Vodkaman

LOL - I have had the good 'well shoot' issue and not been able to repeat ever again. This is why I delve into the engineering side of things. If I can find an engineering explanation for the different result, then I have more of a chance of finding the good change again. Dave

It needs testing out for sure, but it makes sense to me. Next time you're in the workshop, take a length of 304 wire, place behind the eye-pin and bend 180 degrees or more, then reverse (unwrap). The wire will have a definite kink at the eye position, this is due to the work hardening of the bent part of the wire. Repeat a second time. If I am correct then the kinked portion will be more formed due to more work hardening of the region. For the test, repeat a few more times to find out how many times to achieve the maximum work hardening - experiment. Dave

304 is the most common stainless wire fortunately for us. Yes it is soft and it bends easily, again, fortunately for us. 304 also cold work hardens. This means that when you work it into a series of tight bends when making a twisted eye, the material automatically hardens, as you will discover if you try to unwind a tight set of coils. This again is in our favour. So, don't be fooled in to thinking that this material is too soft for our purposes. Once bent into the shape that we want, it automatically toughens up. When I have tested SS twisted eyes with heavy loads, there was distortion of the eye shape. So, knowing that the material cold work hardens, you could make the first eye shape bend twice or even three times (but no more). This would ensure maximum work hardening of the eye. Note - I have not tried this idea, it just occurred to me now. Dave

If the label says 304 then you are good. Dave

I too think that this has been a tremendous thread. I think a performance repeatable swim action is not dependent on a fine tolerance. Some aspects are easy to control; hole positions, lip sizes, lip positions, ballast position. We can do our best with the carving and get fairly close, probably not to the same precision as the holes etc. But if the body is a shade bigger or smaller than the standard set, and everything else kept the same, then the only thing that changes is the buoyancy. Copying a lure, which is what we are basically doing when trying to repeat our own design/build, is not just about XYZ. Buoyancy, the float sink status is also important. You cannot expect repeatability if the buoyancy is different. The carving can wander out of tolerance, the wood density can vary, but most of the rest is controllable even in a hand build. BUT, by controlling the buoyancy, all those uncontrollables that mess with the tolerances of the lure can be brought back into specification by controlling the buoyancy, and surprisingly, this is a lot simpler than most builders think. Tolerance is not just about XYZ, buoyancy can be controlled with equal or levels of tolerance, even with more precision regardless of the fact that the carving was out of tolerance and the wood density was higher or lower than the original. Controlling buoyancy does not mean that you need to wear a white coat in a science lab. It is just a few measurements that determine the ballast weight value to correct the buoyancy and the errant carving and wood density. There are more scientific reasons why I drive the importance of buoyancy but I have never explained them. It is all to do with Center Of Flotation (COF), Center Of Gravity (COG) and Center Of Forces (COF) and the swim line position relative to the above. If the swim line is kept in the correct position relative to COF and the relation between COF and COG is kept under control, and all the XYZ bits are under control then the lure will swim the same. I will post on the subject one day to explain, but I am still trying to get my head around it myself. When I know, you will know. Dave Dave

The idea is to provide a lump that stops the eye from stripping out the plastic around the thread. Because it is a screw, there is no such hardware that I know of. My solution would be to wind thin SST wire into the threads, continue winding to build up the thickness, the equivalent of a nut. Probably over a length of 1/4" to 3/8" would be sufficient. I would consider a dab of 5 min epoxy ant the start, but it may not be necessary. Perhaps a drop of runny CA glue onto the final wrap, this would seep through the whole lump of winding. Dave

Yes indeed, it definitely would be an assembly line. But with customers demanding 5,000 products per week, what choice do I have. But, the lures are still made by hand. Regardless, no ethical dilemma exists as I never called my lure 'hand made' in the first place 'Hand made' is a meaningless statement. The price is the price, according to materials, labour and profit. The REAL ethics comes in when you are over-charging for a product, but even this can be justified by supply and demand, that is until the Chinese get a hold of your design. Dave

Exx1976 - I think you are going to have to find another word to use in place of 'custom'. This is a word that is incorrectly used on this site and probably throughout the industry. A custom lure is one designed and built to a particular customer's specifications, and the lure is sold ONLY to that customer. If you sell that lure to other customers then it is no longer a custom lure. I fall about laughing when I see an internet site stating; custom lure, three left in stock! Ethics is good subject, but the ethical boundaries are self imposed rules and cannot be imposed on another builder as a fact, it is merely your opinion. A group can scream and shout against a drug company's use of human placenta material used to make a life-saving drug, but again, it is only the group's opinion, the people whose lives depend on that drug to live might possibly have a different opinion. If I choose to build my lure bodies with a duplicating machine, finish with a flap wheel, drill the holes with a drill press and a store bought drill bit, cut the lip slots with a band saw, paint using an airbrush and use a lure turner to get an even coat, make no mistake, those lures are hand made. Why? Because I controlled the shape of the lure, determined the position of the holes, slot and ballast locations and I operated all those tools. Even if I have a line of villagers doing the work for me, the lures are still hand made, I taught them how to do the jobs, the jobs are done to my specifications, the inspector works to my standards, right down to the packaging. Personally, I would never get involved with any of these contentious adjectives, I would design a lure to work a specific way, build it by whatever means and sell it. The customer would understand that this lure is unique and totally original, and every lure will perform to my specification. I would set the price according to materials, labour and an acceptable profit. I would not indulge myself in justifying my price with such words as custom or hand made or made in Indonesia. Either the customer wants to fish my lure and is prepared to pay the price or they are not. Dave

