultimately driving a smaller wheel (the spool) then itself. When a large lever (long power handle) is added to drive the large main gear, the effort required to turn that larger main gear against resistance is further reduced, which is the primary reason why all high speed big game reels have long power handles.This is my understanding at least. The Tranx 400AHG has an extended power handle for the reasons I mentioned, just like its bigger brother. It was brought out that the Beast with the 4.9 gear ratio actually has a smaller main gear then the HS Beast that I have, which is understandable, the smaller gear can deliver more torque then the bigger gear, while the larger gear can drive more speed. | ||
| Beastly Backlash |
| ||
Posts: 145 | anzomcik - 2/11/2018 9:57 AM I am driving hard on this because you are spreading a lot of misinformation and want people to know that you are. Some people put a lot of weight on opinions they read and the misinformation is very detrimental. That’s why I’m not letting up If you truly wanted to achieve your point you would have answered my questions rather then foolishly assumed they were deflections. I don't deflect, I ask questions to gain understanding of opposing points. By refusing to answer those questions, you fail to make your point. The questions were legitimate and sincere. I understand that by increasing the size/diameter of a main gear you can increase its overall durability, but there are many examples of small main gears that are bullet proof; just look at the Penn Senators and how small their main gears are, yet when have you ever heard of one of their gears failing. So, durability is not the only factor for choosing to use large gears as durability can be achieved as easily with small main gears. What other reasons could there be for using oversized main gears? If a Tranx 500 would be just as fast and powerful with a small main gear (as you seem to imply) why did Shimano put such a large main gear into the reel? Again, these questions are not deflections, I want to see you explain your views and answer the questions. Maybe I will learn something. Maybe Shimano will realize they could have saved money by putting 10mm main gears into the Tranx 500s. | ||
| 4amuskie |
| ||
| I'm pretty sure that Shimano knew exactly how to build a reel for the application it was made for. I have used it and so have many others. The comfort of this reel along with its smoothness and light weight are what makes it perfect. You dont need a ring and pinion from a Dana 60 in a reel to make it good. We are not fishing 120lb sharks here. | |||
| tolle141 |
| ||
Posts: 1000 | I'm going to say it. The Tranx 400 is YEARS ahead of anything currently in the 400 class of reels right now in terms of balancing power, weight, and ergonomics. This was the subject of much discussion in my boat this last fall as everyone was shocked by the performance of the reel. I was skeptical about my 400A going into the 2017 season, and used it HEAVILY for 10's, 13's, magdawgs/pounders, and your oversized jerkbaits. My lexa 400's and beast 60 are rod locker queens now. I'd also consider what a 400 class reel is today vs a 400 class reel of 10-15 years ago. It's my opinion that shimano built a reel that they will sell relatively unchanged for the next 7-10 years like they did with the curado 300e. You can say all you want about line capacity driving reel size class, you're only going to use 50-75yds in a musky application. To argue reel performance in terms of line capacity is completely missing the point for the application. If someone is considering a reel for anything that falls into domain of 400-class reels, I would not hesitate for a minute to look at the 400-series Tranx. It punches WAY above it's dimensions. | ||
| anzomcik |
| ||
Posts: 530 | I pretty sure I did answer your questions. anzomcik - 2/11/2018 9:53 AM Beastly Backlash - 2/11/2018 Say what you want. At this point all you are going to do is continue to fish for things to argue about. I have yet to see you actual answer my questions. I have yet to see you acknowledge misstatements regarding line capacity by Shimano. And, I have yet to see you acknowledge that reel manufacturers design reels with over sized main gears for the purposes I pointed out. And if I am incorrect in my understanding, you have failed to put forth your own reason. I have yet to see you answer the question, why don't reel manufacturers just design their baitcasting reels with tiny main gears? You like to cry a lot and disagree a lot, but you can't step up and actually say something that actually defends your point of view. Tell me, why was the Tranx 500 not designed with a 10mm diameter main gear? If you can't answer that question, you need no longer speak. 1. I could care less about your spool capacity statement. 2.a reason for an over size could be to allow clearance of internal parts as mfg try to make the reels smaller. It could also be because of the material they are using, or the manufacture it process they are applying to make the gear would lend to larger work pieces. All of those are possible reasons. 3. A gear can only be so tiny to be effective, also see above answer for other possible reasons 4. As for defending my view, I’m pretty sure my example that you were changed your view on after the second time I posted it. My view is I don’t believe you have a full understanding of what your trying to prove. 5. To have a 10mm main gear you would need a 1.5mm spool gear. Not very conducive to manufacturing would be my guess since I was appointed to the representative for reel makers. | ||
| anzomcik |
| ||
