Best light weight lure baitcaster???

[podcast]

Hey guys.  Looking for some ideas here.  I searched this topic but didn't find anything current or up to date.  Let me know your thoughts as I'm in the market for a bait caster that can accomplish some light lure slinging.

Thanks.

[LgMouthGambler]

Any Daiwa Pixy style of reel is a great choice. I have a PX68R, and that thing is killer with light baits.

[Sisco Kid]

 love my Shimano Aldabaron


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FloridaFishinFool]

I just posed this question to longtime reel technicians and they unanimously said Calcutta DC.

[cortman]

Daiwa Alphas or SV105.

[LgMouthGambler]

I just posed this question to longtime reel technicians and they unanimously said Calcutta DC.

Definitely not a light weight lure reel. Maybe what they consider light weight for saltwater, but definitely not for bass fishing.

[LgMouthGambler]

Daiwa Alphas or SV105.

These are another great option, based on the Pixy style platform as well. You can find the SV105 most places on sale now as they are being discontinued. If you dont mind spending some dough, the Alphas finesse is a good option for REALLY light baits

[loomisguy]

If you can find one, the older BPS pro-lites are really good. They are about 10 years old now and look like a Daiwa Sol.
They still bring $ 50 or so on the auction sites but well worth it.

[cport]

If you can find one, the older BPS pro-lites are really good. They are about 10 years old now and look like a Daiwa Sol.
They still bring $ 50 or so on the auction sites but well worth it.

Here's a link for one
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Bass-Pro-Shops-Extreme-Light-Baitcasting-Reel-/162477324482?hash=item25d46738c2:g:zXcAAOSwWWxY88Dw

[LgMouthGambler]

Here's a link for one
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Bass-Pro-Shops-Extreme-Light-Baitcasting-Reel-/162477324482?hash=item25d46738c2:g:zXcAAOSwWWxY88Dw

Thatll do! Helluva good deal for that thing. Designed by Daiwa for BPS.

[FloridaFishinFool]

Definitely not a light weight lure reel. Maybe what they consider light weight for saltwater, but definitely not for bass fishing.

I would have to disagree. The Calcutta DC is a superior casting reel to anything mentioned in this thread so far... and you can find the review on TT and other places, but the conclusions are the same in that the on board electronics of this reel make it a superior lightweight casting machine unlike no other and here is why:

"There are no batteries that need swapping, as the entire system is self energizing after your very first cast. The system was designed not only to reduce backlashes but also dramatically increase casting distance by making 1/1000 of a second adjustments via one of the eight pre-programmed settings you choose. The system can react so fast that it allows spool rotation to actually exceed 30,000 rotations per minute before applying the braking patterns.

The Field Test: Does it sounds like science fiction to you? We decided it was high time to put the reel to the test against some fish who wouldn't care whether or not your reel is centrifugally controlled or plutonium powered, for that effect. We head out for a series of cast tests in a field and on shore, where the reel underwent over 2 months testing chucking an extensive assortment of baits in countless applications from shore and the deck of our bass boat.

Casting: The main reason that the Calcutta DC is able to deliver such stellar casting is that the digital braking allows the spool to reach 30,000 RPM's before hitting the brakes. With conventional magnet and centrifugal cast systems the systems are always partly engaged, interfering with a 100% true freespool. While these traditional reels have a operating range of anything from 15,000 to 20,000 RPM's the Calcutta DC can surpass this with ease, simply by turning on the brakes when only truly necessary. The total increase in ability to achieve maximum speeds is near 50-70% over Shimano's own current centrifugal offerings. How smart is the system? Don't make the mistake of thinking that the computer is going to monitor your entire cast for you. You simply cannot cast without contact with the spool and never expect a backlash. The system adapts quickly and we found that it significantly reduced backlashes, especially severe ones.

