|
|
Location: varies | As I debate the brand,gearing of this years reel purchases, I find the "inches per crank" a bit confusing. A tranx pg with4.6:1 has 30" and a NAcl hs has 30" with 6.4:1 gearing. How is inches per turn calculated? Is the spool diameter the factor? is it calculated with a full spool of line? logic tells me the less line on the spool, the less inches per turn of the crank. the full spool would give more per turn, right?  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1638
Location: Minnesota | You got it |
|
| |
|
Posts: 531
| +1
Once you understand IPT and crank handle length are the two biggest players in how a reel pulls in a bait you will realize gear ratio means nothing when comparing different reels.
IPT can be changed by how full your spool is, think of it as a tire. Put big tires on a car and it rolls further per revolution, or a tiny donut spare and it goes little distance per revolution. One revolution is one revolution but tire size (spool dia) changes how far it travels.
IPT is the result of gear ratio and spool dia. You can have a huge IPT with a low gear ratio and you can have a low IPT with a huge gear ratio and viseversa.
Spool diameter is also constantly changing, say you wind up and lob a cast 250' you are cranking in less IPT at the end of you cast than a when the bait is 10' from the boat. Dia in constantly changing |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1084
Location: Aurora | Uhh.. gear size can be a factor too.
Here's the Tranx vs. the Revo.
Attachments
----------------
 Tranx&Revo.JPG (39KB - 384 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 750
Location: Minneapolis, MN | Gear size and IPT work together to determine how a reel will preform. Using your examples above, both feels have an IPT of 30, but the Tranx has a lower gear ratio, which typically means it will be easier to bring baits in with then the NACL. The reverse of this is the Tranx and the Toro Winch. Both have a gear ratio of 4.6:1, but the Winch has an IPT of 22 compared to the Tranx's 30. So while they will both work well with hard pulling baits, making yourife easier, the Tranx is going to bring those baits in a lot quicker. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 531
| dami0101 - 3/12/2015 8:31 AM
Gear size and IPT work together to determine how a reel will preform. Using your examples above, both feels have an IPT of 30, but the Tranx has a lower gear ratio, which typically means it will be easier to bring baits in with then the NACL. The reverse of this is the Tranx and the Toro Winch. Both have a gear ratio of 4.6:1, but the Winch has an IPT of 22 compared to the Tranx's 30. So while they will both work well with hard pulling baits, making yourife easier, the Tranx is going to bring those baits in a lot quicker.
Gear size is negligible in the equation, and IPT of 30" requires the same input force whether the gear ratio is 1:1 or 10:1. You are doing the same amount of work ,moving the bait 30", per revolution of the handle. Gear ratio does nothing to change the force required to move that bait if the IPT is 30" on both said reels
Reason why the tranx is easier than a NACLin the given example is handle length. You have more leverage with a longer handle. Put the same length handle on a NACL that a tranx has and you will have very close to the same effort. That does not mean the NACL would be my choice for hard baits, other factors come into play, but for the effort to reel in this example is IPT and crank handle length is the same, then you will have same effort to pull the same bait |
|
| |
|
| anzomcik - 3/12/2015 8:25 AM dami0101 - 3/12/2015 8:31 AM Gear size and IPT work together to determine how a reel will preform. Using your examples above, both feels have an IPT of 30, but the Tranx has a lower gear ratio, which typically means it will be easier to bring baits in with then the NACL. The reverse of this is the Tranx and the Toro Winch. Both have a gear ratio of 4.6:1, but the Winch has an IPT of 22 compared to the Tranx's 30. So while they will both work well with hard pulling baits, making yourife easier, the Tranx is going to bring those baits in a lot quicker. Gear size is negligible in the equation, and IPT of 30" requires the same input force whether the gear ratio is 1:1 or 10:1. You are doing the same amount of work ,moving the bait 30", per revolution of the handle. Gear ratio does nothing to change the force required to move that bait if the IPT is 30" on both said reels Reason why the tranx is easier than a NACLin the given example is handle length. You have more leverage with a longer handle. Put the same length handle on a NACL that a tranx has and you will have very close to the same effort. That does not mean the NACL would be my choice for hard baits, other factors come into play, but for the effort to reel in this example is IPT and crank handle length is the same, then you will have same effort to pull the same bait it's inaccurate to minimize the role of gear ratio so much. because, physics.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 531
| M Winther, please read this line again in my post above
"Gear ratio does nothing to change the force required to move that bait if the IPT is 30"
Note the word "if". I completly understand gears and ratios and leverage.
