Vodkaman

For consistancy, molding would be the way to go. But as you hinted, you may have to tweak the design to get it running as you want it. To replicate the buoyancy is not too dificult. If you fill a narrow jar to the absolute max, completely submerge the bait and collect the displaced water. Weigh the water and weigh the bait. The difference between the two measurements is the buoyancy. Repeat with the new lure and adjust the ballast until you match the buoyancy value. You may have to invest is a 0.1 gram scales. If you do not want to invest, I have a scales design made from paper and plastic cups that is good for 1% accuracy or 0.2 gram for a 20 gram bait.

I find my best days are when the barometer reading is high. This may have only been a coincidence as I have not fished much recently. Would be interested in other opinions or research.

Sorry, I've had a re-think. The position of the ballast controls the centre of the 'X'ing action. So if the ballast is closer to the centre of the front segment, this will hold the centre of the 'waggle' action forward. The tail segment will then follow like a flag, resulting in an aparent 'S' motion. This will be aided by the vortices from the lip travelling down stream, adding to the tail action. Definately no ballast in the tail (for me).

TJ. I have no experience of two part lures, but thinking about the theories of what is going on, I think the weight placement is causing you problems. My main concern is the weight in the rear segment. This is severely damping out the action. If I was designing the lure, I would first try all the weight in the front segment, just in front of the hinge and no weight in the rear segment. Or, if you really want weight in the rear, group it all around the hinge on both segments. It is the same as grouping the ballast on a one piece body. If you spread the ballast too much, you kill the action. This, in my humble opinion should increase the action, but it does have a down side, I would expect to have more casting problems as the rear segment flops around as it leads through the air. So, it depends on what you are looking for, lure design like design of anything is generaly a compromise of some sorts. I would be very interested in other opinions, this is a learning opportunity for me too.

I agree with everything BobP discusses. If the only reason you are using the dense cherry is with a view to getting depth, then this is not necessary. The depth is determined by the lip/ballast/line eye geometry combination. It is possible to get a buoyant lure right down there and make soggy lignum body float, by controlling your geometry. Obviously, if the lure is ballasted close to neutral, the lure will not have to fight the upward float loads. You mention a tight wobble, if by that you mean reduced action as opposed to a wide 45deg action, then the cherry is a good chioce.

Fair point Wolfcreek, I'll have to check it out. specific gravity resin = 1.17 Hardener = 0.97 So, weighing is probably not a very good idea.

Confused you then didn't I. I replied to the wrong post, should have been fatfingers, appologies!

Those are MAN's hands. Great work

The more I think about this subject, the more negative I become. The shape of the bend is really starting to give me doubts regarding reliability of data. A technique that I regularly employ in engineering research is, if I am not sure of an effect a particular element has on the overall, for example, a particular lip shape. In my mind I totally exaggerate the size or shape or whatever the property is that I am interested in. usually the effect then becomes obvious. In this case it is the effect of the shape of the hook bend. If the hook bend sharpens or tightens up before the hook point, does it affect the bending performance? Although in my mind this question has been gnawing away at my brain, I have chosen to ignore it, but I no longer can. It is my opinion that the tightening of the bend will increase the resistance to bending over that part of the hook and the rest of the bend will take the entire load. This means that the hook and tight part of the bend maintains its shape, which is good from a fishhook point of view, but the rest of the hook bend will fail (straighten) more rapidly. If the hook was to snap, my guess is that it would snap at the start of the tight bend. The question is, does it all even out or is one design inherently stronger. Using the exaggeration idea, imagine that the bend was a very large shape, looping back to the original hook point. This would bend very easily, so this analogy leads me to think that things do not even out and we have a testing problem. Each hook shape is presumably for a reason, higher hook up percentage or strength or easier to get the worm on etc. So to decry one shaped hook for one particular property, in our case, resistance to bending, when the hook was primarily designed for threading worms would be an injustice to the hook designer. If all you are interested in is bending strength, then I guess that our test is valid. It would be extremely interesting to get a hook designers input on this thread around about now, before we get too deep. (This guy really waffles on!!!)

