Baitcaster casting technique 2024

OCdockskipper reply :

I saw a video a few weeks back that featured Rick Clunn giving some basic tips on how to use casting equipment. His number one point was that when casting overhand, the reel should be handles up so that your thumb is at 9 o'clock instead of 12 o'clock (for a right hander). This seemed second nature to me, I grew up with pistol grip rods and that technique is a natural motion for ones wrist.

Then, while watching Classic highlights last week, I noticed quite a few pros who cast with the reel upright and thumb at 12 o'clock. It seems like an awkward motion and wonder if it leads to some of the elbow issues that Brent Ehrler and others suffer from. The 9 o'clock cast is a snap of the wrist while the 12 o'clock seems to be a push of the elbow.

Also, if casting with an upright reel is now the norm, does the change to longer handled rods and away from pistol grips have anything to do with it?

Darren. reply :

I tend to cast like you, thumb to 9. Though I also

cast with thumb to 12 sometimes. I can say that

9 gives me far fewer backlashes than 12...maybe

it is just my technique.

CroakHunter reply :

When I learned to cast a baitcaster, I was taught to roll my wrists at the end of my cast and end up with the handles pointed upright. I almost always have some type of over run or backlash if I get lazy or in a hurry and do not roll my wrist. I believe it also helps with distance as well as extending your arms and raising the rod upward while your bait is in the air. It helps it carry just a little bit farther.

desmobob reply :

It's always felt more natural to me to cast with my thumb starting and staying at 12 o'clock. (Probably ingrained from fly casting.)

I'm curious to why folks say your cast will go further with the 9 o'clock thumb position. That puts the spool in a vertical position, adding side load to the spool bearings. I know it's a tiny amount, but the spool bearings are meant to minimize friction from force applied radially, not laterally. (That said, I will add that I have absolutely no education in engineering, etc. )

Tight lines,

Bob

OCdockskipper reply :

On 4/6/2018 at 10:10 AM, desmobob said:

...I'm curious to why folks say your cast will go further with the 9 o'clock thumb position. That puts the spool in a vertical position, adding side load to the spool bearings...

I don't know if he is correct, but Clunn said with the spool vertical, it lessens the torque on the spool

The Bassman reply :

I don't think it makes much difference with today's lighter spools. Personally, I cast with a sidearm roll cast motion and use rods under 6'6". I don't focus on handle position. Just don't stand to the right of me. lol

frosty reply :

On 4/6/2018 at 2:47 PM, The Bassman said:

I don't think it makes much difference with today's lighter spools. Personally, I cast with a sidearm roll cast motion and use rods under 6'6". I don't focus on handle position. Just don't stand to the right of me. lol

That’s my typical cast to, I don’t think I’ve ever paid attention to what direction the handles were facing when I got done casting. I know I can easily cast a weightless senko on a mh/f rod so I don’t sweat it

Sam reply :

I hope one day some one smarter than me would pen a book on "The Physics of Bass Fishing."

There is a fantastic book named "The Physics of Baseball" which is fantastic and it explains pitching and hitting and what the ball does at different speeds and techniques along with batting physics.

It would be a very interesting read on hook setting, casting, weights, rods, reels, line tests, baits and baits weights and the list goes on and on and on.

Some of our mechanical engineering students may want to study some part of the physics of bass fishing and submit their data. Or maybe someone from Pure Fishing has the information that they are willing to share with us.

For some reason, I don't really pay attention to where the thumb or reel handle ends up when casting. When I do look, my handles are at the noon position.

So far, no problems casting or any pain from casting.

scaleface reply :

I cast naturally . Dont know exactly where the handle is . I dont want to make several thousand cast a year in an unnatural position . i'm prone to tendinitis and joint ailments .

The Bassman reply :

On 4/6/2018 at 7:31 PM, scaleface said:

I cast naturally . Dont know exactly where the handle is . I dont want to make several thousand cast a year in an unnatural position . i'm prone to tendinitis and joint ailments .

Amen to that. I've got arthritis in my thumbs and it makes baitcasting difficult anyway. I spin fish much more than baitcast.

OCdockskipper reply :

On 4/6/2018 at 7:31 PM, scaleface said:

I cast naturally . Dont know exactly where the handle is . I dont want to make several thousand cast a year in an unnatural position . i'm prone to tendinitis and joint ailments .

We both got started at a time where pistol grips and one handed casting were the norm, so I think the 9 o'clock thumb was taught because it is a natural motion that doesn't stress the wrist or elbow.

A longer handle allows the left hand to be part of the cast, but it also allows the thumb to be at 12 o'clock without it feeling too awkward. It does seem to put more stress on the wrist, making it bend thumb-to-pinky and the elbow gets pushed into a motion not unlike that which can lead to hyper extension.

