Lamson Litespeed 2??

bmbailes

Well-known member
Messages
474
Reaction score
33
Location
North Alabama
so i have never owned a Lamson but i actually like the looks of the litespeed! do these reels have outgoing clicks or are they silent? also how well does the hard alox hold up? any comments on this or any lamson model is appreciated.

thanks guys:)
 

troutnut4

Well-known member
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
15
Location
Down East, EH!
so i have never owned a Lamson but i actually like the looks of the litespeed! do these reels have outgoing clicks or are they silent? also how well does the hard alox hold up? any comments on this or any lamson model is appreciated.

thanks guys:)
I have several Waterworks- Lamson reels all with their alox coating and IMHO they are well built, tough and attractive. My reels have a soft outgoing click compared to my Hardy click reels (which I like). I now have a Litespeed 1.5, Speedster 1.5, and Velocity 2.0 to match several rods in the 3 wt. to 4 weight class. Love them.:D I have seen my Litespeed dropped 4 feet onto a hard floor without any sign of damage. At some point they will all show some signs of wear as they are used. I call that a patina.:rolleyes:
 

bmbailes

Well-known member
Messages
474
Reaction score
33
Location
North Alabama
great! thanks for the info. i also have a hardy dd ultralite 4000 that i really enjoy. its a real piece of rod jewelry! i actually thought about adding a 3000 to my arsenal but noticed the lamson litespeed and liked the looks of it.
 

sweetandsalt

Well-known member
Messages
18,476
Reaction score
12,243
Location
South of the Catskills
You are new so have been spared my wrath on this subject. However, since you have a Hardy U DD with a NARROW aspect ratio, recognize that with the exception of the "Speedster" (semingly influenced by your Hardy), ALL Waterworks/Lamson reels suffer from a dysfunctionaly WIDE (over and inch) and shallow spool ratio. This promotes uneven line retrieval that can only be overcome by carefully paying disproportionate attention to uniform line retrieval . One would really have to like the looks of Lamsons (which do look cool) to put up with this design anomaly.
 

bmbailes

Well-known member
Messages
474
Reaction score
33
Location
North Alabama
i see that the litespeed is 1.10" wide....i know my allen trout reels are 1.06" so i dont think i would notice any negative effects. it seems the lamsons have other subtle attributes i like.....counterweight is part of the spool( no hung up line), the hard alox coating, the spool release is very simple( fewer moving parts).
 

troutnut4

Well-known member
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
15
Location
Down East, EH!
i see that the litespeed is 1.10" wide....i know my allen trout reels are 1.06" so i dont think i would notice any negative effects. it seems the lamsons have other subtle attributes i like.....counterweight is part of the spool( no hung up line), the hard alox coating, the spool release is very simple( fewer moving parts).
I may look differently at my Lamsons now that I see they are "dysfunctional". :rolleyes: I fish brooks, small rivers and some lakes. Never had an issue with any of them in my limited fishing experience. As well as I have never taken such an in depth analytic view as you see expressed here. Too technical for me. I am curious if this problem occurs when retrieving line only at a fast pace.:confused: Again, I haven't had the opportunity to tie into some large trout. Has anyone else out there experienced the problem with this design?
Different strokes for different folks.
 

bmbailes

Well-known member
Messages
474
Reaction score
33
Location
North Alabama
sorry...guess you can tell im in the engineering field:)

and i would imagine this would only be an issue IF you were hooked into a fish that had your backing out. but like i said my allen trout reel is almost as wide and i have never had an issue?
 

sweetandsalt

Well-known member
Messages
18,476
Reaction score
12,243
Location
South of the Catskills
This intuitive retrieve issue is most pronounced in higher performance situations. Obviously, in a light trout outfit that rarely sees the whole line and backing flying off the reel behind a small stream brook trout, this deficit is diminished. Many of these reel's features are attractive as I said above...I simply bemoan the spools aspect ratios. I am quoting from myself about this wide-shallow design feature from a post last year:

