Casting 1/16 oz lures with old Shimano Bantam 100EX

[Reel Geezer]

Is there anyone around here that can explain to me how the addition of the plastic gear onto the spool of the Bantam 100EX and then engaging it with a gear that does nothing but rotate was supposed to make you able to cast lighter lures than a standard Bantam 100. What is the theory here? I'm no engineer or physicist, so I don't get it. Steve probably knows of an 1800s patent that covers the theory. Here are the insides of the Bantam 100EX - note the gear on the spool and the gear inside the rear plate.
obsolete link: oldreels.com/100EX-parts-01w.jpg



This has become more of an interest since I purchased a Shimano BM-7D reel (never came into production) last week that sure looks like it is a prototype of the 100EX. The method of engaging the gear in the rear plate is with a lever on the BM-7D, rather than a sliding button, and there are a few structural and cosmetic differences, but they are minor. Here is the BM-7D
obsolete link: oldreels.com/BM-7D-parts-03w.jpg

[Dr. Rob]

Well, the two gears in mesh might provide just a little bit of rolling friction, thereby providing a very light casting brake? Less backlash?

Unfortunately, Shimano has approximately a million trillion patents. Kinda hard to leaf through.

That doesn't help you much... sorry.

[Steve]

Steve probably knows of an 1800s patent that covers the theory.

[Dr. Rob]

Wanna know something even funnier?

I made a reel with a transmission like that, as a gag. It was hell-fast, like 2000 RPM on the retrieve. Not sure where it is. Maybe I'll look for it tomorrow.

PS: Actually, Steve... what IS that?

[Steve]

I'll know (maybe) after I translate the patent. It's a variant of a clutch of some kind used in this doohickey:

[Steve]

the two gears in mesh might provide just a little bit of rolling friction

Not to return to the subject, but if Dr. Rob is right, it seems an odd method of braking a spool, at least in a relatively recent reel. But when manufacturers are desperate to provide features they can tout as "New," who knows what lengths they'll go to?

[Hytekrednek]

this is a very old post, but the OP is asking exactly what I am wanting to know too. On the 100EX, what is the switch for and how does it work exactly. They are nice reels though

[kyreels]

Just for the fun and historical value, I updated this old 2007 post to include the original images posted by reelgeezer. He donated his domain oldreels.com to ORCA, and for some reason the domain was not renewed in time and ORCA lost that domain. However, we have all the files on the domain in an old archive. Someday if we think it is of value I may restore the archive to be publicly available. But it's a lot of work. And we may never (not really trying) get the domain back. Note that old images on orcaonline.org on the previous board are also difficult to restore. Sigh.

In any event, if you PM me to restore any individual thread image, if it is important enough, I will do so. Hope you get your question answered.

[Hytekrednek]

Thank you. great pictures

[Paul Roberts]

OK, I think I may have this mechanism... better understood. Or, at least can offer a good guess.

First, some cautious verbiage from ad and manual writers at Shimano describing the “Lure Control” feature, which differs from the “Cast Control” feature. They say "feature" but don't describe the mechanism or how it works. Which leaves those questions -our curiosity- hanging. I guess that's the point. I believe that true BFS really didn't take off when the EX appeared, and took some time even after magnetics appeared. So, I wonder about its efficacy, for the average caster.




The Cast Control is an ABU like centrifugal brake. Both the 100 and 100EX have them. The 100 has a standard looking C-brake on the tail-side spool end. The 100EX has a smaller version on the face-side spool end, probably to minimize braking for light casting weights. See schematics. Interestingly, perhaps, is that the schematics do not show any detail of the Lure Control mech. Replacement parts must have been integral with the frame?




The spools on these reels also appear to have a Shakespeare Wondereel-like central weight on the tail-side spool end (?). This does work (quite well) to tame backlashing on the Wondereels I’ve tried. I assume this acts as a centrifugal counterweight?


The “Lure Control” mechanism? It does appear to be a pair of gears engaged/disengaged to the tail-side spool end by a switch via an armature, stair-stepped to accommodate the ergonomic “palming plate" -new lingo then for the tail-plate.



I’m going to venture a guess that these gears simply add light friction to the spool end, as John surmised. Can’t imagine one could throw 1/16oz very far? Guessing it was a “fast” reel (there are 2 ball-bearings on either end of the spool) and that likely required some serious thumb practice. The instructions mention: “If you can’t reach the target, loosen the cast control. Practice will now make perfect.” Possibly, the combination of: ball-bearing supported spool, a small C-brake, central counterweight, "Lure Control" gears (and thumb?), (and an over-filled spool?), aid in casting very light weights? Not to mention the relatively new disengaged LW mech (a la Lew Childre) and spool/frame design present on those Bantams. Lovely reels they are. (I've been a fan since I first bought a Mag version new in 1984. Still using it today).