I don't know, I hadn't thought about this for decades until I saw that video. Where is Aaron Martens to explain everything when you need him...

Bankbeater reply :

I've heard that turning your wrist lessens the torque also. Sometimes I actually do it.

J.Vincent reply :

On 4/6/2018 at 11:40 AM, OCdockskipper said:

I don't know if he is correct, but Clunn said with the spool vertical, it lessens the torque on the spool

Rick Clunn talking about casting is equivalent to Michael Jordan or Larry Bird talking about shooting a basketball....when it happens people listen for good reason : )

Brad in Texas reply :

I doubt it amounts to much advantage . . . but I think I can explain the "physics" behind Rick Clunn's statement. Not that he couldn't, or wouldn't, but the format didn't lend itself to a lengthy discussion.

So, a baitcaster generally has two spool bearings on each side of the spool itself. And, the spool has a shaft. Bearings do just that, they support and bear the shaft carrying the weight of the spool, itself, and the line.

In a "spool horizontal, thumb to the side" sort of standard overhand cast, both bearings support this weight equally, divide the load. But, when the spool is turned to a vertical orientation, handles now up, the weight has been removed from the two bearings since the weight has been shifted 90 degrees.

About the only analogy I can make would be a boat trailer. It has an axle instead of a shaft, opposing wheels (2 or more) and tires, and there is a lot of load on the wheel bearings. They are "bearing" the weight. If you pushed on the top side of one of the tires under just the load of an empty trailer, you could roll the trailer and turn the wheel and tire doing it. But, if the trailer was turned on its side with both sides' wheels and tires off the ground, you could spin a tire much easier. The load and a ton of friction have been removed from the bearings.

So, that's my take, old recollections of studying such things earning a college degree minor in Physics all the way back in 1974! Ha!

Brad

desmobob reply :

On 4/7/2018 at 10:54 AM, Brad in Texas said:

I doubt it amounts to much advantage . . . but I think I can explain the "physics" behind Rick Clunn's statement. Not that he couldn't, or wouldn't, but the format didn't lend itself to a lengthy discussion.

So, a baitcaster generally has two spool bearings on each side of the spool itself. And, the spool has a shaft. Bearings do just that, they support and bear the shaft carrying the weight of the spool, itself, and the line.

In a "spool horizontal, thumb to the side" sort of standard overhand cast, both bearings support this weight equally, divide the load. But, when the spool is turned to a vertical orientation, handles now up, the weight has been removed from the two bearings since the weight has been shifted 90 degrees.

About the only analogy I can make would be a boat trailer. It has an axle instead of a shaft, opposing wheels (2 or more) and tires, and there is a lot of load on the wheel bearings. They are "bearing" the weight. If you pushed on the top side of one of the tires under just the load of an empty trailer, you could roll the trailer and turn the wheel and tire doing it. But, if the trailer was turned on its side with both sides' wheels and tires off the ground, you could spin a tire much easier. The load and a ton of friction have been removed from the bearings.

So, that's my take, old recollections of studying such things earning a college degree minor in Physics all the way back in 1974! Ha!

Brad

Absolutely no offense to you Brad, but your boat trailer analogy makes no sense to me. In it, you're turning the trailer on its side and removing all it's weight from the wheels. By turning a reel sideways, what weight are you removing? A reel spool would be better (but still not accurately) represented by the trailer wheels of the trailer up on jacks. Would they spin easier with the trailer flat or up on its side? It's moot, as the trailer analogy doesn't work representing a spinning spool supported by bearings... maybe one wheel spinning on its bearings would.

The spool weighs the same, regardless of it's orientation. If it's turned to vertical, what is now bearing the weight of the spool? If not the spool bearings, I'd say it's now the bottom tip of the spool shaft, and it would be bearing (and spinning) against the cast control knob's inner surface.

The spool bearings still have to spin as the spool rotates, but now without the weight of the spool on them. That weight is now pushing (and spinning) against the inside of the cast control knob with no bearings (in this case, a thrust bearing would be appropriate) to lessen the friction. I just can't imagine how that is any advantage over keeping the spool horizontal and its weight supported by the ball bearings.

Mr. Clunn certainly has a whole lot more experience than I do in throwing baitcasting rigs. All I'm saying is that I'm skeptical of the advantage of tilting a reel sideways when casting. And I'll probably will continue to be skeptical until someone proves it to me or I prove/disprove it for myself.

Tight lines,

Bob

Brad in Texas reply :

On 4/7/2018 at 2:16 PM, desmobob said:

Absolutely no offense to you Brad, but your boat trailer analogy makes no sense to me. In it, you're turning the trailer on its side and removing all it's weight from the wheels. By turning a reel sideways, what weight are you removing? A reel spool would be better (but still not accurately) represented by the trailer wheels of the trailer up on jacks. Would they spin easier with the trailer flat or up on its side? It's moot, as the trailer analogy doesn't work representing a spinning spool supported by bearings... maybe one wheel spinning on its bearings would.

