Adding Buoyancy To Wood

[JRammit]

Thought i saw this in a thread once, did a search and all i came up with was comparisons of different woods..... If balsa is the most buoyant due to its lack of density, thus retaining more air within the grains.... Could one achieve similar properties by drilling "air pockets" inside a hardwood?

Im using poplar cause its the most available to me, and im not as farmiliar w balsa... My current project has a slight buoyancy issue, one of these days ill get a scale, but for now im using split shot sinkers since they are somewhat consistant in weight.... 1/8 is too heavy, 1/32 is too light, 1/16 is almost perfect... Body shape and size is more imperative than bouyancy on this project, but if i could have both thad b great!

Im gonna try it anyway, but figured we could use something new to talk about

[BobP]

Sure, drilling air holes increases buoyancy.  However, there are issues.  Where exactly do you need the extra buoyancy in the lure so that its performance will be increased, or at least not negatively affected?  If those areas coincide with where you need to implant hardware, that's a problem.  How are you going to patch the holes you create?  Can you be sure to center the cavities so the lure will maintain its left/right balance?  It's probably easier and more accurate to split a lure, make the cavities, lay in the hardware, and glue it back together than drill holes in the body and have to patch them

 

I think the more finicky a lure gets, the more likely it is to have performance issues so I just bite the bullet and get the right wood for the specific style bait I'm building.  The cost of wood is negligible compared to the other lure components and the work you put into building a  crankbait.     

[JRammit]

All my hard baits start out as 2 pieces, my hardware is internal, the only holes i have to fill are pin sized locator holes for keys to place my weight cavity... Youre right, the "air pockets" would just be another variable to fine tune, time may be better spent experimenting with different woods/materials... But, if done correctly, could i get the strength advantage of a hard wood with the bouyancy of soft wood?

[JRammit]

Or say, if i ever decide to try PVC?

[RayburnGuy]

It's much easier to match the type of wood with what your trying to achieve than it is to try and modify a piece of wood you have on hand. By drilling air pockets into a piece of wood your opening yourself up to a whole new set of variables that you may find hard to recreate from one lure to the next.

 

It's much easier to add ballast to a bait than it is to try and make your wood more buoyant. If your looking for something that is strong enough to hold screw eyes and hook hangers without doing a through wire I would suggest basswood, paulownia or PVC. I personally like paulownia for most of my cranks, but also use PVC as well as basswood and have had no problems with epoxied hook hangers or line ties pulling out.

 

And a digital scale should really be first on your list of things to buy for building lures.

 

just my ,

 

Ben

[JRammit]

Advice accepted!... This particular project is not a finicky one, and its close to completion, so ill try my idea on this one rather than starting over... This will be (hopefully) my 1st "successful" hard bait, and i read some advice on an old thread for newbies to stick with one particular wood to better understand changes from one bait to another... Maybe i should have started with something different??... Where does poplar rank among oppinions here?

[Skeeter]

Take a piece of balsa and cut it to the correct thickness that you will need (you will have to experiment). Then glue the two pieces of hardwood on each side and shape your lure. Or if you need more bouancy, glue a piece of balsa on each side of the hardwood and shape it. You will end up with either a balsa core or a hardwood core. This was Coley's idea. Guess he wouldn't mind me sharing it. Anything he came up with worked.

 

Skeeter

[JRammit]

I read that thread too... Great idea!... Just alot more steps per bait!.... The hardbait world hasnt been kind to me (i dont mean the people, i mean the nuances of construction)... Im use to soft baits, might take me a month to get a mold right, but then i can fill my tacklebox in one night.... Right now im working on the 3rd prototype of the same topwater bait, and when i finally get it right, i still have to build it again and again!..... I know... Im speaking a language that most of u are fluent in!

