How small Will Reels Get?

[mark poulson]

At what point will the gear material not be strong enough? If the main gear is smaller in overall diameter, the pinion gear would have to be smaller to maintain the same gear ratios.
The smaller the gears, the finer the teeth have to be to maintain smoothness and to reduce wear. Will there be a finite limit to gear tooth size before they have to go to really exotic metals to make them hold up?

[brokeneye]

I dunno.

smaller, lighter, faster, stronger...these traits may or may not always translate to "better" but, they do translate to "improved" and "improved" is just one more way of gaining market share.

as I've stated before...this is how we wind up with '58 chevy's after we've tasted the 57's.

[mark poulson]

I dunno.

smaller, lighter, faster, stronger...these traits may or may not always translate to "better" but, they do translate to "improved" and "improved" is just one more way of gaining market share.

as I've stated before...this is how we wind up with '58 chevy's after we've tasted the 57's.

And that was progress?

[brokeneye]

I dunno.

smaller, lighter, faster, stronger...these traits may or may not always translate to "better" but, they do translate to "improved" and "improved" is just one more way of gaining market share.

as I've stated before...this is how we wind up with '58 chevy's after we've tasted the 57's.

And that was progress?

no...far from it.

point being how long do you think it will be before shimano "improves" the mbr783 glx until it is no longer the mbr783 glx.

[mark poulson]

I dunno.

smaller, lighter, faster, stronger...these traits may or may not always translate to "better" but, they do translate to "improved" and "improved" is just one more way of gaining market share.

as I've stated before...this is how we wind up with '58 chevy's after we've tasted the 57's.

And that was progress?

no...far from it.

point being how long do you think it will be before shimano "improves" the mbr783 glx until it is no longer the mbr783 glx.

I agree, and that's what I thought you were saying. But they have to do something to get new sales, or they'll go broke.
Personally, I'm thrilled with the rods and reels I have now, and I did upgrade from the Quantum Energies I had 10+ years ago. I was hoping for, and got, reels that threw lighter stuff better, although I still have my Chronarch MG50's on my really light stuff.
But, in their quest to make their reels lighter, Quantum went away from the externally adjustable brakes, and that was something they should have kept.
Of course, having owned a '58 Impala, I would much rather have had a '57 Bel Aire!

[21farms]

i've been thinking more about this question and had an epiphany of sorts regarding the conquest when i looked at it from this angle

the palm sideplate (the left side of this reel) that hangs down does nothing except keep the reel round-looking. here's another angle

as you can see, there's a lot of wasted space there...no gears, no attachment hardpoints, nothing. so, as far as the palm-side goes on round reels like this, they can easily get smaller and, apparently, that's what shimano did with the 14conquests. but, like i said before, the handle-side is a whole 'nother story.

[Yetti]

My pops bought a lews super duty, that thing is tiny. I was thinking the size if a bb1 frame but I was wrong !

[Afrayedknot]

My pops bought a lews super duty, that thing is tiny. I was thinking the size if a bb1 frame but I was wrong !

Yup those lew reels are very small. I was shocked when I first used the tournament pro.

[mark poulson]

Assuming that the issue of durability isn't a problem, will the actual material not used represent a significant enough saving to make the more intricate manufacturing involved worth while, or is this all just a gimmick, a smaller/lighter marketing ploy?

[lpquick]

Assuming that the issue of durability isn't a problem, will the actual material not used represent a significant enough saving to make the more intricate manufacturing involved worth while, or is this all just a gimmick, a smaller/lighter marketing ploy?

My experience using the Conquest models I would have to disagree. The old 101 weighs 226.8g/8.0 oz., the new 101 weighs 215g/7.58 oz. and is smaller in size as far as the the non handle side which is where I hold mine when mounted on a rod. It has X ship (an additional bearing), SVS infinite brakes, micro gears & S3D spool where’s the gimmick/marketing ploy! I see it as a win win win I am so looking forward to the new generation of the Conquest.

[f15h1n6]

For saltwater theyve released the Avet sxj which is suprisingly durable and reliable just as the avet sx. Its amazing how something so small can perform against bigger reels. I guess its about proving the inevitable with these small reels

[dragon1]

For saltwater theyve released the Avet sxj which is suprisingly durable and reliable just as the avet sx. Its amazing how something so small can perform against bigger reels. I guess its about proving the inevitable with these small reels

Most of today's "smaller reels", have been shrunk down in overall exterior/body size...their guts/main gear, have not necessarily been downsized, and in many cases of the "oversized main gear" or "HEG", it has actually grown. Lighter material also give a feeling of "smaller" in a sense.

[mhood]

I've been begging for a Stella 500 for a decade now...

[USA-RET]

i've been thinking more about this question and had an epiphany of sorts regarding the conquest when i looked at it from this angle

the palm sideplate (the left side of this reel) that hangs down does nothing except keep the reel round-looking. here's another angle

as you can see, there's a lot of wasted space there...no gears, no attachment hardpoints, nothing. so, as far as the palm-side goes on round reels like this, they can easily get smaller and, apparently, that's what shimano did with the 14conquests. but, like i said before, the handle-side is a whole 'nother story.

I'm waiting to see the 2015 50 size CQ. If they taper the palm side like they have done with 100 and 200 size reels, then the 50 should feel down right miniscule in hand.

[mark poulson]

Assuming that the issue of durability isn't a problem, will the actual material not used represent a significant enough saving to make the more intricate manufacturing involved worth while, or is this all just a gimmick, a smaller/lighter marketing ploy?

My experience using the Conquest models I would have to disagree. The old 101 weighs 226.8g/8.0 oz., the new 101 weighs 215g/7.58 oz. and is smaller in size as far as the the non handle side which is where I hold mine when mounted on a rod. It has X ship (an additional bearing), SVS infinite brakes, micro gears & S3D spool where’s the gimmick/marketing ploy! I see it as a win win win I am so looking forward to the new generation of the Conquest.

I wasn't saying it's all a gimmick. I was asking whether the benefits of lighter are really worth the additional manuf. and engineering expense, or whether this smaller-is-better is just what reel manufs. feel they have to do to "keep up".