Rocky, I am far, sooo far from masterdom, I too am new to this sport. I was really hoping some of the more experiernced would chip in here. I think it is fibreglass resin, but I bought it in a art shop, it is used for casting chess pieces and stuff like that. You add 15 drops from a small bottle to 25g of the resin and it goes off in about 20 mins. It stays a bit tacky, but after 24 hrs it is fine. I think it would make a good mold material. The filler I use is car filler, I have only seen bondo on this site, so bondo is car filler? I wish someone had mentioned that before, now I need to cancel my gallon order from detroit! I had considered car filler as a mold material, now I don't need to try the resin. You Americans love your trade names!!!!!!!!!!!!! I do realise that my method is overkill, but to produce a master for a hunter is a long and tedious process, as I want to cast and not have to fine tune each lure. Yes, Pete we're on the same page. Keep us posted. Nice one Matt, just read your post after posting mine.

Mattlures, 100% right on the button. Rocky, I understand your problem, I have just been down the same road myself, trying to create a master that I was happy with. Carving balsa is a good start, but it is dificult to achieve the symmetry etc. Car filler can be added, but the problem is that when you sand it, the wood tends to be removed in preference to the filler. Solution 1. completely cover the rough balsa master with the filler and continue to shape that until you are completely happy. Solution 2. (my method) I took a latex splash from the balsa master (the rough master can them be kept incase needed in the future). From the latex, I cast a resin master#2. I continue to add filler to this and shape. The advantage of this is that the latex splash can always be re-visited. The lure that I am designing is going to be tweeked to death until I get it absolutely right, so I am happy with the overkill with the masters. Note, the resin cast will lose size from the balsa, so you must allow some. Experience will guide you. I would be interested how others go about creating masters.

I suspected that Bassrecords comments regarding the hook to shaft variance might be the case. This need not cause a big problem. If the hook load is multiplied by the point/shaft distance, this will give a number that allows a direct comparison. Slightly more complicated but do-able. This problem is going to exist no matter what method is used for testing. I was hoping that the hook manufacturers would have agreed some kind of standard pitch, apparently not. Regarding the round bend discussion. I was not referring to any variations in stiffness or strength due to the shape, merely that if the bend had an odd shape, the load would be applied further out from the shaft compared with a pure round bend. The greater offset would effectively apply more load. All else being equal, the odd shape would fail first. This does not mean that the hook performs less. The fault lies with the test. This is why I prefer the point test. Which brings us neatly to the start of this reply.

I think my problem is that I was using casting plaster as I already had a 10Kg bag in the workshop. I tried all kinds of release agents, the result was always the same, I needed a hammer to get the foam body out. This is soul destroying. I think I'll try the rtv next, when I get organised. I find that the expansion is considerably more than the double quoted on the bottle and seems to be related to how thoroughly I mix it. What diameter do you make your vent hole? Mine blocked and I ended up with an inch of flash all round. When I finally lick this foam s$%t, I'll have to post an article on how not to do it, should give everyone a laugh.

First of all I would like to congratulate all those members who have contributed to this fascinating post. Not a subject that I would normally have been attracted to, but the depth of knowledge and research shared has really grabbed my attention to the extent that I have invested more hours in thinking time and actual work than I care to admit, as I suspect have the other contributors. I am well and truly hooked, pardon the pun. For anyone searching for information on hooks or testing in general, this post will be a ‘must read’ in future. Anyone who delves into any subject to the nth degree could be accused of being anal. But just by being an active member of this very specialized club could all be accused of the same crime. This is what we do. Anything that one would wish to know about lure design etc can be found within these pages. If it is not written, ask the question and the information will be forthcoming by the bucket load. I take umbrage at being accused of wasting my time, not upset, just mildly irritated. This is not the first post that I have been involved with were someone feels the need to belittle the efforts of like minded TUists. Clamboni, I am surprised at your comment as all your previous posts have been very interesting and instructive, always worth reading. Maybe I am just being a bit touchy having just spent about twenty hours thinking about the subject and doing a little drawing. Respect anyway.

