Vodkaman

I would like to see some video, an important tool in lure design. Dave

That is a very wide grill at the front. I am probably out of my depth here, but I can imagine a very wide wake pattern. I am thinking that it is possible that the fish are missing wide. Just a thought. Can you insert the image on this post for reference. Dave

Braided Line - Now we are getting down to the point, the confusion between two words; custom and original. A custom is someone else's dream, original is your own dream. Dave

I love these questions. I probably asked the same when I joined. 1 – I design the hardware layout on a paper sketch and then draw a body shape around it. There is really no big deal about body shapes, pretty much anything goes. I like my ballast low down, so mine tend to be deep bodied lures. 2 – For a 3” body, 5/8, 3/4 are all comfortable. But again, there are no rules. 1/2, 1” are good too. 3 – Many builders use two slabs glued together, it is a very good technique for balsa. You also have the advantage of a built in center-line. Hold the plates together with a couple of drops of soft glue for the carving process so that they can be separated later. 4 – No hard rules here either. The point of the through wire is that if the balsa body disintegrates then the fish is not lost. as long as your wire design achieves this then you are good. 5 – It weighs what it weighs, no rules. 6 – Body dynamics does play a lesser part on cranks, the main thing is to understand lips. Good luck with your project. Dave

I can't argue with that. Morally correct, customer gives permission. Paint patterns are definitely a woolly area. I think we have the same understanding. Dave

LIGHTER density. This will allow you to control the sitting angle for your glide. You tune the angle with ballast. Like I said, gliders and jerk baits are out of my field, but lighter density body gives you room to adjust with ballast positions. Dave

PU has a range of densities as I just found out with a Google search. If you are getting even a nose up at the surface with hardware, your PU is certainly lighter than the 1.2 that I quoted. It sounds like you are very close but no cigar. You could try 25% MBs but this then becomes a pouring problem as the viscosity of the mix increases. I achieved success using a cake icing injector to deliver the mix. I am not experienced in gliders, but from what I have read; the lure should sit nose up at an angle of around 30 degrees, possibly 45 degrees. I will let more experience jump in here. Dave

By weight is good, that is the way that I would do the mix. Without MBs the situation would be even worse. At least with MBs you get a reasonable ballast effect from the hooks and hardware. Without MBs you would end up with a fast sinker that still rotates. Your choices are: 1 - Include air pockets to lighten overall density and add ballast low down. This is obviously a more complex molding option. 2 - use an expanded polyurethane material, say 12Lb or even heavier density. This will give you a light body capable of carrying ballast that will fix your problem, and still enable you to use your mold. 3 - Abandon molding and go for wood. Dave

MBs is a difficult subject. I have experimented with and read lots of posts. I am always left with questions; the 15% that you mentioned was that by weight or volume. The second question is always what was the final density of the body material. The big problem is always density. Resin, regardless of type, has a density heavier than water, usually around 1.2g/cm³. Using MBs will bring the density down to something workable, but the final body density will be high, leaving no room for ballast, hardware, and still ending up with a lure that floats after painting and topcoat. The resulting lure has a very high/central COG which means that it will turn over, rotating on its long axis. Fine for slow movements, but as soon as you inject some pace with a jerk or acceleration, the fluid forces overcome the resistance to rotate. The lightest body density that I ever achieved with resin and MBs was around 0.65g.cm³ and this severely limited the lure action. I gave up on solid resin with MBs as a bad choice. I hope someone replies with better news for you. To measure your body density, do a search for ‘Archimedes dunk test’, this will show you how to measure density (use metric measurements only). To prevent rotation, you either need a lighter body density or include hollow portions to reduce body overall density and ballast to provide resistance to rotation. Sorry not to be more positive, but just trying to help with an explanation. Dave

For me, the wood choice was never a factor mainly because I am not involved with carving details. If carving is your thing then the best idea is to Google ‘best woods for carving’, then see what is available on the list in your area. I am looking for action in my lures, which means a light weight wood. Balsa would rate highly on my list, but the intricacies of finishing balsa requires great care as the grains (annular rings) are harder than the filler wood, so it is difficult to end up with a smooth even surface. And then there is the surface fluff to contend with. But not a big deal. The advantages of balsa in lure action are huge. My local wood is albesia, a wood that you have probably never heard of. It is extremely cheap and used for basic construction work. It is also used for cheap carving for the tourist industry. Its density is around 30g/cm³ which puts it in the category of a heavy balsa and perfect for what I want for my lures (cranks). It is strong enough not to require through wiring even when grappling with ten pounders. Easy to carve and shape and most importantly; light for action and room for ballast tuning. The first thing I do is cut off a rectangular section, measure LxBxW and weigh the piece, this gives me the density. Throughout construction I can weigh the body and know exactly how much ballast I need to insert without having to float test. Dave

