Fox Digital Scales

Interesting article by Bob Roberts in the recent edition of Coarse Fisherman on scales and the variation in readings. In the past I've used various scales including the following:

For those who are old enough to remember when Woolworths sold fishing tackle - a set of Winfield spring balance in 4lb and 7lb limits

Samson spring balance 7lb - handy when fishing on the move with minimum tackle

Waymaster dial scales - never happy with the reading from these scales

Avon dial scales - I've always felt these gave a fairly accurate reading, but who knows!

I'm now looking to purchase the Fox digital scales. I know a few of you out there use these scales, but would you recomend them and are they more accurate than the old spring/dial type of scales

Thanks
Steve

I read that article too and it does make you think doesn't it. Really, it doesn't matter what type of scales you have because they all misread at some point and lets face it I bet there are very few anglers that have their scales checked regularly by experts. Does it even matter I wonder, I have a set of Rapala digital and I suppose they would be the same if checked but they'll do for me.

I regularly check my scales by weighing packaged foodstuffs which are highly regulated and state the actual weight on the packet, always found my Avons to be spot on.

I wrote to CF's editor, Stu Dexter, a letter about scales.

I used Waymasters and thoguht they were pretty good.

I recently got some new digital scales and tested them against my Salter sifital kitchen scales. Now I know the Salter scales are deadly accurate with the digital scales at the post office, I've tested them with many parcels over the years and they are accurate to the gram.

These new digital scales give the same readings as the Salters so decide what you like. The new digis are Ron Thompson's and came free with my CF subscription.

I really must buy myself some new scales.The ones i own are ancient.In fact i cant even remember the name of them.

To be perfectly honest,i very rarely weigh my fish unless it looks a decent one!.
So god knows how many PB`s have slipped away unnoticed!

I've read elsewhere of people having problems with the Fox digitals.
I'll come back.
Apparently, they soak up batteries.

Try these, they were recommended

http://www.scales-r-us.com/scales_info.php/products_id/421

No doubt the Fox scales are of good quality and are extremely accurate,but its the bulkiness of them that puts me off.I spend alot of time roving around so weight and bulkiness is important to me.So personally speaking i feel the Fox scales are more suited toward the static angler.

woody you have any problems zeroing the ron thompson scales ??

I have the Fox digital scales,Iam glad that I won them as oppose to stumping up loads of cash for them-too heavy,one the batteries always works loose at the wrong moment sending everything crazy and they don't switch off - get some Rapala/Badger digital,much smaller,lighter with auto shutoff

Thanks for the replies chaps. I would have been back sooner, but just got back from doing the old tourist trip to London

Yoggy I'm in the same boat as you. I've had my scales so long I was expecting to see them on the Antiques Roadshow! plus all the gunge they've collected knocking around in the bottom of my fishing bag over the years has probably affected their accuracy. This was the reason I thought about upgrading to the 'new technology' going digital.

Bit worrying about the batteries draining, and you can't switch them off.. what's that all about!!! Sods law says they will be flat when you catch that big one!

Fred. Thanks for that useful link. Just been looking through it this morning and it's definately given me a few more options

Bought a set of digitals a couple of yeras ago. Caught PB got scales out baterry dead. No other angler on bank.

lesson learnt carry spare batteries. Or stick with spring balance scales and who cares if there slightly out.

Battery run down on digitals is the big Achilles heel, however it only takes seconds to remove them after use. The batteries are the same ones used in Petzl and many other head torches so it is possible, in emergency, to use these (easy in daylight, less so in the dark).

The purpose of the article was partly to suggest to readers that NO scales can be relied upon to be wholly accurate. We do not care for our scales. We think they last forever. They are exposed to heat, cold, mud and water, frequently carried in the external pockets of relatively flimsy rucksacks and have other equipment loaded on top of them then subjected to vibration in the boot of a car. Is it any wonder the readings are frequently misleading?