The spool weighs the same, regardless of it's orientation. If it's turned to vertical, what is now bearing the weight of the spool? If not the spool bearings, I'd say it's now the bottom tip of the spool shaft, and it would be bearing (and spinning) against the cast control knob's inner surface.

The spool bearings still have to spin as the spool rotates, but now without the weight of the spool on them. That weight is now pushing (and spinning) against the inside of the cast control knob with no bearings (in this case, a thrust bearing would be appropriate) to lessen the friction. I just can't imagine how that is any advantage over keeping the spool horizontal and its weight supported by the ball bearings.

Mr. Clunn certainly has a whole lot more experience than I do in throwing baitcasting rigs. All I'm saying is that I'm skeptical of the advantage of tilting a reel sideways when casting. And I'll probably will continue to be skeptical until someone proves it to me or I prove/disprove it for myself.

Tight lines,

Bob

Bob, no offense taken. I was struggling for some sort of an analogy.

So, when a reel is is the traditional position with the handles at the side, horizontal spool, the "weight" of the spool and its line and shaft is "supported" by the bearings on each side of the spool. This weight is pressing down on the inside of these bearings at the 6:00 position. Gravity.

But, when one turns the reel so that the spool shaft is now vertical, it is no longer resting what little weight it is carrying directly on these bearings; it is offset 90 degrees to the bearings. The effects of gravity are aligned with long axis of the spool, just passing through the bearings, but not resting on them.

Interestingly, the gravity on the "now" vertical spool might not be supported by the two bearings, but it is supported by "something." For there to be any net pick-up in casting distance, it'd have to have less friction than the shaft on the two bearings. Marginal, I'd think.

Brad

frosty reply :

I think you’d have to be so good at casting to see a difference depending on what direction your handle was pointing that it probably wouldn’t apply to a lot of weekend warrior types like myself.

OnthePotomac reply :

Handle up can provide better brake performance.

WRB reply :

A few months ago we had this exact topic about proper baitcasting technique and discussed in detail the mechanics.

Watching today's MLF pro's few use the handles up or down technique preferring the handles sideways to start of the retrieve appears to be preferred.

I learned to cast with the handles up with right hand reels and switch hands to hold the rod and retreive, it's automatic motion for me.

Tom

papajoe222 reply :

The other thing that I consider to be more important, is the fact that it's a much more natural motion of your hand and wrist casting with the handles up.That translates into a much smoother motion throughout the entire cast. If you reach your right arm out and look at the position of your hand, your thumb isn't facing upward. It's either facing the left, or downward. While your arm is out there, flex your wrist. You'll find that it's easier on your wrist and forearm muscles to flex it with your thumb to the side. That all translates to a more fluid motion. It's also the way you hold a spinning rod when casting.

I have absolutely no idea whether there is less torque on the spool and I doubt if it makes any difference in casting distance for the majority of anglers.

Tywithay reply :

My handle faces down when I cast, because I prefer a sidearm roll cast. I've tried other ways and found no real difference in performance. I just found my way to be quick and less stressful on my wrist. After bowling for 30+ years, my wrist and elbow needs all the help it can get.

Jimmy King reply :

If your baitcasters has centrifugal brakes , the handle must be toward the sky , in order for them to work . It's like the ride at six flags that spins and pins you against the wall. With the spool vertical, you have a spinning top ! When the spool is horizontal , you have a winch . Tops spin much easier than winches . The brakes are forced to " fly " outward against the inside lip on the spool , when casting with the spool in the vertical position. Handles up , toward the sky . Longer casts , without backlash are much easier this way . I have several sheets of instructions , that came in the box with my new reel . First thing in the casting section says " with the handles up , pointing toward the sky " ...... Hope this helps !

. .

EGbassing reply :

I can't remember the last time I casted overhand. (only sidearm) Am I missing anything by not doing it?

NYWayfarer reply :

On 4/4/2019 at 11:25 PM, EGbassing said:

I can't remember the last time I casted overhand. (only sidearm) Am I missing anything by not doing it?

Yes. The tree branches above you...

greentrout reply :

after all the yrs. of casting with a bc i read what the great rick clunn advocated and did what he said ... my backlashing has been greatly greatly reduced .... i use centrifugal, magnetic and dual bcs ....

one of the best tips i've ever gotten ....

good fishing ....

Scott F reply :

On 4/4/2019 at 11:20 PM, Jimmy King said:

If your baitcasters has centrifugal brakes , the handle must be toward the sky , in order for them to work . It's like the ride at six flags that spins and pins you against the wall. With the spool vertical, you have a spinning top ! When the spool is horizontal , you have a winch . Tops spin much easier than winches . The brakes are forced to " fly " outward against the inside lip on the spool , when casting with the spool in the vertical position. Handles up , toward the sky . Longer casts , without backlash are much easier this way . I have several sheets of instructions , that came in the box with my new reel . First thing in the casting section says " with the handles up , pointing toward the sky " ...... Hope this helps !