Like the OP, I didn’t find any commentary on how well the EX actually throws 1/16oz weights (does 35ft count?), although there have been a few people asking. I’m guessing such talk would be in Japanese nowadays. Perhaps Ron Mc, our resident BFS expert, knows something about these?

A manual for the 100 and 100EX, which describes “features” and the C-brake Cast Control, but not the Lure Control.
https://www.planetseafishing.com/wp-con ... manual.pdf

There is also a YouTube video of a 100EX being serviced. it reveals the mech but offered nothing on how, or how well, it works.

Not sure how much this helps. But it does settle my curiosity a bit. The year after (or thereabouts) the EX was discontinued (1982 I've read), magnetics appeared and apparently Shimano and others never looked back.

[Steve]

...new disengaged LW mech (a la Lew Childre)

1879: freespool reel with guide-free casting. Even in the Childre LW, the line had to find its way from the spool to and through the line guide before it went out.

[Paul Roberts]

...new disengaged LW mech (a la Lew Childre)

1879: freespool reel with guide-free casting. Even in the Childre LW, the line had to find its way from the spool to and through the line guide before it went out.

Ah! "New" as in "contemporary new". You know, the "new new". Or is that "new, new...new". If I've learned anything (esp with you around, Steve) it's that "new" must be qualified. And to not be surprised by the ingenuity of our predecessors. Someday a disengaging LW chipped from agate will be discovered in a cave somewhere.

[Hytekrednek]

Well, I'm still curious and not clear on how or why it works, or if it even works. I decided to get one myself and clean it up to like new condition before going out and doing some fishing with light lures with it, It should be here in a few days. I have a couple standard Bantam 100's and a Bantam Mag 10XSG also to compare with.
Any other info on these reels is welcome. I have been trying to get a copy of the Bantam The First 15 Years book. No luck yet. If you have info on how I can get a copy of this book, or if you are willing to sell your copy, please let me know. I will pay good money for a copy. Or, just borrowing a copy for a bit would be helpful too.

Hopefully the 100EX functions wonderfully. I cant wait to get it out and catch some fish with it.

[Paul Roberts]

Seems like that’s the only thing left to do: buy one and see. That’s what I’ve done with the wonderful old direct-drive reels. Collect em up, bring them back up to snuff, and see what each can do. It's been a lot of fun. They are more capable, casting-wise anyway, than I’d initially expected.

Do let us know what you find out about Shimano’s "Lure Control” mech.

[kyreels]

Thanks Paul for your analysis! By coincidence, I bought a Shimano 200 at the Pigeon Forge show. It was an impulse buy because it was very reasonable for a near unused real of that caliber. I will set it up this spring and see how it goes. I think the Shamano reels are underrated. I note in my recent patent research that Shimano has half the new reel patents in the last decade.

[Hytekrednek]

nice! It does look to be in great condition.
I got in today a nearly unused Bantam 100EX. I plan to strip it, clean it, lube it, and try it out. It is a very good looking reel for sure!

[Paul Roberts]

Nice, Matt. I've really liked the Bantam's I own. Would like to acquire a few earlier non-mag ones, but... I really don't need more "modern" reels. I do keep my eyes peeled though.

For “further reading”, here’s a post I'd made about my Bantam's on AT:
https://alantani.com/index.php/topic,36169.0.html

[kyreels]

Paul, good post on AT. You should repost that history here sometime. I wonder how the Bantam pre-mag compares with the "modern" narrow spool Pflueger Supreme with free spool. I have one, but haven't cast it.

It's interesting that the new Bantam reels made today have gear ratios of 6 to 8 depending on the model. They retrieve up to 35 inches per crank revolution. I am still fooling with the Calcutta reels though, but someday I may upgrade.

[Paul Roberts]

Will do.

You know, I don't have any pre-magnetics amongst my modern reels. I came to baitcasting just as magnetics swept in. (Oh yes, I do have an ABU 6500C I bought new in ~'85, and that C-brake works just fine.) I then jumped right back to direct-drives -and was surprised to find that they cast darn well too. Retrieve speeds are abysmal though, which limits them.

Not sure which Supreme NS FS you are referring to. The first was the 1577 with the FS at the handle hub. I have a couple 1576's (standard spool) and -as FS, AR, star-drag reels- they were pretty poor performers; An apparent attempt at a more modern design that just didn't cut it. The FS is touchy, the 2-disc drag weak (even with carbon!), and the FS really doesn't add appreciable distance vs just casting direct-drive. This is mostly bc the LW does not disengage I believe. I found the same with the FS Akron 1895; No appreciable added distance in FS. As a full-on direct-drive reel, they work just fine. Just, IME, with some essentially nonfunctional doohickey's on it. I must say, I love the leaping bass relief on the face-plate on those Supreme's though. Worth having one, if just for that alone.

[Hytekrednek]

I have a hand full of pre mag low-profile baitcasters. Shimano Bantam 100, Bantam 100EX, Lew's/Shimano BB1 Speed Spool, and a Ryobi AD400V. They all cast very good overall, but I do think the mag brake reels work best with lighter lures.

