Goose52

WOW - sounds great. Looking forward to working with the enhancements. Thanks Glenn!

WOW - that was about the fastest upgrade I've seen on any board! Warp 9 !

Never seen such a site. Although you will have to surf a bit, you can usually find the weight of a reel. However, finding the weight of a rod can be difficult - some of the manufacturers list rod weights, many don't.

I fish out of an 11'6" canoe in my local small lakes (from 3 to 201 acres). My canoe floats like a cork and catches wind like a sail... Don't have a 'yak so I can't compare the wind effect between the two. Besides wind, there are lots of differences between the canoe and yak. You might want to consider some of the differences and determine if any swing your decision one way or the other. In general, the yak is probably more stable and easier to paddle. However, you have to handle fish in your lap and you may get a bit wetter in the yak compared to the canoe (assuming you don't roll the canoe!). Less inboard storage room in the yak and easier to drop stuff overboard. Yaks are often heavier than the canoe if that is an issue. If you are going to cartop - you usually will need a rack for the yak, just some inexpensive foam cushions for the canoe. Canoes are generally less stable, and the shorter the canoe, the more prone it is to roll. When you're fishing, you really need to move around, lean over the gunwale to bring in fish, etc. - stability is something to consider. However, canoes have more inboard storage room, you can handle fish on the deck in front of you. The more upright seating position may be more comfortable if you have back issues. Many canoes will be lighter if that's important (my canoe is only 34 pounds). A canoe is generally easier to cartop, but if you have a truck, it's mostly a wash on transportablility. That's a few things that come to mind. I think both have certain advantages over the other (with the yak perhaps having more than the canoe for some folks). At some point, I might have both - a small yak for my very small lakes, and my canoe (which is motorized, has outriggers for stability, and is pimped out like a mini-bass boat) for my bigger lakes.

OK RW - fess up - you DID have something to do with this...didn't you...

.65 oz The Extreme rods are marked down to $59 - perhaps they are being clearanced to prepare for the introduction of a new Extreme rod to go with the new Extreme reel. Perhaps the "Powerhump" will finally go away...

The weight I quoted (1.14oz) was for the PQ and CL frames - not the spools.

Looking more closely at the images of the reel - some interesting things: The spool shaft is black in color - why? The sideplate release pin looks like it is threaded like a Revo S, instead of spring-loaded like the PQ and earlier CL - perhaps changed to shave a tiny fraction of an ounce of weight for the captive spring on the earlier design! The centrifugal and magnetic braking systems are different from the earlier BPS reels. Also, the magnetic adjustment dial on the outside of the reel might also have an external adjustment for the centrifugal. Check out the photo - an outer ring with graduations from 1 to 10 (magnetic) - and some inner markings for: FREE . .. ... What are these markings? A bare PQ or CL aluminum frame only weighs 1.14 ounce and this new CL frame is still aluminum so they couldn't have shaved much weight off the frame. The new spool has bigger ports - some savings there. But they had to find a total of .8 ounce in savings. I rarely pay full price for a BPS reel and usually wait for the eventual sale...but I guess I might have to get one of these at the full price when they become available since I am now really curious about how they shaved the weight to get under 6 ounces.

Thanks RW. Not trying to start another "reel wars"...just trying to look at the subject of reel longevity based on some sort of objective, rather than subjective, data... One thing for sure, the bite is so poor here right now that this reel is getting lots of "cycles" that aren't showing up on the "catch" data...

Yeah - there were some "specially packaged" YUM products in my Walmart's $1.99 bin too. However, they were packages of (for instance) six Dingers...instead of the 15-packs (4") or 12-packs (5") Dingers I got from Lurenet. Gotta read the quantities!

Ha - I'd get at least 52 "goosebumps" if I caught 24 pounds of smallies too!

Yup! Too bad others are realizing this as well...I can't get PQs on eBay for $30 or $40 anymore!

Keep an eye on the internet specials at lurenet.com. That's also where I got the XCalibur lipless cranks for $2.99...

Sure - the CL is a great reel - I have one mounted on a Loomis MBR842C GLX. I have another NIB that I got for $80. The only negative about the previous CL model is that it's available only in a 6.4:1 gear ratio and many folks wanted a 7.x ratio model. If I didn't already have a bunch of PQs and other BC reels, including a total of 7 BC reels in the 6 ounce class, I would have bought a few more CLs over the past year. I expect that the old CL on the Loomis rod will be replaced by one of these new CLs in the near future...

