BobP

Ben, I apologize in advance for my jaundiced view I agree OEM means Original Equipment Manufacturer. But that can apply to anything made in any factory if you want to fudge it, and to me it doesn't necessarily mean the same body, made in the same factory in which LC or Megabass produces their commercial lures. That notwithstanding, I ordered a sampling of the bodies including a couple of Deps Buzzjet Jrs and Megabass SRX clones, and some Sebile Cranksters. Just to see what's what... and with no particular expectations. A good crankbait is a good crankbait, whatever its pedigree. I have lot of lumps on my head from banging it against the wall of my garage after buying/fishing unpainted crankbaits! But hope springs eternal.

Ben, they don't actually say they're true factory unpainted LC or Megabass baits. The descriptions just say some of them are made in Japan. That's a good thing if the quality is better than a run-of-the-mill Chinese KO and the internals are also copies of the Japanese originals. But If you compare the internals to real LC baits, I think you will see differences. If you want a true unpainted LC or Megabass crankbait body, you'll probably have to break into their factory and steal it. I can't imagine either company selling them and hurting their market position.

Mark, I feel like you do. Most of the baits I build take a successful commercial bait as a starting point. I don't make them just to test a theory - I want them to catch fish after the topcoat dries. If I absorb some insights about design performance along the way, great. Hopefully, the insights help me to improve my cranks with the least effort and number of duds. I appreciate when guys test design theories and report their results.

I think it is very hard to simplify crankbait design into a few laws. You can make valuable observations about one variable like line tie position as we have been doing, but you shouldn't think that controlling that one thing is going to make a great bait. If you get it "perfect" and change any other variable, you're back to square one. Every variable operates in relationship to every other variable: body size, shape, ballast position and amount, lip size, angle and shape, and line tie position. After building hundreds of baits, my feeling is that some variables can be a little "off" in a shallow crankbait and you may not see or feel it. But it will make a difference to the bass. For a deep runner, the variables need to be more in sync or it will be easy to feel there is a problem when you retrieve the bait. As much as anything, an educated feel when retrieving a bait will tell you more about its fish catching ability than anything else. It takes lots of fishing with both good and bad baits to develop that "touch". Sometimes I think I almost have it...then it slips just out of my grasp

You're right, I misspoke. The action should get tighter as the line tie moves toward the nose of the bait (not the front of the lip). In a related and perhaps confusing case, the action gets wider if you bend the line tie in the nose of a jerkbait downward. The dominant trend for shallow runners with the tie in the nose is to position it right down on the lip's surface for maximum action. Looking at lots of deep divers, the line tie is typically just shy of 50% of the distance from the nose to the tip of the lip on lures with flat lips. If the lip is bent or cupped, that may not hold true. I'm happy to buy "medium deep divers" 12-18 ft because there are lots of good ones to choose from at reasonable prices. If you want 20+ ft divers, you often need to build them. The position of the line tie is critical. Too near the nose, the action is too tight and it blows out. Near right but not "right on", it will seem to "stagger" as it swims. Just right and it will swim completely under the boat on a retrieve. When I'm prototyping a deep diver, I play around more with the position and amount of ballast than I do with the line tie because they are highly dependent variables and it's easier to modify ballast when swim testing the bait.

X2 with Dsaavedra. Bass see less detail as water clarity decreases so I'd use eye colors that look good to you from whatever perspective you choose. From a practical perspective, 1-3 ft visibility is the ideal clarity for fishing crankbaits. Many experienced crankers when given the choice will specifically look for 1-3 ft clarity to fish crankbaits so the bass won't be able to get a good look before they commit to biting. Every fisherman's choices are relative to his experience but I would be fishing baits with only moderate color contrast in that water clarity, and the eye color wouldn't be an issue. In the absence of any definitive science on how (or if) bass relate to prey fish eye color, position, and size, it's all too easy to run aground when trying to navigate among "expert opinions". One theory is that bass are efficient predators who maneuver so a prey is swimming away from them when they attack, so the prey will not see the bass until it's too late. So a bass may be more likely to stalk and attack a prey - or a crankbait - if it can follow it without seeing the eyes. In the natural world, if you can see your prey's eyes, the prey can also see you! This makes as much sense to me as any other theory. And it might also help explain why some of the most productive classic wood crankbaits have small eyes painted on the top of the nose, almost as an afterthought. I think it's about depth, action, size, and speed. But if a particular color eye gives you confidence, that's not a bad thing.