"Last week my wife and I enjoyed our annual adventure to a bonefish lodge in a remote, out-island Bahamian locale. Upon our arrival, there was but one other guest in camp, a tall, athletic, very hard core young (30's) man from Colorado. He had been bonefishing on another more southerly island with a friend and when the friend needed to return to the States, he ventured to this camp, on the doorstep of a spectacular fishery, on his own for two more weeks of pedal-to-the-metal fishing. We were pleased to meet this charming fellow flats fanatic who tied beautiful, imaginative flies and gave serious consideration to all his equipment. He was particularly enamored of his ultimate in light weight brace of rods. On the front porch rod rack he had a Helios #7 & 8 each mounted with a Waterworks reel loaded with gelspun backing to provide adequate capacity on their shallow/wide spools behind tropical floating lines. Picking up the 8-weight really felt impressively like holding a 6. He had caught dozens of bonefish on these rigs and was very enthusiastic. On the last day of his epic trip his skiff and ours arrived back at our home dock simultaneously and, as we slowly motored in, he held aloft a handful of broken rod sections. He had landed several fish and then, battling a particularly good one and regaining line, something happened. Focusing on the fish he had neglected to pay enough attention to the uniformity of distribution of the re-spooling line and, as it is prone to in wider/shallow designs, line built up unevenly to one side and jammed against the reel frame pillar. This is common and the usual result is a fish swimming off with a fly with tippet trailing behind it embedded in its jaw. In this more extreme case, the angler tied good knots and used strong fluorocarbon material and rather than knot failure, experienced catastrophic rod failure...the abrupt reel lock-up caused by the line jam made the rod break in two places, mid and upper butt section simultaneously. "

I strongly feel though that even in a 4-weight outfit where compromise in a reel's design may rarely be revealed, I don't wish to reward a designers work that I consider to er on the engineering over angling attributes. Particularly when there are better designed, equally light weight alternatives like the Hardy U DD and the Nautilus FWX which not only are more angling friendly but feature larger, smarter surface area drag assemblies as well.
 

bmbailes

Well-known member
Messages
474
Reaction score
33
Location
North Alabama
sweetandsalt....that story really made a point for me! i think i'll not venture far from what works.....looks like i need another beauty ( hardy dd):) i love the looks of my 4000 and like the drag! do you see any issues with the dd being fragile?
 

runningfish

Well-known member
Messages
2,657
Reaction score
119
Location
AZ, AB, CA, MN
Sweetandsalt, that is a very interesting story. And newbies like me should listen to veterans like you and the others here. I am sure the guy who started this forum will fish the flats more than I do. However, I am taking some serious notes about the line management.

I have decided to have the Lamson Litespeed 3.5 as my go to saltwater reel over the FWX 7/8 and Ross LT4; because of the Hard Alox, backing capacity and the simplicity of the drag system and my basspro shop points and store credits.
 

moucheur2003

Well-known member
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
1,610
Location
Boston, Mass.
The problem with a wide, shallow spool is that too much line can build up in one place and bind against the reel cage if you're not paying attention to how the line is distributed onto the spool as you wind it in. This is not much of a problem with small fish that you would typically not play from the reel in any event. However, when playing a bigger fish from the reel and retrieving line with the reel, it can be a buzzkill to bring him to within 10 or 20 feet from the net after a long fight and then have your reel bind up because your line is jammed in the cage.

Then again, I've got 3 Litespeeds and 4 Velocities, so it's not necessarily a dealbreaker, just something to be aware of.
 

caseywise

Well-known member
Messages
4,584
Reaction score
131
Location
sycamore, illinois
i own a couple litespeeds (a 1 and a 2), and the are among my favorite reels. they are, in my opinion, very finely us made reels and i have never had an issue with them (or any other lamson reel i own).
i am quite aware of s&s's critique(a good one albeit), but i have to say that, in 2-6 wt. range, i've never had any problems with line build up.
i think lamson has addressed this(alleged) problem with the new speedster and arx series.


casey
 

klunker

Well-known member
Messages
251
Reaction score
31
I have 2 rods (8wt SH and 7wt DH) with litespeeds on them. Also 2 8wt SH with konics on them. All are used for steelhead, lake run browns, coho and king salmon. So they have seen their share of line peeled off and wound back on. I never watch the line while winding. I have never seen or experienced this issue with them. Maybe its an issue if you put too much line on the reel or you are running the line thru your hand when you wind line on the spool. I never touch the line when I'm fighting a fish as long as the fish is "on the reel". I have seen others run the line thru their fingers with the hand that is holding the rod so they can manually manipulate the line with drag. I never understood this myself, after all what is the drag on the reel for? I tend to think that line wound on a reel will naturally tend to run somewhat level, not bunch up on one side unless there is external guidance on the line forcing it to one side.

Thanks for the concern, but the as far as I'm concerned its not an issue. I like the lamson reels I have and will buy another when I need another reel.
 

troutnut4

Well-known member
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
15
Location
Down East, EH!
Klunker, you raise an interesting point. Manipulating the line on retrieval might possibly be one of the causes of spool lockup. To assume that the design of a reel is solely the cause for this is not right. Human error could also be part of it. Is overloading a spool with too much backing a possible cause or maybe the type of backing? I am interested to know if others have experienced this problem with various other reel designs or is Lamson being singled out here. The designers and manufacturers of modern day equipment put alot of thought, time and money into the design in order to bring a product to market.
 

biggie_robs

Well-known member
Messages
606
Reaction score
6
Location
Holliston, MA, USA
Wasn't the Litespeed designed to be a trout reel? And when fishing for trout doesn't one want to protect one's tippet? Well, Lamson's wide spool does that better than a narrow spool.