Yeah - go figure. My excuse is that I used to have tools on that pegboard...

Ha - I'm a little minnow when it comes to tackle compared to many of the folks on this board!

I weigh all my fish 14" and above. This is mostly about comparing the weight/length ratio of the fish in my little lakes compared to other, more productive fisheries (factual data in the event that I ever make an appearance at our Lakes Committee meeting to try to get the fishery improved). Anyway, assuming I've caught at least 5 fish 14" or above, I can calulate exactly the weight of the top 5. (My best 5 here was February 7th of this year - 19.51 pounds out of 39/40 degree water!)

Now I know why BPS has marked-down the previous Carbonlite to $89. The naysayers will be along shortly...but this is really a significant achievement for BPS, a reel in the 5 ounce class at this price point. And to be offered in 3 gear ratios to start. Carbon fiber drag as well. Increased bearing count (handle knobs and worm shaft? - or better - somewhere in the driveline?). Anyway, LOTS of value here. I see they've changed their centrifugal brake set-up from that used on the PQ and earlier CL. Some of the weight savings is there (and you have a lighter spool weight of course). It will be interesting to see where the rest of the weight was saved. I've already got 13 BPS BC reels (including a NIB CL), but it looks like I have to add a 14th reel to my collection!

WTG Big O ! Keep the photos coming. It's snowing here today, water temps are dropping fast, bite has dropped to near zero...so it's good to see what a bass looks like !

It's snowing here today and I'm taking the day off from fishing so I guess I'll play! I showed my stuff earlier in this thread (starting at post 53) - the photo below shows most of it now stored in the "tackle corner" that I set up a few months ago. There's more plastics and hard baits stored in tubs and trays out of the photo. The 3600 boxes in the photo are my "working" supply of baits and are what I take fishing. As far as "restocking the tacklebox" goes - I've been scooping up lots of pretty good deals - YUM plastics for $1.89 bag, Strike King and XCalibur lipless cranks for $2.99 and some other stuff. I'm ALWAYS open to grabbing good deals as they come along...but all I think I NEED before the start of next season is some flouro line...

Yep - them bass are bigger and more fun than the "sofa bass"! Congrats! I've been getting skunked a lot down here. It's snowing today so I'm taking the day off from fishing!