Guys are gonna do what they're gonna do. If I want a Megabass Ito Vision 110, I buy the real thing (and have!). I figure I'm ahead doing that rather than buying 3 KO's that certainly won't perform the same and may not catch fish. That's wasting my fun time - and there can never be enough fun time. I have a bass boat I paid thousands of dollars for which surely doesn't sip $3.20/gal gasoline, a bunch of high end rods and reels that I fill with fluorocarbon or braid that costs a minimum of $`15 per spool. Am I now gonna cheap out on a $17 jerkbait? No. Can a less affluent guy in a Jon boat who refuses to buy a crankbait that costs more than $5 whip my butt? Yeah, some days. I believe fishing is mostly about finding fish. But good gear and good baits help and most days, I like my chances.

Alumite lures have many small holes that have to be filled before painting. You may not see them, but they are there! This is especially true if you sanded the lure after removing it from the mold - sanding breaks open micro-balloons on the surface. I agree with Matt about using a coat of epoxy (thinned with denatured alcohol) to fill all those holes. Maybe a water based sanding sealer would also work (haven't tried it) but I would shy away from anything containing a petroleum based solvent that might melt the Alumite. Yes, you do have to topcoat the lure after painting. That's to keep the paint from being worn off the lure, or being dissolved by water if you used water based acrylic paint. The problem I have with Alumite is that it requires lots of micro-balloons or SOMETHING to make it as buoyant as I need a lure to be. I hear that lots of micro-balloons thickens the mix and makes it hard to mold. Neat idea Matt about putting in shredded cork! But are you able to control how the cork is distributed while you inject the mix? I make bass baits which tend to be rather small and the problem with buoyancy was the real killer to me. I dropped the idea of Alumite after a friend sent me some samples with max micro-balloons based on a 2 1/4" D-bait copy. The blanks were just too dense and would barely float after adding hardware and finish. I'm just a hobbiest, so have no need for "volume production" and didn't explore it further. But if I did, I might be thinking along the line of trying to mold bodies from 16 lb foam to get buoyancy. 16 lb/cu ft density equates to hard balsa, which is more like it.

I don't remember height of the line tie off the surface of a deep diver's lip being discussed on TU. Your comment about "sensitive little creations" is right! The deeper the bait is designed for, the more critical the details become. Baits are generally more sensitive, have wider action, and are more apt to blow out as the line tie is moved back toward the nose on a deep diver. My guess (and only that) is a taller line tie causes the "pull point" to shift slightly back toward the nose. In any case, if you are happy with the action you're getting, you nailed it. The trick then becomes building other baits exactly the same. The position and amount of ballast is critical in this equation because it determines the fore/aft balance of the bait and by extension, the working angle of the lip. I hope you took good notes!

Yes I do, and I'm fixin to join FA (finishers anonymous).

I use a twisted line tie on both types of lures (tie in the nose or out on the lip surface) because the .040" soft temper ss wire I use is stronger twisted. It also provides more glue surface when you epoxy a tie into the nose. It's not a big deal, straight or twisted, as long as what you end up with is secure. If you favor heavier hard temper ss wire, twisting may not be easy to do, or you may just think it unnecessary - and you wouldn't be wrong.

I've bass fished for 30 yrs and my biggest 2 bass (8+ and 10+ lbs) came from private ponds. So don't be thinking small water = small bass. No doubt the gold standard bait for small ponds is a T-rigged plastic worm. Ribbon tail 6" or a straight tail worm like a Zoom Trick Worm work well. They are weedless and easy to cast without hanging up in the nearest tree (and if you do, it's not a $15 Japanese jerkbait hanging up there just out of reach!). Whatever color you have confidence in - mine are watermelon, green pumpkin, and june bug, depending on water clarity. But anything that will work in big water will work on a small pond.

