Vodkaman

Post your wheel when you are done. Looking forward to seeing your wire former, SOON Dave

Great post Warren. All good suggestions. alru19 - Please report back on this one. A lot of people will be interested in your results, including me. Pictures would be a bonus, but understand if you do not want to. Dave

It is possible that you could get away with it, depending on the master shape, depth etc. Also, if the resin shrinks at all, this would be in your favor. But having destroyed a mold a few years ago, that I had put a lot of work into, I am very wary about trying that again. If I could easily replace the mold, then I would try it, for fun. But if the mold has value in time invested or cannot easily be replaced, then I don't think it is worth the risk. I often make PoP molds from hard masters and they are hard enough to retrieve. This is just my opinion and thought. If someone can offer you more hope of success, I hope they jump in here. Dave

Thanks for reporting back. Something as insignificant as changing out a brush cleaning jar. Scary, but could well be the culprit. interesting read about brush loading. I will think about that next time I get the epoxy out. I scoop a load of epoxy onto the brush and deposit it around the lip area. I then push the epoxy upto the lip, so that it forms a fillet and laps onto the lip. I then load more and push/mash it onto the surface, the intention being to make sure the surface is wetted. I then smooth it out from nose to tail, loading more as necessary. Keeping the bait rotating, I examine closely under a strong light, looking for blemishes and missed spots. Then transfer to the drying wheel. I am thorough and careful, but this means that with D2T, I can only coat one bait at a time. I know some of you guys are doing 5 or more baits with one batch. Hats off to you, but I'll stick with one at a time. Dave

If you try to make a hard casting from PoP, you risk destroying your mold, by the cast getting locked in. Either cast soft plastic and spend some time with a hot knife, to dress the seams up, or use RTV to make a mold to cast your hard masters. Dave

Video No3: Four lures have now been tested. Video 1 - proved that rear facing joints have a stronger action than front facing V joints. Video 2 - proved only that it was possible to minimize head movement, but with too many variables changed to identify the controlling factor. Video 3 - proved that forward/rear placement of the ballast does not control head movement. The variables introduced in video 2 are: density and joint flex. Joint flex - I attempted to explore the joint flex idea, by increasing the flex of lure V2 (2nd lure from first video) and also lure V4 (forward ballast location). Neither test reduced the head movement. I addition, closer examination of the videos, shows that the head is moving before the segments. This virtually eliminates the joint flex argument. This could be confirmed by building a double pin hinged lure of light density. I intend to test the density angle first, as I don’t relish the idea of building a swimbait that is destined to fail. Density – there is a reasonably strong argument for density causing the head movement. As the water flows over the head, it is pulling or dragging the head. An increase on body density would increase the inertia, resisting this tendency. I intend to test this idea next, by fitting 30% of the front section ballast in the top/rear of the body, using low density wood. This will increase the inertia, simulating a high density wood. Nose design – The shape that I chose for these tests was a low nose location, below the centerline. I am now inclined to think that a high nose location would eliminate the head movement, as the water will be pulling on the throat rather than the head. After the inertia and joint flex tests, this will be the next test. I am tempted to build another double pin hinged lure, using light material, all other features identical to V3 (DP hinge). This would be a direct comparison for density as the head shaking factor. But again, this feels like a wasted build, when I could be testing the inertia theory. Sorry if this read has been complicated, but this is what prototyping is all about. I welcome any other thoughts or ideas on the head shaking phenomenon. Dave

Video No3: Four lures have now been tested. Video 1 - proved that rear facing joints have a stronger action than front facing V joints. Video 2 - proved only that it was possible to minimize head movement, but with too many variables changed to identify the controlling factor. Video 3 - proved that forward/rear placement of the ballast does not control head movement. The variables introduced in video 2 are: density and joint flex. Joint flex - I attempted to explore the joint flex idea, by increasing the flex of lure V2 (2nd lure from first video) and also lure V4 (forward ballast location). Neither test reduced the head movement. I addition, closer examination of the videos, shows that the head is moving before the segments. This virtually eliminates the joint flex argument. This could be confirmed by building a double pin hinged lure of light density. I intend to test the density angle first, as I don’t relish the idea of building a swimbait that is destined to fail. Density – there is a reasonably strong argument for density causing the head movement. As the water flows over the head, it is pulling or dragging the head. An increase on body density would increase the inertia, resisting this tendency. I intend to test this idea next, by fitting 30% of the front section ballast in the top/rear of the body, using low density wood. This will increase the inertia, simulating a high density wood. Nose design – The shape that I chose for these tests was a low nose location, below the centerline. I am now inclined to think that a high nose location would eliminate the head movement, as the water will be pulling on the throat rather than the head. After the inertia and joint flex tests, this will be the next test. I am tempted to build another double pin hinged lure, using light material, all other features identical to V3 (DP hinge). This would be a direct comparison for density as the head shaking factor. But again, this feels like a wasted build, when I could be testing the inertia theory. Sorry if this read has been complicated, but this is what prototyping is all about. I welcome any other thoughts or ideas on the head shaking phenomenon. Dave