For me the definition is clearly defined in any dictionary as 'made or done to order for a particular customer'. You cannot mass produce to sell a custom lure, by definition it is a one off, designed NOT by the builder but to the specification of the customer, be it the lure’s action, shape, paint job or any combination. By agreement and/or contract, the custom is owned by the customer and is not for reproduction. 'Custom' is a word banded about and abused way too much on this site. Let the heated debate begin! Dave

It was not meant to be an 'I am' thing, but I guess it does read that way. It was meant to explain what I am all about; ideas, hypothesis, theory, testing and proving. You will definitely NOT find a single photograph of a finished lure made by me, there has never been one. I do actually own a Pasche and an Iwata HP-C plus. The Pasche was used a few times to apply base coats and the Iwata has never had air through it. I made the decision not to paint as it was a distraction, and of course, I believe in action as being the fish attractor and not paint. It did actually distress a few members that I was not a fisherman, I think they felt that I was a fraud. Yes, I have caught fish, but only in testing, to prove that the lure works and catches. I love my hobby and I love TU were I can discuss my hobby, as it tends to fall on deaf ears in the pub, and even here on TU at times. I also write lengthy posts and complex explanations, another failing that irritates people, but I do try to keep it simple, not my forte Dave

Shepherd – I have only, as far as I recall, posted one lure from beginning to end, and the reason for that instance was that the construction and installation of hardware was totally new; Bawal12. I included a video of the detailed construction and even offered up plans for those interested. In my early days on this site, yes, I was concerned about copying, especially as I thought that I was on to something with hunting lures which was my main project and always has been. However, I never cracked hunting in those early days. Also early on, I analyzed the whole industry of lure manufacture, the time and cost elements, and made the decision that I was not going to take part in the industry, and so nothing from that day forward was kept secret. When I finally did crack hunting theory in 2013, I posted a detailed description of how it works with nothing held back. I even receive a couple of caustic messages for releasing this information, as some had built a thriving business on hunting lures, even if they didn’t understand exactly what they were doing or how the lures worked. The Bawal12 lure post was actually a hunter design also. The post preceded the hunting theory post as I had not fully understood the theory even though I knew how it worked. The next and current project is an extension of the hunting project, taking it all to the next level, the triple point project (2019). I posted on my ideas in a lot of detail even though I did not have a lure to back up my hypothesis. I have a CAD design but I have not worked on the project for a long time. If I ever pick up a 3D printer, it will be one of the first projects that I re-visit. I will also have more thinking to do because this lure is directly transferable to injection molding production. I could either produce it myself or sell the design. Either way, the hypothesis has already been posted for anyone who wishes to experiment with the ideas. If you read the above linked posts which contain my best work (IMO) I think you will change you preconception that I am afraid to share. I don’t understand the ‘deaf ears’ bit. The next bit about constructive criticism and encouragement are ideals that I believe in, but they take place in the gallery which is an area of TU that I so rarely visit. The reason being that I do not want my ideas to be corrupted in my head by what others are doing. Here is an interesting fact for you; I have NEVER bought or owned a crankbait, glider or any other style of hardbait. My only experience is with my own builds. Agreed, there are many ways to go about design and build of lures. Mine is probably the most complex, and certainly only a few would follow. However, my instructional post on Archimedes and how to use it, I think many builders would find extremely useful. I did not develop this particular idea, I discovered it in the depths of TU and brought it back to life. Incidentally, I also linked the origin of the idea so as not to claim all the credit for myself. If you do a search on vortex and vortices, you will find that I introduced these words when I figured out how lipped lures, and for that matter, how ALL lures work. I did not hold back this information as I felt that it was important knowledge that designers should be aware of. I don’t post start to finish builds because there are way too many other members who are more skilled at building, and I would only be duplicating their processes and taking credit. I only post new ideas without holding back. I hope this lengthy reply clears up a few points. I just read your follow up post, so thank you for the retraction, but having spent an hour typing and researching, I am not throwing this post away Dave

