[bonefish41]

the best benchmark is spool diameter...what is it? 4 4.5, 4.75, 5...then spool width...the spool depth determines the amount of backing with a given wt...if a Ross BG 8, Abel Super 12, Tibor Pacifica, et al had depth to the spool axel...use could fly a kite to the moon on 50 super braid

[wyefly]

hi, yes i like your style Joni there is no shame in running down the bank side after a fish, lol.

[ezamora]

standard arbor for me. i DO have a galvan OB-3 (large arbor, but there are larger :-), and a lamson radius mid arbor. i don't feel a need for anything larger than a standard arbor design for trout on streams i fish and i don't have anything i'd call a problem with coils. for retrieves i just let the line fall at my feet for trout up to 17 inches. i use a meisselbach airex 373 and an orvis battenkill 3/4 currently. i'm going old school it seems... :-)

eric
fresno, ca.

[Joni]

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.
While I own several LA 1, 2, and 3's, I just branched out and bought the Vosseler Rim Drag LA. Sweet and very smooth reel. I got the custom GREEN which at a glance looks like the Galvin. I see several more in my future.
I like the idea of a rim drag, so I control it.

[Jackster]

Originally Posted by Joni

Traditional you can get the max amount of backing, Mid-Arbor about half max and Large arbor Minimum backing (30 to 50 yrds on the average)

Actually Joni you've painted with too wide a brush. If you have a phony large arbor like some that are simply standard sized spools with a larger hole at the the spindle then yes, they do hold less backing.
If it's a true large arbor, built that way from the get-go with a wider spool then there is no or little loss of backing capacity. What you gain from a true large arbor has been mentioned but you also get a more consistant drag setting as the line is pulled out since the outside diameter of the coiled line doesn't change as quickly or as radically.
True larger arbor for me no matter what the quarry because of less coils, more line take-up per rev and more consistant drag.

[Joni]

Originally Posted by Jackster

Actually Joni you've painted with too wide a brush. If you have a phony large arbor like some that are simply standard sized spools with a larger hole at the the spindle then yes, they do hold less backing.
If it's a true large arbor, built that way from the get-go with a wider spool then there is no or little loss of backing capacity. What you gain from a true large arbor has been mentioned but you also get a more consistant drag setting as the line is pulled out since the outside diameter of the coiled line doesn't change as quickly or as radically.
True larger arbor for me no matter what the quarry because of less coils, more line take-up per rev and more consistant drag.

I agree one hundred per cent. However, to me anyway, a TRUE large arbor is ex: The Battenkill which doesn't hold a lot of backing.
Orvis came out with the MID which to me was like the GALVIN for ex. While the Lamson Lite was a LA and others.
But, technically, LARGE doesn't just mean bigger, it would also mean wider.
It is confusing because some do have a WIDE arbor line also.
As you mentioned it all boils down to what has less coil in the finished product and the right drag.

[sandfly]

I use them all, equelly..depending on species and lines..i voted other

[shorthaul]

Originally Posted by sandfly

I use them all, equelly..depending on species and lines..i voted other

Me too---From a tiny Cfo for a 2 wt through Hardy St.George and Perfects to Able Super 8 to Tibor Billy Pate Tarpon and Gulfstream

[hsmith1313]

I voted other. For trout, standard arbor. For saltwater species (bonefish, striper) large arbor. Most trout I catch are landed without using the reel so arbor size matters little. (I know, I need to fish where the fish are bigger) Bonefish and stripers both can run right at you at high speed and large arbor picks up line faster thereby allowing me to keep the line tight.

[adrian]

i fished my first waterworks force about 6 years ago and retired my old battenkills, which i used and loved for 10+ years. i now have 2 and a litespeed . the force 2 is a tad over 3 oz, the force 3x is just shy of 4 ounces and the litespeed 1 is 3 1/2 oz. a sunup to sundown day of steelheading (is that a verb??) on a big river or trouting (it can only gets worse)on a small PA stream and i can really tell the difference. maybe it's my age, 50, but between the weight and retrieve rate i could never go back to a standard arbor.

don't mean to sound like an advert for Lamson, but they rock!
adrian