. .

You better check with your physics teacher about this. I don’t think you’ve got this right. Put some water in a bucket. Swing the bucket from a rope the way a Ferris wheel turns. If you were right, the water wouldn’t stay in the bucket. Centrifugal force works in all directions.

MN Fisher reply :

On 4/5/2019 at 12:54 AM, Scott F said:

You better check with your physics teacher about this. I don’t think you’ve got this right. Put some water in a bucket. Swing the bucket from a rope the way a Ferris wheel turns. If you were right, the water wouldn’t stay in the bucket. Centrifugal force works in all directions.

It does, but again gravity comes into play. With the centrifugal brakes vertical, the brakes are working against gravity when they're moving 'up'. With the brakes parallel to the ground, they don't have to work against gravity pulling them 'back' on the 'upswing'.

Back to the bucket experiment - it's easier to swing the bucket around your head than up-and-down like a Ferris Wheel.

BassWhole! reply :

On 4/5/2019 at 12:58 AM, MN Fisher said:

It does, but again gravity comes into play. With the centrifugal brakes vertical, the brakes are working against gravity when they're moving 'up'. With the brakes parallel to the ground, they don't have to work against gravity pulling them 'back' on the 'upswing'.

Back to the bucket experiment - it's easier to swing the bucket around your head than up-and-down like a Ferris Wheel.

Yes, they would "work against" gravity when on top, but would also "work with" gravity when on the bottom. (I'm so sorry Mr Cohen, forgive them, for they know knot)...

MN Fisher reply :

On 4/5/2019 at 1:39 AM, BassWhole! said:

Yes, they would "work against" gravity when on top, but would also "work with" gravity when on the bottom. (I'm so sorry Mr Cohen, forgive them, for they know knot)...

Yes, against gravity on the upswing, with gravity on the downswing - however with friction added in...and no matter your oil on the bearings there's going to be friction...not having to 'fight' gravity at all is easier.

Yes, I took college physics...yes I passed.

J Francho reply :

If I tilt my bait caster to the left, will move my boat to the right?

MN Fisher reply :

On 4/5/2019 at 1:45 AM, J Francho said:

If I tilt my bait caster to the left, will move my boat to the right?

Only if you give the hull a good kick.

BassWhole! reply :

On 4/5/2019 at 1:44 AM, MN Fisher said:

Yes, against gravity on the upswing, with gravity on the downswing - however with friction added in...and no matter your oil on the bearings there's going to be friction...not having to 'fight' gravity at all is easier.

Yes, I took college physics...yes I passed.

How are we adding friction?

MN Fisher reply :

On 4/5/2019 at 2:01 AM, BassWhole! said:

How are we adding friction?

The spool doesn't spin suspended on 'fairy dust'. It rides on a (or more) bearing(s). Even with the bearing(s) perfectly lubed, there's going to be friction.

OCdockskipper reply :

On 4/4/2019 at 11:25 PM, EGbassing said:

I can't remember the last time I casted overhand. (only sidearm) Am I missing anything by not doing it?

"Missing" may not be the correct term, but there are times when an overhead cast has advantages.

If you are seated when fishing, overhead is just about the only way you can cast.

If you are casting down the side of a dock or parallel to a bluff, an overhead cast is easier to keep in line with your target.

I'm sure there are other situations, those are just a few that came to mind.

BaitFinesse reply :

MN Fisher reply :

^ Gyroscopic action on a fishing spool is negligible. Big difference between a 40lb flywheel spinning at 'thousands' of RPM vs 1-2 oz spool spinning at a couple hundred RPM at best.

Heartland reply :

On 4/8/2018 at 12:11 AM, OnthePotomac said:

Handle up can provide better brake performance.

I am interested, how so?

BaitFinesse reply :

On 4/5/2019 at 4:41 AM, MN Fisher said:

^ Gyroscopic action on a fishing spool is negligible. Big difference between a 40lb flywheel spinning at 'thousands' of RPM vs 1-2 oz spool spinning at a couple hundred RPM at best.

Same principle. Same effect. Different scale. The only thing that is negligible is the alleged effect of turning your spool on its side to "stop fighting gravity".

Bass Turd reply :

Does anyone like mechanical wrist watches? The same principals for friction of wheel pivots in bearings can be observed. A watch that is dial up or dial down has all the wheels resting on one pivot or the other. Think of a spinning top on a tabletop times four. Friction is at it's lowest for all the wheels and the motion, or amplitude, of the balance will be at its highest. If the watch is held at crown up, down or sideways both pivots of each wheel will fight friction from resting in their jeweled bearings and amplitude will be at its lowest. Many times more surface area of the pivot is in contact with the bearing than if it is just the top of one pivot.