[JRammit]

I forgot to mention, the weight in this prototype is not a ballast, it is just to overcome air drag when casting... Another reason i didnt opt for balsa

[BobP]

Poplar has an average density of 26.2 lbs/sq ft, which makes it a little heavier than basswood or cedar (20-23), considerably heavier than paulownia (16), and more than twice as heavy as balsa (12).  There's certainly nothing wrong with using it as long as its density is in line with the type of crankbait you want to build and the performance you want for that bait.  That said, many bass bait builders would opt to use wood types that best suit the specific kinds of crankbaits we want to make, from balsa for shallow runners where we want a lot of lively action, to paulownia as an intermediate density wood for some baits, to the more dense woods like cedar or basswood for deep divers.  Poplar, from what I read here on TU, is more popular among musky bait builders where its density is not overpowering the hardware on a large crankbait, as it can on smaller bass baits.  But if you have poplar on hand and enjoy working in it, there's no reason not to use it unless its density becomes a limitation in building the bait you want to build.  Dense woods in small baits are a particular problem because it is hard to add the hardware, lip, and ballast to one and still have them float or suspend.  More buoyancy = more lively action in most baits, so it's a consideration.

 

Not trying to talk you out of using poplar, just pointing out considerations.  Working in different wood types is pretty much the same routine - but designing a bait is easier and requires less trial and error (i.e., fewer failed baits) if you have built lots of baits from the wood and have developed a feel for how it works/doesn't work in those baits.

[JRammit]

Man, ive built 6 baits w poplar and only 2 of them float... They are all 3" or less bass baits... I see the big picture now... Thanks!!!

[barrybait]

I have often thought of splitting the bait the other way...horizontally instead of a vertical plane.  That way you could have the strength of a harder wood and have a light weight top half for extra vertical stability when swimming and thereby reduce roll.  I haven't tried it though.  It is difficult to sand something soft next to something hard and come out evenly.

[JRammit]

Thats actually how this project of mine is put together, but its poplar on top and bottom.... After all the good advice, i believe poplar is the right material for this bait, i think i just need to lose the lead

Interesting idea on the half n half

[bassrecord]

To increase buoyancy have you considered fracking it with helium instead of air?

 

Just wondering.

John

[JRammit]

I think helium would make it sound funny

[Vodkaman]

I do believe that you are being hard on yourself, expecting to crack a new lure in three protos. When I design a new lure, I usually make ten bodies for testing, just to get the carving out of the way.

 

Rather than modify V1 to make V2, which is obviously the most time and effort efficient way to do things and I would not dare to convince you otherwise. But I like to keep the adjustments in the earlier versions, so that I can go back and compare with more swim tests. It does make a lot of extra work for me, but I don't care about that. I learn more about my new bait this way.

 

As long as ballast and buoyancy are going to be issues for you, I would say you need that scale earlier than later. But, lots of designers manage perfectly well without a scale of any sorts.

 

Dave

[RayburnGuy]

If you'll buy yourself a digital scale and familiarize yourself with Archimedes theory of water displacement you'll be able to tell whether or not a given lure will float without even having to get it wet.

 

Ben

[mark poulson]

I sometime drill holes in my PVC baits and cap them with coke can discs to create air pockets, and more buoyancy.

I guess that would work with wood, too, but you might have to seal the inside of the air pocket with something like crazy glue to keep the air from passing into the wood when it warms and expands, and eventually affecting the sealer/paint/topcoat.

Barrybait's idea of a horizontal lamination, with a more buoyant wood above the centerline, so the stronger wood is still there for anchoring your hardware, sounds like it's worth a try.

 

Barrybait, 

I found that giving my jointed swimbaits a V cross section, so the belly is 1/2", tapering up to 7/8" at the shoulders, removes enough buoyant material to keep them from rolling, even on a high speed retrieve.

[JRammit]

Coke can disks??... I was planning on inserting a drinking straw to keep the hole from "caving in" if the wood happens to swell, but i never thought about the air expanding...... I think i found my solution here, thanks BobP for the specs on wood density, i believe my poplar body is heavy enough to perform without any weight added, bouyancy shouldnt be a problem then!