Thanks. We just don't want to miss out on anything. Dave

You are welcome to post your results here, this thread is about gathering swimbait knowledge. Post as much information as you can, include photos, ballast positions, materials and size. Same goes for everyone else. Dave PS. Mods, I seem to have a double post. Can you delete one please. Having a lot of Inet problems here. Thanks

I cannot see how a mixed swap can work so that everyone gets a fair deal. If you can get an agreement with everyone, then that is a go, but keep in mind, there's about two hours work goes into a crank. Figure how many worms you can pour in that time and start there. No reason why you could not start a plastics swap or a jig swap. I have no axe to grind here, as postal costs prevent me from taking part in such an event, $41.90 for a half kilo box. I can't afford to shell out that kind of money and I am sure no one else would want to either. Dave

Double pin hinge test I was keen to make a double pin hinge swimbait, so went ahead. It doesn’t really fit into this series of tests at this stage, but the results were surprising. Comparison between rear facing pin-eye hinge (V2) and double pin hinge (V3). The differences on the double pin lure (V3) are: 1 - Slight sinker compared to a strong floater. 2 - Different hinge type and shape around the hinge area. 3 – Different density wood (0.411 compared to 0.295gm/cm³). All other aspects of the build are the same. The DP hinge is not as pretty as the hidden pin-eye, with the hinge more visible. But it does allow more movement in the hinge and also more room for ballast placement, as the hinge hardware only extends into the body by about 11mm. Both lures demonstrated a smooth sinusoidal action, but the DP hinge lure (V3) showed less head movement, once the hinge had been modified to fit correctly, this is why I included the pre-fit video. If the hinge movement is restricted during the swim, the forces that move the segment will tip the body, causing a head shaking effect. This needs further investigation, with some close-up overhead video shots. If this shows a restriction on V2, I will modify the hinge and see if there is any difference. The next test will be the forward ballast test. I am in the final stages of the build and it should be ready tomorrow. Dave

I would like to know too. Dave

I use 3mm diameter brass rod. Cheap, readily available, easy to work with and plenty durable for the job. Dave

True, after a few hours, the D2T epoxy is set hard enough to handle. But I found that if you handled the bait much before 12 hours, the acids from your skin would dull the finish and you would lose that super 'Fatfingers' clarity that we all strive for. Now, I don't touch mine before 24 hours, unless it is just a testing proto. Dave

I opened the valve on mine, just to see. I can only guess at the actual amount of watery black sludge that came out, maybe 1 - 2 litres. It was not small. The compressor was bought new 2 years before and does not get much use, mostly for blowing dust from one end of the shop to the other. I am in Indonesia were the humidity is usually in the 90's. At the moment it is 96. It is worth opening the tap, just to check, but do it outside (how do I know this? Don't ask). Dave

Excelent post Cami. I have been looking for something like this. Now I need to find the ingredients. Thankyou for sharing. Dave

Outstanding video as usual. You are getting very good at this. All the lures had great movement and I am sure that you are in for a successful season. We will have to figure out how to do a microphone for your tests. A bone mic perhaps, can you buy those? Dave

I use Google translate. Dave

I wear a full face ventilated mask when ever I am sanding. I find the dremel deceptively dangerous when it comes to dust. I like the flap wheel because it is not too severe, it has some give in it and some shape (after it is broken in). Dave

Nice tool Hillbilly1. I use 80 grit on the belt sander for all my shaping and a flap wheel in the drill press. I finish off with 120 grit. Seal, prime, then wet 400 if I was going to paint. Dave

The MB's with super glue is a good method. I use it for tidying ballast holes. Rock hard and can be worked in five minutes. You have to work fast though. Dave

Ah! the dulcet tones of a Yorkshire man. Feels just like home, almost. Just for you lad, just for you. I played in brass bands for 30 years. I did a lot of concerts with Fodens, to help out when they had players missing, substituting. Dave

I have added a submerged video box, to allow closer examination of the lures in action and enhance future productions. I have always been impressed by Jeeps underwater video. The frame mounts on three threaded studs, with wing nuts, less that two minutes installation. The box is pushed down into the water and 'hooks' under the frame, fixed by a push-on 'C' clamp. The unit has two depth settings: sub surface and 8". The camera freely sits on a shelf inside the box and has open access at all times. The cameras focussing worked perfectly and I am very happy with the results. Here is a video: Dave

If you are only using it internally as a filler, the 2Lb would be enough. I am not sure if it is available as a two part, I have only seen it in the spray cannisters for wall insulation injection. You will have no control with the cannisters and it is going to get messy. All you need is to support the surface of the void, so that you can repair the surface with filler. Why not just roll a ball of tissue paper and stuff that in. Dave

Good buy. That'll work too Dave