If two different reels have the same IPT, and the same handle length the effort is the same. Because the same amount of work is being accomplished.
Please answer me this:
if you turn the handle on reel A one rev and move the bait 30" it would be any easier or harder if you turn reel B one rev and move the same bait 30" given both handle lengths are the same?
30 IPT is the result of gear ratio and spool dia. if the combination of gear ratio and spool Dia equals 30IPT as a result the gear ration in this example means nothing.
I know where you were going with the bike example (before you edited it out of your post), where that fall apart in the world of fishing reel is that spools (your example tires of the bike) are not the same dia, where your bike example they are, so that means circumference is the different.
I will agree using the same spool dia, gear ratio effects IPT, perfect example is tranx pg and tranx HG. But we are talking different reels having the same IPT, and thats why i say gear ratio doesnt matter much because the end result is the same |
|
| |
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8y-qy9N01I
for reels with the same inches/turn:
- a lower gear ratio will be easier to turn but harder to speed up
- a higher gear ratio will be more difficult to turn but more responsive to input speed
- a longer handle will increase torque transfer for both reels, but decrease your ease of speeding it up due to greater travel distance
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 531
| M Winther, i will try again
Please answer me this:
You have 2 reels but different gear ratios both handle lengths are the same.
1.turn the handle on reel A one rev and move the bait 30"
2.turn reel B one rev and move the same bait 30"
Which reel would be easier to turn? Here is a hint...they are the same.
Show me how physics proves this wrong
Because if your saying that it takes less effort to do the same work (30 IPT) with a different gear ratio you found a way to create a perpetual motion machine. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 349
| IPT = (spool diameter)*(3.14)*(gear ratio)
Anzomcik is correct in saying 30 IPT is 30 IPT whether you get there with a large spool or high gear ratio, it's the same amount of work to be done. Also that the amount of force (not work) the angler has to put on the reel handle is dependent on the handle (lever arm) length.
The one thing that hasn't been brought up is "efficiency"... How efficiently does the reel transfer the work you put in to the bait. Efficiency is not really quantifiable in this situation but is basically dependent on how well the reel is built and the materials used to build it. The less flex and friction of internal parts, the more efficient a reel is going to be. Efficiency is the reason a 400TE > 400B > 400 Cardiff > 400 Corvalus when all of these reels have very similar IPT and handle lengths.
Generally speaking, in the muskie reel world, reels with large spools/gears and low gear ratios are more efficient than reels with small gears/spools and high gear ratios. I.E. a Tranx PG will require less force on the handle than a NACL HS even IF they have the exact same handle length and IPT. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 531
| M Winther - 3/12/2015 11:00 AM
for reels with the same inches/turn:
- a lower gear ratio will be easier to turn but harder to speed up
- a higher gear ratio will be more difficult to turn but more responsive to input speed
- a longer handle will increase torque transfer for both reels, but decrease your ease of speeding it up due to greater travel distance
#1 wrong
#2 wrong
#3 correct |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2097
|
Based on physics:
if you run or walk up a flight of stairs it is the same amount of work.
It takes more power to run up a flight of stairs than by walking. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| tswoboda and anzomcik get it. I always get a kick out of people's discussions on how "easy" certain reels make the act of retrieving lures.
How much actual work you do to retrieve a lure all comes down to power transmission efficiency and reel/handle ergonomics. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | What is heavier a pound of nails or a pound of feathers? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| muskie! nut - 3/12/2015 11:28 AM
What is heavier a pound of nails or a pound of feathers?
