|
|
Posts: 574
| Alright, I'm looking at the TN 12 or TN 14...
Just wondering people thoughts on new vs old model (brand new ones are silver)...
And kinda curious about size, since I'll have to order this I can't hold one to see how big it is..
Smaller ones work well enough? Still listed as 38" per crank..
Do these need to be 2/3 filled with line like the 16 size? droping the line per crank down slightly more?
Thats about all... I understand theres probably not a ton of info on the new model, but I'll listen, if you have something to say about it...
Thanks
Jason |
|
| |
|
Posts: 209
| If you're worried about the literal size of the reel and the ease of palming it, you can easily get by with a 16 or 16N. The 14's are literally about the size of a C3 5500, and the 16N fits the hand better than a Calcutta 400B in my opinion. It's shaped a lot differently, but the ease of palming it is better than the Calcutta. I haven't tried it out as far as actual use (I just played around with the display models at Cabelas and the Muskie Expo), but if your only worry is the fit in the hand then get whichever one you want. But with that said, I have heard that the 16's don't cast nearly as well as the 14's. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 752
| I have 3.; The Old Gold 16N ,The new 16N and an Old Gold 14. The new 16N casts about as easily an older 14. If you are looking purely for hot monkey love speed than get a new 16N (IMHO). The 14 is great albeit a little slower but is still a cut above anything else out there for speed. THe issue with the 12 is you can not stack enough line up on it. You loose most of the mechanical advantage of the reel for a good part of the cast beacuse you loose so much line. Regardless of whether you go 16 or 14 I would only spool it 2/3 of the way full. It is still the fastest horse at the track but much more user friendly. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 968
Location: N.FIB | I was looking at the 16n at the shows and the newer ones seem a lot lighter than the old |
|
| |
|
Posts: 752
| They are smaller and lighter. The new 14 looks sexxy too but I have not used one so I can not speek to it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 245
| If only they were cheaper and left hand i would own one... |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | the new 16NA is a lot smaller than the old 16N..I have the new 16NA and imo if you palm reels you'll have no problem w the new NA unless you have tiny burger king commercial hands.....I'd go 16NA..its one sweet reel. |
|
| |
|
| the new 16NA is a lot smaller than the old 16N..I have the new 16NA and imo if you palm reels you'll have no problem w the new NA unless you have tiny burger king commercial hands.....I'd go 16NA..its one sweet reel. as someone with those #*^@ed tiny burger king commercial hands, i went with a size 14 rather than a 16NA in the old/gold Trinidad. it's one of the best pieces of machinery ever to grace a rod. the speed and power are nice, plus it's easy to palm as it's almost identical to a 400TE in terms of size. i haven't used one, but the new 16NA/silver is about the same size as the older 14, so i'm VERY intrigued to pick one of those up if and when i need a new high-speed reel. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | the new 16na is about the size of a 400te side plate... even tiny hands can palm it! you know what they say about small hands.... ha ha |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| "the new 16na is about the size of a 400te side plate... even tiny hands can palm it! you know what they say about small hands.... ha ha"
They wear small gloves?? I was able to find a used 14 on ebay for $150. Easier on my tiny hands and wallet. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
| Alright, went with a 16na... Size was my main concern, nice to hear its closer to a normal reels size..
Better catch something on this thing for that $$$ though
Actually casted yours yet BN? 2/3 spool on this one as well.......?
Thanks |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Elgin IL | Who cares how fast you can reel in if you can't cast it ...the old 16n and the new 16na do not cast like a trinidad 12 and the comment "16N fits the hand better than a Calcutta 400B in my opinion" is totaly ridiculous 16n 19.8 oz and is huge compare to a calcutta 400 11.7 oz The TN12 filled spool and with a power handle from a trinidad 16 is a great setup
Attachments
----------------
 tn12_1.JPG (38KB - 182 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 209
| I never said it was lighter, just said it fits the hand better. Two completely different issues. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | how do they not cast like a 12? I had the old 16N for 3 yrs and it was/is until now the favorite reel I have owned... I had a 14 and didn't like it...I personally liked the 16N better and I do care how fast I can bring them in...it means more fish at times.... 7 oz difference.. eat your spinach and you'll be fine...  also, a trini 12 is about 14 oz....trini 16na, is 19...so 5 oz difference...I like the 16na better and have had zero issues w the so called "weight" of the rod/reel combo....
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Elgin IL | "I never said it was lighter, just said it fits the hand better. Two completely different issues" This is another ridiculous comment ...more weight equals more size. How can a 16n fit your hand better than a calcutta 400... unless your a gorilla
Comparing the 16n and 12n I think is just personal prefence. I thought the 16n felt heavy,tall, felt unbalanced on the rod and didn't cast that well. I can still reel plenty fast with less effort with a 12n filled spool vs TN16 3/4 filled.
When you throw Cowgirls all day you just want to make life easy...casting and retrieving
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 209
| msky3 - 4/28/2011 7:58 AM
This is another ridiculous comment ...more weight equals more size. How can a 16n fit your hand better than a calcutta 400...
The spool is narrower, and there's a lot less frame on the left side of the reel. The majority of the weight in a trinidad is on the handle side. And I completely agree that it balances awkwardly on the rod (probably due largely to what I just mentioned), but again, that has nothing to do with how it fits your hand.
Also, I'm noticing that you point out that it's tall, which it is, but I find tall reels easier to palm than wide reels. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | to each their own....imo the 16NA is better than the 12.... and I cast them all day too... |
|
| |
|
Location: Latitude 41.3016 Longitude 88.6160 | The Trinidad 16NA left side plate, the one you plam is the same size as a 400TE !!
The 16NA is what I have and is very easy to plam and cast for hours.
One reel I would like to see is the Okuma Cortez, list out at $129.99 and has a Mag. cast control with a narrow spool, 43" of line pickup and is 17.6oz. For $129.99 I think I will get one to try out and test it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 112
Location: Nielsen's Fly-In Lodge, on Rowan Lake | Why are you guys palming the real any way you arnt bass fishin
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 165
Location: tHe LaKe Of PrIoR, mN | Don Pursch - 4/29/2011 1:15 PM
Why are you guys palming the real any way you arnt bass fishin
cause the rod i use my trinidad on was circumcised at birth (no fore grip)
oh yea another vote for the 16 size but mine isn't a narrow, but no worries I don't have burger king hands |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | why am i palming the reel..cuz that's what feels comfortable to me...some hold the foregrip, some palm the reel...been palming em since 1993 and it works for me... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 112
Location: Nielsen's Fly-In Lodge, on Rowan Lake | WHAT WAS THAT ALL ABOUT!!!! sorry |
|
| |
|
| Question for anyone with the newer 14. I have heard you can fill this reel up a bit more than the 16, narrowing the gap of speed. Have you seen this to be true? reading all these posts, I would lean slightly towards the 14 if I can fill it up without too much concern. Would really like to try a 14 and a 16 before deciding though. Anyone have one to lend for a season or two? |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | as stated above..the new 16NA left sideplate is the same size as a TE400... so even burger king hands could palm it...  |
|
| |