IMHO how you held a baitcaster during a cast had a much bigger impact decades ago before high-tech ball bearing manufacture and superfine lubrication was invented. I don't think it makes much practical difference today... but I could be wrong.

NHBull reply :

For me, thumbs finishing at 3 or 9 o'clock, depending on right/left make far more sense biomechanically and allows you to use larger muscle groups keeping tendons and ligaments in alignment avoiding problems later. Many of us are in pain today because we used poor techniques in strength training and sports when we were younger.

fissure_man reply :

@BaitFinesse teach us, what does the gyro effect in that video have to do with our casting form and the merits of casting with a vertical or horizontal spool?

haggard reply :

What weighs more: a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks?

dodgeguy reply :

Clunn is 100 percent correct. It makes a huge difference.

Heartland reply :

On 4/5/2019 at 7:32 AM, haggard said:

What weighs more: a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks?

digital or analog?

BaitFinesse reply :

On 4/5/2019 at 7:26 AM, fissure_man said:

@BaitFinesse teach us, what does the gyro effect in that video have to do with our casting form and the merits of casting with a vertical or horizontal spool?

Gyroscopic procession. As an object rotates on an axis it produces a torque vector on the axis of rotation. The direction of this torque is dependent on the direction of rotation. This torque vector is so great that it can compensate for the force of gravity and keep spinning objects upright when they would otherwise fall had they not been spinning.

These same forces occur in a baitcast reel. Whatever gravitational forces that are claimed to be mitigated by turning the reel on its side are minuscule in comparison to the forces acting on the spool as it is rotating. There's a lot going of as the spool is spinning. No one is going to turn gravity off by turning their reel sideways.

Heartland reply :

BaitFinesse reply :

Ignoring the funky forces that occur on a rotating body for a moment, the idea that you are reducing friction on the spool bearings by turning the reel on its side is unusual. Wouldn't this mean that the spool bearings are no longer supporting the spool that it is now being supported by the shim under the bearing?

I can't imagine the spool shaft riding on a brass or plastic shim to have less friction than ball bearings. If you run a lot of spool tension then I guess it doesn't matter anyway.

I am curious about the brake effects and handle position. Would the Daiwa Magforce Z ans Air Brake moving inductors benefit from a certain handle position? Would a left or right hand reel differ when being cast right handed? A handle up vs handle down. Can the lefty weirdos that cast while palming the reel even rotate the reel on the cast?

greentrout reply :

8:10 >>

BaitFinesse reply :

On 4/5/2019 at 10:09 AM, greentrout said:

8:10 >>

The spool tension knob is not the centrifugal brake. The "pin" brake in the video is the centrifugal brake. April fools was days ago.

fissure_man reply :

@BaitFinesse there is no gyroscopic precession of a spinning spool regardless of orientation during a cast – the spool shaft is supported by bearings on both sides so no net torque is applied by gravity, and any direction of rotation other than around the spool shaft is restricted anyway (by the bearings, the reel, and your hand). This is unlike the video examples, where the wheels are hung by string supported on only one side so they’re free to rotate and they have gravity (+ the string) supplying an off-axis torque. Unless you’re constantly rotating the reel throughout the cast (how?), I don’t see the relevance of gyro effects.

I believe the gravity effects discussed above by @MN Fisher are referring to the centrifugal brakes themselves, and how they behave when the spool is held horizontally or vertically. Holding the spinning spool vertically doesn’t turn off gravity, but it does orient it’s force perpendicularly the direction of centrifugal force on the brakes. While I agree that any difference here is probably negligible, it’s not because of gyro effects. I’d wager it doesn’t matter because the centrifugal force driving the brakes outward is much greater than the (negligible) force of gravity pulling them downward. You could compare these easily enough with an estimate of spool RPM – mass of the brake tabs should cancel out. Even if this wasn’t true and gravitational force is significant, the result would be slightly greater braking force from friction against the underside of the brake ring, slightly lesser force from the upper side – still not sure the outcome be noticeable.

I’d guess @Bass Turd is on the right track in that spool orientation probably mattered more in the days before high quality ball bearings – unloading plastic bushings and spinning on the spool shaft tip might have had a meaningful impact on friction.

FWIW, I’m playing with a Daiwa Lexa that spins very freely held horizontally or with the handles up. With handles down it’s noticeably rougher. Not sure why, probably just needs cleaning.

