Goose52

Wow - the last time I was in Davenport was when the Marine recruiter there was shipping me out to boot camp..................................44 years ago..........................

I got my rudder in a couple days ago, installed it on the MK 45lb Traxxis TM that powers my 12' canoe, and had it on the water for 5 hours this morning. As A-Jay and carlm01 mentioned above, there is a discernible difference in handling. My perception is that the boat reacts to steering inputs more quickly, and that probably the turn-radius is reduced as well. The rudder is solid on the TM shaft and as carlm01 said, there is NO twisting of the unit on the shaft. The BIGGEST advantage that I saw on the water today is that now I have some rudder authority when drifting, whereas before I essentially had none - the boat was like a cork when drifting. Now, I can somewhat steer the boat when in a drift. THIS is worth the price of admission alone, to me. Secondarily, I am also pleased with the change in power shut-off stability. In other words, when I would kill the motor before, the boat would immediately yaw significantly to the right - due to the drag of the TM being mounted on the right side. Now, on power shut-off, there is much less yaw, and I have the ability to correct the yaw that is left with the rudder. So, for me, well worth the money and THANKS to carlm01 for posting about this product...

SCORE ! I live in the sticks and really enoy it...but sometimes I wish that I was closer to the big city when I hear about these types of deals at Gander, DSG, Cabelas, BPS, et al.

Nearly two years ago, I was told via PM by someone who is apparently an industry insider (and who chooses to remain nameless - the tackle industry is so secretive it seems ) that the "grinding" issue was caused by a concentricity issue in one or more of the drivetrain parts. This created an out-of-round situation and was the cause of the grinding feeling that you would feel once per handle turn. That issue was present in the initial production run of the reels but the problem was supposedly resolved in the summer of 2012. Whether the problem is indeed absent from the current production reels, I can't say with certainty. I have two JM-CLs from the first production batch. I don't notice much grinding during actual fishing situations (as opposed to sitting at home and playing with the reel). The reels are just OK. Drag is pretty good, casting distance, at least initially was pretty good. At the time, it was the lightest reel in it's price class (perhaps it still is). BUT, I've already had to replace the spool bearings in one of the reels after very little time on the water, I don't care for the external adjustment of the centrifugal brakes, and I don't care for the method used to secure the outer spool bearings (tiny Phillips-head screws instead of c-clips) and the handle-side spool bearing cannot be removed from outside the reel - you've got to remove the sideplate to access the bearing. No quick way to clean the bearings on this baby. Too many negatives here for me. I will continue to occasionally fish the two reels that I have now (sorta in back-up duty) but I won't be buying any more. Due to the foregoing, I can't give any positive recommendation to any prospective purchasers of this reel (and this is from someone that currently owns 17 BPS BC reels). OTOH, some folks have posted that they really like the reel so perhaps the later models are working OK and these folks don't have the same dislikes that I have regarding the brake adjustment and bearing retention. You pays your money and you takes your choice...

Absolutely – if a reel is really nice, I don’t notice, or even mind, the weight at all. I have a bunch of nice reels that are in the PQ weight range, or even an ounce or so heavier, that have similar line capacities and would fill similar roles as the PQ – Antares, Calais 200DC, Calcutta 100DC, Conquest 100s, Calcutta CTE-100GT - don’t mind the weight at all and they are all delightful reels. HOWEVER – as has been mentioned, TT has decided that weight is “bad” and detracts score for weight. Thus that detraction should apply equally to all reels. Now, since the 2012 Antares has been mentioned, let’s look at TTs Design & Ergonomics Ratings for the Antares vs. the PQ: Weight: Antares – 4 / PQ – 3 OK, Antares gets a better score – the factory listed weight IS a whopping .7 oz lighter than the PQ. Perhaps they have a table that says that reels 7 oz and under get a 5, 7.1 to 8 get a 4, 8.1 to 9 get a 3, etc. At least I HOPE they have a table or they are getting subjective on what should be an objective criterion. Handle Length: Antares – 4 / PQ – 3 That’s strange – they have the same length handles – why did the Antares score higher? Knobs: Antares – 5 / PQ – 3 Are the Antares knobs really THAT much better – two scoring points? I guess it is to them so I’ll go with that. Palming: Antares – 4 / PQ – 3 Curious – the Antares is bigger in every dimension and visually dwarfs the PQ. They have an equivalent height when on the same reel seat (the Antares has a recessed reel foot but the PQ has a smaller height of the palm sideplate so that’s a wash). So, why does the Antares palm better and get a higher score? And don’t forget the sensation you get when picking up and “palming” an Antares/Calais that’s been in the hot sun or on a cold morning… Anyway – must be some subjectivity here. Ease of Breakdown: Both score a 3 – a wash. Now, before anyone gets the wrong idea, I’m not directly comparing the Antares and PQ, I’m examining the scoring system. So, as I have mentioned repeatedly in this thread, I have no problems with the PQ scoring in the seven-ish range, I just have issues with consistency and subjectivity re the scoring system, have issues with some of the narrative comments in the PQ review, and felt it necessary to offer a counterpoint that real-world experience indicates that the “drag issue” is not as dire as they would have you to believe.

