|
|
Posts: 106
| I have been looking at some new reels for this next coming season. It would be used for mainly blades (9's and 10's) and rubber. Just wondering if anybody used this reel for bigger blades this last season and how did it perform with them? any info on it would be great. thanks | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| Just picked up a Tranx 400AHG, I will test it out on the bigger blades these week and report back. The extended power handle should help.
However, my current goto reels for big blades are the Okuma Komodo 471SS reels. They do really well on blades up to double 10s and the drive trains and frame are stout enough to handle any level of hard cranking without failure.
I didn't feel as confident using the Revo Toro Beast 60 or the Lexa 400HD for the hardest pulling lures, but both these reels have a good deal of cranking power as well (the Beast comes with an extended power handle which I recommend sticking on for blades), but the Komodo 450 SS reels have more power IMO. The Komodo 450 sized reels do have the largest main gears out of any of the mentioned reels btw, which would explain why I feel they have more cranking power.
| |
| | |
Posts: 213
Location: Wisconsin | I have pulled blades with my Hg but mostly 8's though i did throw 9's with it one day and it wasn't too bad. I have the 400 pg with power handle and it was just easier to use that for blades and was still pretty easy to burn them back into the boat. I definitely don't think the hg could hold up to 9's/10's as a dedicated blade reel. | |
| | |
Posts: 239
Location: Madison, WI | i fished my 400HG hard this season and it held up great! threw a lot of 12's with it and this fall threw husky/monster dussas and pounders with it along with xorcist and mega barfighter. seems to be a very durable reel especially for the size. | |
| | |
Posts: 318
| I really like the 400HG for 8s and for rubber. It can make the 8s BURN. It is fine for 9s for awhile, but i prefer to reel fast with a lower gear ratio rather than use a high gear ratio to achieve speed.
That being said, it is my favorite reel I own. It is tough to backlash, and it seems to be built like a tank. No experience with Okuma or Lexa. I have always been a Shimano/Abu Garcia guy. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| The Tranx 400AHG just arrived. I like the stock extended power handle, I wish more companies would do this with their big low pro reels. Definitely feels solid.
But, for a 400 sized low pro, it is closer in size too the 300 sized reels of other companies, definitely doesn't have the capacity of the other three 400 sized low pros. | |
| | |
Posts: 239
Location: Madison, WI | the size may be deceiving - the tranx 400 actually has slightly more line cap than the beast 60 | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| johnsonaaro2 - 2/5/2018 2:28 PM
the size may be deceiving - the tranx 400 actually has slightly more line cap than the beast 60
Did you measure the line? Because, from what I am looking at, the Tranx 400 barely has more line capacity then a Komodo 364.
| |
| | |
Posts: 239
Location: Madison, WI | Beastly Backlash - 2/5/2018 7:20 PM
johnsonaaro2 - 2/5/2018 2:28 PM
the size may be deceiving - the tranx 400 actually has slightly more line cap than the beast 60
Did you measure the line? Because, from what I am looking at, the Tranx 400 barely has more line capacity then a Komodo 364.
i only compared the tranx to the beast, from what im seeing the beast 60 holds 250 yards of 14 lb mono where the tranx 400 holds 260... Komodo 450 is definitely a bigger spool than both and a great reel as well | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| johnsonaaro2 - 2/6/2018 12:59 PM
Beastly Backlash - 2/5/2018 7:20 PM
johnsonaaro2 - 2/5/2018 2:28 PM
the size may be deceiving - the tranx 400 actually has slightly more line cap than the beast 60
Did you measure the line? Because, from what I am looking at, the Tranx 400 barely has more line capacity then a Komodo 364.
i only compared the tranx to the beast, from what im seeing the beast 60 holds 250 yards of 14 lb mono where the tranx 400 holds 260... Komodo 450 is definitely a bigger spool than both and a great reel as well
I know what Shimano says on their site, but it definitely seems off, especially if you use the rope like PP, which is what the capacities are based on. Maybe the capacity is based on Maxcurato?
The Diawa Lexa 400 can only take about 250yds if 50lb Sufix 832, the Shimano Tranx 400 has a smaller spool both in depth and width then the Lexa 400. I haven't measured out the Tranx 400's spool capacity yet, but based on spool size, it does have one of the smaller spool dimensions of the top 4 big low pros. I did double check the dimensions of the Beast 60 and I think that the Tranx 400 and Beast 60 may have simular line capacities. As a note, the Beast 60 is listed as having a capacity of 285yds of 30lb braid, which is odd as the Tranx has about that much capacity with 50lb braid.
I may just have to measure out the line of both the Tranx 40 and Beast 60 to get an accurate idea of capacities. For musky, capacity isn't such a big deal, but when chasing inshore game fish, an extra 50yds of line can make or break you.
But, the Lexa 400 and Komodo 450 gave greater line capacities then either of the other two reels. The Komodo 450s will swallow an entire spool of 50lb sufix 832. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| My initial impression of the Tranx 400 is that it is not a true 400.
I broke the reel down the other day and compared it too one of my Komodo 471SS's; I will compare it to one of my Lexa 400's this weekend.
The main gear size difference between the Tranx 400 and the Komodo 471 was stark, the Tranx had a main gear with a diameter of 34mm while the Komodo had a 54mm dia. main gear.
The main reason most of us would get a 400 sized baitcaster is for the increase in power due to the much larger main gears found in 400 sized low pros, the Tranx 400 simply isn't a true 400.
Gear size, weight, and capacity are more in line with a 300 sized low pro.
What Shimano did with the Tranx 400 would be like Honda listing the CBR600 is a liter class crotch rocket and referring to it as a CBR1000 when it is actually a 600.
For glide baits, twitch baits, and Spring time lures, the Tranx 400 would be fine, but if you need power, just stick with a legit 400 sized low pro or go up to the Tranx 500 (but, just keep in mind that the Komodo 471SS has bigger gearing in a smaller and lighter package). | |
| | |
Posts: 1100
| Afaik the 400 label on shimano reels is only a reference to the size of the spool, and have nothing to do with any of the internal components.
Beside that the numbers manufactures give their reels are independent on the different manufacturer, and model. E.g. Abu size 60 toro, 400tranx, and daiwa are also different. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| Zinox - 2/9/2018 3:42 AM
Afaik the 400 label on shimano reels is only a reference to the size of the spool, and have nothing to do with any of the internal components.
Beside that the numbers manufactures give their reels are independent on the different manufacturer, and model. E.g. Abu size 60 toro, 400tranx, and daiwa are also different.
When you buy a 400 sized reel, you expect a reel like a Lexa 400 or Komodo 400, both are simular in size. Abu doesn't use 300 or 400 to specify the size of their reels, just 50 and 60. The line capacities are also not miss stated.
Clearly Shimano labeled the Tranx 400 a 400 in order to market it as competition for other 400 sized reels. All you have to do is look at the line capacity Shimano listed for the Tranx 400, 275yds of 50lb PP. The reel won't take 275yds of PP. The much bigger Lexa will get 250yds of 50lb and the Komodo 471 will get 300yds of 50lb; it is obvious what Shimano was gunning for.
Face it, the Tranx is a 300 sized reel marketed falsely as a 400 sized reel. | |
| | |
Posts: 199
| Beastly Backlash - 2/9/2018 5:43 AM
Zinox - 2/9/2018 3:42 AM
Afaik the 400 label on shimano reels is only a reference to the size of the spool, and have nothing to do with any of the internal components.
Beside that the numbers manufactures give their reels are independent on the different manufacturer, and model. E.g. Abu size 60 toro, 400tranx, and daiwa are also different.
When you buy a 400 sized reel, you expect a reel like a Lexa 400 or Komodo 400, both are simular in size. Abu doesn't use 300 or 400 to specify the size of their reels, just 50 and 60. The line capacities are also not miss stated.
