hazmail

I have used a few of these (never made them), and just from the pictures, it looks like (as Dave said) the tow eye is too far back, move it about 1/2" forward. Or if you hang the lure horizontal, about opposite the bottom hook hanger, it just does not look right where you have it - maybe drill a few holes and test in different positions before doing any permanent gluing. pete

dT, it wasn't 12 months ago !! I have the sellers store address, but it is a 'fleaBay' address, and posting it is against the rules. pete

When I said " weight in the back", I meant the back segment (bottom), not on the back of the lure - I think I may have confused some people here, hope not .pete

For anyone interested, I finally found, or was told by "Vicious Fishers" of this Aussie lure site, on a casual search it seems to represent a lot of typical (see different) Aussie lures : http://www.lureandmore.com/index.php See: "FISHING LURES YOU HAVE MADE HAND MADE LURES" Pete

You guys are just not reading the mail: http://www.tackleunderground.com/forum/hard-baits/10515-airbrush-prices.html Pete

Dave, You were right (again) "1. When the lure is not moving, the ballast keeps the lure upright, as long as the centre of buoyancy is above the centre of gravity. The tow eye does not play. This is stating the obvious. 2. When the bait is moving, the ballast has to counteract the roll. The roll is caused by the water forces across the back, they impart a side force, causing the bait to roll. Because your bait is now being towed, the lever principle comes into play, force x distance. The roll energy is the force and the distance is from the tow axis to the top of the back."etc etc I never doubted it mate, but just had to field test them in the real fish world of salt water. In the tub they were going O.K (varying degrees), but out there on the lake, they rolled - I'm thinking the problem is the slope of the head, this (I THINK) needs to be symmetrical and weighted low, as you say, get this right and the rest will follow - have been thinking of Dan's comment, so I am going to try a variation of that as well - I'm not going to let this beat me. We caught fish, but not on the three no swim "swim baits". pete

Dave - that's about what I have been using for the past year, turning up to 5" lures, it's still going like a clock.pete

Lapala , I had a look at your album too, you have been a busy boy, some real nice carving there .pete

Dave , I added the weight to the back (1 full gm), and it is better, seems to 'swim' at an even slower speed. I swam it as fast as one can in a 5' bath tub, and it does dive /roll, but quickly sheds this tenancy, and rolls the other side and vice cersa, all the time snaking as well, should be interesting to test it in the real world of fish.pete

Dave - I see what you are getting at here: "In your diagram, the tow eye is in line with the ballast weight, therefore the distance is zero, so the ballast is having zero effect at counteracting the roll force. Your design problem is the opposite of bbduc

Dave - swims nicely, although I still have to permanently fix hook eyes and hooks.I have been mucking around with the placement of these too. pete

All that Bob says , and after a big session soak in a jar of denatured alcohol - use an old latex glove to stop it evaporating. pete [/img]

BBDUC- thanks for Raising this/these problems, you have opened up a lot of doors for us. Because what I have made is not a symmetrical, I am finding only some of the rules apply (I always seem to make my life difficult). Because of the top curve on the leading segment, and weighting biased towards the front, nearly all I have made (3) tended to want to dive, head down, and then tending to roll. I have changed the weighting from vertical flat strips (lead) to horizontal, which as all are saying keeps the weight as low as possible. Ballasting (all segments) so that the lure is horizontal to the water surface. Tapered the body (vertically) to reduce lower half buoyancy, so less ballast required. Placed the tow eye very low and made it as small as possible (minimizing head movement) and used a loop knot instead of clips. All this served to raise the center of buoyancy/gravity, which finally, it appears, let's this shape work Thanks again, you have got us all thinking. I'm getting close, and hope this helps some other 'unconventional' builders. pete [/img]

Matt, building one is far too involved to one finger type all the tricks - if you go to the 'Tutorials' section (bottom of 'FORUM' page), there is heaps of information on anything you need to know in there. Need clarification on anything just ask, as you have probably seen, there is a heap of experience in mistakes, what works, and what is about to work on here. Example see: http://www.tackleunderground.com/forum/hard-baits/16336-swimbait-wont-swim.html pete

SR9- see: http://www.tackleunderground.com/forum/hardbait-how/10686-micro-through-wire-construction.html Somewhere in there is a picture on how to do it, as Bob says, cut it before you do anything else, with the blank still square is the go, you will never have to worry about them being 'plumb' again.pete

Yes Gene, sure would be good to get there - I am waiting for your U.S$ to crash, OR ours to bloat, it's just not happening - the A$ was 96c last year, this morning it was 64c, so I think I will have to wait until about 2 weeks before the meet,and make up my mind then. Funny thing is our economy is sailing along (so far) and the A$ is worth S***. Will see what happens. pete

Finally a plan view, this says a lot, can't get more simple than these, although unusually the 'pivots' are way back?? Thanks Rod. pete

Thanks Bob, you may have solved my problems as well - I have been putting a lot of taper on the top and bottom planes and very little on the sides, this may be the solution - great work .pete

I forgot to add, for the one that was a real dud, instead of chopping it and adding a lip, I used one of these discs on the line, that certainly made it boogie, and also gives a bit of a 'popper' effect.pete [/img]

Good points everyone, KC's option seems to be worth testing. I have very limited experience with these and out of 3 lures, one is pretty good and one is a failure - Mark and others seem to achieve it with a 'closed ' joint. I have tried the first 2 in the picture and No 2 is having the most success, although not as good as some actions seen here. As K.C says No3 may be the goods, but maybe VodkaMan can tell us , 'Is it the turbulence/vortex in the joint or on the sides that gives a lure the 'S' action?'.pete [/img]