I think the most important part is the rod. Whatever length you like but it needs to be the most sensitive rod in your arsenal, light, and with a fast tip section. For me, that has been a custom built Rogue MB-664 for T-rigs and a Rogue MB-705 for C-rigs. You can spend $350 for a Loomis GLX or St Croix SCV rod in the same general quality, and any of them will be well worth the expense. I pair the rod with a very light reel to make a combo that is as neutrally balanced as possible when you hold it. My choice is usually a Shimano Chronarch 50MG at less than 6 oz for T-rigs. Now, the cherry on top - always fish it with fluorocarbon line. You can skimp if you have to on rods for moving bait presentations like SB's, cranks, topwaters, etc. Never skimp on rods used for touchy-feely presentations like T-rigged plastics or C-rigs. That's where sensitivity and low weight really count, and where high end (high cost) graphite makes a real difference. Spinning or baitcasting? I like baitcasters because I can throw them more accurately and I don't have to worry about line twist. But either will do the job. If you're using very light line (4-8 lb test) for finesse plastics like shaky head worms, dropshots or unweighted plastics, spinning combos dominate 'cause baitcasters won't throw very light baits reliably.

I think Superglue was originally developed for use as a surgical wound suture. I don't hesitate to use it to close cold weather splits on my fingers. No ill effects yet! One thing that eliminates most of the problem with skin splits is to install a salt based water softener system in your house. It's amazing how much that helped both me and my wife to avoid the problem.

Assume you have a schematic? If not, look here: http://www.mikesreelrepair.com/schematics/albums/ambassadeur/Ambassadeur_2500CI_04-00.pdf As far as sideplate bearings, they can sometimes be pretty sticky. I bend a paper clip so it has a small 90 degree tip and use it to pull most bearings. If it won't fit under the bearing, reseat the bearing in its recess and smack the sideplate on your palm a few times to get it started out.

Rofish, I take your point but would also point out that all of your examples include epoxy. I hope newbies take note. Epoxies are the Gold Standard of coatings because they are chemically inert when cured and will not react with other coatings. And that's a bigger deal than many people realize. I've rarely built a wood crankbait that did not include a layer of epoxy somewhere in the finish. What I really had in mind are the many posts we see concerning failures from using a grab bag of aerosol rattle can finishes that guys pluck off the shelves of their local home center. I stand by my comment on experimentation. If an experiment cannot fail, it's not an experiment. And a failed finish experiment = unfishable crankbait. Maybe we're getting bogged down in semantics? My point is not to criticize experiments. If you never experiment, your crankbaits will never get better. It's to suggest that we label untested experiments for what they are: a guess that a method might work if tested, acknowledging that it might not and that we haven't tried it yet.

From the website, this is a Belgian company that sells to industrial clients. No list of retail outlets. It's worth noting that MCU is an generic industry term for any moisture cured urethane (Dick Nite S81 solvent based topcoat is one). Here in the U.S., they are most often sold as durable floor finishes, like Garco, Bostik, Famowood and other brands. Interesting to note that water borne urethanes (Dick Nite S82 water reducible topcoat is one) are also sold as floor finishes. In that application, their lack of volatile solvent fumes is a big consideration. How MCU's are custom-formulated, especially their viscosity and color clarity, can be significantly different among brands. For instance, the Famowood finish I tried was thicker and was more amber in color than the Dick Nite S81 I'm using. The Dick Nite S81 is custom formulated for dipping spoons. The Famowood is formulated for wood floors. I suspect getting Belgian MCU might be hard. If you want to try an alternative brand, Google MOISTURE CURED URETHANE and you will find options. I think you may find that prices are fairly uniform among MCU brands, including Dick Nite.

I undercoat the raw wood with Devcon thinned with denatured alcohol, paint the lure, then put on one coat of Devcon that is thinned only slightly if at all. An artist's brush with fine bristles will help to apply epoxy without causing bubbles.

Ro, I've learned here on TU that relatively few coating combinations work really well. But necessity is the mother of invention. Experimentation is good, but only as long as you don't necessarily expect to get a fishable crankbait at the end of the experiment. My concern is that we hear so often from newbies who try random combinations of coatings which end in disaster, usually followed by posts asking "What did I do wrong?" We have no answer because none of us ever tried that one. Instead, we had our own distinct disasters, then read TU and adopted a few "known-good" coating combinations to avoid all the drama. But I do see where you're coming from.