Clearly Shimano labeled the Tranx 400 a 400 in order to market it as competition for other 400 sized reels. All you have to do is look at the line capacity Shimano listed for the Tranx 400, 275yds of 50lb PP. The reel won't take 275yds of PP. The much bigger Lexa will get 250yds of 50lb and the Komodo 471 will get 300yds of 50lb; it is obvious what Shimano was gunning for.
Face it, the Tranx is a 300 sized reel marketed falsely as a 400 sized reel.
So the 300 is actually a 200? | |
| | |
Posts: 28
| I ran a 400 and 400HG last year, and a couple of buddies of mine did, as well. All of us were very impressed with them. I liked them so much that I sold all but one of my Beasts. I now run 400s for everything but 12s and 13s. Granted, I only fish 1-2 times a week now. I can't say they will or won't hold up to 4-5 outings a week, but I never had any hint of an issue, and really have not heard of anyone running into any issues with them either. They are no 500, but they seem rock solid. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| JTHIRY - 2/9/2018 8:14 AM
I ran a 400 and 400HG last year, and a couple of buddies of mine did, as well. All of us were very impressed with them. I liked them so much that I sold all but one of my Beasts. I now run 400s for everything but 12s and 13s. Granted, I only fish 1-2 times a week now. I can't say they will or won't hold up to 4-5 outings a week, but I never had any hint of an issue, and really have not heard of anyone running into any issues with them either. They are no 500, but they seem rock solid.
No one is denying they are solid, but I haven't seen anything in the reel that makes it better then any other option. If you need a 400 sized reel or a reel with serious cranking power though, there are much better options imo.
If you want to pay 300 for a 300 sized reel listed as a 400 sized reel when other 300 sized reels and other actual 400 sized reels are avalible for much less and provide equal, if not superior, performance, that is fine.
Since Shimano decided to market the Tranx 400 as such, it is only right to compare the reel to other 400s. Realistically, the reel would only be competitive vs 300s.
Nick, from tackle advisors on YouTube, though he loves the Tranx 400, admits this much himself.
I must admit that I bought the reel to see what all the hype was about, so far I see no advantage to owning this reel vs a Lexa or Komodo, save someone who wants the sealing.
The reel is refined out of the box as I would expect from a Shimano, but no more refined then a Lexa HD and no better free spin then a Komodo.
But, my main point to anyone looking for a legit 400 sized low pro that can deliver serious cranking power, look somewhere else or just be aware that you are getting the equivalent of a Lexa 300 or Komodo 364 at near double the price.
It is what it is.
The Tranx 400 is a nice reel though, just not a true 400.
| |
| | |
Posts: 28
| I agree if you want serious cranking power, there are better options - hence why I kept my Beast 4.9:1.
It does depend on how you fish and what you throw. I slow roll 9s and 10s a lot of the time, and the 400 is great for that application. If I burn, I typically am throwing 8s or single blades, so I go with the HG. The HG is also an awesome rubber and dive/rise reel.
Everyone has their preferences. For what I do, these 400s are great options. I have heard great things about the Komodos, just haven't tried them. I owned a Lexa 400 and it went to crap in less than a season, fishing the same way I do now with the Tranx 400s. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| JTHIRY - 2/9/2018 9:00 AM
I agree if you want serious cranking power, there are better options - hence why I kept my Beast 4.9:1.
It does depend on how you fish and what you throw. I slow roll 9s and 10s a lot of the time, and the 400 is great for that application. If I burn, I typically am throwing 8s or single blades, so I go with the HG. The HG is also an awesome rubber and dive/rise reel.
Everyone has their preferences. For what I do, these 400s are great options. I have heard great things about the Komodos, just haven't tried them. I owned a Lexa 400 and it went to crap in less than a season, fishing the same way I do now with the Tranx 400s.
I am looking forward to seeing how my Tranx 400 holds up over the course of the season. Being as it is technically a 300 size, it is important to use it in those capacities...
But, just for kicks, I am going to use it the way I do my Lexa and Komodo 400s, the reel is going to hate me so much. Lol! Should be fun.
I had an original Komodo 364 that I finally passed on to another angler after having used the reel since they first came out, the little Komodo never missed a beat. If anything, it got smoother and more refined with time no matter what I did to it. I just couldn't stand that ugly red/grey color scheme. It was the best 300 sized low pro I ever used. | |
| | |
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | Beastly Backlash - 2/9/2018 12:21 AM
My initial impression of the Tranx 400 is that it is not a true 400.
I broke the reel down the other day and compared it too one of my Komodo 471SS's; I will compare it to one of my Lexa 400's this weekend.
The main gear size difference between the Tranx 400 and the Komodo 471 was stark, the Tranx had a main gear with a diameter of 34mm while the Komodo had a 54mm dia. main gear.
The main reason most of us would get a 400 sized baitcaster is for the increase in power due to the much larger main gears found in 400 sized low pros, the Tranx 400 simply isn't a true 400.
Gear size, weight, and capacity are more in line with a 300 sized low pro.
What Shimano did with the Tranx 400 would be like Honda listing the CBR600 is a liter class crotch rocket and referring to it as a CBR1000 when it is actually a 600.
For glide baits, twitch baits, and Spring time lures, the Tranx 400 would be fine, but if you need power, just stick with a legit 400 sized low pro or go up to the Tranx 500 (but, just keep in mind that the Komodo 471SS has bigger gearing in a smaller and lighter package).
What is the range of gear sizes that would be acceptable to you for a 400 series reel? What are the acceptable line capacity ranges? How do your expectations compare to the industry standard that must be adhered to?
Perhaps there are no standards and they can configure and call the reel anything they want. No different than the H, XH, XXH ratings of rod manufacturers being far from standardized. They can call their products anything they want and it's up to the consumer to pay attention to the specifics that matter to them. Then the consumer decides if that piece of equipment will meet their requirements or not.
Saying that this that and the other thing is misrepresented because of a non standard label name seems to be reaching a little. | |
| | |
Posts: 499
Location: Northern Illinois | ^^^Agreed. The model number is just to give the consumer a general idea of the line capacity of the reel. The Tranx 400 compares to the Abu Garcia 60 (or old 6500) size. Actually the Lexa 400 is probably more comparable to the Tranx 500's line capacity. The consumer ultimately decides if the reel is appropriate for the intended application. The reviews I've seen on the Tranx 400 so far are positive. | |
| | |
Posts: 1100
| curleytail^^ This was exactly my point, the 400 have nothing to do the the specific size from brand to brand.
To my knowledge the 400 size Shimano reels haven't changed line capacity through time, and as far as i know, the 400 Shimano models were on the market before the Lexa 400. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| RLSea - 2/9/2018 10:27 PM
^^^Agreed. The model number is just to give the consumer a general idea of the line capacity of the reel. The Tranx 400 compares to the Abu Garcia 60 (or old 6500) size. Actually the Lexa 400 is probably more comparable to the Tranx 500's line capacity. The consumer ultimately decides if the reel is appropriate for the intended application. The reviews I've seen on the Tranx 400 so far are positive.
I know what you are saying, but...
The Tranx has a line capacity listed as 275yds of Powerpro 50lb test. I base a reels size off of the line capacity myself and this is why I am making the points I have made.
That is more then a Lexa 400 and nearly as much as a Komodo 471SS.
While that line capacity is grossly overstated, it must be concluded that Shimano intended the reel to be competitive against other 400 sized low pros because they decided to list the line capacity as being in the range of those other reels. So, if you want to play with the big dogs, and you front a 300 like it is a 400, your reel should be judged as a 400, the Tranx 400 fails as anything but a 300.
If Shimano would have stated a line capacity of 210yds of 50lb power pro, we would not be having this conversation.
Abu can be left out of this because they not only do not use the same 300/400 size classifications, they did not overstate the line capacity of the 60s. The 60 has bigger and beefier gearing then the Tranx 400, just for your information.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1749
Location: Mt. Zion, IL | Beastly Backlash - 2/10/2018 9:43 AM
The 60 has bigger and beefier gearing then the Tranx 400, just for your information.