Torque. You want it to remain as constant as possible when playing a fish on fine tippet.

Or am I mistaken?

I think Lamson made a choice, rather than a mistake as it is often described on this forum, to design their reels with a wide spool. The design process is a give and take, and while I think it is important that people be made aware of a design's flaws, let's not ignore the design's advantages.

For bonefishing, I can see why one might avoid a Litespeed, but I don't think anyone is bonefishing with a Litespeed 2.
 

moucheur2003

Well-known member
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
1,610
Location
Boston, Mass.
I am interested to know if others have experienced this problem with various other reel designs or is Lamson being singled out here.
The reel that has caused me the most problems in this regard is the original Battenkill Large Arbor V, not a Lamson.

The problems arise more from the shallowness of the spool than its width: the less room there is between the arbor and the cage, the less room there is for an adequate foundation of backing, and the fewer turns of line in one spot are needed to fill the entire space. Very large-arbor reel designs tend to be shallow, and designers try to provide adequate capacity by compensating with additional width, but the width per se is not the source of the problem.
 

sweetandsalt

Well-known member
Messages
18,476
Reaction score
12,243
Location
South of the Catskills
Perhaps I have developed too harsh an attitude toward Waterworks products. As Moucheur points out it is not a feature unique to Waterworks and, further, I do not doubt the ability of any of my fellow contributors here to use their tackle most advantageously. I am also cognizant of the engineering concept that the less a circumference (of a reel arbor) changes, the more constant the drag setting remains. Additionally, as I have long been critical specifically of the Waterworks products' uniformly wide/shallow aspect ratio and explained way, I am confident that if you handed me your rod and reel I would manage to get the line back on acceptably as would most of you. If, however, a less experienced angler is asking advise, particularly in a bonefishing rather than trout stream context, I think it is highly relevant to make him aware of the potential for un-even line build up issues. To inquire if anyone other than S&S and Moucheur have experienced this need to pay extra attention to retrieving line intuitively and uniformly, let me illustrate this differently. Perhaps the most respected name in fly reels today is Abel. they have uniquely offered many of the Super Series reels in both moderately wide (but not shallow) spool dimensions and narrow ones too. Over the past couple of seasons they have been methodically and brilliantly reconfiguring the entire Super line up from little trout to tarpon/tuna size reels to be NARROW ONLY! And Waterworks too introduced their newest model, Speedster, to be larger in diameter and narrower in width as well. Hardy, which knows a thing or two about reel design makes a very specific point about their award winning U DD (&CC) that it features a NARROW spool width. Do I have it in for Waterworks or find their products unattractive or badly crafted...I do not, and I am not criticizing any one for liking them either. I am suggesting for someone in the market for a bonefish reel that there are better designed choices out there with superior proportions and larger surface area drag designs. While I am feeling contrite and defensive, I will further point out that many of the rods I consider ideal for my applications would looked askance upon my many other trout fishers for being to quick in recovery rate and thus lacking in deep flexing feel.
 

comeonavs

Well-known member
Messages
3,205
Reaction score
52
Location
Broomfield, Co
The width / depth issue cost me $160 dollars. I like everything about Lamson reels I have had but I litterally have pinched the welded loop almost off 2 brand new lines in Lamson reels. I wasn't watching for it but the shallow spool led to the line stacking up upon retrieval and got to the point it pinched my line in the reel.


Since realizing what caused that it hasn't happened since. I don't think when spending $200-$300 on a reel you should have to

A) use 50% of the recomended backing capacity
B) be super conciensus of how you manipulate your line upon retrieval


Since I primarily fish trout along the front range going with less backing isn't a issue. The whole scenario is just annoying when for comparable money Nautilus, Ross,Galvan don't have similar issues.

I would consider their new reel with the deeper spool but I don't have room for anymore $300 line holders in my arsenal of rod/reel combos (yet :frogdance)
 

moucheur2003

Well-known member
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
1,610
Location
Boston, Mass.
The width / depth issue cost me $160 dollars. I like everything about Lamson reels I have had but I litterally have pinched the welded loop almost off 2 brand new lines in Lamson reels.
Gee, too bad, replacing the welded loops with braided loops or whipped loops would only have cost you a couple of dollars. ;)
 

comeonavs

Well-known member
Messages
3,205
Reaction score
52
Location
Broomfield, Co
Gee, too bad, replacing the welded loops with braided loops or whipped loops would only have cost you a couple of dollars. ;)
Yep I did do that....didn't spend $80 on a fly line so I could have to fix it and use an alternative method. I don't mind the amnesia method but on line where I am throwing smaller than 18 dries I don't like it.
 
Top