BaitFinesse reply :

On 4/5/2019 at 10:55 AM, fissure_man said:

@BaitFinesse there is no gyroscopic precession of a spinning spool regardless of orientation during a cast – the spool shaft is supported by bearings on both sides so no net torque is applied by gravity, and any direction of rotation other than around the spool shaft is restricted anyway (by the bearings, the reel, and your hand). This is unlike the video examples, where the wheels are hung by string supported on only one side so they’re free to rotate and they have gravity (+ the string) supplying an off-axis torque. Unless you’re constantly rotating the reel throughout the cast (how?), I don’t see the relevance of gyro effects.

I believe the gravity effects discussed above by @MN Fisher are referring to the centrifugal brakes themselves, and how they behave when the spool is held horizontally or vertically. Holding the spinning spool vertically doesn’t turn off gravity, but it does orient it’s force perpendicularly the direction of centrifugal force on the brakes. While I agree that any difference here is probably negligible, it’s not because of gyro effects. I’d wager it doesn’t matter because the centrifugal force driving the brakes outward is much greater than the (negligible) force of gravity pulling them downward. You could compare these easily enough with an estimate of spool RPM – mass of the brake tabs should cancel out. Even if this wasn’t true and gravitational force is significant, the result would be slightly greater braking force from friction against the underside of the brake ring, slightly lesser force from the upper side – still not sure the outcome be noticeable.

I’d guess @Bass Turd is on the right track in that spool orientation probably mattered more in the days before high quality ball bearings – unloading plastic bushings and spinning on the spool shaft tip might have had a meaningful impact on friction.

FWIW, I’m playing with a Daiwa Lexa that spins very freely held horizontally or with the handles up. With handles down it’s noticeably rougher. Not sure why, probably just needs cleaning.

To say that there is no forces generated by gryoscopic precession because the shaft is supported on both ends is to say that it is the support of the shaft that creates the gyroscopic precession. It is the rotation of the mass about an axis that creates the effect. Yes the spool is captured by two bearings and there is no observable effect but there is a force vector along the spool shaft created by the rotating mass. The right hand rule.

The relevance of gyroscopic precession is that the force is there and and acting upon the spool even if it is captured by the bearings and cannot move. I would wager that the force experted on the spool bearings from gyroscopic precession is far greater than the force of the spool being pulled down on the bearings by gravity.

I also don't think the force vector generated by the gyroscopic precession is doing anything meaningful to the spool when it is captured by the spool bearings. The same applies to gravity but it is doing even less. Turning the reel sideways to stop gravity from pulling the spool shaft into the bearings is silly when the spool shaft is captured by the bearings in a tight fitment.

As far as brakes go, I have no idea. I am genuinely curious as to how the reels handle position affects braking. Do centrifugal brakes that are spring loaded not as adversely affected as those without springs to hold them in the seated position?

fissure_man reply :

On 4/5/2019 at 11:55 AM, BaitFinesse said:

To say that there is no forces generated by gryoscopic precession because the shaft is supported on both ends is to say that it is the support of the shaft that creates the gyroscopic precession. It is the rotation of the mass about an axis that creates the effect. Yes the spool is captured by two bearings and there is no observable effect but there is a force vector along the spool shaft created by the rotating mass. The right hand rule.

The relevance of gyroscopic precession is that the force is there and and acting upon the spool even if it is captured by the bearings and cannot move.

It’s actually a result of both – there is no precession or ‘precessional force’ by rotation alone when the body is symmetrical (balanced) about a fixed axis of rotation; it requires an additional force or disturbance acting to change the orientation of the rotation axis. In the video examples, the unbalanced torque caused by hanging from only one side acts to change the axis of the mass’s rotation, which is resisted by its inertia and results in precession. If the spinning gyro wheel was supported on both sides (like a reel spool), there would be no off-axis net torque, and no precession (or associated force). If you’ve ever held one of these gyro apparatus, you can feel that there are no unusual forces in play until you start trying to change its angular momentum by turning the axis of rotation.

Like I said, you could create these gyro/precessional forces by rotating the reel throughout the cast (changing the spool’s axis of rotation), but there’s no reason to do this.

GrumpyOlPhartte reply :

You folks are making my head hurt!!! Thank heavens that I’m such a lousy caster that it doesn’t matter!!! I just cast so it’s comfortable. ????

new2BC4bass reply :

On 4/5/2019 at 7:52 PM, GrumpyOlPhartte said:

You folks are making my head hurt!!! Thank heavens that I’m such a lousy caster that it doesn’t matter!!! I just cast so it’s comfortable. ????

Me too! Only a so-so caster. I'm getting a headache cuz the subject has become so deep and I am so

Mhan7 reply :

On 4/5/2019 at 10:55 AM, fissure_man said:

@BaitFinesse

FWIW, I’m playing with a Daiwa Lexa that spins very freely held horizontally or with the handles up. With handles down it’s noticeably rougher. Not sure why, probably just needs cleaning.

There's also the small issues of dynamic balancing and vectored thrust.

Every bearing has a thrust angle. Unless it's engineered to take thrust from all directions, in which case it's not going to be suitable for a high speed application - like a reel. Your spool bearings are only designed to handle radial forces. In other words, 100% of their usefulness is in resisting the forces that make the spool want to fly in the direction of rotation. But if you started pushing on the spool side-to-side, you are going to put your spool bearings into physics hell.

So, I'm suggesting that in your case, if you change the orientation of the the mass along an axis, you change the weight. (weight = mass X gravity ) Weight is a force, so it acts upon whatever is attempting to restrain it. Change the orientation during cast, you act against the thrust angle of the bearing an a different way. Add that to the effects of any spool balancing issues, which are most prevalent at the point in the cast where you have the highest net total of spool RPM and spool mass. (since the spool mass is decreasing as line peels off, and RPM is increasing, up to a point)

One might say that this is negligible, and they're probably right. You have a thrust washer on the spool to minimize side-to side movement. Except when everything isn't just so... and then one might start seeing things like rough spool rotation when the orientation is changed.

fissure_man reply :

@Mhan7 interesting… I am under the impression that when the reel is rotated in any orientation other than horizontal, the component of its weight acting parallel to the spool shaft is fully supported by the contact of the spool shaft against its seating in the side plate or cast control cap (or that plastic “t” thing for free floating spools). I.e. it’s not “hanging” from the bearings.

If that is the case, then the remaining component of the spool’s weight should be perpendicular to the spool shaft, and in line with the design loading configuration for the bearings (purely radial load). This would be true regardless of the orientation of the reel, though the portion of the spool’s weight supported axially by the shaft tip vs. radially the bearings would obviously change.

Is this too simplified (or incorrect) a view?

Maybe in the case of my Lexa, I have the spool tension too loose and it does end up ‘sitting’ on a bearing when held with the handles down… don’t have it here to fiddle with right now. I don’t expect spool balance is an issue because I’m not convinced this would be orientation dependent…? (at least for handles up vs. handles down)

Mhan7 reply :

Yeah, that's the "thrust washer" that I'm talking about. But if you take up the space inside the bearing with grease and dirt, you could, in essence, make the micro-grime inside the bearing act as a pseudo-thrust washer. It's only really going to be a problem when your reel is filthy.

Even precision bearings have some play and clearance. In my experience, the negation of the bearing's performance is most visible in the off-thrust axis. If it's dirty enough, the whole systems suffers.

Mhan7 reply :

Here is a nice illustration of an angular contact bearing. Angular contact bearings are meant to take up thrust loads. They can handle loads optimally in all every direction that falls within the "contact angle". But they do it at the expense of contact area, which results in more friction, and less free rotation. (but this is absolutely mandatory for heavy, shifting loads)

Our bearings in our reels do not have a contact angle. The loads are radially transferred from the tangent point of the spherical ball, into the inner and outer race. If you change the load angle, by shifting the force, it results in the bearing transferring forces through the force vector, and creates a situation where the inner and outer race want to move in opposing directions. In extreme cases, it can result in premature wear, where the bearing races can actually separate. Lucky for us, that's probably never going to happen. So why is it worth mentioning?

Quite simply... When you shift a load - even a small load - into the non-thrust axis of the bearing, you change the performance. The graphic shows the angular relief in this bearing being at 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock positions. In our bearings, we would have the angular relief in the areas that this bearing has angular contact. Imagine a force being transmitted off of the thrust axis, and into the pockets of grime in a dirty bearing. You could easily see how this could lead to a drastic reduction in bearing performance. And yes, while you have a mechanism in place to prevent the spool from shifting, the clearances on the bearing are much more precise. You can't negate bearing play by having a plastic thrust washer. It's just a simple tolerance stackup. The bearing suffers everytime.

We can't always cast perfectly with the spool axis parallel to the horizon. Lucikly, it's not really that much of an issue. Except... when... your... reel... is... filthy.

We do generate a certain amount of angular thrust when we cast, due to the line pull on the spool. that amount of force will oscillate, as will the direction, depending on which way the line is being pulled of the spool. It will be amplified by the RPM of the spool. We will see vibration forces, also, depending on how balanced the spool is, and the combination of the aforementioned factors. So much physics going on with every single cast...

However, and all of this, I do not subscribe to the notion that orientation of the reel affects the centrifugal stopping power of the brakes. I'm much more inclined to attribute discrepancies to what's going on in the spool.

I used to work in an R&D lab, and we got a custom made dynamic balancing machine one day. I was surprised at how much emphasis they placed on making sure that the machine was level. (There were no centrifugal brakes on this particular dynamic balancing machine) However, when the techs started explaining to me how they considered the compound forces for their calibration routine, it made me start thinking alot about how this applied to similar mechanisms...