Posts: 530 | Please refer again to my example. I already said this once. If you have the same gear ratio on two different sets of gears. The amount of times the teeth touch each other is the same. To explain this you turn the main one complete turn. Each tooth on that main has made contact to the spool gear once. On the spool gear each tooth has touched 5 times. If made of the same material one should expect the same gear life because the same amount of tooth contact is the same between the two sets. This is not an argument that all gears should be small. It is to show you the bigger gears do not make the system better by a wear stand point given they are made to an appropriate size for the task. I am also confused that you are saying people are arguing that small gears are better. I have not seen that anywhere. I have seen that people are accepting that the gears supplied in the reels are of an appropriate size for the task. Some may be bigger or smaller but fit the range of acceptable. | ||
| nar160 |
| ||
Posts: 408 Location: MN | I've been trying to make sense of the cranking power issue for a while. There are a lot of anecdotes and rules of thumb regarding gear ratio, gear size, handles, IPT, etc. out there. When you try the same baits on different reels you can certainly tell a difference, but it's not always clear why, or how to tell beforehand how much effort a reel will take. Here's what I've arrived at after trying to make sense of it: Fact: neglecting friction (will address after), the cranking force needed is entirely determined by IPT and handle radius. Proof: consider a bait being pulled with force fb through the water for a single revolution of the handle. The work performed by the reel is W_out = fb*IPT (force x distance) Let fh be the force applied to the handle knob (tangent to the circle the handle knob traces out), and rh be the radius of the handle. Then the work put in to the reel is: W_in = fh*2*pi*rh (force x distance) If there is no friction, then all energy is transferred, so work in = work out, and after equating and rearranging you get fh/fb = (IPT/rh) * (1/2pi) This says that, neglecting friction, the cranking power of the reel is determined by IPT/rh. I've calculated this ratio on several reels with different IPT and handle radii and in my experience it more or less captures the ease of cranking. A Beast 50HS with double paddle handle and Tranx 3/400 HG with power handle have about the same number, for example, and they have a similar effort required. A Beast 60HS + double paddle has a slightly higher number and requires a little bit more effort. You'll notice gear ratio and gear size are both not included explicitly. Gear ratio is wrapped up in IPT, but IPT also includes spool size to make a more complete number. Gear size has no direct impact unless friction is included. The above uses only basic physics and is not really debatable under the assumption of no friction. The question is if in real devices, internal friction can create huge discrepencies between reels, and if the size of the gears greatly affects the % of energy lost to interal friction. I would submit that the latter is unlikely considering the small range of gear sizes and the mechanism style, but I'm not an expert in this kind of mechanical design. I would think bearing differences between reels would make a much bigger difference than a 20% change in gear size. For the first question, it would be helpful to know what percentage of energy going in to a reel is lost to internal friction - anyone have an idea? If the number is 10% for example, then IPT/rh would be the overriding factor. Even if the number is higher, it may not matter if all reels use bearings of approximately the same efficiency. Certainly the size and material of gears can affect durability, but IMO the effect on cranking power is minimal. It also seems silly to use gear diameter as a way to compare two reels' durability - it may be an indicator, but is not an end itself. The desired end goal is durability - does it matter how you get there? For example, maybe one reel has a bigger gear, but the design of the reel puts more stress on the gear and actually wears it out faster. Or maybe the gears aren't the weak point and something else breaks earlier. Given the above information, I use IPT / (handle radius) the estimator of cranking power. IMO, the verdict is still out on the durability of the Tranx 300/400 for use on hard pulling baits, but the feedback available is mostly positive. Personally, I've used mine for a year without breaking, which is more than I can say for an NaCl or Beast. I did have parts initially rattle loose on mine - best to watch external screws and use Loctite if necessary. The complaints out there are not really about gears wearing out or internal parts breaking - mostly bent handles and drags loosening. | ||
| anzomcik |
| ||
Posts: 530 | The above post is Well stated. | ||
| Zinox |
| ||
Posts: 1100 | @nar160, Indeed well written | ||
| hahdawg |
| ||
Posts: 64 | nar160 - 2/11/2018 12:34 PM This says that, neglecting friction, the cranking power of the reel is determined by IPT/rh. I've calculated this ratio on several reels with different IPT and handle radii and in my experience it more or less captures the ease of cranking. Great post, but something doesn't seem right here. I can see that IPT/rh determines cranking power, but I don't think it captures ease of cranking, because it would imply that all else equal, higher IPT implies easier retrieve. So, for example, retrieving 10s would be easier with a Tranx 500 HG (~40 IPT) than with a Tranx 500 PG (~30 IPT), assuming the same handle's on both reels. I'm certainly no math whiz. Maybe fh in your equation depends on the gear ratio? | ||
| RLSea |
| ||
