fissure_man

Real, but unrelated to spool diameter. My "hypothetical" claims are about to be proven by Francho's 9-year-old, just you wait. Edit: Please leave a note when you edit your posts, especially after they've been replied to.

I'm aware of this, in fact it's been beaten to death in the above posts (mine included). What matters is the tension on the line to induce drag slippage. The same tension can be achieved for different spool diameters by adjusting the drag setting. Considering that anglers adjust their drags to their preferred line tension, regardless of spool diameter (or 'fullness'), the question becomes: is there any difference in performance and consistency of a properly set drag at different levels of spool 'fullness'. For more on this, re-read the thread. Edit for clarity: I'm of course not saying that the discussion of spool diameter and how it affects drag performance is irrelevant to the thread (should be obvious from my posts), I was referring to your DD record and your 3-4 lb drag tension setting, which you presumably employ with spools of all diameters. Good one.

The thread is about the pros and cons of filling or underfilling your spools. This led to discussion of the potential differences in drag performance for filled vs. underfilled spools, which I think is an interesting question. Nit-picking? Sure. Negligible? Probably. But still fair game to talk about. The number of DD bass you've caught and your chosen drag settings not only don't end the discussion, they are irrelevant. OP: sorry for the hijack

I kind of agree, but there's a reason you don't just lock down your drag on all bass reels. If you're using light line or light hooks, having a smooth and consistent drag is important, even if the bass is going to give up its run long before it burns out your reel. None of this is about drag performance during long, blistering runs from offshore fish (where heat dissipation is a major factor). My posts are about line tension to achieve initial drag slip, which is very relevant to bass fishing.

Pfft . No fun :-P I'm not familiar with all types of reel drags, but I think the fundamentals are largely the same, definitely in terms of how spool diameter affects drag performance. Anyway, it's not a comparison of different reels, it's the same reel with more or less line spooled up. Managing and dissipating heat is important drag design, but consider the temperature constant in the analysis above. It's not really a factor in calculating relative amounts of line tension to achieve initial drag slip, and if needed, would be accounted for in the coefficient of friction. (Again, we're talking about the same reel with different amounts of line - it cancels out). Good point about the spinning reel. The same logic would apply to those if your casts are long enough (or your spool is small enough) that the effective spool diameter is significantly changed during the course of fishing. A situation that comes to mind where baitcaster drag performance is important on a long cast (not beside the boat) is jerkbait fishing - I have a jerkbait casting setup that I use for smallmouth fishing, spooled with braid, typically with a light mono or copoly leader, light wire hooks. A big smallie hooked at the beginning of a cast will pull drag, and there's not much give in the braid.

