Travis

I looked the other day and mine is the 20 RPM model from McMaster Carr. Never had any issues for over 10 years now. Several threads on the site from long ago with other parameters. Depending on how much plastic you are doing at once may want more torque when you are passing the phase transitions from liquid to "solid" to liquid.

I find most all the "generic" foils to be acceptable. Reason they are cheap compared to Reynolds. Dollar store always a good bet.

Haven't looked for any. I definitely have bashed my head a few times when messing with Fusion 360. Pretty much stuck looking for you tube videos on how to do something similar. Very detailed....do your research.

Don't worry about that stuff design a lure that works. Then start adding the variables. Gills and scales aren't usually an issue (ok scales can interfere with hook swing and cause premature wear/hook rash). Fins... depending on design can kill lure action, reduce hooks ups, pick up aquatic vegetation, get tangled in branches, reduce casting distance, etc... The more experienced an angler becomes the more one finds out many lure makers make really pretty lures.

Lead is about 10 x greater than gidgee. Essentially you are just adding more visual interest on a natural bait. Weight as normal and plug for visual appeal. The plug is going to add some weight but easy enough to do the calculations and adjust as needed. Now many years ago 15 or more some on the site were building cranks from laminating two different density woods. So in your case you could laminate the cedar or beech upper to bottom gidgee.

I haven't tried printing a mold as simply takes too long for something that I know isn't going to work as needed. PLA molds for soft plastics simply is a poor media. Much better off just printing the bait and molding it in both time, effort, and use of product. Maybe I will goof around over winter break with printing some masters and see about making a mold of them. I am so proficient in Fusion 360 might be done next winter.

I believe when I built mine I used the AC Face Mount Gear motor https://www.mcmaster.com/ac-motors/face-mount-compact-ac-gearmotors/ Believe it is the 20 rpm, 25 torque model and jsut use a shaft coupler to connect motor to stir rod. https://www.mcmaster.com/shaft-couplers/set-screw-shaft-couplings/

I have never had issues with the stuff welding together on my bandsaw or table saw. Any of my handsaws cut through it with about as much difficulty as balsa. I did get it to melt on the lathe with just riding the bevel and have melted it with a dremel (30000 RPM). However I hate using the stuff so avoid using it as much as possible.

What blade are you using? I would think something like a no 9 skip tooth would work well. Something like an Olsen FR45000. I say Olsen just because easy to get at most big box stores.

Easy, 100% accurate, on the water....suspend strips or dots. Golf head lead tape the cheaper option.

Agar agar can be directly substituted for gelatin at the same ratio. I think I shared this patent in the past on the biodegradable threads but could be wrong. https://patents.google.com/patent/US6753004B2/en

Look good overall. I haven't fished preacher jigs in some time. Based on the photos looks like you may need to keep tension on your wraps. First two much better. Some may be a little "thin" in bulk. the second jig pictured looks like tops. I have a bag of pheasant and wood duck feathers that I had intended to tie some jigs and feathered trebles with just haven't. Need to dig stuff out for this winter and knock some rust off (not that I could ever tie a decent jig).

Enjoyed the video as it is and action I have looked at in the past (not for lures) and have always enjoyed toys that seam to defy physics. Tippy tops and rattle backs have long fascinated me. Interesting concept lure. I would point out that while your are tackling a new motion you also must take into account fish ability. Always something new in design the true question is does it perform better than what is available. Lure makers have a tendency to forget that making something different looking isn't that big of deal making a lure that performs is the key. The early 1900's every lure manufacturer slapped hooks everywhere on a bait: Dowagiac Minnow #00 (1930), Wizard Minnow (1903), Monarch Minnow (1903 and could screw off and on hooks into cavities), William Shakespeare Jr. Fish Bait (1905), and countless others. History has shown the multiple hook set ups are a no go. Why is that? Simply the concept was not beneficial to catching fish. Hang ups were common, line tangles, and missed fish (hook up ratio vs hook position plays vital role). Design it without the counter balanced treble hooks and create the needed "wing nut" either in body shape or just internally weighted along the proper axis (another issue to overcome) and just go with a single rear hook. Additionally you have a static variable this way. Swinging hooks relative to the static x axis creates countless issues in regards to establishing the needed instability and centrifugal forces to flip as they would seek the low energy position/state and increase the needed force to get the lure spinning. Just a body spinning around the x axis has also been done. Commercially the spinning body along the x axis didn't make it either. It was however popular with DIY lure makers. Common design observed in "folk lures" of the early 1900's from individuals that would have been at home on this site. Tom Shepherd is featured frequently for his "spinner" lures. There were also some metal lip "cork screw" baits that intended to rotate the lure around the x axis. Some designs had dual spinning bodies that were in line but counter threaded. Maybe Roland was onto something with his helicopter lure. None of them achieved the action and fairly confident that your points 1 and 2 from above eliminate the possibility in the real world. The retrieval speed will never be sufficient to generate the RPMs to achieve the centrifugal forces needed to overcome the counter forces exerted on the bait by the water. Additionally going to be hard to internally weight a lure body to achieve the intermediate axis theorem conditions. I don't think the spinning momentum needed can be reached without battery powered mechanical intervention to get the lure to flip in water and definitely not on commercial tackle we use. If the lure will even just start pump up and down on the retrieve would consider that very successful. For proof of concept might as well not start by trying to not redesign the wheel. We know, video excellent example that the "wing nut" even in the ball of clay resulted in the desired results. Seams like much easier place to start is that known entity and weighting of the x, y, z axis core.

Either way you end up float testing. Why is that?