Posts: 484 Location: Northern Illinois | Well done, nar. As you say, internal friction is the only thing that is not explained by your math. The internal friction is affected by engineering design, assembly tolerances, machining tolerances, lubrication, and quality of materials. As users we don't have access to data to support any of these quality attributes. That's where use and experience come in. | ||
| nar160 |
| ||
Posts: 408 Location: MN | hahdawg - 2/11/2018 2:40 PM nar160 - 2/11/2018 12:34 PM This says that, neglecting friction, the cranking power of the reel is determined by IPT/rh. I've calculated this ratio on several reels with different IPT and handle radii and in my experience it more or less captures the ease of cranking. Great post, but something doesn't seem right here. I can see that IPT/rh determines cranking power, but I don't think it captures ease of cranking, because it would imply that all else equal, higher IPT implies easier retrieve. So, for example, retrieving 10s would be easier with a Tranx 500 HG (~40 IPT) than with a Tranx 500 PG (~30 IPT), assuming the same handle's on both reels. I'm certainly no math whiz. Maybe fh in your equation depends on the gear ratio? Other way around as you stated - the force goes up with IPT and down with rh. The way I stated it may not be clear - it is determined by IPT/rh, but higher IPT/rh means less cranking power, not more. Higher IPT/rh means higher fh/fb which means more force applied to the handle for the same force on the bait. A more precise way to state this is that the force on the handle is inversely proportional to IPT/rh. Or you could say proportional to rh/IPT. | ||
| RyanJoz |
| ||
Posts: 1682 Location: Mt. Zion, IL | i haven't used this feature ever on this board, but I remembered seeing it from Sled for many years. another victim chalked up to the ignored list. bye bye backlash | ||
| Beastly Backlash |
| ||
Posts: 145 | anzomcik - 2/11/2018 9:53 AM Beastly Backlash - 2/11/2018 Say what you want. At this point all you are going to do is continue to fish for things to argue about. I have yet to see you actual answer my questions. I have yet to see you acknowledge misstatements regarding line capacity by Shimano. And, I have yet to see you acknowledge that reel manufacturers design reels with over sized main gears for the purposes I pointed out. And if I am incorrect in my understanding, you have failed to put forth your own reason. I have yet to see you answer the question, why don't reel manufacturers just design their baitcasting reels with tiny main gears? You like to cry a lot and disagree a lot, but you can't step up and actually say something that actually defends your point of view. Tell me, why was the Tranx 500 not designed with a 10mm diameter main gear? If you can't answer that question, you need no longer speak. 1. I could care less about your spool capacity statement. 2.a reason for an over size could be to allow clearance of internal parts as mfg try to make the reels smaller. It could also be because of the material they are using, or the manufacture it process they are applying to make the gear would lend to larger work pieces. All of those are possible reasons. 3. A gear can only be so tiny to be effective, also see above answer for other possible reasons 4. As for defending my view, I’m pretty sure my example that you were changed your view on after the second time I posted it. My view is I don’t believe you have a full understanding of what your trying to prove. 5. To have a 10mm main gear you would need a 1.5mm spool gear. Not very conducive to manufacturing would be my guess since I was appointed to the representative for reel makers. You really did tell me much. 1) Deflection 2) Assumption 3) Deflection 4) Why would you need a smaller pinion? | ||
| Sidejack |
| ||
Posts: 1082 Location: Aurora | Captain Obvious finally got back to me regarding this one and he said, all things being equal.. and then he pointed out that they're NOT equal! ~getting up on my soapbox~ It's not apples to apples and it's a great time of year to go to a show or bait shop, or other retailer and try them all yourself. Bring yer rod with/put um on a rod and palm um, crank um, cast um in the aisles. Some are lighter, wider, taller, have different warranties, and will feel different to YOU during use, etc.. Jest like a rod, each is different and will FEEL different to you depending on your hand size, finger length, preferred style of casting, reeling, and so forth. Maybe you have tiny little hands and T-Rex arms like Todd or, maybe you're extremely tall, handsome and cocksure like myself. The bottomline is, advice here can be good but use it as a guide/baseline/place to start and be wary of the tendency toward bias from those that are already invested in a certain brand or style. For instance, I won't use or purchase a reel for muskie fishing that features a disengaging level wind. Fortunately, I'm not brand loyal, am not sponsored by any entity, embrace innovation (innovation recently filed a restraining order against me) and have the luxury of being able to TRY FIRST HAND most new products that become available. ~kicking soapbox down the stairs~ | ||
| Beastly Backlash |
| ||
Posts: 145 | So nar 160, what advantage is there for reel manufacturers to put larger and yet larger main gears into fishing reels. I don't believe durability is the only reason, there are many examples of really durable main gears in reels that are on the small side. What benefit is gained with a larger main gear? At the same time, when factoring in the spool size, as all the reels in question have relativitly small spools, in comparison to main gear size, how does this effect cranking effort when considering that the reel is design to bring in 30in to 40in worth of line? | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |