Old Shimano Spool Weight

Reels are the hottest topic for TackleTour. Everyone wants to know what the latest and greatest is and how they compare to the old guard. What's the best for light stuff, or what's your suggestion for heavy cover. Do we really need different retrieve ratios? It's all in here.
User avatar
Bootytrain
Pro Angler
Pro Angler
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:28 am

Re: Old Shimano Spool Weight

Postby Bootytrain » Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:40 am

LgMouthGambler wrote:
Bootytrain wrote:
LgMouthGambler wrote:
Bootytrain wrote:
Aek29 wrote:
Shallower in what way? Both the 50E and 70 are listed as 10/105 for mono so the line weight would be the same. Aldebaran 50 has same capacity as well.

I don't know how else to explain "shallower". I have them all, the new 50 and 70 spools are shallower and hold less line.


50E and 70 are rated at the same line capacity. If the 70 spool is "shallower" it's because it's wider.

It's not wider, they are both 32/22


So if they hold the same amount of line, have the same dimension, how are the 70s more shallow?

I don't pay attention to manufacturer line capacity ratings. There are too many variables involved to get a true rating. I'm going by my eyes because I have the spools in front of me looking at them.

DirtyD64
Senior Angler
Senior Angler
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:23 pm

Re: Old Shimano Spool Weight

Postby DirtyD64 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:53 am

A spool can be more shallow and hold the same line, a wider shallow pool holds the same water as a narrow deep one. I saw where someone said the were the same or similar width, but I also understand manufacturer ratings aren't always perfect. Also have to take in actually cubic area that the line can lie. I know a wider shallow spool should cast better than a narrow deeper one because the line doesn't have to get out of its own way as much.

My question is how in the world does an almost 16 gram Shimano spool even compare with the old 11 gram? And is no one else interested in the fact that an Abu Garcia spool with a bearing weighs less than some major manufacturer's premier models?

PBP
Senior Angler
Senior Angler
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 9:17 am
Location: Ontario

Re: Old Shimano Spool Weight

Postby PBP » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:26 am

I measured myself a while ago, 70 holds about 7-10 yards less. 70 Spool weigh with 16lb flouro was still several gramms more compared to 50 spooled with the same line.

User avatar
Bootytrain
Pro Angler
Pro Angler
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:28 am

Re: Old Shimano Spool Weight

Postby Bootytrain » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:18 am

DirtyD64 wrote:A spool can be more shallow and hold the same line, a wider shallow pool holds the same water as a narrow deep one. I saw where someone said the were the same or similar width, but I also understand manufacturer ratings aren't always perfect. Also have to take in actually cubic area that the line can lie. I know a wider shallow spool should cast better than a narrow deeper one because the line doesn't have to get out of its own way as much.

My question is how in the world does an almost 16 gram Shimano spool even compare with the old 11 gram? And is no one else interested in the fact that an Abu Garcia spool with a bearing weighs less than some major manufacturer's premier models?

Because the new svs brakes allow you to extract close to the maximum castability vs old vbs. ABU reels have had light spools for years, my revo elite spool weighs 10 gram with bearing, my elite ib is 13 grams with bearing.

DirtyD64
Senior Angler
Senior Angler
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:23 pm

Re: Old Shimano Spool Weight

Postby DirtyD64 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:31 am

Bootytrain wrote:
DirtyD64 wrote:A spool can be more shallow and hold the same line, a wider shallow pool holds the same water as a narrow deep one. I saw where someone said the were the same or similar width, but I also understand manufacturer ratings aren't always perfect. Also have to take in actually cubic area that the line can lie. I know a wider shallow spool should cast better than a narrow deeper one because the line doesn't have to get out of its own way as much.

My question is how in the world does an almost 16 gram Shimano spool even compare with the old 11 gram? And is no one else interested in the fact that an Abu Garcia spool with a bearing weighs less than some major manufacturer's premier models?

Because the new svs brakes allow you to extract close to the maximum castability vs old vbs. ABU reels have had light spools for years, my revo elite spool weighs 10 gram with bearing, my elite ib is 13 grams with bearing.


So are the somewhat of finesse sleepers??? I know friends of mine that are Lew's fans and claim they toss finesse okay, the only Revo baitcaster I own is a Winch and it's 3/8 or above, only. I guess I am just trying to justify an Abu reel again, hardest part is the brakes though, they are sooooo simple and seem too basic for this day.

User avatar
LgMouthGambler
Platinum Angler
Platinum Angler
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:04 am
Location: S FL

Re: Old Shimano Spool Weight

Postby LgMouthGambler » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:05 pm

DirtyD64 wrote:A spool can be more shallow and hold the same line, a wider shallow pool holds the same water as a narrow deep one. I saw where someone said the were the same or similar width, but I also understand manufacturer ratings aren't always perfect. Also have to take in actually cubic area that the line can lie. I know a wider shallow spool should cast better than a narrow deeper one because the line doesn't have to get out of its own way as much.

My question is how in the world does an almost 16 gram Shimano spool even compare with the old 11 gram? And is no one else interested in the fact that an Abu Garcia spool with a bearing weighs less than some major manufacturer's premier models?


Its because the old 50s were better reels. Plain and simple. They were built better, cast better, and overall felt better. IMO the new 70s suck compared to the 50s in many ways. Some dont agree with me, but hey, they are entitled to their opinions.

My Abu ALX that I just got blows the new 70 away in casting, but feels cheap in hand. Give one to take one. Lol.
<")))><{

User avatar
Bootytrain
Pro Angler
Pro Angler
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:28 am

Re: Old Shimano Spool Weight

Postby Bootytrain » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:08 pm

LgMouthGambler wrote:
Bootytrain wrote:
LgMouthGambler wrote:
Bootytrain wrote:
Aek29 wrote:
Shallower in what way? Both the 50E and 70 are listed as 10/105 for mono so the line weight would be the same. Aldebaran 50 has same capacity as well.

I don't know how else to explain "shallower". I have them all, the new 50 and 70 spools are shallower and hold less line.


50E and 70 are rated at the same line capacity. If the 70 spool is "shallower" it's because it's wider.

It's not wider, they are both 32/22


So if they hold the same amount of line, have the same dimension, how are the 70s more shallow?

Width and diameter have nothing to do with the spool depth

Aek29
Angler
Angler
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:09 am
Location: Canada

Re: Old Shimano Spool Weight

Postby Aek29 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:17 pm

Bootytrain wrote:
Aek29 wrote:
Bootytrain wrote:Yeah the old Curado 50E had an 11 gram spool. But the new 70 has a significantly shallower spool. So it may be a wash because the 70 can handle BFS lures respectably. I think Shimano did this on purpose to seperate the 70 from the Aldebaran 50 which has an 11ish gram spool.


Shallower in what way? Both the 50E and 70 are listed as 10/105 for mono so the line weight would be the same. Aldebaran 50 has same capacity as well.

I don't know how else to explain "shallower". I have them all, the new 50 and 70 spools are shallower and hold less line.


Ok. I was just curious is all. I don't have a 70 to compare so I was just going by line ratings from Shimano. Just seemed odd to me so thought I'd ask.

In regards to the weight of spools mentioned earlier. I have 2 50E's and each spool is 11.41g and 11.42g. The spool in my core 50 is 11.01g

User avatar
Bootytrain
Pro Angler
Pro Angler
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:28 am

Re: Old Shimano Spool Weight

Postby Bootytrain » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:53 pm

The Core50 spools have bigger drilled holes than the Curado 50 spool. Heres a pic of the old Curado 50 spool and the Curado 70 spool. You can see the 70 spool is shallower
Image


Return to “Reels”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], replica and 18 guests