You should probably do some homework before you try to convince someone to buy a reel. The gearing in the 400 is nearly the same as the 500. The 400 gears are larger than the beast 60z. If you compare “slow to slow” the 400 gearing is larger and picks up more line per turn.
Pic is 500 pg gear on table in front of 400a
Attachments
----------------
 F027BE21-46D2-4A1F-8BF1-9BA6345305A7.jpeg (96KB - 575 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 145
| curleytail - 2/9/2018 8:51 PM
Beastly Backlash - 2/9/2018 12:21 AM
My initial impression of the Tranx 400 is that it is not a true 400.
I broke the reel down the other day and compared it too one of my Komodo 471SS's; I will compare it to one of my Lexa 400's this weekend.
The main gear size difference between the Tranx 400 and the Komodo 471 was stark, the Tranx had a main gear with a diameter of 34mm while the Komodo had a 54mm dia. main gear.
The main reason most of us would get a 400 sized baitcaster is for the increase in power due to the much larger main gears found in 400 sized low pros, the Tranx 400 simply isn't a true 400.
Gear size, weight, and capacity are more in line with a 300 sized low pro.
What Shimano did with the Tranx 400 would be like Honda listing the CBR600 is a liter class crotch rocket and referring to it as a CBR1000 when it is actually a 600.
For glide baits, twitch baits, and Spring time lures, the Tranx 400 would be fine, but if you need power, just stick with a legit 400 sized low pro or go up to the Tranx 500 (but, just keep in mind that the Komodo 471SS has bigger gearing in a smaller and lighter package).
What is the range of gear sizes that would be acceptable to you for a 400 series reel? What are the acceptable line capacity ranges? How do your expectations compare to the industry standard that must be adhered to?
Perhaps there are no standards and they can configure and call the reel anything they want. No different than the H, XH, XXH ratings of rod manufacturers being far from standardized. They can call their products anything they want and it's up to the consumer to pay attention to the specifics that matter to them. Then the consumer decides if that piece of equipment will meet their requirements or not.
Saying that this that and the other thing is misrepresented because of a non standard label name seems to be reaching a little.
What is the stated line capacity of the Tranx 400?
What are the line capacities of the Lexa 400 and Komodo 471?
Line capacity determines what size class a reel fits into, Shimano stuck the Tranx 400 into the size class of the other two 400s.
There is no standard for gear size when it comes to any reel, but gear size does matter a lot, especially when it comes to cranking power.
If you need a reel with superior cranking power, you should consider the reels with the biggest gears in that reels class, in this case that would mean you need to go with a Lexa 400 or Komodo 471SS.
The Tranx 400 fails in comparison to the other 400s.
It is not my fault Shimano has falsely advertised the reels capacity, thus falsely representing the size class of the Tranx 400.
| |
| | |
Posts: 145
| This is a Komodo 471SS main gear with a Tranx 400 main gear inside the drag stack housing.
Attachments
----------------
komodo tranx.jpg (114KB - 441 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 1100
| The size of the gears does not affect the cranking power, but it effects durability.
| |
| | |
Posts: 145
| Zinox - 2/10/2018 11:27 AM
The size of the gears does not affect the cranking power, but it effects durability.
It effects both, do the research.
At the same time, I am going to take what you said and apply it to the Tranx 400; small gear plus micro teeth, equals not a long term investment.
Your own words. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| RyanJoz - 2/10/2018 10:54 AM
Beastly Backlash - 2/10/2018 9:43 AM
The 60 has bigger and beefier gearing then the Tranx 400, just for your information.
You should probably do some homework before you try to convince someone to buy a reel. The gearing in the 400 is nearly the same as the 500. The 400 gears are larger than the beast 60z. If you compare “slow to slow” the 400 gearing is larger and picks up more line per turn.
Pic is 500 pg gear on table in front of 400a
You should do your homework.
Komodo 471SS w/ 54mm main gear, Lexa 400HD w/ 53mm main gear, Beast 60 w/47mm main gear, Tranx 400AHG w/45mm main gear.
The Tranx 500 has a 50mm main gear.
Attachments
----------------
main gears.jpg (139KB - 430 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 145
| Here is the Beast 60 with the Tranx 400 main gear side by side.
Sorry Ryan, but you need to do your homework.
And the beast isn't even marketed as being in the size range of the 400s.
(resized beast tranx.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
resized beast tranx.jpg (46KB - 431 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 1749
Location: Mt. Zion, IL | My 4.9 beast main gear is 43mm... | |
| | |
Posts: 1100
| Beastly Backlash - 2/10/2018 10:46 AM
Zinox - 2/10/2018 11:27 AM
The size of the gears does not affect the cranking power, but it effects durability.
It effects both, do the research.
At the same time, I am going to take what you said and apply it to the Tranx 400; small gear plus micro teeth, equals not a long term investment.
Your own words.
Could you please show me some data that indicates an increase in "cranking power"? where i would guess you refer to their ability to transmit torque.
If you believe you have sufficient data that shows just making gears larger increase their effectiveness, please share it, as they forgot to mention it at any of the Classes i have attended during my mechanical engineering education.
Just making gears bigger does not change their effectiveness of transmitting power, if you increase the size of the gear and keep the module (size) teethes the same you can increase the number of teethes engaged with each other, but that effect would not be noticeable to the user, unless you are looking at some extreme cases of change in size.
I would love to change my opinion on the subject, if you could provide me with some scientific article or paper that gives a proper explanation.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | Beastly Backlash - 2/10/2018 9:55 AM
curleytail - 2/9/2018 8:51 PM
Beastly Backlash - 2/9/2018 12:21 AM
My initial impression of the Tranx 400 is that it is not a true 400.
I broke the reel down the other day and compared it too one of my Komodo 471SS's; I will compare it to one of my Lexa 400's this weekend.
The main gear size difference between the Tranx 400 and the Komodo 471 was stark, the Tranx had a main gear with a diameter of 34mm while the Komodo had a 54mm dia. main gear.
The main reason most of us would get a 400 sized baitcaster is for the increase in power due to the much larger main gears found in 400 sized low pros, the Tranx 400 simply isn't a true 400.
Gear size, weight, and capacity are more in line with a 300 sized low pro.
What Shimano did with the Tranx 400 would be like Honda listing the CBR600 is a liter class crotch rocket and referring to it as a CBR1000 when it is actually a 600.
For glide baits, twitch baits, and Spring time lures, the Tranx 400 would be fine, but if you need power, just stick with a legit 400 sized low pro or go up to the Tranx 500 (but, just keep in mind that the Komodo 471SS has bigger gearing in a smaller and lighter package).
What is the range of gear sizes that would be acceptable to you for a 400 series reel? What are the acceptable line capacity ranges? How do your expectations compare to the industry standard that must be adhered to?
Perhaps there are no standards and they can configure and call the reel anything they want. No different than the H, XH, XXH ratings of rod manufacturers being far from standardized. They can call their products anything they want and it's up to the consumer to pay attention to the specifics that matter to them. Then the consumer decides if that piece of equipment will meet their requirements or not.
Saying that this that and the other thing is misrepresented because of a non standard label name seems to be reaching a little.
What is the stated line capacity of the Tranx 400?
What are the line capacities of the Lexa 400 and Komodo 471?
Line capacity determines what size class a reel fits into, Shimano stuck the Tranx 400 into the size class of the other two 400s.
There is no standard for gear size when it comes to any reel, but gear size does matter a lot, especially when it comes to cranking power.
If you need a reel with superior cranking power, you should consider the reels with the biggest gears in that reels class, in this case that would mean you need to go with a Lexa 400 or Komodo 471SS.
The Tranx 400 fails in comparison to the other 400s.
It is not my fault Shimano has falsely advertised the reels capacity, thus falsely representing the size class of the Tranx 400.