Plus points of the Fox scales are (off the top of my head):
Reasonably accurate
Robust (they have a hard protective case)
The handles ensure proper suspension while reading (ergonomic)
The hook retracts
Stylish
Reliable over the period they have been used by me and others (Mostly others)
Lighter than my lead bag...!
Easy to zero and read
Checks by Weights and Measures following capture of record bream showed accurate at every weight interval checked

Negative points:
Battery life (I'm already on my second set)
Pointless clock
Price...? (The best of anything isn't cheap)

We are quick to criticise the weights claimed in the angling press and blame the captor. My article suggests the reasons might be deeper than deliberate exaggeration and maybe let he who hath no sin cast the first stone because I'm reading feedback that suggests absolute accuracy isn't actually that important any more.

I've just submitted my latest 'Musing's' piece to Coarse Fisherman where Bob's article appeared in this month's issue. I thought I may as well share that particular extract on here first being as we're discussing it:

Weighing it all Up

Bob Roberts? article in last month?s issue of CF about the inconsistent and often inaccurate weighing of fish was interesting. Not so much for the revelation that there are inconsistencies and inaccuracies, but that genuinely honest anglers are also reporting or recording weights that, due to faulty scales, are not correct. I suspect it will always be the case unless we all use scales that have been checked and calibrated at regular intervals as deemed appropriate by the Weights and Measures people. Which of course just won?t happen.

Worse though, are the number of times you see anglers weighing fish with methods that just cannot be consistently accurate. They grasp the scale round the body rather than the handle. They don?t ensure the scales are held vertically, but canted to one side. They weigh fish in landing net heads that all the while are draining, and then weigh the net several minutes later and deduct the weight when it?s almost completely drained and weighs several ounces less than when the fish lay in its folds. They read the scale or, worse still, get a mate to read the scale, from an angle, so that the finger of a spring balance is not lined up with the figure. That could be a 4oz discrepancy, either way, in the case of a scale used for very large fish that weighs in 4oz divisions. Then there are those anglers who use Avon scales that give a range of weights from different colour bands on each revolution of the needle, and then read the wrong colour. Yes, it happens more than you think. I?ve witnessed it several times over the years.

There are always going to be at least slight inaccuracies no matter that we do. Bob mentioned some of them: temperature variations will affect both spring balance and digital scales. He mentioned that Ron?s scales had flat batteries, so would that mean that a near flat battery will offer a different reading than a fresh battery? And if so, would a very cold battery in the winter frosts give a different reading than a hot battery in summer? Very cold batteries certainly affect the working of a digital camera, with the makers recommending that you keep the battery warm, in a trouser pocket say, and fit it into the camera just before use. Should we be doing that with digital scale batteries in winter?

Bob mentioned about scales being bashed in car boots, or dropped. But what about when weighing very large fish that jerk about in the weigh sling and bump the scale savagely? Surely that can screw up the calibration? OK, most of us ensure than a fish, particularly a very large one like a pike or a carp, is safely and snugly enclosed in a proper weigh sling, but unless that weigh sling is rigid (and none of them are) the fish can still make a sudden and violent movement, thrashing viciously, as it hangs from the scales.

....Continued in next post...

...Continued from last post...

No, the weighing of fish by various anglers, using a variety of scales in various conditions, will never be an exact science. But that doesn?t mean we can?t strive to make it as accurate as is realistically possible. We also have to ask ourselves how much it matters unless a British record is at stake. The answer of course is that it matters a lot if a PB rests on an accurate weight, no matter what the weight. And, as daft as it is, it matters if the 1oz discrepancy is making the difference between, say, a 1lb 15oz roach and a 2-pounder. Much more difference than if the fish was making the difference between a 2lb 1oz roach and a 2lb 2oz roach. Four ounces is nothing to worry about at all with a fish around the 40lb mark, but by god it is if it makes the difference between a 39.14 or a 40.02.