The Tatula is a game changer at the "deal" prices that it can be purchased at. I fished my Tat reel and 7'7" Tat rod just today - this combo will likely replace the PQ 5-year Challenge test reel as my primary open-water lipless crank combo at the conclusion of the PQ 5-year test period...

I'm curious, will the Mirage always have an advantage in all types of water? The Mirage looks pretty nifty for use in open/deep water, but I've always wondered what happens when they need to get into skinny water or vegetation-clogged water to find some bass? Are those flipper-thingies retractable from top-side?

True...but folks will remember the statement: "if you are so brave to actually utilize this lumpy drag system" more than they will remember any other comments about the drag or the figures in the drag chart... I couldn't help but grin when I read that statement and it made me think back to April 26, 2012. I caught two of those big carp that same day - one scaled at 48 pounds (illustrated on page 1 of the thread), the other at 44 pounds (photo below). The 48 pounder took 53 minutes to land, the 44 pounder was 1 hour, 9 minutes. Over two hours for both fish, drag being pulled MANY times, in some cases for 10-20 yard runs. I had more drag pulled on those two fish than I will in my remaining lifetime with bass. Drag seemed to work OK and I didn't feel brave at the time...I just felt tired I read the review again this morning. It's not bad as many have said. I stand by my comments up on page 1 however. I have issues with consistency and subjectivity re the scoring system, and issues with some of the narrative comments in the review. As has already been mentioned, it's a topic with a lot of interest as we are coming up on 1,600 views. And, as already mentioned, it's probably a good thing for TT - generating lots of page views!

Sure - could be a lot of variation. Not saying they all have world-class drags, but they have adequate drags for bass fishing. People will read the TT comment about the drag and perhaps take it as a fatal flaw. My real-world fishing experience says that it's not a fatal flaw. For most bass fishing, drag performance is an overrated factor anyway. Many times in this forum, knowledgeable anglers have commented that drag beyond 3-5 pounds is overkill for bass anyway. Many folks use 30-60 pound braid, or 12, 17, or even 20 pound mono or flouro - having the drag stutter a bit isn't putting you in danger of line breakage. And for those that want to haul fish out of slop with heavy braid, they are locking the drag down anyway (and perhaps breaking rods at the same time... ) I'm not challenging the results of their testing machine, just offering a counterpoint, based on quite a bit of experience. Also regarding the drag issue. Five of my PQs still have stock drags, run dry. No special lube, cleaning, or any magic. The PQ 5-Year Challenge test reel did have carbontex washers installed at the 40 month point...mostly because the stock washers were getting paper thin from use and there was getting to be lateral play in the driveline. Still, with a stock drag, on a reel that that had never been opened, the drag on this PQ worked well enough to reel in some nice fish - but as I mentioned earlier, it must be because I use that ultra-strong 10 pound test line to winch the fish in...

You bet - lots of page views and hopefully, clicks on sponsors/advertisers links. Perhaps this is why TT is testing more lower-end gear - gets more folks on the site, perhaps increases revenue. Good move.

Well, one thing for sure - it's a topic that attracts lots of interest - 1,300 views in the first 24 hours!

I think the takeaway from all this isn't that the PQ rated "Fair" (by .04 points) - but that the TT scoring system is often overly subjective, subject to too much variance based on reviewer, is not consistently applied, etc. Many reading this thread have already agreed that several of the factors mentioned in the review, that deducted from the score, are probably bogus. Had those factors not been applied, the numerical score would have been 7.something - perhaps a higher score than the reel deserved. So, the issues are with how you got to the score...not the score itself. BUT, as just mentioned above, it's better than no review at all. If one were to go back to my original post on page 1 of the thread, you will see that I agreed with the reviewer on several counts. TT's dire warning about the drag warranted mention in my post. It's nifty that TT developed a machine to objectively measure drag performance - can't argue with those results - apples to apples, reel to reel. But, I felt it necessary to point out to the board members that in real world fishing, it has proven not to be as big an issue as one might believe from the review - this based on about 1,000 days on the water and fish caught up to 48 pounds. Regarding a comment about the PQ being one's favorite reel...I can't speak for others on the thread but the PQ isn't my favorite reel. I currently own 47 BC reels, from things like 2012 Antares, Calais DC, PX Type R, Conquests, on down to an H2O Mettle. I just have extensive experience with the PQ and when I see comments about the reel that I know to be inaccurate, based on my fishing experience, then I tend to take issue with those things.