For the dorks, here's the math behind it: F = normal force applied to drag stack (star drag setting) P = pressure on drag washer (assumed to be uniform) Ri = inside radius of drag washer Ro = outside radius of drag washer μ = drag coefficient of friction The strength of the drag amounts to the resistive torque it can develop due to friction on the drag washer surface. To calculate this, consider the washer broken down into infinitesimally small ‘rings,’ of thickness ‘dr’, radius ‘r’. The surface area of each of these rings ‘dA’ (infinitesimal approximation) is given by: dA = (2πr)*(dr) Total area of the washer is given by A = (π)*(Ro2 – Ri2) The portion of the drag stack force (F) that acts on the infinitesimal ring can be called dF. Recall that the uniform pressure on the drag washer is ‘P’. Force = Pressure x Area: dF = (P)*(dA) substitute from above: dF = (P)*(2πr)*(dr) Likewise, for the whole washer: F = (P)*(A) = P*(π)*(Ro2 – Ri2) P = (F)/(π)*(Ro2 – Ri2) Frictional force is calculated as coefficient of friction (μ) x normal force. At the slip point of the drag, the frictional force from each infinitesimal ring is therefore (μ)*(dF). The resistive torque produced by this force (call it dT) depends on the radius of the ring (r): dT = (μ)*(r)*(dF) subsitituting for dF: dT = (μ)*(r)*(P)*(2πr)*(dr) = (μ2πP)*(r2)*(dr) The total resistive torque supplied by the drag (Tdrag) is calculated by integrating the incremental torque over the area of the drag washer, from r = Ri to r=Ro: Tdrag = (μ2πP)*(1/3)*(Ro3 – Ri3) subsitituting for P: Tdrag = [(F)*(μ2π)*(Ro3 – Ri3)]/[(3)*(π)*(Ro2 – Ri2)] simplify: Tdrag = (2/3)*(μ*F)*[Ro3 – Ri3]/[Ro2 – Ri2] SO: the max frictional torque supplied by the drag (Tdrag, about the crank shaft) depends on the coefficient of friction (μ), the normal force (F - drag star setting), and Ro/Ri which define the surface area of the drag. This makes sense, and is unaffected by spool diameter. Now we work from the other end (the line). This is much simpler: A = tension (force) on the fishing line Reff = effective spool radius (distance from the spool shaft axis to the ‘pull point’ of the line) G = gear ratio (main gear vs pinion gear) Pulling on the line applies a torque to the reel’s drag system, working in the opposite direction to the frictional torque of the drag. When this torque equals the max frictional torque, drag slip occurs. Torque around the spool axis (Ts) is calculated as: Ts = (A)*(Reff) Multiply ‘Ts’ by the reel’s gear ratio (G) to determine the resulting torque around the crankshaft (Tc) (recall that ‘Tdrag’ is relative to the crankshaft as well). Tc = (A)*(Reff)*(G) At the onset of drag slippage, Tc = Tdrag. Substitute, then rearrange: A = (Tdrag)/[(Reff)*(G)] This equation shows that for a larger effective spool radius (Reff), such as a full spool vs. a half-empty spool, the tensile force required to induce slippage (A) is lower with the same drag setting. Interesting side note: the same logic applies to the gear ratio – higher gear ratio reels will achieve lower drag resistance, all other variables being equal (this also applies to the “max” drag under full lockdown). We can also confirm that A and Reff, are inversely, linearly proportional. Doubling Reff results in halving the tensile force to induce slippage (A). J Francho – do your results confirm this? This still doesn’t get into drag consistency in actual use, as any sane bass angler will offset the difference in ‘A’ (tension to induce slippage) by adjusting the drag star (increase/decrease F), which increases/decreases ‘Tdrag’. Consider a reasonable example to test the idea of a full spool offering more consistent drag performance: Filled spool effective diameter: 1.4 (Reff = 0.7) Under-filled spool effective diameter: 1.2 (Reff = 0.6) Spool width = 1.5 Let’s consider that a cast with the filled spool results in a drop of 0.1 in Reff, due to line leaving the reel. This corresponds to a certain ‘volume’ of line, as it sits packed on the reel. Assuming line on both reels is ‘packed’ to similar density, we can determine a corresponding decrease in effective radius for the same length cast with the less-filled reel. Volume of a cylindrical shell (similar to the area of the washer discussed above): V = (π)*(a2-b2)*(h) where: a = initial Reff (pre-cast) b = final Reff (post-cast) h = spool width With the assumption above for the fully spooled reel, we calculate the volume of line involved in the cast: a = Reff = 0.7 b = Reff – 0.1 = 0.6 h = 1.5 V = (π)*(0.72-0.62)*(1.5) = 0.613 With the less-filled spool, this volume should be unchanged (assumption). We can then solve for b in the less-filled scenario: 0.613 = (π)*(0.62-b2)*(1.5) b2 = (0.62)-[(0.613)/(1.5π)] b = 0.48 (this is the final Reff for the less-filled case, post cast) Recall the equation to determine tensile force to induce drag slippage (A): A = (Tdrag)/[(Reff)*(G)] For the same cast, with a full spool: Reff = 0.7 (pre-cast), 0.6 (post-cast). Apost-cast = (0.7/0.6)*(Apre-cast) = 1.17 times greater drag resistance For the same cast, with a less-filled spool: Reff = 0.6 (pre-cast), 0.48 (post-cast). Apost-cast = (0.6/0.48)*(Apre-cast) = 1.25 times greater drag resistance So, for a full spool, with the measurements as described, the range of drag resistance achievable during your cast ranges from 1-1.17 times the amount you set it at when you have no line out. With a less-filled spool, the achievable drag resistance ranges from 1-1.25 times the amount you set with no line out. In summary, the difference in drag performance for varying effective spool sizes for any size reel is significant if the drag mechanism (drag star) is not adjusted to compensate. The saltwater posts above give good examples of this, where effective spool size changes substantially over the course of bringing in a strong fish, necessitating adjustment ‘on the fly’. However, as it applies to bass fishing and prior discussion, the difference in ‘drag consistency’ between a full and partially filled spool doesn’t appear very dramatic.