My first baitcaster when I was 10 was an Abu Garcia Ambassadeur Lite, a graphite composite low profile reel with centrifugal brakes. I went through many spools of line and many hours picking out backlashes the first month with that reel. Eventually I got good enough with it to enjoy fishing again and not come home early with a knotted up reel. I caught many many fish with that old reel, I wore it out. I learned to love bass fishing with that reel. A few months ago, I came across a like new Ambassadeur Lite just like I had. Remembering my childhood.... I had to buy it.
I do recall my next reel got on my birthday was an Abu Garcia 5500c, just like the pro's used on TV! Sadly this reel is at the bottom of the river. Before it was lost though, I wore out many pawls and a set of gears fishing with that reel nearly every day for years.

[kyreels]

Not sure which Supreme NS FS you are referring to.

I have an older non-freespool version, but here is the later version, which looks like a good performer, but I have yet to really test it.

I was a little surprised by your comments. Until you posted of the Lew's, I didn't know of a freespool mechanism that disengages the level-wind; I missed this part of reel evolution. Of course many freespool reels don't have a level-wind. I examined many later reels used by the tournament casters which had level-wind and either freespool or modified by the caster for freespool. Maybe the smaller reels and less travel on the level-winds made it practical to disengage the level-wind. I have never really thought about it.

[Paul Roberts]

Yes, that's the 1576/1577 Supreme. Overall, I found that it performs about as well as the original 1573. The attempts at modernizing the reel (FS, star drag) weren't terribly successful, at least in the two I've refurbished to fishing shape. I posted about these on AT and will re-post here. (AT has seemed more geared toward reel repair, and to "newer" reels. I have a number of other such posts I could share here as well). I'll post it in the cleaning and restoration section.

The LW appears to me to be the biggest "drag" on casting efficiency in a casting reel, all other things taken into account. Disengaging the LW was a pretty good step in that direction. However, I don't know all that much about tournament casting tackle. Perhaps LW's were a certain competitive class, or had advantages in accuracy casting? I would expect that for unlimited distance casting at least, the LW would be the first thing to go. Perhaps spool weight/diameter, might be next? Then FS? Maybe others will chime in.

The Japanese, with modern BFS (Baitcast Finesse System), have taken things to a whole new level; True 1/16oz. casting. Or so I'm told. I've not dabbled. Those reels manage such efficiency with (disengaged) LW intact. Mostly spool and spool support work I believe. This would be Ron Mc's realm.

[oc1]

Spool weight reduction has always been a goal and continues with BFS. As material science advances, so will the lightness of the spool. Spindle weight does not have much impact on inertia, but the farther from the spindle you go the greater the effect.

I think Langley made the first spool weight breakthrough with their aluminum "anti-inertia" spool. They used a light gauge aluminum (at least the best available at the time) and an arbor (spacer) to reduce line capacity without changing the working diameter or retrieve ratio. Then they drilled (perforated) the arbor to remove a little more weight. I don't understand why they did not perforate the flanges too. The Langley Target is a sweet reel. If there is a vintage bait-casting reel that will cast lighter lures than a Target, I would REALLY like to know about it.

The Target was promoted as a target casting competition reel, but there was a whole other class of reels for competition distance casting. I don't know what they were called, but some distance casting reels had a tiny narrow spool that would sit in a conventional frame. Never heard of anyone trying to apply that concept/principle to casting lighter lures. Would it help?

[kyreels]

The tournament distance casting reels evolved into what were known as "unrestricted distance" reels. They used tiny spools made of either aluminum, magnesium, or plastic. Here is a thread that describes some of the equipment. viewtopic.php?t=25038

The perforation of spools reduced weight, but in practice were found to sometimes cause wind resistance, especially if perforated on the sides of the spool. The resistance was variable, which made it undesirable. In the unrestricted distance, the perforated spools came into much disfavor.

Langley did not invent low inertia spools, but they did perfect them after WWII. They hired a great tournament caster Dick Miller along with a brilliant engineer Henry Mandolf. They perfected the lightweight aluminum frame and spool reels. They made these reels for other companies such as South Bend and Zebco.

Low inertia aluminum spools were prevalent for tournament casting as early as 1910 and used by many manufacturers including the Kentucky reels and Talbot. Pflueger and Shakespeare and Redifor and Bronson and all the rest had aluminum spools. Eventually, plastic spools became the widespread low-inertia spool.

Sorry we hijacked this Bantam thread. There is much to be said for continuing the Shimano discussions.

[Hytekrednek]

I was fishing today and one of the reels I used was a bantam 100. If it had a constant anti-reverse like reels now, I think it would fit in with all the modern reels sold today. Perhaps a larger handle too. Granddad's old reel impresses me every time I use it, plus it just looks so sleek and cool!
I hope to have my new Bantam 100EX cleaned and lubed by the next time I go fishing. I am excited to see just what this model can do.