[JRammit]

Mark, maybe it was one of your threads where i got the idea, since PVC doesnt have as wide a selection as wood, drilling holes makes sense in your baits...

Vman, thats really good advice on how i should tackle my next project! This one just seemed so simple i didnt think i could screw it up, i was wrong (ha ha!)

[Seeking 56]

Fill the hole with Styrofoam, then top off with 5 minute epoxy or wood epoxy, that's what I do and I never have any issues.

[SW Lures]

Im bring this thread back because of what I have been experimenting with. First I use the whitest of poplar that I can get. You can find this wood at a good lumber/mill yard. This is the heart of the tree, greener wood is more of sap wood. Which is softer, but more moist which makes this heavier. The next part is that I dry it down to more of a good range of moisture. Dry it to much it will crack, to wet and it might as well be green. I have been working on cavities for air. This is only for a certain type of swim bait. The bait is my version of a Thunderstick by Storm. By the way balsa and all woods have sap wood also.

The tail is the issue because of the tails length and diameter. I split the tail piece and put the hinge with the tail hanger as one on both baits. I tried balsa for the first bait, it did ok. So then I went to poplar to see what it would do. I left three small pockets of air after sealing the chamber. It did pretty well.

I'm going to finish off the baits and put them to my eye test against one of the manufacturers. I used both woods on the same type of baits in the past, I get really good action from poplar. Yep balsa in general is lighter then poplar, which leads you to put more ballast in the bait to keep lure stable. Poplar is heavier which takes less. For a bait that weights about 4 grams in the first place what is .25 or less of a gram. More action? Ok, I'm doing just fine. Grain in poplar is not bad either

Like I have said before, each person doing different techniques is progressive and these experiments or proven techniques can prove fruitful. If there is nothing new then what's the point of chatting about them. People's pro's or con's is a good thing. At least I think so.

That's my two bits,

Dale

[BobP]

To each his own - if it works, it works. I like buying wood from a supplier who dries the wood and in the case of balsa, can provide a specific density of product. More expensive than getting it from a lumber yard or out in the woods but it's just less hassle and uncertainty when I use it in a bait. Where the heck am I gonna find a balsa tree in N.C. Anyway? I find that less variability in wood = more baits that perform the way I want them to and the easier it is to repeat that in a series of baits. There's so many ways to screw up a crankbait! I've tried them all! Considering the cost of the raw materials versus the work you put into a crankbait and the value of a good wood crankbait, wood cost seems neglidgeable to me. And a thing I don't have to worry about is a good thing. That said, I recognize the charm and sense of accomplishment you might get from using locally sourced materials.

[Chuck Young]

I think helium would make it sound funny

Not a problem. Everybody loves Alvin and the Chipmonks, Fish should too.

 

But seriously, it is so much easier to add weight than to add buoyancy. If none of your baits float, and you want them to, then perhaps start with a less dense wood. Placement of ballast is an important tool in lure design. If your wood is just barely achieving the buoyancy you want, then you lose all flexibility. I started with birch simply because I had it available. It allowed a little flexibility because of the thickness of my designs. If a smaller lure is needed, a less dense wood will be required.

[RayburnGuy]

The way I see it the more steps you add to the build the more chances there are to get something wrong and the more difficult it's going to be to duplicate the bait once you get it to do what you want it to. In small baits a little difference can have a huge effect.

 

Balsa comes in something like 5 different densities. Anywhere from less than 6 lbs per cubic foot...........6 to 10 lbs.............10 to 14 lbs...................14 to 19 lbs.........and over 19 lbs per cubic foot. The heavier it is the more dense it is. The more dense it is the stronger it is. Yes you'll have to pay extra for hand picked balsa, but it takes a lot of the guesswork and added build time out of the equation. I agree with Bob and Chuck. When your having a problem with the buoyancy of a bait your trying to build and the tolerances are so close that you can't even add ballast without it sinking then your working too close to the edge and just making things harder on yourself.

 

just my

 

Ben