+1

Use wavelength of light and water penetration... other technical terms will find thousands of articles if really interested in the topic. https://www.fix.com/blog/view-from-below-lures-underwater/

I am a big believer if float testing/weighting baits. Especially ones that orientation in the water is critical. Once you get weight placement down and weight easy to just wing it on subsequent baits (even then individual float testing will end up with a better bait ). Most guys aren't churning out numbers of baits so not much time involved in getting a properly tuned lure. I have fished prop baits that have sat with a slight cant towards the nose to baits that stood almost vertical, bottom line you will need to float your design to dial it in to your goals. Water slide decals have been used by many to add details to lures. I have used electrical tape for kill spots and eyes a few times years ago without issue.

Honestly it is a simple process. Lure makers take the simple and make it complicated all too often. Shape of the bait just needs to be one that will be effective in use/action. For most baits we use it really isn't all that critical. I believe once you start targeting larger fish you have to start taking some science into it with regards to bait length/height/shape as we know the limitation of prey size. Bait size typically isn't an issue in regards to most are builds. To be honest much of it has to do with the typical equipment we use and getting to a target weight. The mechanics of the tools we use to fish do much to shape the overall weight we end up making baits and also the fish we are targeting. I can fish for creek smallies all day long with a 12 inch swim bait and will end the day tired and likely not much to show for my effort. Two piece baits are fine but just another step to complicate the matter and screw up. Something I don't mess with overall unless you have an internal weight transfer system or something similar. Through wire isn't something typically needed with many baits. Of course species may make a difference. Once again the tools we use are more important here... proper rod action, drag, and line. I know it is open water but look at the 4 lb line test record for a blue marlin. The best thing you can do is make some lures and fish them. Put them too the test. The more time you spend on the water the more you understand how the specific bait should function and what to improve. Buy others lures and fish them. Buy proven baits that get their named dropped a lot. Fish those cut one up, etc.. I have bought a lot of baits (several from guys on this site) at shows, ebay, etc. over the years. Cheap lesson in the long run and you are looking at a bait all ready battle tested and proven. It will also show things you do well compared to those trying to meet numbers for selling.

1) Tricky... It typically lets a bait get down to the desired depth a little quicker and the deflection off of things quicker/more lively. As far as open water return I don't find much difference in action. 2) I don't think profile plays much importance on the cranks typically. I think much of what is said is gimmicks to sell lures. You will hear lexan can caused added flash and attract fish, colored lips attract, printed design onto bill increases strikes, etc.... Overall action the same, see above. 3) See one but overall don't think there is a huge difference to be honest. 4) It is overall viewed as higher end product so gets used as can charge more. Overall I think the differences and advantages are really small in the grand scheme of things and most highly regarded cranks aren't circuit board. More marketing than anything, 5) Pick either. HUNT on consistent basis... depends on your interpretation of hunting. If I go to you tube and watch hunting cranks I will leave disappointed both by commercial bait claims and grass root. Hunting supposedly (as the legend goes) was used initially to refer to the action similar to a dog on scent. Generally tracks straight but will veer off to the left for a while back to then left or right, center, etc... completely erratic. Simple if looking top down and you see a repeatable pattern (sine wave) well.. you can decide.

I think your buddy is correct and see this all the time with lure makers. Making something custom or unique is meaningless if if doesn't truly elevate the product and rarely is the case. Guys get hung up on trying to differentiate their product and make "unique" fish catching designs but in the long run if we take a look at commercial sales as an indicator guess who isn't around after a few years. Yes you need to differentiate you product but too many try tricks and gimmicks as that is easy in comparison to making a product that performs better. Jigs are really more about performance. A head designed to perform under certain conditions (fishing wood, slipping through dense mats, not wedging into rocks, increased hook ups, skirt flare, etc....is the only thing that really matters in the long run based on who really ends up using jigs more often. Jigs are in my opinion one of those lures that keeps lure makers honest. Easy to make wacky soft plastics and cranks as every sap that fishes will toss out cranks, top waters, and some soft plastics and reel them back in and will catch some fish (even if they have no skill). Over the years I have fished with a lot of different skilled level people and for many you would be hard pressed to find jigs in their arsenal. The better the angler the more use of jigs due to many applications they end up being very dependent on the angler knowing how and where to fish them.

As you can see you will get answers all over the place. Honestly you can do it many ways and you should do whatever you enjoy doing that is SAFE.

Well router shouldn't be feared but not something I would use for typical bass lures. Once we get into large swim baits, musky, and pike baits....completely acceptable and a tool anyone that dabbles in woodworking should have.

Don't fish for pike or musky... Bass short strikes typically you haven't dialed in the retrieve speed/cadence/action of the bait. You have to start tweaking it some. At times it might be the color but usually the least important.

I approach them just like any other bait. Wood hardener is something I would not use and don't see any need for it, especially with bass cranks and down. I have a few baits I make that are around 2 inches or under slightly. Have made a few smaller ones but more for kicks as don't really fish them as rarely target crappie or gills anymore. The rust crank comes in at 1 7/8 but after carving the master just made a mold of it so "making" those aren't difficult. The other crank is right at two inches but broad and no problem to knock out. As they get smaller easier I find inserting a dowel into the belly weight hole (wrap the dowel with painters tape to get snug fit) makes handling and carving the bait much easier. For baits the size you are looking to do would definitely look at using a dowel to add an area to hold onto/support while working.

If strictly talking wood the basswood to me is about the ideal wood in regards to carving and bait making. Guys use all sorts of woods for various reasons. Basswood carves well, grain is not problematic, allergy friendly wood, cheap in price, readily available, finishes/paints well, not too soft, and just simply easy to use.