Fixed-spool reels: single or double handle?

[The Diamond Geezer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GlennB:

... the real point I was getting at is that loads of go-faster gimmicks on all sorts of equipment are designed more to attract the buyer than to serve any real purpose. Cheers

---

Couldn't agree more! It's the age-old case of the gullible being conned and ripped-off by the unprincipled .... and applies to fishing tackle, reels and lines e.g. "the ultimate in abrasion-resistance" .... the ultimate in con-tricks, more like.

 

Anyway, going back to reels and your points and questions about counter-balancing, just for you, I have dug-out this old photo (sorry about the quality] of a reel I still have somewhere, and which I used to use a lot. It was small~ish, light, dead cheap (£25) and very smooth.

_________

You can see that even a decade ago, counter-balancing of fixed-spool reels was become an issue, and a selling-point of course

 

 

DG

 

[ 26. March 2004, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: The Diamond Geezer ]

[Jim Murray]

The Diamond Geezer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GlennB:

 

Shimano Double Handle

Reels fitted with this feature are more balanced and faster to spring into action (no fumbling for the reel handle when a fish grabs your bait!). DG

Guess that one's for lager-brigade, maybe they should put flashing LED's on the handles as well :cool:

 

Shimano Fightin' Drag

Fightin' Drag is a secondary drag system that can be used to control hard-fighting specimen sized fish.

 

Why is the Fightin' drag better than just adjusting it normally as you play? Also why is a rear drag perceived to be more convenient than a front?

 

Jim.

DG [/QB]

---

[Peter Sharpe]

Rudd, does your browser have Tools | Internet Options | Advanced? If so, try checking that the Show Pictures box is ticked. I'm not sure if that is the reason, but it's worth a look.

 

I always used to think Mitchell 300As were the ultimate, but they just look rather quaint now.

I hate Big Pit reels because they do wobble like hell, and turn fishing into a purely mechanical exercise. Why on earth people use them on rivers or ponds is beyond me.

I couldn't care less if front drags are smoother than rear drags, because the rear drags on my Shimanos are as smooth as I will ever need them to be. Being at the rear, it is possible to set them slightly on the loose side and then tighten or loosen them when necessary during the playing of a fish. I also prefer the double handles, as they look better than singles and tend to fold up more neatly into the body. It probably makes little difference to the performance on anything other than those big pit meat mincers though.

[rob.i]

My reason for liking the fighting drag lever on shimano reels is that when my hands are cold and wet the lever is easier to use than the twist knob and is instant. which is not the case on my other reel a shakespeare ardent which by the way came with both types of handle ,I tried both handles and preferred the single handle .

[Dick Dastardly]

Loads here!

 

Rear/front drags- the front drags on Mitchell 300 reels were crap.The main problem when using light lines was the extra inertia required to get the drag slipping.This meant that the drag had to be set a lot lighter than needed.Hence forth why back winding became the prefered method of playing fish.Or as Den says using the finger to apply more pressure.The later 300S although having a slightly better drag still left a lot to be desired.With them having a skirted spool you couldnt apply extra pressure so well so backwinding was still king.The first challengers to the Mitchell were the ABU Cardinals, These had rear drags and were a lot better.It was then common belief that rear drags were the best.The first Shimmano Baitrunners saw a return to front drags these were (IMO) inferior to both the 300S's front drag and the Cardinals rear drag!The subsequent Areo range of BTR's possesed a far better drag allround and IMO the standard was set.The smaller match size reels from Shimmano (3500M and RE etc)were the best drags I have seen to date and were rear drags.Contary to many peoples opinion I think that the quality of the drag is far more important for light line fishing than for big fish.This is purely as the "margin for error" is so much narrower due to the lighter lines used.I have caught many treble figure fish on Shimmano Triton Sea Spin 6500 reels,these have a front drag that although being a great improvrement on the Mitchells is still pretty crude compared to the smaller rear drag match reels.But with 4lbTC rods and .40 Dia Braid it dont really matter!BTW big cats can move to fast to back wind!