The eight program settings are chosen via a recessed knob on the left side of the reel. Increasing the control to maximum will amplify the total braking force applied to the spool. We found that when casting small weightless plastics, or tossing into the wind a higher setting is warranted. If you seek extreme casting distance for your cranks or spinners then by all means adjust the knob to minimum setting. The system is straightforward to use, and the results are brilliant. We were able to cast between 20-40% further with the Calcutta DC than with our favorite baitcasters. The only application that the Calcutta DC is not best suited for is short & low speed casts like pitching and flipping. Because the digital circuit is designed to maximize initial spool acceleration the braking is insufficient for low speed casts, and you will aggressively adjust the mechanical cast control or clamp down on the spool."

It is in fact probably the best lightweight baitcaster made and it is ideally suited for bass and other freshwater species.

It is a shame I can not post links to the other sites, but any google search can pull it up.

[podcast]

If you can find one, the older BPS pro-lites are really good. They are about 10 years old now and look like a Daiwa Sol.
They still bring $ 50 or so on the auction sites but well worth it.

I'm on it guys. Thanks!

Sent from my LGUS997 using Tapatalk

[LgMouthGambler]

I would have to disagree. The Calcutta DC is a superior casting reel to anything mentioned in this thread so far... and you can find the review on TT and other places, but the conclusions are the same in that the on board electronics of this reel make it a superior lightweight casting machine unlike no other and here is why:

"There are no batteries that need swapping, as the entire system is self energizing after your very first cast. The system was designed not only to reduce backlashes but also dramatically increase casting distance by making 1/1000 of a second adjustments via one of the eight pre-programmed settings you choose. The system can react so fast that it allows spool rotation to actually exceed 30,000 rotations per minute before applying the braking patterns.

The Field Test: Does it sounds like science fiction to you? We decided it was high time to put the reel to the test against some fish who wouldn't care whether or not your reel is centrifugally controlled or plutonium powered, for that effect. We head out for a series of cast tests in a field and on shore, where the reel underwent over 2 months testing chucking an extensive assortment of baits in countless applications from shore and the deck of our bass boat.

Casting: The main reason that the Calcutta DC is able to deliver such stellar casting is that the digital braking allows the spool to reach 30,000 RPM's before hitting the brakes. With conventional magnet and centrifugal cast systems the systems are always partly engaged, interfering with a 100% true freespool. While these traditional reels have a operating range of anything from 15,000 to 20,000 RPM's the Calcutta DC can surpass this with ease, simply by turning on the brakes when only truly necessary. The total increase in ability to achieve maximum speeds is near 50-70% over Shimano's own current centrifugal offerings. How smart is the system? Don't make the mistake of thinking that the computer is going to monitor your entire cast for you. You simply cannot cast without contact with the spool and never expect a backlash. The system adapts quickly and we found that it significantly reduced backlashes, especially severe ones.

The eight program settings are chosen via a recessed knob on the left side of the reel. Increasing the control to maximum will amplify the total braking force applied to the spool. We found that when casting small weightless plastics, or tossing into the wind a higher setting is warranted. If you seek extreme casting distance for your cranks or spinners then by all means adjust the knob to minimum setting. The system is straightforward to use, and the results are brilliant. We were able to cast between 20-40% further with the Calcutta DC than with our favorite baitcasters. The only application that the Calcutta DC is not best suited for is short & low speed casts like pitching and flipping. Because the digital circuit is designed to maximize initial spool acceleration the braking is insufficient for low speed casts, and you will aggressively adjust the mechanical cast control or clamp down on the spool."

It is in fact probably the best lightweight baitcaster made and it is ideally suited for bass and other freshwater species.

It is a shame I can not post links to the other sites, but any google search can pull it up.

Its a good thing you know how to use a computer to copy and paste. 

[FloridaFishinFool]

Its a good thing you know how to use a computer to copy and paste. 

Well of course! Sometimes people who ask questions need some real information! 

[LgMouthGambler]

Well of course! Sometimes people who ask questions need some real information! 

OK. 

[Oldfart9999]

Thatll do! Helluva good deal for that thing. Designed by Daiwa for BPS.

I have one of those Prolites, it throws lite lures very nicely!!
Rodney

[loomisguy]

As I recall BPS sold 3 generations of the orange colored pro lites before they stopped selling them.
I believe the last generation had dual braking.
The reel shown on ebay is not the same. The orange pro lite is the one you want.