Since you asked, the line capacity of the Lexa 400 is 300 yards of 55 pound braid. And you said it fits 50 yards of 50 pound 832? OH MY GOD! GROSS MISREPRESENTATION! How dare they include a 4 in the model number name! Looks like they may be even further off than Shimano. Okuma doesn't list braid specs so I can't even conpare. Did you fill your reel up until you couldnt turn the handle anymore? Did you spool under extreme tension? Which product from Powerpro did you use? What are the industry standards for measurinf line capacity? Do all manufacturers follow the STANDARD that makes sure all reels can be 100% accurately compared to each other?
Sorry, it doesn't exist. I think you need to find some means aside from a simple line capacity spec to determine if the reel fits your specific requirements.
Can you please explain to me how gear diameter makes a reel more or less powerful? My simple mind can understand how inches per crank and handle length can make a reel feel more or less powerful. The physical size of the gears, spool diameter, or even gear ratio it takes to get to that inches per crank? I can't wrap my head around how THAT makes any difference.
Being that you've done the research maybe you could enlighten us about how that works or provide some links with the data that proves your point. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| Zinox - 2/10/2018 1:01 PM
Beastly Backlash - 2/10/2018 10:46 AM
Zinox - 2/10/2018 11:27 AM
The size of the gears does not affect the cranking power, but it effects durability.
It effects both, do the research.
At the same time, I am going to take what you said and apply it to the Tranx 400; small gear plus micro teeth, equals not a long term investment.
Your own words.
Could you please show me some data that indicates an increase in "cranking power"? where i would guess you refer to their ability to transmit torque.
If you believe you have sufficient data that shows just making gears larger increase their effectiveness, please share it, as they forgot to mention it at any of the Classes i have attended during my mechanical engineering education.
Just making gears bigger does not change their effectiveness of transmitting power, if you increase the size of the gear and keep the module (size ) teethes the same you can increase the number of teethes engaged with each other, but that effect would not be noticeable to the user, unless you are looking at some extreme cases of change in size.
I would love to change my opinion on the subject, if you could provide me with some scientific article or paper that gives a proper explanation.
Torque is correct, but you know what was meant.
Next. | |
| | |
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | Uh, and how does gear SIZE affect torque then? | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| curleytail - 2/10/2018 1:09 PM
Beastly Backlash - 2/10/2018 9:55 AM
curleytail - 2/9/2018 8:51 PM
Beastly Backlash - 2/9/2018 12:21 AM
My initial impression of the Tranx 400 is that it is not a true 400.
I broke the reel down the other day and compared it too one of my Komodo 471SS's; I will compare it to one of my Lexa 400's this weekend.
The main gear size difference between the Tranx 400 and the Komodo 471 was stark, the Tranx had a main gear with a diameter of 34mm while the Komodo had a 54mm dia. main gear.
The main reason most of us would get a 400 sized baitcaster is for the increase in power due to the much larger main gears found in 400 sized low pros, the Tranx 400 simply isn't a true 400.
Gear size, weight, and capacity are more in line with a 300 sized low pro.
What Shimano did with the Tranx 400 would be like Honda listing the CBR600 is a liter class crotch rocket and referring to it as a CBR1000 when it is actually a 600.
For glide baits, twitch baits, and Spring time lures, the Tranx 400 would be fine, but if you need power, just stick with a legit 400 sized low pro or go up to the Tranx 500 (but, just keep in mind that the Komodo 471SS has bigger gearing in a smaller and lighter package).
What is the range of gear sizes that would be acceptable to you for a 400 series reel? What are the acceptable line capacity ranges? How do your expectations compare to the industry standard that must be adhered to?
Perhaps there are no standards and they can configure and call the reel anything they want. No different than the H, XH, XXH ratings of rod manufacturers being far from standardized. They can call their products anything they want and it's up to the consumer to pay attention to the specifics that matter to them. Then the consumer decides if that piece of equipment will meet their requirements or not.
Saying that this that and the other thing is misrepresented because of a non standard label name seems to be reaching a little.
What is the stated line capacity of the Tranx 400?
What are the line capacities of the Lexa 400 and Komodo 471?
Line capacity determines what size class a reel fits into, Shimano stuck the Tranx 400 into the size class of the other two 400s.
There is no standard for gear size when it comes to any reel, but gear size does matter a lot, especially when it comes to cranking power.
If you need a reel with superior cranking power, you should consider the reels with the biggest gears in that reels class, in this case that would mean you need to go with a Lexa 400 or Komodo 471SS.
The Tranx 400 fails in comparison to the other 400s.
It is not my fault Shimano has falsely advertised the reels capacity, thus falsely representing the size class of the Tranx 400.
Since you asked, the line capacity of the Lexa 400 is 300 yards of 55 pound braid. And you said it fits 50 yards of 50 pound 832? OH MY GOD! GROSS MISREPRESENTATION! How dare they include a 4 in the model number name! Looks like they may be even further off than Shimano. Okuma doesn't list braid specs so I can't even conpare. Did you fill your reel up until you couldnt turn the handle anymore? Did you spool under extreme tension? Which product from Powerpro did you use? What are the industry standards for measurinf line capacity? Do all manufacturers follow the STANDARD that makes sure all reels can be 100% accurately compared to each other?
Sorry, it doesn't exist. I think you need to find some means aside from a simple line capacity spec to determine if the reel fits your specific requirements.
Can you please explain to me how gear diameter makes a reel more or less powerful? My simple mind can understand how inches per crank and handle length can make a reel feel more or less powerful. The physical size of the gears, spool diameter, or even gear ratio it takes to get to that inches per crank? I can't wrap my head around how THAT makes any difference.
Being that you've done the research maybe you could enlighten us about how that works or provide some links with the data that proves your point.
250yds of 50lb Sufix 832, not 50yds. Sufix 832 is pretty thick.
My purpose for bringing up the capacities of other bigger reels was to demonstrate just how much smaller the Tranx 400 is compared to how it is advertised.
And you guys were the ones who started up with referring to spool size/line capacity as being the basis for determining a reels size. I called you out on it.
And, as pointed out because the engineer wanted to be technical, larger main gears increase torque. As anglers, we define a reel's torque as how powerful the reel is.
If a large main gear was not benifical to improving a reel's torque, the Tranx 500 would not have a 50mm main gear, would it? | |
| | |
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | Spool size was brought up as a general comparison. Sure. And in general they are similar. Seems you felt Shimano is misrepresenting their 400 because you can't put the stated line capacity on it too. Sounds like the same deal with Daiwa...sooo....???
Torque? You've done the research. Please enlighten us. Larger gear sizes can increase durability, which seems like a desirable trait in a large saltwater reel. Can you share your data regarding how it relates to torque? | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| curleytail - 2/10/2018 1:38 PM
Uh, and how does gear SIZE affect torque then?
The engineer can explain. My understanding is based off observation and experience.
Your car's transmission is made up of multiple gears, the first gear generates the most torque inorder to begin the process of moving, it is also the biggest gear.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | The engineer asked you to explain because what you are trying to say does not make sense.
Gears...wow. The reason your first gear on a car is more powerful is because the engine has to turn it more times to move the car say 100 feet. 2nd gear is less powerful because the motor turns fewer times to move the car the same distance. If you put much taller tires on your truck it might feel less powerful. The gear ratios or sizes didn't change, but the distance the truck moves with each rev of the engine increases, meaning it is doing more "work."
In reels, the inches per turn makes the angler work more or less. Only a longer lever - the reel handle makes it easier to reel. A shorter handle makes it harder. A reel with a lower inch per crank is easier to reel because less "work" is done per each crank.
YOU may want to do some research.
I'm done. These conversations never straighten out. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| curleytail - 2/10/2018 1:51 PM
Spool size was brought up as a general comparison. Sure. And in general they are similar. Seems you felt Shimano is misrepresenting their 400 because you can't put the stated line capacity on it too. Sounds like the same deal with Daiwa...sooo....???
