Shimanos latest stella is IPX8 least it says so on the japan site.

Rate this topic

38 posts in this topic

56 mins ago, ged said:

It is an independent rating system for waterproof(ness)


The new PENN Torque is IPX6 (Same as slammer 3)

Interesting, the Torque and Slammer have the same rating ............Quite a price difference there.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 mins ago, Huy said:

What is the rating for vs and VSX? Where can I find this rating for van staal reels?

Only reels i've ever seen tested previously was one of the penns.  I thought just the slammer but might be wrong.  The torque may be as well.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 mins ago, Mbrody said:

I assume companies must pay to get the rating. Similar to UL ratings, etc. I don't think VS does this. 

Either pay an outside company to test it or buy the equipment yourself and test it in house.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having worked in the field, I can provide the following input:

  1. A company can only legitimately claim to meet IPXX if a specific product has undergone qualification testing of a production unit (vice a prototype unit) in accordance with the International Electrotechnical Commission Standard IEC 60529.  Note that the first X is for resistance to particulate, and the second is resistance to water intrusion at varying conditions of spray or immersion and pressure of the spray or water, with the highest numerical level being 9k, powerful high temperature water jets.
  2. From an engineering perspective, I would have more confidence, for a surf fishing reel, in the device being qualified to IP67, as this means (a) it is dust tight, and sand will not enter the reel's functionally critical areas, and (b) it is qualified to a standard of 1 meter immersion for a duration of 30 minutes.  What I do not like about the Penn IPX6 rating is that it is not qualified for dust protection (x means no qualification testing was performed at all) and it is only qualified for powerful water jet exposure for a minimum of 3 minutes.  What I do not like about the Shimano IPX8 is again, not dust proof and as regards water, both the test duration, and depth beyond 1 meter are by agreement with the manufacturer.  But IPX8 certainly sounds better that IPX7 to the layman, doesn't it? So even though the IPX8 qualification potentially is easier, and hence cheaper to achieve, both in terms of design, manufacturing tolerance adherence and test cost, from a marketing standpoint, the average consumer will gladly shell out more for and IPX8 qualified product. 
  3. The following link gives, in my professional, but now happily retired opinion, a thorough and very technically correct explanation of IEC standard 60529:


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.