BobP gets my ultimate respect. I appreciate his ethics and skills. As he knows, my thing has always been a time based challenge right from my first day. My aim has always been to make an effective fish catcher in the minimal time. I do not paint, perhaps a coat of white for testing, and rarely apply a protective topcoat. If my lure gets chewed and becomes water-logged, I simply attach another and dry my lures out in the Indonesian hot sun for a day or two. I repair with CA glue and I am ready for the next session. I am not a serious fisherman, I am a lure designer. Once the lure is tested and proven, notes are kept (CAD) and the lure goes into a bag an eventually lost. It is the engineering, problem solving, learning, not the art for me. Many do not like my philosophy if I can call it that, but this is my hobby, it keeps me happy and entertained. The man-made competition ponds that I fish are bait only. They give me permission to test my lures between contests. People who see my lures in action, catching fish in minutes, big enough to win the bait competitions, are amazed! Each to his own I say. Dave

Welcome to TU. Routers are gnarly, scary, dangerous tools and have little application for the work that we do. I have used a router to round over flat sided lures, but that is about all as far as lures go. A drill press would be a very useful addition. A bench vise too. Dave

Welcome to TU. What Jig Man said; you have got to familiarize yourself with all the safety aspects of pouring high temperature materials. You must make yourself aware of what can go wrong, the horror stories, the mistakes that people have made so that you do not go down the same path. Age is only a number Dave

Stunning work. Sounds like you are 50/50. probably leaning to the right. But, neither is a bad thing. There are online tests if you really want to know. My brother was an artist, a chainsaw sculptor. I worked on a few projects with him offering up my engineering expertise. He drove me mental Dave

The statement at the top of the web page reads - COVID-19 UPDATE: Due to Covid 19, we have closed manufacturing and are selling off our remaining inventory. We will only be able to ship bulk orders of 20+ gallons. If you are interested in placing an order, please send an email to.... To me, this reads like the place is shutting down, and you will only be able to buy minimum 20gal while stocks last. After that, no more! Dave

Dgagner - I am severely left brained. I am totally CAD orientated. You would drive me nuts as would most on this site. I am with the boys Dave

I can provide you with PDF plans if you PM me your email addy. Dave

The big problem with small cranks is squeezing all the hardware and making the bait secure should a monster attack the fragile bait full of holes. My small crank (41mm body length) was designed with these problems in mind. I also wanted to produce a bait that takes less than an hour from start to final assembly. Plenty of action and catches fish - I succeeded. The reason for the small crank design is that the bawal fish has a small mouth, and I have caught up to 12.5Lbs. There is no carving. It is a flat sided lure with rounded edges. Tools used; band saw, drill press, hand drill, router and belt sander. The belly wire links to the tow eye wire on assembly. The tow eye has 30mm of wood penetration. the lip is tailored around the tow eye, making a compact yet robust lure which has pulled in angry fish up to ten pounds. Link to design. Dave

I will think on it, and we can pick up the discussion again. Dave

It goes against all thinking, but I believe that in action, the ballast is above the roll axis. This just seems wrong, it seems unstable, it seems illogical, but that is the way that I see it. Life would be much simpler if I was wrong in this case. If someone can make a good argument why the rotation axis is down the center of the lure, then I would accept it Dave

Interesting Hillbilly. I had in mind much more angle. Yours looks like 15 deg per side (eyeball), I would go as far as 45 deg per side. I have experimented with all kinds of lips, but I was never looking for roll. I have my doubts about raising the ballast weight. The idea is that if the ballast weight lies on the roll (long) axis then roll would be easier, but it does not work like that. The lure likely swims nose down because of the lip. The rotation axis is horizontal at the swim direction, through the tow eye, so the argument would be to have the ballast as low as possible. As usual, this is all theory. Test - hold a lure at the swim angle and view a horizontal line through the tow eye, and you will see what I mean. Dave

Mark - funny For more roll, which I generally try to avoid, I would look to the lip. The forces that drive the lure action come off the lip perpendicular to the lip side. So, if the lip shape was more triangular in shape then the forces would impart more roll. The more angled the lip the more roll you get. It is something to experiment with, like Mark stated. Dave