That's better...

I'm just trying to find out if the comment was directed at me. In effect saying that my defense of the PQ is because I have no experience with any better tackle? That I have no perspective of how much better a reel can be. If so, you are incorrect. I do indeed have quite a bit of better tackle. The defense of the PQ was started nearly five years ago to refute incorrect comments and perceptions about a perfectly serviceable reel that is a leader at it's price point. Nothing more, nothing less. It works, catches fish...

Re 7 out of 10 - true - like aavery2 mentioned, they are rating the reel against all of the reels that they have tested. And 7 out of 10 isn't bad compared to a Conquest, or Antares/Calais, or x or x. But, they rated it at 6.96 and I'm wondering if there was mathematical manipulation going on to get it into the "Fair" category...because that was their pre-determined opinion of the reel (anyone seen any black helicopters flying around TT lately? ) One does, however, have to challenge some of the subjective opinions that they use to create their numerical score. Anyway - I caught 5 bass on the test PQ today so at the end of the day that's what counts...or at least it should...

I guess I'm slow - who is "you" ?

Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion...but someone representing Tackle Tour, who posture themselves as authorities, should probably come up with more objectivity...and less subjectivity. Also, using convenience items like reel cases/bags, and oil bottles, as measures of a reels "fishability," or overall score, is to me, strange. Deducting score because the reel is "not as compact as I prefer" just means that perhaps TT should give that guy assignments to review smaller reels, not that there is any fault of the reel under review as compared to its competition. So, like many have already said, take the measurable, objective portions of the review into account, but carefully weigh the subjective portions. I've never said that the PQ is a great reel; I've only said that it is a good, serviceable reel, that represents good value at it's price point, and that much of the internet lore about the reel is not true. Available in 4 gear ratios, all in RH or LH, and it represents an excellent choice for an angler seeking a quality reel that is available in models to fit most bass angling needs. TT rated the reel as "Fair" and gave it a score of 6.96 - only .04 below "Good." IMO, it should have scored solidly in the "Good" category. Just makes me wonder if one of those 6.0 or 6.4 scores was bumped a bit down to get it into the "Fair" range... The next, and final, report of the PQ 5-Year Challenge test reel is coming up on October 26 or thereabouts. The last report, at the 4-year point, is here: PQ 5-year Challenge I'm puzzled by this comment. Can you translate? Was that meant to be turned around and mean that since the reviewer mostly ate T-bones that he couldn't appreciate a good bologna?

Interesting that TT reviewed the reel...although they did review a BPS Johnny Morris reel quite a few years ago. I'm not familiar with this reviewer but I'd have to say that he was perhaps predisposed in his review of the reel - he wasn't expecting much...and so he didn't want to find much. Some of the points from the review: Faults the 6.4 ratio reel as being inadequate for deep cranking...but doesn't acknowledge the availability of 4.7 and 5.2 options (in both RH and LH). Says the reel is not as "compact" as he prefers - wow, then he will be giving poor scores to LOTS of reels as the PQ palms about the same as most mid-size reels. I'm surprised the drag went to 20lbs (as were they), but they fault the drag for being "lumpy." Well, it's certainly not the best drag, and might not measure well on their nifty machine, but in the real world, in actual fishing situations, the reel has an adequate drag. Mentions that the reel is perhaps not good for lighter baits - can't argue with that - the spool is heavy due to the dual-braking system. Mentions that the reel is heavy - can't argue with that either - BPS needs to take about 1 to 1.5 ounces out of the reel - not for performance necessarily...but for marketing. TT is on this kick where they deduct points if a reel doesn't have bearing(s) on the level wind, if it doesn't come with a reel cover, and if it doesn't come with a little bottle of oil. Interesting - how many other $100 reels (and a PQ is really an $80 reel) have those items. One thing for sure, I guess I won't be able to catch as many fish without those items... The scoring system is so subjective that they can really tweak those numbers (like 6.4 for "Features") to get their expected outcome. Anyway, nice to see TT acknowledged the reel, but in the "real" world, and considering it's price point, it fishes and performs better than the score it received. Lastly, I really liked this comment from the reviewer: "The drag star also clicks for confident adjustments if you are so brave to actually utilize this lumpy drag system." Well, I never considered it "brave" to use the PQ drag system, I just considered it fishin'... and then catchin'. I guess it's good that I use a really heavy line (10lb) to catch 40-50 pound class fish so I don't have to rely on the stock drag system............................