As this testing rig is only going to have limited use, I have kept the design as simple and cheap as possible. The design is flexible and easily adapted to other applications. I think the diagrams are self explanatory; there are no critical dimensions so I will let them tell the story. The only part requiring some explanation is the ‘metal plate’. Inside the upper hole is a small 1mm dia hole in which the hook point locates. In order to drill this hole, the plate may have to be bent over. This is not a problem and the plate can be flattened again after drilling. To enable the locating hole to be drilled means that the plate material will probably have to be at least 1.5mm thick, but aluminium plate will be plenty strong enough for the purpose. Alternatively, a thinner material can be hammered over to make a hook on which to locate the hook point. The original design was to enable both point and bend testing with the same plate. As mentioned earlier, SAFETY GLASSES. I have given a lot of thought as to what part of the hook should be tested, the point or the bend. In both cases, it is the resistance to bending that is being tested. In my most humble opinion I feel that the most useful and consistent method would be to test the point. As another contributor pointed out that the bend shape can vary dramatically from a round bend to a sharp bend under the point. Under testing, the round bend would register a much better performance given all other properties equal. This is because the load would be closer to the hook shank. It’s a lever thing (without getting too anal). The one constant thing for a given sized hook is the shaft to point distance. Additionally, if the bend was tested, I feel that determining the point of failure consistently from hook to hook could be a problem due to the barb snagging on the plate. True, the barb could be crimped, but this invasive operation could affect the result and the snag issue will not have completely been removed. In reality, the same properties are tested, the results of a round bend test will be double the point test, as the shank/point distance is double the shank/bend distance (there I go again). The point test failure point should be fairly consistent and is the moment that the hook slips out of the locating hole. Each treble gives three opportunities to verify the results, if they differ wildly then we will have to re-think the whole test method. I do have more ideas for test rigs should this be the case. The water load can either be marked by the litre, as one litre = 1Kg. or simply borrow the wife’s bathroom scales, I know you guys like your lbs n’ ozzes (1Kg = 2.2Lb). The actual load value is really of little consequence as we are only performing comparative tests between different types of hook. Results within 5% – 10% of each other should not be considered bad results if we are to avoid law suits, anything higher than this deserves mention. I wish that I could build it for you but unfortunately I am snookered at the moment as regarding a workshop. Good luck and report back.

I know it depends on the hook size, but what kind of load range are we looking at. Given a range of hook sizes used by all. This will give me something to work on this weekend. Stuck in my apartment with all my tools and no materials, even have a test pool! This is a useful project, if it can be designed for testing other aspects of the lure. For example, pull out loads for hangar wires in diferent materials, woods etc. The effect of opening the hangar hole, better or worse. A lot of questions could be answered quickly with the right rig, no guessing involved, just hard facts.

I think a valid point would be, do you load the bend or the point. I am thinking that the point would be a more realistic measure of the hooks tendancy to straighten, but in actual practise, the load is taken by the bend. As for the mechanical device, I am thinking of a water container, slowly filled. Easy to graduate with a marker pen, no moving parts and very cheap.

That is probably because the aluminium transmits heat very efficiently whereas POP is a heat insulator.

These are just my thoughts on the subject, as I have not successfully molded foam as yet, but still working on it. If you leave the lip on, the resulting foam lip will not be strong enough to take the battering of a rocky retrieve. If you mold the slot, my humble opinion is that you will have problems retrieving the cast without destroying the mold (my big problem). The best solution is to cut the slot after casting. My plan is to shape or flare the body out to the lip and mold it all in one piece. Whether the result will be strong enough to take the rocks remains to be seen. Has anyone tried this method?

I've just bought some scales that weigh to 0.1 gram intervals. Should be perfect for this application. I bought them from a head shop, didn't see any heads though!

Great fish, great release.

When writing post replies etc, of more than a couple of lines. Write the text in a word document save it for safety. The text can then be selected and pasted onto the TU message. A lot of members are already doing this. I have lost countless hours in retyping lost text due to crashes, internet freezes etc.

I designed a lip jig system for controlling the profile. But when I built and tested it, I found that their was no real advantage in accuracy or time saving. I found that the best method for controlling the shape is the glued paper pattern and sand to the edge of the line with a drum sanding bit (Dremel). For larger numbers, you will need to get a punch machined up. The problem with this method is that you cannot change your design once the expensive punch has been made. I would be looking at a small NC router set-up, capable of cutting A4 size (210x297mm). The lip shape can be changed at will and each change can be saved. May also be used for cutting body masters and master molds. Expensive, but if it is for a business it could be well worth it, always nice to encourage the tax man to contribute his share. I am seriously considering NC milling (or routering) now and I am no where near a business.

I thought of embedding my logo into the art work. Could be template or stencil. Just preliminary at this stage as I have nothing to stick it to.

For hand made eyes, the loop of wire (formed around a suitably sized nail) need only be twisted once or twice. As long as it is not straight, it will not pull out. The weakest link is the epoxy/wood connection. By making the hole larger, I mean a really sloppy fit. You are increasing the area of the contact surface with the wood, thus you are increasing the strength of the joint. I too would have been worried about the line catching on the crimp marks. Everyone here will tell you that, if your material of choice is balsa, then a through wire construction is the only way to go, if you do not want to lose the big daddy fish.