There are a number of anglers who say we don?t need a British record fish list, just as there will be anglers who say it doesn?t matter to within a few ounces what a fish weighs. To them I say this: if we?re going to have a British Record fish list (and we have), and if we?re going to weigh fish so that we can measure achievement (because that?s what it?s all about), then let?s either do it as accurately as is realistically possible, or not do it at all.

Anyone who has worked in engineering inspection will know, because its drummed into you, that there is no such thing as 100% accurate. You can be precise only to the limit of the equipment you are using, even micrometers have a tolerance of plus or minus 3 thousands of an inch.

Fishermens scales must come pretty low on the scale of accuracy no matter how often they are checked but you have to make allowances for that which is why record weights are checked by submitting the scales used to the weights and measures people. They will be as near accurate as you are liable to get but as for fish weighed and submitted to the angling press then you would have to make allowances for the fact that the scales used were probably innacurate to a greater or lesser degree but it shouldn't be hard to agree on a percentage.

I read Bob's article too and although it was an intersting piece in theory, I thought (and I'm sure I'm now going to be shot down) that it was unfortunately flawed right from the start by the process that was followed.

I'm happy to be corrected but I don't belive you can zero a set of scales without some weight being placed on the hook in the first place. ie a weighsling or similar. I think when the test was done and the scales hung from the the garage beam, then a weighsling (the same one used throughout the tests) should have been placed on the scales before they were zeroed. This then should have been repeated for each set of scales.

By not doing this I think all the results are unfortunately flawed.

Incidentaly a well know angler pointed this out me at the weekend without any prompting so I'm not alone in thinking this is the case.

As regard to digi scales, I don't care how accurate they are I couldn't risk being caught out with a battery or circuit failure and a beast on the bank. I'll stick with my Avons and Rueben Heatons

I have a set of weights at home against which I regularly check my scales in particular when I get a new pb.

In the summer I had my scales (Reuben Heatons)checked by weights and measures. They were within an ounce at all the weights checked which was from 4-13 up to 16-4. I always carry them in a padded container and if they ever let me down I will bin them and buy a new set.

Needing weight to zero is myth. Zeroing on spring balances does not calibrate them it simply moves the start position of the needle. To check they are correctly zeroed pull gently on the sling then gently release the pressure and make sure the scales return to zero.

I often carry a second set of scales with me to double check any really big fish. If I am fishing with someone else i always use their scales to verify the weight of any really big fish.

I stopped using my fox digis when i used them and my reben heatons to weigh a bream in the summer. The fox digitals recorded it at 12-4 the reubens 12-8. I subsequently checked both sets of scales and found the fox digis were wrong whilst the reubens were bang on.

The reubens are the most accurate scales I've owned and although more bulky are not very heavy. I'm not keen on avons having owned three sets all of which I binned when they started weighing heavy.

I do not agree that many weighing mistakes are purely accidental. Being an absolute stickler for accuracy I have over the years had several arguements on the bank about how much a fish weighed. In each case the angler became aware there was an problem and the argument arose because the angler would not reweigh properly or accept the correct weight. Typical errors included scales zeroed without weigh sling, sling wetted after scales zeroed, number of revolutions incorrectly counted, scales not suspended (held by sides)and scales proven to be weighing heavy.

With regards catching a beast and having the scales fail, I'm all for carrying a decent retention system wherever I go. That way if something does go awry then you can simply sack/tube/keepnet the fish and call in some back up. Providing it isn't scorching hot most fish can safely be retained for an hour or two at least.
I think that is the biggest problem with the capture of a lot of big fish by pleasure anglers. That and not being able to take even a half-decent photo.

"Needing weight to zero is myth. Zeroing on spring balances does not calibrate them it simply moves the start position of the needle. To check they are correctly zeroed pull gently on the sling then gently release the pressure and make sure the scales return to zero"

This doesn't seem to work for me Andy. Every time I pull gently and release the needle goes back to a differnet point, so I cant see how this works. The only way I am confident is if I know where I am starting from and for that I always add weight to the hook before taking a base reading.