Torque? You've done the research. Please enlighten us. Larger gear sizes can increase durability, which seems like a desirable trait in a large saltwater reel. Can you share your data regarding how it relates to torque?
Shimano did misrepresent the size of their reel based on the listing of their line capacity.
Most people who don't already have the Tranx 400 are comparing this reel to your Lexa 400, Komodo 400, and Tranx 500 because they assume, based on how Shimano represents the reel, that it is in the same class as these other reels, specifically the true 400 sized reels.
I don't see why people are so offended for me calling out the Tranx 400.
The reel is what it is, a 300. I don't want people continuing to see the Tranx 400 as an alternative to the other legit 400's.
People also need to know that your Lexa and Komodo 300's are a much cheaper, same quality, same size, just as good performing options as the Tranx 400.
The Tranx 400 and Beast 60 compare at simular price points and match up well, but the Beast 60 isn't misrepresented in size. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| curleytail - 2/10/2018 2:05 PM
The engineer asked you to explain because what you are trying to say does not make sense.
Gears...wow. The reason your first gear on a car is more powerful is because the engine has to turn it more times to move the car say 100 feet. 2nd gear is less powerful because the motor turns fewer times to move the car the same distance. If you put much taller tires on your truck it might feel less powerful. The gear ratios or sizes didn't change, but the distance the truck moves with each rev of the engine increases, meaning it is doing more "work."
In reels, the inches per turn makes the angler work more or less. Only a longer lever - the reel handle makes it easier to reel. A shorter handle makes it harder. A reel with a lower inch per crank is easier to reel because less "work" is done per each crank.
YOU may want to do some research.
I'm done. These conversations never straighten out.
I gave an example. An the engineer already admitted that a bigger gear equals more torque.
I also explained that he was right in that the correct term was torque; as power and torque are two different things when looking at the technical definitions. I also admitted that when fisherman speak of a reel as being powerful, what they really mean, and what I really meant, is that the reel has more torque.
Torque is what allows you to crank a double 12 like it is nothing, and more then likely when discussing that point in the past you referred to the reel as being powerful, not torquey. | |
| | |
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | Done. Done done done, LOL! | |
| | |
| I'll gladly stick with the Tranx "400" any day, all day, everyday. Just might be the best reel ever made. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| 4amuskie - 2/10/2018 2:27 PM
I'll gladly stick with the Tranx "400" any day, all day, everyday. Just might be the best reel ever made.
It is a great reel, just not when compared to your Lexa 400 or Komodo 400.
When looking at the actually size and performance abilities of the Tranx 400, you have to compare it to the Lexa or Komodo 300's, at that point the Tranx is over priced by $100 plus dollars, the only advantage being the seals which are not necessary for FW anglers.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1100
| Just to be clear I did not say that larger gear gives more torque/power/efficiency in any fishing reels.
For that to be noticeable we would have to look at extreme cases, that no manufacturer would ever produce. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| Zinox - 2/10/2018 3:02 PM
Just to be clear I did not say that larger gear gives more torque/power/efficiency in any fishing reels.
For that to be noticeable we would have to look at extreme cases, that no manufacturer would ever produce.
I wonder why they just didn't put a 20mm gear into the Tranx 500.
Tell us, why didn't they? Tells us all! Lol!
If gear size doesn't matter, why are you the only person I have ever heard make that claim in seriousness? How about you look up the new video from Tackle Advisors where he talks about main gear size and how it makes a difference, the guys is a Shimano fan boy if there ever was one too.
Hell, the makers should just produce reels with main gears the same size as pinion gears. What do you think?
Would definitely make a fishing reel much lighter if they just used tiny main gears.
I think is interesting that on a previous thread regarding this reel, it is stated that Shimano reps openly admit that the Tranx 400 is not suited for use with high resistance lures.
| |
| | |
Posts: 145
| Zinox, you care to send emails to the reel manufacturers and tell them they are making the reels incorrectly?
You should tell Shimano that the 50mm main gear of the Tranx 500 is pointless and they were fools for making that main gear so large. You should tell them the main gear should be no bigger then 10mm. Go ahead!
How about you email Diawa and Okuma and tell them how much more you know then their armies of engineers. | |
| | |
Posts: 532
| Skimming through this post fast. Couple things.
There is an appropriate size range of gears for an application. There are different material that are acceptable.
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.
| |
| | |
| Beastly Backlash - 2/10/2018 1:38 PM
4amuskie - 2/10/2018 2:27 PM
I'll gladly stick with the Tranx "400" any day, all day, everyday. Just might be the best reel ever made.
It is a great reel, just not when compared to your Lexa 400 or Komodo 400.
When looking at the actually size and performance abilities of the Tranx 400, you have to compare it to the Lexa or Komodo 300's, at that point the Tranx is over priced by $100 plus dollars, the only advantage being the seals which are not necessary for FW anglers.
[/QUOTE
I have no idea where your getting your information but it's in error. There is no comparison and it's worth every penny of the 100 and more. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| anzomcik - 2/10/2018 7:36 PM
Skimming through this post fast. Couple things.
There is an appropriate size range of gears for an application. There are different material that are acceptable.
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.
Try it.
Who do you know would pick a Toro Beast 60 over a Tranx 500PG for double 12's?
Then get back to me. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| 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.
If it is worth every penny of the $100 to you, that is good and fine, just don't expect the Tranx 400 to handle cranking in what those other two reels can handle.
I have been very objective about this subject, I can't say the same for anyone else. | |
| | |
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | Beastly Backlash - 2/10/2018 7:20 PM
I have been very objective about this subject, I can't say the same for anyone else.
Scholar and gentleman, no doubt. | |
| | |
Posts: 28
| 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.
Have you used the Tranx yet? | |
| | |
Posts: 532
| I ask to prove how it could be different, and I get a question for an answer. It is clear you do not know what your talking about.
Let’s be honest, you can’t prove what your claiming. Because it isn’t true. You love your other reels, but you needed to find an angle to take a stance that the ones you love are better. The only thing you came up with is a difference in gear size. So your grinding an unprovable argument on how one design has to be better (even though it isn’t, all reels fall into an acceptable size of their designs). It is making you look silly
It’s human to make mistakes, the unfortunate thing about posts like this is many people will take what your saying as something that’s really a thing (it isn’t, you have been asked to prove it and you have nothing). But if you keep yelling louder other will believe your misguided information. That hurts their decision making unless your end goal is to have them buy exactly what you are telling them to buy.
| |
| | |
Posts: 145
| JTHIRY - 2/10/2018 8:38 PM
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.
Have you used the Tranx yet?
Yes, but just for initial impressions, as I originally stated.
It will get worked over pretty good over the course of the season though, should be fun seeing what it can do well over the course of time. Nothing like an extended stress test to high light strengths and weaknesses; I will be using it the same way as I use my Lexa and Komodo 400s which have proven to be able to handle nearly anything and both already have a record for handling fish most people would never have expected a low pro to be able to handle.
Did you ever see the 120lb bluefin tuna caught using an original Lexa 400? That is a #*^@ good feat for a low pro. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| anzomcik - 2/10/2018 8:50 PM
I ask to prove how it could be different, and I get a question for an answer. It is clear you do not know what your talking about.
Let’s be honest, you can’t prove what your claiming. Because it isn’t true. You love your other reels, but you needed to find an angle to take a stance that the ones you love are better. The only thing you came up with is a difference in gear size. So your grinding an unprovable argument on how one design has to be better (even though it isn’t, all reels fall into an acceptable size of their designs). It is making you look silly
It’s human to make mistakes, the unfortunate thing about posts like this is many people will take what your saying as something that’s really a thing (it isn’t, you have been asked to prove it and you have nothing). But if you keep yelling louder other will believe your misguided information. That hurts their decision making unless your end goal is to have them buy exactly what you are telling them to buy.
You can answer my question.
I have already explained what I need to in previous posts, try reading rather then skimming.