Disagree, at least if you are setting your drag to achieve slippage at the same line tension. Seasonal example: You're putting on your snow tires. If you took one lug off with a 6" wrench, and another with a 24" breaker bar, and they both slipped with the same force at the end of the wrench, were they equally tight? With a full spool, it takes more pressure at the washers to achieve the same drag resistance, due to increased torque.

Measurebating! Drag consistency: With a full spool, there is less proportional change in “effective” spool diameter at the end of a long cast vs. the beginning. Say your full spool cast peels out enough line that your effective spool diameter is decreased by 1/8” when the bait lands, say 15% reduction. The same length cast with a half empty spool will cause a greater actual reduction in diameter (because the circumference is less – less line per revolution), and a greater proportional reduction in diameter (because the actual reduction is greater, and the “effective” diameter is less to begin with). The more consistent “effective” spool diameter with a full spool means that drag performance is also more consistent, because it is directly related to the spool shaft torque developed at a given line tension. Drag smoothness: If there's a difference in smoothness, it could be because a fully spooled reel will require greater pressure at the washers to achieve the same breakout tension (your drag is essentially weakened). If there's a "sweet spot," in the drag, maybe a fuller spool tends to move the slip point toward it. Many variables here. Regarding differences in wear - the fuller spool will turn fewer times to pay out the same length of line, but the friction in the washers to achieve the same drag resistance is higher... It's probably a wash

Don't give up! Call their customer service and ask if they can run you through a confirmation process for your credit card. After that you'll be able to make purchases shipped to a US address on your international card. You only have to do this once (until you change cards). If that's too much hassle, many other sites will work for you without any confirmation required. In a similar situation I've ordered from: www . bass pro . com www . cabelas . com www . ffo - tackle . com www . overstock bait . com www . fishing tackle outlet . net www . bass tackle depot . com ... Or I believe you can just buy a US pre-paid credit card and make online purchases that require a US billing address.

Yep, for a 12 V system it seems like it should be pretty straightforward... which makes me wonder why hardly anyone does it...? Fair enough, but for a small boat 1 or 2 extra batteries is a lot of weight and compartment space. I'm surprised there aren't more 12 V users who've tried something like this. Thanks for the replies.

This is true, but it's not the same benefit. With compass linked to my GPS unit, I can glance at the graph and see where the boat is pointing relative to my map/waypoints, and quickly judge where to turn my trolling motor or which direction to cast. In open water without visual markers, this makes a tremendous difference in the ease of staying on a spot with the trolling motor. When driving at low speed (idling to a spot, or running side-scan), the accuracy of the linked compass makes a big difference over the default unit, which relies on the GPS track for heading info, and doesn't work at all below ~0.5 MPH or something. For the record, I do keep an old school compass on board as well, but for different reasons

Maybe this will be tough, but give the engineers a chance lol. If it can't be built-in, at least including it in the price tag would be nice. Or how about including (for no extra charge) a smaller puck with the heading sensor only, not the precision GPS. For me, that compass adds a huge value to the basic GPS + map. Especially for the cheaper units, if they can include that functionality without requiring additional purchase, it would be a nice selling point. That Sonarphone is a neat idea... looks like I'm behind the times. thanks for the reply

Looking into this a bit more, I see there are some aftermarket systems available to achieve this. Has anyone tried them?