Which side of the equator are we talking? |
|
| |
|
| #1 wrong #2 wrong #3 correct when you think about "inches per turn" i assume you're correctly identifying it as turns of the crank and not spins of the spool.
reels with varying gear ratios also have varying spool sizes, and may accomplish similar inches/turn by different means - ie., their gear ratio. so, in real world applications, when comparing reels with the same inches/turn and different gear ratios, the difficulty to turn that crank is most often quite different. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 357
Location: Duluth, MN | Just buy the tranx already |
|
| |
|
Posts: 531
| M Winther - 3/12/2015 12:31 PM
when you think about "inches per turn" i assume you're correctly identifying it as turns of the crank and not spins of the spool.
reels with varying gear ratios also have varying spool sizes, and may accomplish similar inches/turn by different means - ie., their gear ratio. so, in real world applications, when comparing reels with the same inches/turn and different gear ratios, the difficulty to turn that crank is most often quite different.
No need to assume I have said it many times in previous posts, 1 rev of the crank handle.
You are correct differing spool dia and gear ratios can achieve same IPT, we established this with the OP first statement.
Your last statement is only true if your crank handle length is different, however if the length of the reels handle is the same the difficulty is the same regardless of ratio of gears. Crank handle length is easily changed.
So you are taking a stance that with the same IPT the reel with a lower gear ratio is easier to turn when compared to a same IPT reel with high gear ratio (same handle length ). So a 6:1 (6 turns of the spool to one turn of the handle ) is harder than a 4:1 (4 turns of spool to 1 turn of handle ), so a 1:1 ratio is even lower making it easier yet, how about .1:1 (1/10 spool rev to one crank of the handle ) At what point does the gear ratio become so easy that just tapping the crank handle with your finger the bait reels itself in with no effort? It doesnt work that way, same effort every example. Keep in mind every ratio i gave above kept the same 30 IPT.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | I've been in on these conversations too, and tend to share the same view as anzomcik. Others have compared gear SIZES before, claiming bigger gears pull easier, regardless of the ratio.
I'm guessing bigger gears are just more durable, and maybe smoother based on how many teeth are meshing together at 1 time. Seems a bigger gear would allow more teeth to lock together, and put less stress on each tooth since the force is more distributed. Might lead to a smoother reel, and would probably lead to a reel feeling smoother, for longer, as the teeth are less likely to get rounded or bent over.
In my mind, 30 inches per crank is 30 inches per crank. The amount of work needing to be done is the same. The only major difference in feel is handle length, though I think sometimes a smooth reel gives the perception of being easier than a gritty rough one.
It might not seem true, but I believe it burns a similar number of calories to walk a mile as it does to run a mile. Often "feels" harder to run a mile, but the amount of work needed is the same.
Tucker |
|
| |
|
Posts: 349
| curleytail - 3/12/2015 12:07 PM It might not seem true, but I believe it burns a similar number of calories to walk a mile as it does to run a mile. Often "feels" harder to run a mile, but the amount of work needed is the same. Tucker Fact: Running 1 mile burns more calories than walking 1 mile.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 325
Location: Otsego, MN | FALSE: Running or walking 1 mile burns the same number of calories. The rate at which you burn those calories is different but total calories lost will be equal. |
|
| |
|
Location: varies | well. Im looking at running a mile with walking effort in a reel. The tranx is appealing other than it seems like a VW Beetle strapped to the rod. Sure would be nice if that new ABU would be released sooner. Ill probably get a tranx . |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1000
| Anz is right in that it requires the same amount of force regardless. What he's trying to explain is that force and actual effort are different. Think of the handle as a lever, the gear is the fulcrum. The longer the handle, the less effort it takes to generate the same amount of force.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 349
| Muskers - 3/12/2015 12:39 PM FALSE: Running or walking 1 mile burns the same number of calories. The rate at which you burn those calories is different but total calories lost will be equal. In an effort to get this post as far off track as possible... search "running 1 mile vs walking 1 mile". Or were you saying that the statement you posted is false, and are actually agreeing with me? Either way here's the first 5 results... All support the fact that running burns more calories PER MILE.
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/expert.q.a/09/23/run.walk.mile.jampolis/ http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=10561 http://walking.about.com/od/calorie1/a/calorieswalkrun.htm http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/fitness/walking-vs-running-which-one-is-best.html
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 357
Location: Duluth, MN | And lifting burns more calories than running!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2097
| tswoboda - 3/12/2015 2:05 PM
Muskers - 3/12/2015 12:39 PM FALSE: Running or walking 1 mile burns the same number of calories. The rate at which you burn those calories is different but total calories lost will be equal. In an effort to get this post as far off track as possible... search "running 1 mile vs walking 1 mile". Or were you saying that the statement you posted is false, and are actually agreeing with me? Either way here's the first 5 results... All support the fact that running burns more calories PER MILE.