 

DG my SC has a great big "Whale Tail" on the back and goes like the proverbial of a shovel but I think Glenn B might be on the right track ie Porsche stuck it on to increase the speed of my wallet out of my pocket rather than the speed of the car

 

I personally think that all the "mechanical" advantages that double handles/dynabalance etc etc give fall into the same catagory as all the "drag co-eficient" advantages of SIC rings.....definate scientificaly provable advantages but in practical angling terms too small to be realy relevant.

[Newt]

These had rear drags and were a lot better.It was then common belief that rear drags were the best.

 

Maybe in the UK Budgie. They've never really gotten popular over here nor has backwinding. I gather from reading various threads on the forum that US anglers are more likely to rely on the drag than UK anglers and the perception is that the smaller surface area of the rear drag makes them more prone to fail under hard use as when a fish makes a long run against the drag.

 

The newer ceramic drag washers are less likely to fail you but I still don't feel comfortable with a rear drag reel - other than the rear baitrunner piece.

[GlennB]

And as for drag ....

Personally, it seems sensible to set it on the light side and use finger pressure at first. But that means your fingers are at the front end, and then a front drag seems more convenient.

 

But whatever!

 

I sometimes wonder how Izaac Walton (not to mention Dick Walker) ever managed to catch a fish without stainless steel multipods, electric baitboats, depth sounders and graphite technology :cool:

Did Walton's era even have reels? You'd think some bright spark would realise that cotton runs pretty easily off the end of the spool .... and those folks must have had silk thread that would have done better than the ol' horsehair, no?

 

Tight lines all

[John S]

By Izaac Waltons' time, the reel did exist in a very basic form. To quote from something I am writing for AN.

 

....Izaac Walton and his contemporaries were bringing the art of angling to the fore. By that time, tackle had started to advance beyond the simple stick-n-string method, with some anglers putting a loop at the tip of their rod and running the line through that. They would then either hold the other end of the line in their hand or wind it onto a crude reel. This major step in turn allowed the modern method of casting to evolve.

 

Tight horsehairs

[The Diamond Geezer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BUDGIE:

 

DG my SC has a great big "Whale Tail" on the back and goes like the proverbial of a shovel but I think Glenn B might be on the right track ie Porsche stuck it on to increase the speed of my wallet out of my pocket rather than the speed of the car

---

Agree with your comments about reels, but not with yours or Glenn's about aerofoils on Porsches.

 

Spoilers wings all contribute extra weight and therefore adversely affect the all-important power:weight ratio. Their role isn't to increase speed per se, but to increase downforce and/or reduce lift, thus improving traction and handling, albeit thus maintaining speed where you might otherwise lose it through lack of traction (that's where my old Skyline is the Nutz )

 

I think if you were to drive my GT3 RS

_________

{{Unfortunately not my Registration Plate, but one I'd like Of course there is very extensive damage to my wallet, the repairs to which will be set against profits so HM Inland Revenue will help to pay }}

 

{or your SC }

 

without the rear wing, you just might notice the difference

 

Anyway, back to reels .... I don't think there's much extra wallet-damage attributable to double-handled reels compared with singles, is there? :confused:

 

DG

 

[ 27. March 2004, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: The Diamond Geezer ]

[The Diamond Geezer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BUDGIE & spell-checked by DG :

 

I personally think that all the "mechanical" advantages that double-handles/dyna-balance etc etc give, fall into the same category as all the "drag co-efficient" advantages of SiC rings.....definite scientifically-provable advantages but in practical angling terms too small to be really relevant.

---

Personally, I wouldn't put double-handled reels into the same category as SiC rings. SiC-lined rings are good but brittle and very expensive (often costing more than the blank ), and I find that a good line-lube gives much better casting whatever ring lining you have .... as always, lubrication is very important

 

I don't think there's much extra wallet-damage attributable to double-handled reels compared with singles, is there? :confused:

 

DG

 

[ 27. March 2004, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: The Diamond Geezer ]