Dsaavedra - I didn't notice any amber hue to the 2 oz bottle of S82 (WRTC) Dick sent me for testing, but it WAS a small sample. Like other water borne urethanes, it was milky but dried more or less clear. I say more or less because my sample had a white-ish hue to it after curing that lightened the color of my neon red test block several shades to neon pink - compared to results with original formula S81 (DN1). My results with WRTC seemed identical to what I got with Target Coatings EM-9300, which is billed as a "water borne polycarbonate". Netman - yes you can still get the solvent based moisture cured S81 urethane from Dick Nite. Since he now sells 3 varieties of topcoat, you need to be specific when ordering if that's the one you want. Rofish - re: layering different topcoats: Why not just buy the one with the performance you like and use it only? Other than ease of storage, the WRTC S82 doesn't excel in any area that I can detect. If you want multiple coats of either S81 (DN1) or S82 (WRTC), recoat in 24 hrs and then wait for the cure period. If you want to layer them, you would probably need to coat with S82 and wait 9 days for it to cure hard from oxygen exposure before coating it with S81 - and then wait 4-7 days for that to cure from moisture exposure. And that's assuming the 2 are compatible and S81 would adhere over S82 (undetermined). If I have to go to the extra cost and trouble, I would probably just buy a premium high solids 2 part auto clearcoat and be done with it.

What you probably want to do is go to the company that supplies industrial gases and inquire into buying/renting a small tank of your own. You want the gas to be bone dry so you want a tank purged and filled by the gas company. Pressurizing an "empty" tank that has air and moisture inside it with nitrogen would not do that.

Nice construction on your turner! Mine looks prehistoric and was thrown together in an hour. But it has been running 7 yrs so no complaints. I like that I can turn it on, epoxy baits and clip them on without stopping the rotation. The motor is the critical part of any turner. This one is a $6 Micro Yang 6 rpm a/c motor and it has surprising torque for its size. It gets warm but not hot, a good sign. On small motors, the less mass they have to spin, the better as far as longevity goes. You'll get a good idea of how yours works by the heat the motor develops.

I think ordering Bloxygen direct from the company website is probably the way to go since the price seems the same as from other outlets and you're sure to get it without backorders, etc. I'm not deliriously happy with Bloxygen at $12 a can but it was the only sure preventative I knew about. It is a mixture of argon and nitrogen gas - in other words, pretty much the same stuff that welders use. So if you have a source for welding gas...

Difficult to answer. I haven't gone through enough quarts of DN to get a sense. All I can say is I buy 2 cans of Bloxygen with a quart of DN so I can be sure to have some on hand. I think I was shooting more than enough in my DN storage jar when I first started using it. But how much is necessary depends on how much air space is in the jar.

John, Solvent DN dries to the touch in less than an hour but the cure process goes on for days, maybe a week or longer. Like epoxy that takes up to a week to 100% final cure state, the real question is "when is it hard enough?" - I fish lures after 4 days with no problems. I've no idea if you could mix it with a water based UV product but I would probably mix the UV reflectant into a water based clear acrylic and shoot that as a last coat before dipping the lure in DN topcoat. Some guys brush on DN but I've always dipped because that's a big reason I started using it: fast, easy topcoating. Dip it, hang it, done. Removing finish from DN coated lures for repainting, I see that the topcoat has actually soaked through the acrylic paint and adhered to the underlying substrate (plastic or epoxy over wood). That makes for a really durable finish. You won't peel it off like you can epoxy. But lest I wax poetic about solvent DN, there are also downsides - storing it so it doesn't cure in the container, tendency to bubble over many solvent based coatings (including itself!), tendency to bubble or lift paint if the DN film thickness is too great (i.e., if you rotate lures like you do with epoxy and the rotation causes DN to collect in a thick film anywhere on the bait, you will get bubbles or lifted paint). But if you take care when storing it and just dip/hang baits, it's among the easiest, most durable topcoat available.