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/expert.q.a/09/23/run.walk.mile.jampolis/ http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=10561 http://walking.about.com/od/calorie1/a/calorieswalkrun.htm http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/fitness/walking-vs-running-which-one-is-best.html
Scientifically speaking you perform the same amount of joules regardless of running or walking. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | Yikes - okay forget about my running example! I admit to not having researched that fact, and it's a probably a bad example anyway as walking/running, and reeling are two very different things.
What about gear size? Are physically larger gears only better because they are possibly more efficient, smoother, and more durable, but don't actually translate to easier reeling? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| cave run legend - 3/12/2015 1:34 PM
Scientifically speaking you perform the same amount of joules regardless of running or walking.
No one's debating the amount of work performed, but the calories burned.
Running will burn more calories because of the loss of muscular efficiency when you shift from aerobic to more anaerobic exercise.
And that actually does relate to the discussion of reels. Ergonomics will make one reel "feel" easier than another if it causes your body to work more efficiently. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| If this doesn't settle this discussion, then nothing will. But you guys seem to have enough mechanical/physics understanding to follow. M Winther, this is mostly for you.
Reel A:
4:1 gear ratio
30 inches/turn (of the handle)
2.387" spool diameter with line (this is the diameter it MUST be to get that 30in/turn)
2" handle (from center of drive gear to center of finger grip, arbitrarily chosen)
100% efficiency (for discussion’s sake)
Reel B:
6:1 gear ratio
30 inch/turn
1.592" spool diameter with line (again, this HAS to be the diameter to make the gear ratio result in that line retrieve rate)
3" handle
100% efficiency (for discussion’s sake)
Let’s say you want to burn a bucktail with each reel, such that the drag of the bait in the water is 3 pounds. Line tension is 3 pounds. (3 pounds is an educated guess of the resistance of some mid-sized bucktail when retrieved relatively fast)
Reel A:
3 pound line tension * 2.387 inch spool diameter / 2 = 3.581 in-lb torque on the spool (and spool gear)
3.581 in-lb * 4 (gear ratio) = 14.324 in-lb torque REQUIRED on drive gear (thus, on handle) (remember, 100% efficiency, and remember principles of conservation of power transmission)
14.324 in-lb / 2 inch handle = 7.162 lb FORCE REQUIRED ON REEL HANDLE
7.162 lb * 2 inch handle (radius) * 2 * pi = 90 inch-pounds of energy expended in one crank of the handle (this is the number we HAVE to arrive at, by the way)
Reel B:
3 pound line tension * 1.592 inch spool diameter / 2 = 2.388 in-lb torque on the spool gear
2.388 in-lb * 6 (gear ratio) = 14.328 in-lb torque on drive gear
14.328 in-lb / 3 inch handle = 4.776 lb force required on reel handle
4.776 lb * 3 inch handle * 2 * pi = 90 inch-pounds of energy expended in one crank of the handle
When you see that Reel B only requires 4.776 lb driving on the handle vs. Reel A requiring 7.162 lb driving force, you think Reel B is the “easier” reel. But you have to consider that it requires less driving force because the handle is longer. Longer handle, means longer path for full crank.
Bottom line, they each require the same amount of work (energy), assuming equal efficiency. If you want to burn a lure 5 mph, or roughly 90 inches per second, then you have to crank three revolutions per second with EACH reel. It takes the same driving torque on each reel. Thus you need the same power input for each reel.
BUT… in this case, Reel B, with the longer handle, might feel better to you, ergonomically. You’re making a larger circle with your hand/wrist/arm, and not pushing as hard tangentially through that circle of cranking motion. So, in my opinion, your body is probably going to perform this work more efficiently.
Again, you’re doing the same WORK and inputting the same POWER with the high-speed, long-handle reel, but it might feel better for your body.
Make sense?
|
|
| |