It certainly takes a lot more time to write about it than to actually do it, but I do see your point. Getting the holes right is more tedious than time consuming. For many builders it is not about the time at all, it is about quality and craftsmanship. I am NOT one of them. For me, right from day one, it has always been about the time, and I accept that the quality builders are going to look at me with a little contempt, but that is OK. A jig is the only answer to repeatability, but the problem with hand carving is that you cannot build a neat fitting jig because of the carving variations, at least, I have not come up with the solution. This is why I drill first and carve later. If I screw up the holes then I can start again with minimal loss of time. When I built the duplicator then things changed. The bodies were constant and jigs could be made, I had templates and jigs for everything. Dave

I will scribe parallel lines around the square block and eyeball the rest of the way. Just as in your original post, you can see that the hole is not centered. I use my eyes to fine tune the start of the hole, get it right, then drill through. Pretty much as I described above. Dave

Belly holes are generally not such a big problem, the BIG issue is the nose and tail holes, and the reason for this is that you are drilling into end grain. The grains have their own direction, so the hard and soft layers are going to pull at your drill bit. It is a ‘path of least resistance’ thing. Always start the hole with a bradawl point. Pull this around until it is perfect. Start the hole with a 1/16” diameter bit in REVERSE direction, going in about 3/8”, all the time eye-balling to make sure I am dead on. Then go to final size, reverse spin for the first ¼” and then normal drill the rest of the depth. Reverse direction is not good for the drill bit, so it is best to keep these bits separate just for that job. Reverse starting serves two purposes; 1 – It prevents chipping the wood at the start. 2 – It gives you great control over progress, it will not grab and pull into the wood. Of course, I should not have to mention sharp bits for the job, and keep the bit extension from the chuck as short as possible, particularly with small diameters. Personally, I drill all my holes and slots in the square block before carving. Dave

If the wire uncoils itself then it is not 304 and will be very tough to work with. Dave

The spec for soft stainless that you are looking for is '304'. It is common and widespread. If you find it on the shelf and the clerk is not looking, grab the last inch and bend it. The wire should bend easily and not spring back. My wire is thinner than 0.051" but I am making small cranks. I have never had a failure, but the eyes can get bent and in extreme cases (testing) pulled out of shape. Dave

Valid point. Screw eyes generally fail because of shear strength, the glue contact with the wood fails and the screw and glue rips out, often because of water ingress. The internal step eliminates this kind of failure. For this assembly to fail, the lure material would have to fail completely. I meant to say PLA (not PVA). Another common material is PETG. Although these materials are not used in bridge design, I am confident that they would fare better than most woods. We all know about polycarbonate which would be an ideal choice, and is commonly available. Dave

Bad boy Dave

Plastic tubing is also available, worth considering. Hobby model shops are a good source for alternative materials. Dave

Member attitudes have improved immensely over the last couple of years and TU has become a better place. The annoying standard response used to be "Do a search"! Now, the standards are explored and new ideas are brought to light. Definitely a good place to be. Dave

The first few will be 3D printed PVA to fine tune the lip. After that it will be polyester resin until I can find a more suitable resin. It is no where near ready yet, even though it looks complete. Let's not get side tracked here. I just wanted to show what was possible with the short screw eye. Dave

Exx1976 - it will be molded halves, so no problem at all Dave

My latest design only uses 15mm barrel twist eyes, but the hole has an internal step to prevent pulling out. Dave

The weakest part of the screw eye assembly is the shear strength of the wood. So, the longer the screw, the more surface area there is. This is why the dowel thing works. I was expecting the CA glue to do better, using the argument that it would soak into the wood more, but you cannot argue with that demonstration. I did similar pull tests years ago. I hung a 40Lb bucket of water on my lure from a door frame for 24 hours. I was happy with this test. If I was to do it again, I would probably experiment with some kind of drop test with a smaller weight and adjust the drop height. dropping 20Ltr of water makes quite a mess. Great video. Dave

File sent. Dave

I use barrel twisted eyes in my small cranks. I catch Bawal 7Lb - 12Lb regularly. These deep bodied fish can really pull. Never had a failure. Actually, even these twisted eyes are linked to the hook hanger, so I suppose you could call it a through wire. BUT, I cannot imagine trying to wrestle with an angry 40Lb Musky with all its leverage. Why would anyone take the risk of losing such a stunning fish, not to mention the damage to the fish as mentioned above. The dowel idea is good, it is a surface area thing. Dave

Mark - What is COVID-19, did I miss something? Actually, I have been in self imposed lock-down for the last ten years or so, I live my life as a hermit recluse. I did do competition fishing in local ponds on a daily basis for a few years, but this came to an end with CV19 as I am an old fart. These were people whom I met every day, but still could not name more than two or three of them. They gave me a lot of respect as the only foreigner to grace their passion. They called me Mister Dave. Why? - I am face blind (prosopagnosia) and also cannot remember names. Guys occasionally stop me when I am out shopping. They ask me when I will come back fishing. First I have to figure out which pond they are from as I fished four within a mile radius. Sometimes I would get a glimmer of recognition, but usually not. So sad, but it is what it is Dave

After the Sweden job, I landed a contract in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Home to one of the top lure designers on TU, LaPala. He lived further north and me being a contract worker, we never managed to put the time together to actually meet. Such a shame as I had so much to learn. Again, the apartment gave me no scope for a workshop, once again I was confined to the kitchen table. BUT, the apartment complex did have a swimming pool. First light around 6am was the best time for prototype testing. You need very thick skin for testing lures in a communal swimming pool. I remember two young ladies in full eye slit Islamic burqa dress. They stopped to ask me if I had caught anything. It would normally be totally unheard of them to talk to a western white guy, but I looked so funny and they could not resist the opportunity. We chatted for a few minutes, very interesting indeed. Here is a video of one of my early hunting successes. I did not show a close-up of the lure as I thought that I was onto something BIG! – I was not Dave