[Bassun67]

It all depends on what you mean "best". Casting distance? durability? easy to adjust the brake? Or ALL of the above?

My favorite light weight lure baitcaster I own is Daiwa Steez SV 8.1 limited (JDM). 

In additional to casting distance, it's more beautiful (bling bling) than Daiwa Steez (US).

Regarding casting distance. I saw many reviews (even done in Japan) but none used a casting machine (not cast by a real person) to do the test. For me, unless the reel is masked (appearance) that unable to be identified by the person who casts it, the distance measured is not objective enough.

This is the same for "rod sensitivity". People talked about how sensitive this rod is!! Wow!! so "sensitive"!! My question is: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? Any scientific measurement?

I started bass fishing three years ago. Subsequently I own Shimano crucial (M, MH, MH; 3 rods), shimano compre MH, shimano zodiac MH, NRXs (802 , 852, 853, 854, 893, baitcasting), and then Daiwa Steez ML (spinning), daiwa tatula ML (spinning) and NRX 852 spinning. As you can see they are in various price tags, rod power and weight. To be honest, I tried but failed to find any MAJOR differences in term of rod "sensitivity" , except weight of rods.

By the way, I am a person interested in doing experiment.

Is it because my hands not sensitive to feel the different sensitivities among those rods? or my hands are sensitive but in fact there is no human (at least me) detectable difference to be found? or other reasons, e.g., personal bias (preference, marketing purpose, fake review...)?

Then I tried to figure out how anglers measure the so called "sensitivity". I found loads of information, including "stiffness versus weight" theory and "throat hmmmm sound", etc. I also read many articles relevant to rod sensitivity and as far as I can remember none of them provided scientific evaluation, all were about personal feeling (opinion). Sorry, if there is any, please let me know. I am eager to to read it.   

OK. let me get to my point. I care more about "real world" scenario and do not think those theory, or personal opinions do any good in finding the "answers" I can accept. I mean, is there any "scientific method" to measure rod sensitivity?

I was disappointed. Then I went back to my background (clinical trial design, evaluation of drug effectiveness). My research experiences told me for comparison I need to find a "random", "double blind" with "control group" (exactly the same as in a clinical trial) test for an objective evaluation of rod "sensitivity". At least this method can convince me to believe the measurement is more likely to be unbiased.

What is the methodology normally used in a clinical trial to see whether A drug is better than B drug (placebo or standard drug) in terms of effectiveness? We need , "double-blind", "randomised", "control" trials.

Please see below what I think to be considered when measuring rod sensitivity: 

1. a study design that no participant knows in advance the brand of the rod during the test. (blinding, to avoid bias). The method? Remove or cover the appearances of rods (reel is the same) or simply blindfolded the participants when doing the test. It's very simple.

2. a standardised mechanical "vibration" that mimics the vibration of a "normal fish bite". As long as the method of vibration has been agreed by most anglers (consensus), then it's acceptable. Of course, the test has to use the same reel, same line, same lure, same weight, same rig and even same interface (wind, water, depth of water, etc) during the test.

3. The test has a gold standard rod for "control" purpose. For example, use the "Shimano crucial MH" as a "control group" and the experiment group would be the "test rods". If most participants could detect the artificial "bite" from the TEST rod but not from the "Shimano crucial MH", then we can say the test rod has a better sensitivity than "Shimano crucial MH". By using this method we can rank rod's sensitivity from so many different rods on the market.

4. Of course, we will need sufficient participants. Statistically, at least 30 for a normal distribution of population. Anyway, probably we can say at least 30, to detect the minimal significant difference (detectable difference between 2 rods) score of "sensitivity". I have no idea about sensitivity test (the power, statistically speaking) but let's be conservative - 10-30 probably is acceptable to me. As long as we anglers accept the number of participants, I have no objection. The purpose is also to avoid personal bias. What I can not accept is "product review" I read, it only shows "The rod is so sensitive...best on the market...". (Sorry I don't buy personal experience.)

5. The participants should be randomised into at least 2 groups (or more if multiple comparisons) when study design appropriate.