Great - I'll have to do some shopping! Thanks.

You have me sold! Where did you guys source this wondrous item? Also - have you noticed any tendency for the unit to twist out of alignment...or are the clamps holding well?

Re KVD and 40-size reels. One would have to acknowledge the technical advantages of using a large spinning reel for ultimate casting distance and for line management purposes (especially for flouro). Expected from a professional looking to optimize to the last degree his equipment when fishing in something like the Classic with a half-million dollar payday. That's also why Pflueger offers the Arbor reel for those that want those advantages but with a smaller gearbox. BUT - for recreational fishing - IMO the disadvantages outweigh the small advantages. Excess weight, and grossly excess line capacity, for me, trump the small increase in casting distance. Line management? Not a big issue with me as I use line appropriate to the rod, reel, and application. But generally, I use: 20 size - 4lb 25 size - 6lb 30 size - 6-8lb 35 size - 10-12lb Braid fits into the equation based on line diameter and what line capacity I want. So, for me, reel selection is based on what lb test I want to run, what line capacity I need, how heavy the reel is, and what rod its going on. Everyone should select gear that works for their purpose, and gives them enjoyment...and all sorts of gear will work at the end of the day. You pays your money and you takes your choice (thanks Bogey!) Lastly, I'll have to admit using a "40" size reel for bass. In this case it was a 40-size Shakespeare which is somewhat like a 35-size Pflueger. It was matched with a 7'6" m-xf rod and 10lb test line. Good combo for what I used it for - everything matched and balanced pretty well. It worked, caught fish... I think you will like it !

I use Rapala digital electronic scales. I've had five of them - four "50lb Mini Digital" and one "50lb Sportsman's Digital." All have been accurate to within two ounces at the 10-pound weight range. The only problem I've had has nothing to do with accuracy - it's had to do with the on/off switch getting dodgy then failing on one of the Mini Digital models. So, I've tossed one of the five but still have four in service (1 in the boat, 1 in the bank-fishing pack, 1 in the car, 1 as a spare in the house). Great service for around $20. Test report here: Rapala Mini Digital Scale - Load Test Report

I sometimes don't put a 30-size on a 7' rod either...I sometimes run a 25... Here's a 25-size Supreme on a 7'1" rod - it's been working for the last 2574 fish (as of Sunday): Chatterbaits, spinnerbaits, buzzbaits? No problem. This buzzbait was tossed on a 30-size with YZ Hybrid. Want stouter line? Run braid. Not much you can't do with a 30-size reel with 6-8lb line on one spool, and 20lb braid on the other. Hopefully, the reels are still shipping with two spools and cost-cutting hasn't come into play. I have 10 Pflueger spinning reels (1-20, 2-25s, 5-30s, 2-35s) and as you can see, the 30s are in the majority. My 35s hardly get used. 40 size - maybe if I moved back to California and fished saltwater again...

Agree - 30-size is the sweet spot for general purpose bass fishing. A 35 is bigger/heavier than you need. A 25 is a very handy size (not full size, but not quite ultra-light)...but not as versatile as a 30.

To the OP: You will get lots of advice...but you have to apply that advice to your own situation: Do you want to spend a lot of time with your Dad - close by so you can talk and do the father/son thing? Maybe a canoe. Don't mind shouting back and forth from two different boats - maybe kayaks. What are your transport capabilities - can you transport two boats? Or only one? Will you be trailering, car-topping, sticking in the back of an SUV or pick-up, etc. Your method of transport might favor one type of watercraft over the other. How much weight can you and/or your Dad handle - check the weights of any canoe/kayak you are considering. How much time will you be spending solo? Kayak would perhaps be easier to manage solo than a bigger canoe. Do you want to be able to stand and fish? Favors the kayak unless you have a big canoe or install outriggers. Any back problems? The seating position in a canoe might be better on the back than a kayak - although the new elevated seats on the newer SOT kayaks are said to be pretty comfy. Do you think you might want to motor it someday? That decision might favor one craft over the other. Do you want to stay mostly dry (canoe) or perhaps get a little wet (kayak)? How much inboard storage do you want? Any grip problems? Canoes might be better for those - you can handle your gear inside the boat - less chance of dropping things overboard. Kayaks you sometimes might want to tether gear to the 'yak. Do you mind handling fish in/over your lap (kayak), or in an open area in front of you (canoe)? etc. etc. Give those factors some thought, and consider the advice of the board-members, and you might come to your own conclusion... I guess it just depends on how you rig your canoe. For the life of me though, I just can't make myself spend more than 9 hours in this boat - I'm 61 years old and get tired after standing up for that long... Different "floats" for different folks...