Sweet, I just looked that up. After the original autochart this was a logical step. Have you used it?

Does it in real time? I've seen the "Autochart" stuff, but I think you need to export the data to your computer, process it, then load it back onto your unit. Is there something better?

What’s coming next in the Sonar/GPS game?* What improvements do you want to see? Get your wish list in and maybe the fine folks at HB or Lowrance will read this and make it happen! 3 ideas from me: Include a heading sensor by default. Being able to see on the map where your boat is pointing at all times makes it SO much easier to stay on waypoints with the trolling motor. And if you’re ever trying to grab waypoints in side-scan view, the heading sensor improves accuracy. This should be built in, not an add-on ($). Real-time mapping. Store depth/gps data on board (your unit does this anyway), then map it into contours as you fish. The more you putter around your fishing spot, the better your map will get. Similar software already exists for exported data, we’d just need a bit more storage and computing power on the unit. Wifi. Automatic waypoint back-up and sync to PC. Park your boat in the garage, power on your sonar, and automatically back up your waypoints to your laptop. From the laptop, use manufacturer software to organize, delete, rename, or create new waypoints, then easily sync back to the on-board unit. What else? *disclaimer: it’s been a while since I’ve been shopping for a new unit, maybe some of this stuff exists already

Does anyone use their outboard engine to charge their trolling motor battery(s)? If yes, how do you have it set up? Pros/Cons? This seems like a no-brainer to me if it can be done without risking leaving your cranking battery uncharged. I guess a possible downside would be potentially hurting your deep cycles with too high a charge rate. I’m running a 12V 55 lb thrust motor, and over the course of a day I can easily run the battery down to the point of reduced performance on a windy day or when chopping through weeds. I’m sure having an old battery isn’t helping me, but still. If I’m camping out with nowhere to plug in, charging my TM battery from the alternator would be sure be nice. I’ve been known to swap batteries and pull-start my outboard to achieve the same thing. A switch at the console would be much easier Any thoughts?

Hi Danny, Sounds like you're off to a decent start. If you're trying to limit rods, maybe consider targeting one species or the other? For largemouth, I'd add an actual flipping stick with heavy braid to your list. Frogs and heavier jigs/t-rigs are workhorses on that body of water; I'd want more than a 6'9" MH. For smallmouth, consider that you may want to fish deep and in strong current. With your selection you may end up using the 7' MH/F more than you think. I'd ditch the 6'6" ML/M in favor of a 7' M/F or M/XF, which will be more versatile and can serve as a drop shot rod when you need to upsize your weight (3/4 oz +). I prefer throw jerkbaits on a spinning rod (6'8" M/XF) with braid and leader, which is very different from the crankbait rod + mono you've listed. Erratic 'twitching' is key I think in the clear water, and a slower action rod with stretchy line will make that tough. Limiting to 8 rods to cover both species, these would be my picks: Casting 7' MH/F - #12 or #15 copoly - Spinnerbait, buzzbait, bladed jig, small swimbait. Also a backup t-rig rod. 7' MH/XF or H/XF - #50 braid, optional leader - Texas rig, jig, toad 6'6" M/M - #12 mono or copoly - Spook, crankbait 7'6" H/F - Flipping stick - #50 or #65 braid - Heavy jig, heavy t-rig, frogs Spinning 7' ML/F or ML/XF - #20 braid to leader - Light drop shot/general "finesse" 7' M/F or M/XF - #20 braid to leader - Tube, senko 7' M/F or M/XF - #20 braid to leader - Heavier drop shot 6'8" M/XF - #20 braid to leader - Jerkbait If you need to save more space, I'd pick LM or SM and whittle it down. LM are fun, SM will win Good luck!