BACKGROUND: Back in February 2011 we had a lengthy thread (70 posts) on whether you could get a quality BC reel for $100. In that discussion, the BPS Pro Qualifier (PQ) reel was recommended by many board members. Other board members expressed doubt that the PQ was actually a “quality” reel and that it was unlikely to last. Some of the comments included: “disposable reel,” “cheap, unrefined,” and “probably get $75 worth of use out of a PQ if you treat it right.” One board member issued a challenge for the PQ owners to report back in 5 years (implying that the reels wouldn’t last that long). So, as the owner of 6 PQs, I accepted the challenge. My comments in that thread are here: Goose Accepts the Challenge My “highest mileage” PQ was put in service on October 26, 2009. I have a reminder in my computer that will go off on October 26, 2014 and at that time I’ll report my 5-year experience with that PQ (as well as any of my other BPS BC reels that see considerable service by then). A problem is that I now have 21 BC reels, most on rods, and that while I am fishing about 300 days a year, putting a lot of service on any one reel becomes difficult. However, for the purposes of this challenge, I will continue to use this particular BPS PQ (6.4 ratio) as my primary BC reel for the period of the challenge. As I mentioned in the earlier thread – I have excellent “catch” records but I don’t have “fishing” records. I know when I’ve caught fish using this reel but don’t have a record of how many days I’ve actually fished the reel. Also, for the purposes of this study, I will be using several assumptions, based on the catch data. Here are my assumptions for the calculations: I average about 1 hour of fishing time per fish caught (I don’t have productive water and I fish about 1,000 hours a year and catch about 1,000 fish). While fishing a moving bait, you will average AT LEAST 50 casts per hour – perhaps twice that with something like lipless cranks. Using these two assumptions, and knowing how many fish are caught, you can roughly calculate how many cycles (casts and retrieves) on the reel – and thus make an assessment of the degree of “use” on the reel. A problem with many reports about the durability of a reel is that the usage of the reel is undefined. For instance, someone might state that the reel has worked fine for the last 3 “seasons.” It might turn out that a “season” for that angler is once a week for the 7-8 months that they have soft water – perhaps only 30 days on the water each season – a much different “season” than someone fishing every day of the year in South Florida. Thus my attempt to use some assumptions based on the catch data to quantify the actual usage of the reel. Having said all of the above, if you’re still reading, here’s the report: INTERIM REPORT I’m making this interim report as a result of tearing down the subject PQ 6.4 for annual service. I had just begun having a problem with the line guide occasionally skipping on the worm shaft. The teardown showed wear on the line guide pawl so I replaced it ($2.10). The clutch return pawl is showing more wear than last year but is still serviceable - I’ll be watching that in future tear-downs. The drag stack is still stock and serviceable (capable of dealing with 40-pound fish). The spool bearings are probably a bit noisier than new but still serviceable. Otherwise, no other problems – no other signs of wear other than cosmetics. Due to the way I palm a reel, I’ve worn off the magnetic brake setting markings on the side of the reel (see photos). As of today, I’ve used this reel to catch fish on 148 different days, and brought in 324 fish – the largest being several 40 pound grass carp. Of the 324 fish, 302 of them were caught on lipless cranks. This is significant in that lipless cranks are typically one of the farthest casting baits, as well as one of the most quickly worked in the water – indicating somewhat more reel usage on the retrieve than other baits (due to more line out on the cast) as well as more “casts-per-hour.” Using the assumptions above: 324 fish = approximately 324 hours of use. 324 hours x 50 casts/hour = 16,200 cycles. This is a VERY conservative estimate of use – calculated only on fish caught – not on total days/hours used. There were many times where this reel was fished but there were no catches - this reel could have easily been fished for 200 or more days. Also, since it’s possible that there were often more than 50 casts/hour – the actual cycles on the reel could easily be in the 25,000 range (or more) - can’t say for sure. So, is 16,200 (or more) cycles a lot? Probably not for some, but it could represent years of use for others. Anyway, there you have it – a quantification of use, albeit with some ROM assumptions. More reports to follow if I have any failures or replace any more parts on the reel. Getting back to the original thread this past February, can you get a quality baitcaster for $100 – the answer is sure. The PQ is one, but not the only option. Is the PQ disposable? I don’t think so. Is the PQ cheap and unrefined? Perhaps – compared with some $200 reels (OTOH, the Lew’s Tournament Pro that many are fawning about has essentially the same lockwork design as the PQ so if the PQ has an unrefined design, then so does the Lew’s reel – lol). Will the PQ give $75 worth of service? To me it already has, and much more (AND, my average cost for my 6 PQs is about $64 per reel so I’ve already “made money” on this one!). Finally, will the PQ last 5 years. Well, this one has already lasted for 5 “seasons” for those folks that might only fish 30 times a year. Will it last 5 years at my usage rate? Time will tell…

X2. I sometimes write a long post in Word and cut-n-paste over to the Board to avoid losing a lot of typing...

Great story RW! On the quoted passage - that is right on! When I read folks fishing reports, I often look up their state record to see where their catch stands in their area. There's nothing magic for me about that 10-pound number. It's the rarity of the catch for the area being fished. For instance, one of our board members in Wisconsin recently reported catching a new PB LMB of a bit over 8 pounds. I think lots of folks blew right past his post in the Fishing Reports forum...BUT - his 8 pound fish was about 74% of the Wisconsin state record. That's like someone in California catching a 16 pounder. Some hard-fishing folks outside of the "Big Four" states often don't get the recognition they deserve for catching bass that, while under 10 pounds, represent outstanding catches for which they should be very proud.

Had symptoms, put 2 and 2 together (in my case firing 10s of thousands of rounds of pistol ammo indoors), did some web searching, then went to the doctor and asked for a PB (lead) blood test. Result, sky high lead levels and a better appreciation of the risk involved in being around lead. While I had always taken good precautions when casting, I had not taken enough care when handloading lead bullets and when firing them...