J Francho reply :

On 4/5/2019 at 11:43 PM, Mhan7 said:

Here is a nice illustration of an angular contact bearing.

These are how my skate board bearings are made. You can actually completely disassemble the bearing by removing the shield and plastic cage. The let all the balls got to one side and take it apart.

Mhan7 reply :

On 4/5/2019 at 11:57 PM, J Francho said:

These are how my skate board bearings are made. You can actually completely disassemble the bearing by removing the shield and plastic cage. The let all the balls got to one side and take it apart.

I'm actually glad you mentioned that, because I slightly screwed up that previous explanation...

Here is the proper graphic with the illustration between angular contact and radial. It's been awhile, and I shot from the hip. Rather than do damage control, I'll just post the clarification...

So there are bearings which have double angular contact (in opposing directions, for balance) but they also have 2 inner races. At least all that I have seen.

The big difference, as noted above, is the angle of contact. Radial bearings have a very shallow angle of contact, where the angular contact have a higher. Nevertheless... while I goofed my description of bearings, I still maintain my explanation of the mechanics behind them.

OCdockskipper reply :

This thread is an excellent example of why both engineers and non-engineers are needed in this world. The first group will figure things out to the most minute detail while the second grabs the rod out of their hand saying "dude, they are busting on top, just make a cast!!".

Each needs the other.

Mhan7 reply :

On 4/6/2019 at 12:12 AM, OCdockskipper said:

This thread is an excellent example of why both engineers and non-engineers are needed in this world. The first group will figure things out to the most minute detail while the second grabs the rod out of their hand saying "dude, they are busting on top, just make a cast!!".

Each needs the other.

And would you believe that there are actually a few of us who have the rare ability to do our thinking at home, and our fishing on the water?

BaitFinesse reply :

On 4/5/2019 at 7:10 PM, fissure_man said:

It’s actually a result of both – there is no precession or ‘precessional force’ by rotation alone when the body is symmetrical (balanced) about a fixed axis of rotation; it requires an additional force or disturbance acting to change the orientation of the rotation axis. In the video examples, the unbalanced torque caused by hanging from only one side acts to change the axis of the mass’s rotation, which is resisted by its inertia and results in precession. If the spinning gyro wheel was supported on both sides (like a reel spool), there would be no off-axis net torque, and no precession (or associated force). If you’ve ever held one of these gyro apparatus, you can feel that there are no unusual forces in play until you start trying to change its angular momentum by turning the axis of rotation.

Like I said, you could create these gyro/precessional forces by rotating the reel throughout the cast (changing the spool’s axis of rotation), but there’s no reason to do this.

I see I got angular momentum confused with gyroscopic precession. The spool is sported on both ends so there is no torque applied by gravity for gyroscopic precession to be observable. The spool is still spinning and the angular momentum that would produce the gyroscopic precession is still there should one support of spool be removed. My point is that there a force acting upon the spool shaft as it is rotating just due to it rotating. In a discussion about the merits of turning the reel on its side to reduce the effects of gravity pulling the spool shaft into the spool bearings shouldn't angular momentum be taken into consideration? A spinning spool is basically a gyroscope. Surely angular momentum the greatest force acting on the spool shaft as the spool is rotating. You could rip the spool out of the reel with it still spinning and it would remain horizontal even when supported from one end. Whatever force gravity is appling to the spool shaft is minuscule. The angular momentum of the spool spinning actually makes it resistant to changes due to gravity. Turning the reel on its side is not going to make the spool spin longer or have less friction in the spool bearings.

https://youtu.be/cquvA_IpEsA

Mhan7 reply :

On 4/6/2019 at 1:01 AM, BaitFinesse said:

Turning the reel on its side is not going to make the spool spin longer or have less friction in the spool bearings.

This is absolutely true. If anything, it's going to have just the opposite effect.

Add to that the fact that if you have the full weight of the spool bearing on the thrust washer, there will be an added frictional component, that will make it slow down even more so. When it's horizontal, it's going to still contact, but not with the same force as when vertical.

In all of this, we are talking about VERY small forces.

As a side note... I performance tuned a few of my surf rigs, some years back. I built a couple of small test jigs, in which I would mount the spool with bearings, and see how long I could spin up the spool, when empty. The very best tournament casters were boasting times of 2+ minutes on rocket tuned bearings. (totally impractical for fishing, by the way) I was happy with 30-45 seconds.

Do you think I got better times with a vertically oriented spool? I'll tell you as a matter of fact, the answer is absolutely NO. On a dead clean set of bearings, with no mass other than the spool itself, the spin time was significantly less than a horizonal spool shaft.

2232

Baitcaster casting technique 2024

related Fishing Rods Reels Line Knots topic

previous topic

next topic

most viewed Fishing Rods Reels Line Knots topic