I have small-ish hands, always cast right-handed, and use mainly RH reels but switch to LH for most flipping and pitching (and always LH retrieve for spinning). Here's my take on it: Switching hands makes sense if you want to grip the reel differently during the cast than during the retrieve. For me, it's more comfortable and balanced to palm the reel during the retrieve, but I can't easily operate the thumb bar and thumb the spool from a palming position. Switching hands solves that problem - during the right-handed cast, my free left hand can move to palm the reel, and all my right hand has to do at the end is let go and grab the handle (no delay). Switching back at the end of the cast is actually the more inconvenient step (IMO), but still easily happens during the wind-up for the next cast (no delay). On the other hand (), if you're casting right-handed and using a left-retrieve reel, you need to find a grip that works for both casting and retrieving (or do some kind of shimmy to reposition, but that's arguably even more awkward than switching). For me, that ends up being a "half-palming" grip, usually two or three fingers ahead of the trigger but with my hand far enough back to comfortably operate the thumb bar and control the spool. For me, this is a somewhat less comfortable grip, but I use LH retrieve reels for flipping and pitching for two reasons: 1. For repeated, quick, one-handed flips/pitches, switching hands is tedious and wastes a little bit of time (you can't easily switch during wind-up and in flight). 2. My hand is always positioned to easily run the thumb bar and thumb the spool, nice for when I need to strip line for a vertical fall. Having smaller hands, I'm more picky about the size/shape of LH reels I'm going to be "half-palming." The best I've found for righty converts like me is the TD-Z 105HL (or 103HL). I use a 105 and it's a weird looking reel and takes some getting used to, but the shape was designed for this exact purpose. I wish Daiwa would bring back a reel on a platform like this. Ultimately, whatever's most comfortable for you is best. Switching hands is not a handicap, and neither is casting/reeling with opposite hands. There are plenty of pros out there having no trouble with switching (or not switching), and they would change if one was less efficient.

IMO this is a design flaw with the first gen Tatulas. The line rubs against the top of the t-wing during the retrieve, and can groove it. The grooving can damage your line. Two sets of grooves show up; the left side is grooved as the t-wing travels right, and the right side is grooved as the t-wing travels left. Putting less line on the spool will reduce the angle of the line between the t-wing and spool and should help, but will also reduce casting performance (which was the main advantage of the t-wing). I have a first gen Tatula and haven’t had any issues yet, but it hasn’t seen many hours. Plenty of folks have fished these heavily with no problems, so it could be a batch issue as well. Still, there’s no reason the line should rub so hard on the t-wing. If you have grooving, contact Daiwa and they should replace the part.

Thanks for sharing your insight, Greg (and others). Interesting stuff.

This is the exact same question you asked and I responded to in my previous post...? lol Quoting myself (emphasis added): This is going in circles. I'll bow out.

Dismiss? No. But when observations are made in an uncontrolled environment, one needs to be aware of the variables in play, and the uncertainty they introduce to any conclusions drawn. Also no. But not all "evidence" is equal. It is possible and common for people (including scientists) to observe a phenomenon, and draw a completely incorrect conclusion about its causality. This is not evidence. Look at the rest of my last post for an example.

... or the evidence is flawed. The success of red lures at catching bass (to quote your example) doesn't disprove anything about the physics of light. Selective absorption of different wavelengths of light in water is observable and repeatable, and requires no assumptions about human or bass eyes/brains. How this affects bass fishing is a separate question. Perhaps bass prefer red lures at times because of their tendency to be less visible. Fair enough. No offense intended

LOL what is the blind squirrel technique? I'm not questioning your qualifications; I'm questioning the dismissal of research because it doesn't stand alone as a foolproof lure selection guide. It's a piece of the puzzle, one that even you have not finished putting together. Should we stop researching because you've fished for 50 years and know everything there is to know? Should the aerospace industry do the same?