Hello everyone

I have been asked to build a light power spinning rod to be used with a size 1000 Shimano spinning reel. Will a size 1000 reel lock down securely in a #16 spinning reel seat?
I will be using a self turned acrylic seat insert and a set of #16 skeletons, I am wondering if I can use a stock reel seat to size the insert I will be turning, or should make the "between the hoods" part of the insert shorter? I have never owned or used a #1000 reel.

Thanks for your help !

Rog

Rog, they fit my #16 DPS..

Rog, they fit my #16 DPS..

Why use a 16 seat? Does the angler have tiny hands? I'd use nothing less than an 18 and a 20 would likely be far more comfortable.

............

I also don't use anything less than a size 18 seat . Seems many seat styles and options are available for 17 size reel seats but not 18 which I've always been somewhat disappointed about.

A size 16 seat will work just fine for a 1000 reel.
Norm

I'd go with an #18 reel seat, rarely do I go to an #16, only on some lighter weight fly rods, but thats my opinion.

Fishing is not a matter of life or death, it's much more important than that

My concern is that a size 1000 reel foot would be too small to tighten securely in the hoods of a larger reel seat, or the gap between the hoods would be too large.

Rog

I am on board with not using a 16 seat due to poor ergonomics, but one thing to keep in mind is that with very light power rods and very small reels the "loads" on the hands and the "feel" of the system are different than for heavier duty rods. I would not build a size 18 onto a light power rod; 17 is what I normally use and would not go higher on a very light power setup. It would, in my opinion, feel a little "clunky," out of place on such a dainty rod/reel.

The reel feet on most spinning reels are uniform in size and not at all related to reel size. Measure it against some larger reels and see if it's not the same length and width.

.............

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am on board with not using a 16 seat due to poor
> ergonomics, but one thing to keep in mind is that
> with very light power rods and very small reels
> the "loads" on the hands and the "feel" of the
> system are different than for heavier duty rods.
> I would not build a size 18 onto a light power
> rod; 17 is what I normally use and would not go
> higher on a very light power setup. It would, in
> my opinion, feel a little "clunky," out of place
> on such a dainty rod/reel.

Consider a set of golf clubs - the same length and diameter grip is used on drivers as on pitching wedges. There is a reason for that.

...........

Just my opinion, Tom. To me the job to be done differs enough so that the one may want the tools to be different. Some of it is in the head, not the hands. Does a tack hammer have the same handle dimensions as a framing hammer? Does a toothbrush? Same hands using them.

The best way to make this decision is to mock up both on the rod and see what the user prefers.

Shortly after WWII, the U.S. Air Force initiated a study into proper ergonomics for a variety of tool and control handles. This was a very exhaustive study, and one which I purchased the final results of, at no small expense, for the basis of the RodMaker series on grip and handle ergonomics. One thing they outlined, is that there is a proper diameter for handles, grips and control surfaces based on specific dimensions of the human hand. This diameter was verbatim regardless of the task being performed.

But as you mention the customer can always decide what they like best. Only thing I would mention is that what feels good in the hand for a few seconds is almost never what feels good in the hand for several hours.

.......

I've read the article, and others in the magazine that relate to ergonomics, and agree in general, especially agree with your comment on what feels good for a few minutes MAY not feel good after several hours. I say MAY because the right design will feel good initially and will also feel good hours later. I don't agree that the same diameter is called for regardless of the task. If that were true our toothbrushes would have much larger handles, as would scalpels, eyeglass screwdrivers, and mascara brushes, to just name a few. I submit that the use of all rods is not necessarily simply one task, just as the driving of a tack is a different task than the driving of a nail. And in just about every design, there are many aspects of the use of the tool to be considered and trade-offs to be considered to make the over-all best design. Ergonomics is one of the most important, but not the only one.

Very little thought concerning proper ergonomics has gone into most products. The assumption that toothbrush and similar handles are based on sound ergonomic principles is in error - the only thought on such product handles is economics. Scalpels are held by the fingers, not grasped by the hand. An entirely different bio-mechanical activity.

You can walk the aisles in most hardware stores and note the variety of tools and implements that have extremely poor ergonomic design. Few are based on any real research or testing. The one exception may be the common wooden handled hammer, which evolved over centuries and by trial and error managed to attain the very shape which later ergonomic studies would say was the best. Only thing it didn't/doesn't account for is hand size by virtue of it being developed under use by the average male adult.

..........

It all about personal choice. I don’t find using a size 16 reel seat on an UL or L powered rod uncomfortable, and I have fairly large hands. I rarely use reel seats larger than 17 on fresh water or inshore rods. Sort of like baseball bats some like thin handles others like them thicker. In my opinion there is no such thing as one size fits all. I do like using IPS reel seats with a hidden thread hood. These seats only come in a size 16, however at the point you grip the reel the OD is about 27 mm. The VSS 17 seat gives a very similar OD. None of the pipe type of reel seats, except the very largest, give the same OD, and the larger a reel seat the larger the arbor you need. The larger the arbor the more the insulation from the blank, with resulting loss of sensitively. Also a size 18 or larger reel seat will weigh more than most UL and L blanks, plus they look clunky on thin diameter blanks. But that’s just my opinion. I personally don’t think a 16 reel seat is too small, that’s your opinion not mine. For most fresh water fishing smaller reel seats work just fine for me. For saltwater fishing for large powerful fish, it’s a different situation.
Norm

I wasn't offering an opinion on whether or not a size 16 reel seat is too small - I was stating that from a standpoint of the accepted ergonomics research and data, a size 16 seat may be too small, depending, of course, on the size of the user's hands.

Nothing says that you have to use the size seat that decades of research has proven best for overall comfort, effort versus result, movement and torque transfer, etc., the size ultimately remains up to the individual user or customer. There are no ergonomics police that are going to rush over and fine you for using whatever size you wish (at least not yet). But I would suggest not simply choosing a seat size based on rod size/diameter, etc.

............

Certainly sounded like an opinion, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Different people have different likes and dislikes. As I have mentioned before, that's what makes a custom rod custom. Do what you like, not what someone else likes, after all it's your rod.
Norm

For a size 1000 reel, a size 16 is the appropriate size reel seat. I have built several hundred rods, most with size 16 reel seats, and they will handle all of my reels from size 5 through 30, and would possibly handle my larger reels if I tried. I have never had an issue with fitting a reel in the seat. The only possible issue could be if the hoods are not far enough apart for the reel seat feet to fit. I would use an 18 or a 20 on size 40 (4000 for ocean rating) or larger reel however. Not for the fit, but rather for the strength.

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very little thought concerning proper ergonomics
> has gone into most products. The assumption that
> toothbrush and similar handles are based on sound
> ergonomic principles is in error - the only
> thought on such product handles is economics.
> Scalpels are held by the fingers, not grasped by
> the hand. An entirely different bio-mechanical
> activity.
>
> You can walk the aisles in most hardware stores
> and note the variety of tools and implements that
> have extremely poor ergonomic design. Few are
> based on any real research or testing. The one
> exception may be the common wooden handled hammer,
> which evolved over centuries and by trial and
> error managed to attain the very shape which later
> ergonomic studies would say was the best. Only
> thing it didn't/doesn't account for is hand size
> by virtue of it being developed under use by the
> average male adult.
>
> ..........


Agree 100% . There's no doubt It would be far more comfortable for me to have a toothbrush with a considerably larger handle and if eyeglass screwdrivers offered a version with a larger handle I would opt for that as well . People just assume a smaller item must have a smaller everything else which is complete nonsense .