Vodkaman

I get it, you hang it outside your tackle shop! Most impressive.

I doubt if anyone would make that mistake an $900/kg. I read that it was use in lead free substitutes to lower the melting point as it has a melting point of about (from memory) 156deg Celsius. If it is pure indium, it's melting point temperature could easily be tested in a lab.

My humble opinion is that the lip is too long. The vortex low pressure behind the lip is greater than the rest of the bodies water resistance. This causes the body to want to tip forward until the loads are balanced. My guess is gravity takes over from this point and the raised weight of the lure swings to the bottom, thus the lure rolls out of control. This could be tested out by rigging a temporary eye location about 5mm down the lip. When I create a new lure, the first prototype has a line eye sticking out about 10mm. This allows me to explore the ballast, eye, lip combinations. By bending the eye up or down I can find the best geometry.

The sub-zero conditions does not sound promising, but the only way to tell if it is OK is to use it. Create a test piece, prepare it as you would a lure, undercoat, a splash of colour paint and try it. I am not sure what you thin Dick Nite's with, someone else will be able to help you with that. Try thinning a small amount for testing. If successful, you can then thin the whole batch. I store all my paints etc, by inverting the tin, this guarantees an air tight seal. Any leaks will reveal themselves in a couple of minutes.

I too was thinking along these lines, when the wood sealer discussion was going on. I was thinking about introducing the vacuum by 'sucking' the air out by mouth, through a plastic pipe. Obviously, this would depend on what the fluid is, health wise. But, it is possible to get a good vacuum without inhaling.

I'd call it a 'Toadstool jig', just to highlight how stupid the whole complaint is.

Palmetto Balsa. I agree with all that you said, especially the Devcon SG discussion. Trim man. Is it possible that a variation in the lip size or (more likely) eye position crept into the manufacture. This would alter the angle of the lure relative to the reel line and would directly affect how heavy or light the lure feels, as well as affecting it's diving performance.

My mistake HBS. I'm showing my lack of knowledge of lures. I haven't found an article that explains gliders, may be someone could PM me with an explanation.

I've never made lures that large, but the same principles should apply. If you split the weight and mount it front and rear, I believe you will make the situation worse. To increase the side to side or yaw action, you can reduce the depth of the body, increase the lip angle (70 deg is good), increase the lip length or use a lighter wood.

I hope next years gathering comes off OK, I was seriously considering attending this year, as I have some time on my hands.

As a CAD engineering designer, I have to work in both units. Most aircraft design is imperial, also the US car industry. The rest of the world seems to be metric. As Lenox2k explained, imagine the cost and chaos the change over would be for the US. I don't think it will ever happen. Still, it makes me grin!

JBlaze. Good point. Yes, the reduction of the lip will change the characteristics of the action. At the end of the day, it is all about the action that you are searching for, if depth is important, then reducing the lip geometry will be a bad idea. If you need to reduce the yaw and maintain depth, you could split the ballast into two parts. Mount one forward and one to the rear of the normal location. This will increase the 'moment' of the lure (moment = force x distance). This means that, as the distance of the ballast from the centre of gravity, increases, the harder it is to rotate the lure. The balance point and floating attitude can be maintained. This is the same effect that making the lure from a denser wood, would have. I have not experimented with split ballasts, but I am confident that I am not leading you astray, if I am wrong, please step in and let's all get it right.

I find that a letter gets more response than a call. A polite but firm letter, explaining the history, is the best action in my humble opinion.

Spare tire. I hope you catch the monster many more times. I'm all for catch and release.

For the spies, I would hold up my painted, foam model of a 12lb large mouth. It folds to the size of a pack of cards.

It can be difficult 'eye balling' the alignment, especially for round or curved shaped lips. The process is made easier by drawing a line down the centre of the lip (on masking tape for protection). Our eyes work best with straight lines, preferably vertical. It's probably an evolution thing, gravity, trees, etc.

Unless you are only making one off's, some kind of jig will be required in order to get some production consistancy. Investing ten minutes per lure to ensure the lip is central when you have two hundred bodies on the bench is not a good option. Cheeseheads bondo idea is favourite for large runs, but simpler solutions can be found for smaller production runs.

Inches was something that was introduced when we traded goats! When is the USA going to join the new millennium and go metric. Gerry the moderator told me that, due to the global membership spread, TU was going metric in two months time. Any references to inches after a suitable changeover period will be displaid as a swear word (xxxx)!

Sorry I caused a modicum of confusion, in my enthusiasm, I assumed that everyone knows what I am thinking. Regarding the buoyancy statement, this is referring to the fact that, with a one piece moulded lure, the extra material around the lip would increase the volume of foam and thus increase the buoyancy. Also, the centre of buoyancy would shift further forward, compared to a normal shaped lure (what is normal!). This would affect the centre of forces or the result of all the forces on the lure such as ballast weight, hooks, eyes, wire etc. The net result is that the ballast may have to be positioned slightly further forward. But as the ballast position would be determined after the body was made, the whole discussion becomes irrelevant. Bamabass. I have been thinking along similar lines as you. By making the front portion from something like alumilite, this would increase the rock resistance of the lip area and allow me to make new moulds for related lures by simply making a new front end mould with a new lip angle. I looked up alumilite on the web. As I remember, it was just slightly lighter than water. For this reason, I would not make the entire lure from this material, as by the time you have added the hooks etc, the lure would be a sinker. Also, it is important for a lure with a lot of action, to use the lightest material and add a decent ballast. The lure will 'X' or 'yaw' around the centre of forces. If the whole lure was made of a heavier material, you would lose the option of positioning the centre of forces where YOU want it. The action would also be reduced due to the inertia of the heavier material at a distance from the centre. Experimental explanation, hold a heavy stick in the centre, twist your wrist back and forth. Note the resistance. Now take a light stick the same length. Add ballast at the centre so that both sticks are the same weight and repeat the twist. The lighter stick with the centre balance twists much easier. Therefore, the lighter lure material with a ballast weight will be more profoundly affected by the fluid forces at the lip (it’ll waggle more). As for how successful the material would be, I cannot help but will wait in anticipation for you to complete your tests and report back. As for the micro balloons method, I decided not to go this route because of the above reason (re experiment). True, not everyone wants a dramatic action. But by designing a lure with a large action gives you the option to reduce the lip size until your required action is achieved. The result will be a relatively smaller lip, thus increasing the lures cast-ability. These are my thoughts on the subject and hope all this makes sense, if not, I am happy to discuss the subject further.

Thank's all for the help. Luke, PM me and let me know how your testing went and any other information that you can think of. I should be ordering in a few weeks. Cheers.

Have any of the UK members found a local supplier for the two part expanding foam. My attempted web searches have not revealed anything so far, apart from foam in a can used by plumbers. Many thanks.

Clamboni. The lures look great. I really like the photography, especially the top photo. What a great way to present your work to the world.

Doomdart. The event was only witnessed by a couple of swans. They did not say anything, I think they were mute.

I have been thinking on the same lines as you Clemmy. Some kind of standard tool to grade the top coats resistance to abuse. The simplest tool would be a bastard file hit by a standard weight. I intend to do an ongoing test of submerging and drying, to test life etc. I would be very interested on the method you ultimately decide on and would appreciate a PM.

The first lure that I made was a brass spoon 'S' type lure. It took many hours to form it with hand tools. I removed every dent and scratch and buffed it to a mirror shine. Pure pride and vanity. First cast, I tried to break the world record. The bail arm snapped shut mid-cast. You should have seen that sucker fly! At least 150yds. The emotions fealt were extreme rage followed a split second later by overwhelming, cringing embarrassment.