Maybe you can explain how the main gear of the Tranx 400 is more advantageous vs the main gear of the Tranx 500s, Komodo 400s, and Lexa 400's. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| I don't see anyone recommending the Tranx 400 for anything more the rubber, double 8's max, or smaller cranks. (But, be rest assured, I will be cranking double 12's with the Tranx 400 just for kicks.)
Why?
Even if the effort to crank a lure in might feel the same on a reel with a small main gear vs a reel with a larger main gear if ipt is similar or the same, how long will that reel with the smaller main gear actually last?
Hint, it is why you don't use a bass reel for musky lures.
But, please stop ignoring the fact that larger gears improve torque because they are more efficient at transferring that torque through the drive train then a smaller gear. It is why we have bigger and bigger low pro reels to begin with.
It is also why a spinning reel like the Diawa BG can crank like a champ vs a Penn Battle. | |
| | |
Posts: 532
| Do you mind giving me a break down of the material of each gear for different reels, the grade ex: 303SS 316ss? Have they gone through any heat treatment. What are their pitch and pressure angles? A gear isn’t just a gear. You are going completely on the most obvious charistic and making a judgment call solely on that.
In the example I gave you do understand the gear teeth engage proportionaly the same amount on both reels, if the gears are made of the same material the wear would be the same... | |
| | |
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | Beastly Backlash - 2/10/2018 8:21 PM
I don't see anyone recommending the Tranx 400 for anything more the rubber, double 8's max, or smaller cranks. (But, be rest assured, I will be cranking double 12's with the Tranx 400 just for .
Some have. Even in this very thread. But like you've proven time and time again, you've turned a blind eye towards anything that doesn't fit your perception of reality or theory.
This is getting to be one of the most comical threads I've seen unfold on here in quite some time.
Theory this. Gears that. The proof is in performance. Go beat your 400 Tranx up next year and report back next winter after the season is over.
P.s. who ever said that any 400 series reel could take the abuse of high speed cranking of 10s or 12s for an extended length of time in the first place? | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| curleytail - 2/10/2018 9:44 PM
Beastly Backlash - 2/10/2018 8:21 PM
I don't see anyone recommending the Tranx 400 for anything more the rubber, double 8's max, or smaller cranks. (But, be rest assured, I will be cranking double 12's with the Tranx 400 just for .
Some have. Even in this very thread. But like you've proven time and time again, you've turned a blind eye towards anything that doesn't fit your perception of reality or theory.
This is getting to be one of the most comical threads I've seen unfold on here in quite some time.
Theory this. Gears that. The proof is in performance. Go beat your 400 Tranx up next year and report back next winter after the season is over.
P.s. who ever said that any 400 series reel could take the abuse of high speed cranking of 10s or 12s for an extended length of time in the first place?
From my experience, the Komodo and Lexa 400's can handle that kind of abuse and do handle that kind of abuse.
I think it is comical that so many musky anglers (that would otherwise argue the virtues of bigger gears for greater cranking power) would get their panties in such a bunch over the idea that someone pointed out that it is better for reels to have those bigger gears.
In this thread alone I have dealt with guys who claim that the Beast 60 has a smaller gear then the Tranx 400, claims that the Tranx 500 and Tranx 400 have similar sized gears, claims that tiny gears have just as much power/torque (or what ever the heck you want to call it) vs bigger gears, that the Tranx 400 is the greatest large low pro ever (with out quantifying their statement), "engineers" that no more then all the engineers combined from all the major reel manufacturers, etc...
The list goes on when it comes to the comical bologna I have had to deal with in this thread and yet I am the one who is turning a blind eye?
Comical.
And it all started with me simply pointing out how Shimano misrepresented the size of the Tranx 400 by misstating the line capacity, which effectively put the Tranx 400 into the 400 size class of low pro reels. Everyone kept saying that a reel's actual size is based on the line capacity, but they didn't want to admit that the line capacity listed puts the Tranx 400 in competition with the other two 400s. People would rather compare it to the other 300 sized low pros, but then they want to turn around and contradict themselves by saying the Tranx 400 can compete with the other 400s in performance.
Comical. | |
| | |
Posts: 532
| 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!
| |
| | |
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. | |
| | |
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?
| |
| | |
Posts: 532
| 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. | |
| | |
Posts: 1084
Location: Aurora | Calm down you three.. New Shimmer's a floor wax AND a desert topping!
Attachments
----------------
Shimmer.png (127KB - 317 downloads)
| |
| | |
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. | |
| | |
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?
| |
| | |
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. | |
| | |
Posts: 532
| 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 | |
| | |
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. | |
| | |
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. | |
| | |
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.
| |
| | |
Posts: 532
| 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.
| |
| | |
Posts: 532
| 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 | |
| | |
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. | |
| | |
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. | |
| | |
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.
| |
| | |
| 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. | |
| | |
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.
| |
| | |
Posts: 532
| 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.
| |
| | |
Posts: 532
| 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. | |
| | |
Posts: 424
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. | |
| | |
Posts: 532
| The above post is Well stated. | |
| | |
Posts: 1100
| @nar160, Indeed well written | |
| | |
Posts: 80
| 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? | |
| | |
Posts: 499
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. | |
| | |
Posts: 424
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. | |
| | |
Posts: 1749
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 | |
| | |
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? | |
| | |
Posts: 1084
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~ | |
| | |
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?
| |
| | |
Posts: 532
| Beastly Backlash - 2/12/2018 8:41 AM
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?
You skipped a number so I will take a stab at what your trying to say...
1. No I have never addressed your spool capacity. I don’t care
2. I guess my reasoning is an assumption... as could any answer given that doesn’t fit your assumption
3. My answer stands as stated, it’s not a deflection
4. I also still believe you don’t know what your saying as it now seems you are now retracting you correction. But it seems like no matter what you are over your head on this.
5. It’s called a gear RATIO. A relationship between two gears. If you reduce the main gear diameter you must also reduce the spool gear diameter if you want to keep the same ratio. Understanding this should be the foundation to even begin understanding this topic. You have proven many times you lack the basic understanding | |
| | |
Posts: 239
Location: Madison, WI | Backlash, did you even read nar160's response? IPT vs Handle radius is what matters when it comes to effort and thats basically it. spool size/gear ratio is what determines the IPT; so in terms of effort, they really only matter in that they create the IPT. Basic understanding of physics unpacks this issue quite simply so what is not clear here?
To echo a previous comment, i was blown away by the tranx 400 HG this season. In terms of IPT/Power/weight ratio i dont think there's a better reel out there personally. I know of at least 2 guides that fished them hard all season and they didnt fail on them. I threw 8's to 12's to monster dussas to big jerkbaits with mine and it held up great. Proof is in the puddin'. 10/10 would recommend. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| anzomcik - 2/12/2018 9:31 AM
Beastly Backlash - 2/12/2018 8:41 AM
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?
You skipped a number so I will take a stab at what your trying to say...
1. No I have never addressed your spool capacity. I don’t care
2. I guess my reasoning is an assumption... as could any answer given that doesn’t fit your assumption
3. My answer stands as stated, it’s not a deflection
4. I also still believe you don’t know what your saying as it now seems you are now retracting you correction. But it seems like no matter what you are over your head on this.
5. It’s called a gear RATIO. A relationship between two gears. If you reduce the main gear diameter you must also reduce the spool gear diameter if you want to keep the same ratio. Understanding this should be the foundation to even begin understanding this topic. You have proven many times you lack the basic understanding
1. Since you never addressed it then you missed my point that Shimano misrepresented the size of the reel based on overstating the actual capacity.
2. Your reasoning is an assumption.
3. Your answer was a deflection. My biggest fault is not using terms correctly.
4. You can have as big of a drive gear as you want without needing to change the pinion gear diameter, at no point did I say I was interested not in changing gear ratios (btw, by changing gear tooth size to decrease or increase gear count on a gear you can adjust gear ratio without adjusting any gear size). Ipt can be changed independent of the main gear and pinion gear. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| johnsonaaro2 - 2/12/2018 11:04 AM
Backlash, did you even read nar160's response? IPT vs Handle radius is what matters when it comes to effort and thats basically it. spool size/gear ratio is what determines the IPT; so in terms of effort, they really only matter in that they create the IPT. Basic understanding of physics unpacks this issue quite simply so what is not clear here?