6. Method 1 (there are at least 2-3 methods): Ask each participants to hold the GOLD STANDARD rod and provide a small mechanical "bite", and then see if the participant could detect the bite when holding that rod. If the blinded participants could detect the bites no matter which rod he was holding, then decrease the vibration strength until the participant can detect the bite when holding one of the rods (more sensitive), but not the other (less sensitive). The test can be done, for example, for three times for each participant, to repeat the results and see if it is a consistent result (reliability). Then record the results. For this step, the participants has no chance at all to know which rod he/she was holding. Not knowing which rod the participant was holding is the beauty of the test, in my view.

7. After all the tests have been completed and all data recorded, UNBLINDED the rods. For this step, we can eventually know which rod is more sensitive than the other rod. For example, by using A rod, 70% participants found it is more sensitive than B rod when using  the minimum detectable vibration. Or, 70% participants can detect minimum detectable vibration by using A rod but only 20% participants detected the same vibration when using B rod. The results shown above depend on the study designs. Different study designs will lead to different conclusions.

My question is: Is there any report or articles available on the Internet mentioned at least "blinding" test? If YES, where is it? If NO, when you talk about rod sensitivity, what is your base? Only based on your personal experience or HAND feeling? or simply based on the price tag of the rod?

I am probably a bit addicted to "evidence based medicine", the methodology I learned for drug evaluation but I would like to hear what you think.Thanks.

[podcast]

^^^^^
You posted in the wrong thread is what I think. I'm asking about casting and 90 percent of your post is about rod sensitivity.

Sent from my LGUS997 using Tapatalk

[Bassun67]

^^^^^
You posted in the wrong thread is what I think. I'm asking about casting and 90 percent of your post is about rod sensitivity.

Sent from my LGUS997 using Tapatalk

not wrong, just give you some "ideas".

[podcast]

not wrong, just give you some "ideas".

That's fine however there will still be consistencies within my question. In other words, by asking I can receive a generally consistent answer based off experience that will allow me to evaluate​ a starting point for my needs.

Sent from my LGUS997 using Tapatalk

[LgMouthGambler]

not wrong, just give you some "ideas".

Are you related to that Fishing Fool? 

Im just playin with ya. 

[FloridaFishinFool]

Are you related to that Fishing Fool?

Why of course! He is a brother of a different mother with an informed opinion for once! 

Hey brother Bassun67 start a thread about rod sensitivity!  That is some good info deserving its own thread.

[LgMouthGambler]

Why of course! He is a brother of a different mother with an informed opinion for once! 

Hey brother Bassun67 start a thread about rod sensitivity!  That is some good info deserving its own thread.

As opposed to a copy and pasted one? 

[FISH520]

It all depends on what you mean "best". Casting distance? durability? easy to adjust the brake? Or ALL of the above?

My favorite light weight lure baitcaster I own is Daiwa Steez SV 8.1 limited (JDM). 

In additional to casting distance, it's more beautiful (bling bling) than Daiwa Steez (US).

Regarding casting distance. I saw many reviews (even done in Japan) but none used a casting machine (not cast by a real person) to do the test. For me, unless the reel is masked (appearance) that unable to be identified by the person who casts it, the distance measured is not objective enough.

This is the same for "rod sensitivity". People talked about how sensitive this rod is!! Wow!! so "sensitive"!! My question is: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? Any scientific measurement?

I started bass fishing three years ago. Subsequently I own Shimano crucial (M, MH, MH; 3 rods), shimano compre MH, shimano zodiac MH, NRXs (802 , 852, 853, 854, 893, baitcasting), and then Daiwa Steez ML (spinning), daiwa tatula ML (spinning) and NRX 852 spinning. As you can see they are in various price tags, rod power and weight. To be honest, I tried but failed to find any MAJOR differences in term of rod "sensitivity" , except weight of rods.

By the way, I am a person interested in doing experiment.

Is it because my hands not sensitive to feel the different sensitivities among those rods? or my hands are sensitive but in fact there is no human (at least me) detectable difference to be found? or other reasons, e.g., personal bias (preference, marketing purpose, fake review...)?

