# Reels and the numbers



## andybear (Jan 15, 2006)

Hi all,

Despite many years of experience in fishing, I have often wondered about the number used when describing a reel. I imagine this somehow refers to the capacity of the reel, relating to breaking strain of mono line and the numbers then get jumbled, and you work out how much line you can put on once the breaking strain is chosen.

Is there a formula, or is it just a load of bollocks......ie big number....gotta be a better reel, and the number has no bearing on the matter at all?

I really don't let the matter worry me too much though, there is normally some writing that says that the capacity is x metres of x breaking strain............Mostly curiosity!

Cheers all Andybear :lol:


----------



## FishinDan (Jul 3, 2006)

I could be wrong, but I've always just thought it was a sizing number.

eg

1000 is smaller than 2000, and a 1500 is in the midlle. Etc etc etc

When you go to Pflueger and they give you 010, 020, etc I think it's different again (as in 010 might not be 1000)

Best bet is take your rod into the shop and get a reel that balances it perfectly


----------



## Squidder (Sep 2, 2005)

I'm with FishinDan - 1000 has a smaller capacity (I think some of the little Daiwas even go down to 750), 6000 etc has a bigger capacity. No idea how they come up with these numbers though.

RE line capacity, the stated capacities seem to always be for mono - so if you're spooling with braid you need to look at the number of metres/yards of a particular *diameter* line (if that figure is stated, it usually is).


----------



## Biggera Yakker (Jan 25, 2007)

What it is, is the minimum number of fish you'll catch on it!!! :lol:


----------



## justcrusin (Oct 1, 2006)

I figured it was a combination between line capacity and drag weight
eg my new 6630 catera spinning reel has a six kg drag weight and a 630 foot line capacity but i was really only guessing that this is what the numbers meant :? :roll:

Cheers Dave


----------



## andybear (Jan 15, 2006)

OK, yes I see it clearly now...... the numbers really are bollocks 

Cheers all Andybear :lol:


----------



## justcrusin (Oct 1, 2006)

Thats pretty much it Andy, complete bollocks.

Some of us (like me 8) ) like to think we know what were talking about, but in reality its all just a load of bull&^%$.

No wonder my uni lecturer wanted to give me a doctorate in crapping on :shock: :? :lol: :lol:

Cheers Dave


----------