To echo a previous comment, i was blown away by the tranx 400 HG this season. In terms of IPT/Power/weight ratio i dont think there's a better reel out there personally. I know of at least 2 guides that fished them hard all season and they didnt fail on them. I threw 8's to 12's to monster dussas to big jerkbaits with mine and it held up great. Proof is in the puddin'. 10/10 would recommend.
I did read his post, I asked questions that were relevant and I feel he could legitimately answer as no one seems to be able to answer those questions.
People seem to assume asking questions is always with negative intent.
There are several factors at play here: handle length, main gear diameter, pinion gear diameter, spool diameter, and load resistance.
So, how do we achieve higher ipt without ended up with a reel the size of a Senator 113 just to maintain power, efficiency of turning, torque, or what ever else you feel like calling it?
| |
| | |
Posts: 318
| When is this going into the basement for good? | |
| | |
Posts: 532
| Beastly Backlash - 2/12/2018 11:27 AM
anzomcik - 2/12/2018 9:31 AM
Beastly Backlash - 2/12/2018 8:41 AM
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?
You skipped a number so I will take a stab at what your trying to say...
1. No I have never addressed your spool capacity. I don’t care
2. I guess my reasoning is an assumption... as could any answer given that doesn’t fit your assumption
3. My answer stands as stated, it’s not a deflection
4. I also still believe you don’t know what your saying as it now seems you are now retracting you correction. But it seems like no matter what you are over your head on this.
5. It’s called a gear RATIO. A relationship between two gears. If you reduce the main gear diameter you must also reduce the spool gear diameter if you want to keep the same ratio. Understanding this should be the foundation to even begin understanding this topic. You have proven many times you lack the basic understanding
1. Since you never addressed it then you missed my point that Shimano misrepresented the size of the reel based on overstating the actual capacity.
2. Your reasoning is an assumption.
3. Your answer was a deflection. My biggest fault is not using terms correctly.
4. You can have as big of a drive gear as you want without needing to change the pinion gear diameter, at no point did I say I was interested in changing gear ratios (btw, by changing gear tooth size to decrease or increase gear count on a gear you can adjust gear ratio without adjusting any gear size ). Ipt can be changed independent of the main gear and pinion gear.
Cant you see i have 5 answers and you give me back 4?
1. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK ON THE SPOOL. I NEVER READ THAT PART AND WILL NOT. I DO NOT CARE
2. Please tell me the real reason then, obviously im wrong...
3. My Answer stands
4. I have no idea where your at
5. You are absolutely incorrect about the tooth count changes the ratio. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT. The gear teeth are of a certain pitch, both gears need to have the same pitch, you cant add teeth or take away teeth with out changing gear dia, unless you change the pitch of the teeth, at which point ratio stays the same.
So if you drop the tranx to a 10 mm and say the spool gear is 10mm you have effectively made it a 1:1 ration. then you have a very low IPT reel. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| anzomcik - 2/12/2018 12:11 PM
Beastly Backlash - 2/12/2018 11:27 AM
anzomcik - 2/12/2018 9:31 AM
Beastly Backlash - 2/12/2018 8:41 AM
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?
You skipped a number so I will take a stab at what your trying to say...
1. No I have never addressed your spool capacity. I don’t care
2. I guess my reasoning is an assumption... as could any answer given that doesn’t fit your assumption
3. My answer stands as stated, it’s not a deflection
4. I also still believe you don’t know what your saying as it now seems you are now retracting you correction. But it seems like no matter what you are over your head on this.
5. It’s called a gear RATIO. A relationship between two gears. If you reduce the main gear diameter you must also reduce the spool gear diameter if you want to keep the same ratio. Understanding this should be the foundation to even begin understanding this topic. You have proven many times you lack the basic understanding
1. Since you never addressed it then you missed my point that Shimano misrepresented the size of the reel based on overstating the actual capacity.
2. Your reasoning is an assumption.
3. Your answer was a deflection. My biggest fault is not using terms correctly.
4. You can have as big of a drive gear as you want without needing to change the pinion gear diameter, at no point did I say I was interested in changing gear ratios (btw, by changing gear tooth size to decrease or increase gear count on a gear you can adjust gear ratio without adjusting any gear size ). Ipt can be changed independent of the main gear and pinion gear.
Cant you see i have 5 answers and you give me back 4?
1. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK ON THE SPOOL. I NEVER READ THAT PART AND WILL NOT. I DO NOT CARE
2. Please tell me the real reason then, obviously im wrong...
3. My Answer stands
4. I have no idea where your at
5. You are absolutely incorrect about the tooth count changes the ratio. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT. The gear teeth are of a certain pitch, both gears need to have the same pitch, you cant add teeth or take away teeth with out changing gear dia, unless you change the pitch of the teeth, at which point ratio stays the same.
So if you drop the tranx to a 10 mm and say the spool gear is 10mm you have effectively made it a 1:1 ration. then you have a very low IPT reel.
1. Then you need to go back and read those points because you missed my points that even got this conversation started. If you don't care, butt out because you don't even know why this topic started.
2. You say companies make larger gears to allow clearance for internal parts? Companies have made smaller gears for years without that issue. Then you give another option and use the term "could be". Clearly if I don't know what I am talking about, you shouldn't be talking because you know even less about what you are talking about.
3. You originally said "a tiny gear can only be so effective". Isn't that what I have been saying? You deflected when you said, "see above".
4. But, guess what, if you increase spool size and handle size, you get more ipt. Also, you obviously are not familiar with Shimano's reasons for using micro tooth gears, they increase gear ratio by adjusting gear tooth size.
And we still gave no answer for why big low pros use big main gears if smaller main gears are just as effective. | |
| | |
Posts: 532
| 1. I do not care about your issues with what ever on line capacity. I care about you spreading wrong information.
2. That was a one of the reasons they may have gone that route, I was not in the design of any of these reels. I was asked for reasons, i gave you possible answers i see in a design like this.
3. you misquoted me, here is the real quote "A gear can only be so tiny to be effective". meaning you cant have a gear be useful with 3 or 4 teeth.
4. a) Handle size has nothing to do with IPT.
b) 2" dia gear driving a 1" dia gear will always be 2:1 ratio. it doesnt matter if they have 10 teeth or 10,000 teeth. Shimano likely uses the fine teeth for smoothness, because the finer the tooth the smoother the reel, not to do your imaginary and magic ratio change.
Learn the fundamentals | |
| | |
Posts: 1100
| @ Beastly Backlash "And we still gave no answer for why big low pros use big main gears if smaller main gears are just as effective."
This have also been answered. | |
| | |
Posts: 1100
| @Beastly Backlash
4. But, guess what, if you increase spool size and handle size, you get more ipt. Also, you obviously are not familiar with Shimano's reasons for using micro tooth gears, they increase gear ratio by adjusting gear tooth size.
No they don't.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | jvlast15 - 2/12/2018 11:03 AM
When is this going into the basement for good?
Awe c'mon, it's just getting good! | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| Zinox - 2/12/2018 1:30 PM
@Beastly Backlash
4. But, guess what, if you increase spool size and handle size, you get more ipt. Also, you obviously are not familiar with Shimano's reasons for using micro tooth gears, they increase gear ratio by adjusting gear tooth size.
No they don't.
No they don't what?
A bigger spool will collect more line per turn then a smaller spool. A longer handle helps you turn that bigger spool easier against resistance then a shorter handle.
And, yes smaller teeth on gears will change gear ratio because you get more teeth on the same gears. At least that is the idea behind Shimano using micro tooth gearing, not everyone agrees that it works.
Regardless, I got the answer to my question from a buddy of mine. There are multiple reasons for using a larger main gear in these bigger low profile reels., increased strength is only one of those reasons (which was already understood) but not the only reason; increasing the size of the drag washers for improved drag function is another, improving speed in conjunction with the relatively small spool diameter is yet another reason, finally use of longer handles paired with the larger main gear off sets effort required to turn the larger gear (but only worth while if the gearing, frame, and spool can handle the increased stress and resist flex). All this is combined into a low profile reel to maximize retrieve speed, maintain cranking efficiency with higher speeds, maintain strength while cranking against resistance, improve drag output, all while maintaining a compact and ergonomic device. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| jvlast15 - 2/12/2018 12:03 PM
When is this going into the basement for good?
Long debates are good for online forums.
The thread never turned personal from what I saw. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| Zinox - 2/12/2018 1:28 PM
@ Beastly Backlash "And we still gave no answer for why big low pros use big main gears if smaller main gears are just as effective."
This have also been answered.
No, not really...
unless you want to quote were that question was answer, but no need to now. Got the answers to my questions else where.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1100
| “No they don’t” = Shimano does not change The gear ratio with their micro module gears. | |
| | |
Posts: 1100
| Here you go again anyway. The part of implementing larger drag discs to increase drag is also a benefit, but The same could be achived in other ways.
Zinox - 2/11/2018 8:51 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. | |
| | |
Posts: 670
Location: mercer wi | Well to respond to original question, I thought the hg was a great reel for 9 blades. Pulled smoother with some resistance but not too bad. The nice thing about the hg is you don't have to crank your arms off to burn blades. I don't throw 10s much anymore. And I'd assume that rubber would be nothing to these reel because of very little resistance.
I've used almost every reel on the market and the tranx 400 stands alone. Except for the 500 which is a monster. | |
| | |
Posts: 532
| 2" dia gear driving a 1" dia gear will always be 2:1 ratio. it doesnt matter if they have 10 teeth or 10,000 teeth. You are completely 100% wrong to think you can magically put more teeth on a gear and not change it’s size at the same time change its ratio.
You lack the fundamentals, yet you keep going like you believe you do. | |
| | |
Posts: 318
| This is what I have found. Love the 400hg. If I need blades to burn, I use it for anything up to 9s. If I wanna cast 10s, I move to my NaCl 5.4:1 | |
| | |
Posts: 2376
Location: Chisholm, MN | Burning 10's is sooo 2011  | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| anzomcik - 2/12/2018 3:38 PM
2" dia gear driving a 1" dia gear will always be 2:1 ratio. it doesnt matter if they have 10 teeth or 10,000 teeth. You are completely 100% wrong to think you can magically put more teeth on a gear and not change it’s size at the same time change its ratio.
You lack the fundamentals, yet you keep going like you believe you do.
Google how you calculate gear ratio. | |
| | |
Posts: 532
| Deflection... | |
| | |
Posts: 670
Location: mercer wi | Just drop it already everyone. | |
| | |
Posts: 1000
| I see what you're trying to say. That 10,000 teeth would "tick" more teeth on another gear.
The disconnect is that an inch of edge on a a gear is going to only going to move an inch of edge on another gear. Smaller teeth don't change a ratio. They can increase surface area contacted between two gears and making things smoother, but they don't change gear ratios.
| |
| | |
Posts: 532
| Let break this down.
2” dia gear with 20 teeth is meshed with a 1” dia gear with 10 teeth. Turn the 2” one complete revolution the 1” gear turn two complete revolutions. Couple ways to prove this but I will use tooth count. Because the 2” has 20 teeth it will move 20 teeth on the 1” gear per revolution. Since the 1” has 10 teeth it will need turn 2 times around to meet the 20 teeth of the 2” gear.
You could compare the gears by tooth count 20:10. That can be simplified by a common factor of 10 to 2:1
Now one may say let’s make the 2” gear have 30 teeth. While you could easily do that. Since you kept the gear at 2” the teeth on the gear will become smaller (because your putting 30 teeth in the same circumference as the 20 teeth were). Those smaller teeth have a closer spacing and WILL NOT mesh with the 1” gear. If they do not mesh they will not work as a set of gears.
Ok let’s make the above example work. Take your 30 tooth 2” gear that will no longer fit to the 10 tooth gear 1” dia. If you made the 1” gear a 15 tooth they would again mesh. That would give you a functional gear set.
So what is the gear ratio now? We have 2” dia 30 tooth and a 1” dia 15 tooth. That’s 30:15. Reduce by the common factor of 15 you get 2:1.
For the 30 tooth to work AND keeping the 1” dia gear the same the 30 tooth gear would have to increase in size to 3”dia. Those gears would then again mesh making a 3:1 ratio.
This is a common way to express gear ratios as many reel manufacturers use this by saying 6.4:1. Meaning the spool spins 6.4 times around for 1 revolution of the crank handle | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| anzomcik - 2/12/2018 8:36 PM
Let break this down.
2” dia gear with 20 teeth is meshed with a 1” dia gear with 10 teeth. Turn the 2” one complete revolution the 1” gear turn two complete revolutions. Couple ways to prove this but I will use tooth count. Because the 2” has 20 teeth it will move 20 teeth on the 1” gear per revolution. Since the 1” has 10 teeth it will need turn 2 times around to meet the 20 teeth of the 2” gear.
You could compare the gears by tooth count 20:10. That can be simplified by a common factor of 10 to 2:1
Now one may say let’s make the 2” gear have 30 teeth. While you could easily do that. Since you kept the gear at 2” the teeth on the gear will become smaller (because your putting 30 teeth in the same circumference as the 20 teeth were). Those smaller teeth have a closer spacing and WILL NOT mesh with the 1” gear. If they do not mesh they will not work as a set of gears.
Ok let’s make the above example work. Take your 30 tooth 2” gear that will no longer fit to the 10 tooth gear 1” dia. If you made the 1” gear a 15 tooth they would again mesh. That would give you a functional gear set.
So what is the gear ratio now? We have 2” dia 30 tooth and a 1” dia 15 tooth. That’s 30:15. Reduce by the common factor of 15 you get 2:1.
For the 30 tooth to work AND keeping the 1” dia gear the same the 30 tooth gear would have to increase in size to 3”dia. Those gears would then again mesh making a 3:1 ratio.
This is a common way to express gear ratios as many reel manufacturers use this by saying 6.4:1. Meaning the spool spins 6.4 times around for 1 revolution of the crank handle
So yes, gear ratio is determined by gear tooth count. | |
| | |
Posts: 532
| Thank you for agreeing with me | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| anzomcik - 2/12/2018 10:02 PM
Thank you for agreeing with me
Just so you know, you have been talking about keeping gear ratios the same, which was not what I was talking about, I was speaking about keeping ipt the same.
Referencing my point about' "why doesn't the Tranx 500 just have a 10mm main gear", the point alluded to the fact that it would require a really big spool to keep the ipt at 34, which could be done independent of gear ratio. A really big spool makes for a reel with poor ergonomics. | |
| | |
Posts: 532
| Awesome...Great way to say you learned a thing or two... man you are sneaky only revealing your true angle till the end. Well played | |
| | |
Posts: 1084
Location: Aurora | Am i the only one who talked with a Shimano rep at a show the year the Tranx 500 debuted? The rep said the finer tooth'd gears were implemented for strength (finer teeth = more teeth engaged) AND smoothness. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| anzomcik - 2/12/2018 11:39 PM
Awesome...Great way to say you learned a thing or two... man you are sneaky only revealing your true angle till the end. Well played
My angle was revealed a while ago, a lot of what I was trying to say was said a while ago.
Actually, you even admitted you didn't read or bother to read the points I originally made regarding the Tranx 400.
I am moving on though. | |
| | |
Posts: 532
| Your hang up on spool capacity does not change your lack of fundamentals of gear sets... Rock on | |
| |
|