Then I tried to figure out how anglers measure the so called "sensitivity". I found loads of information, including "stiffness versus weight" theory and "throat hmmmm sound", etc. I also read many articles relevant to rod sensitivity and as far as I can remember none of them provided scientific evaluation, all were about personal feeling (opinion). Sorry, if there is any, please let me know. I am eager to to read it.   

OK. let me get to my point. I care more about "real world" scenario and do not think those theory, or personal opinions do any good in finding the "answers" I can accept. I mean, is there any "scientific method" to measure rod sensitivity?

I was disappointed. Then I went back to my background (clinical trial design, evaluation of drug effectiveness). My research experiences told me for comparison I need to find a "random", "double blind" with "control group" (exactly the same as in a clinical trial) test for an objective evaluation of rod "sensitivity". At least this method can convince me to believe the measurement is more likely to be unbiased.

What is the methodology normally used in a clinical trial to see whether A drug is better than B drug (placebo or standard drug) in terms of effectiveness? We need , "double-blind", "randomised", "control" trials.

Please see below what I think to be considered when measuring rod sensitivity: 

1. a study design that no participant knows in advance the brand of the rod during the test. (blinding, to avoid bias). The method? Remove or cover the appearances of rods (reel is the same) or simply blindfolded the participants when doing the test. It's very simple.

2. a standardised mechanical "vibration" that mimics the vibration of a "normal fish bite". As long as the method of vibration has been agreed by most anglers (consensus), then it's acceptable. Of course, the test has to use the same reel, same line, same lure, same weight, same rig and even same interface (wind, water, depth of water, etc) during the test.

3. The test has a gold standard rod for "control" purpose. For example, use the "Shimano crucial MH" as a "control group" and the experiment group would be the "test rods". If most participants could detect the artificial "bite" from the TEST rod but not from the "Shimano crucial MH", then we can say the test rod has a better sensitivity than "Shimano crucial MH". By using this method we can rank rod's sensitivity from so many different rods on the market.

4. Of course, we will need sufficient participants. Statistically, at least 30 for a normal distribution of population. Anyway, probably we can say at least 30, to detect the minimal significant difference (detectable difference between 2 rods) score of "sensitivity". I have no idea about sensitivity test (the power, statistically speaking) but let's be conservative - 10-30 probably is acceptable to me. As long as we anglers accept the number of participants, I have no objection. The purpose is also to avoid personal bias. What I can not accept is "product review" I read, it only shows "The rod is so sensitive...best on the market...". (Sorry I don't buy personal experience.)

5. The participants should be randomised into at least 2 groups (or more if multiple comparisons) when study design appropriate.

6. Method 1 (there are at least 2-3 methods): Ask each participants to hold the GOLD STANDARD rod and provide a small mechanical "bite", and then if the participant could detect the bite when holding that rod. If the blinded participants could detect the bites no matter which rod he was holding, then decrease the vibration strength until the participant can detect the bite when holding one of the rods (more sensitive), but not the other (less sensitive). The test can be done, for example, for three times for each participant, to repeat the results and see if it is a consistent result (reliability). Then record the results. For this step, the participants has no chance at all to know which rod he/she was holding. Not knowing which rod the participant was holding is the beauty of the test, in my view.

7. After all the tests have been completed and all data recorded, UNBLINDED the rods. For this step, we can eventually know which rod is more sensitive than the other rod. For example, by using A rod, 70% participants found it is more sensitive than B rod when using  the minimum detectable vibration. Or, 70% participants can detect minimum detectable vibration by using A rod but only 20% participants detected the same vibration when using B rod. The results shown above depend on the study designs. Different study designs will lead to different conclusions.

My question is: Is there any report or articles available on the Internet mentioned at least "blinding" test? If YES, where is it? If NO, when you talk about rod sensitivity, what is your base? Only based on your personal experience or HAND feeling? or simply based on the price tag of the rod?

I am probably a bit addicted to "evidence based medicine", the methodology I learned for drug evaluation but I would like to hear what you think.Thanks.

You did get the win for longest post 👏  hard to do around these parts. Good info

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk