Jump to content
350><]-[u|\|T3r

Glide Bait Nose Dive Blues.

Recommended Posts

Hello all,

This is my first post. I've been a member now for a few months and a lurker since last year. This past May, as a result of boredom associated with the stay at home orders - amongst a great many of things, I finally decided to design and make my own glide baits for Muskellunge.

I had been wanting to make my own baits now for awhile. Mostly because I was getting tired of spending $45.00 on a bait from the "whatever Facebook DIY bait company" only to find that I waited three weeks for a pretty paper weight. Completely incapable of catching anything other than fishermen.

I was also getting sick of the selective favoritism. Many times, I would ask to purchase a bait, only to be told that I'll be added to a list or that they're out of stock, only to find out later that it was a lie. It seems some of these DIY bait makers have their special clients that they cater too - and I wasn't one of them. I guess I don't kiss enough ass.

Anyways, I thought I could do better than some of these elitist DIY bait makers whom only cater to the rich and famous of the Muskellunge world. And so this past May, I went out and purchased all of the tools and supplies needed to get started, created a account on this forum, and without any experience with wood working (or using any tools) I started cutting out blanks to make lures. First starting with a one piece drop belly glide bait. 

It was a long road with lots of ups and downs but I've finally got some awesome looking baits that have the action I want. I was surprised by how easy it was, with the help of this website, to get started making baits. I also thought if it's this easy, why did I end up with so many junkie baits? Who knows, but I swear some of these baitmakers care more about the money than anything else.

 

Alas I digress, I apologize for the long post, but it's kind of an introduction to me and my situation. ANYWAYS, as the post states, I'm having the nose dive blues. After ballast testing for a perfect horizontal fall, I take my baits down to the river to test and they've been working great. But after the paint and epoxy (1 base coat and 3 finish coats of etex lite) they nose down on the retrieve. I've been including the weight of the leader, I've pushed the front weight back. Added more to the rear, used three weights to limit the weight in the front but it still occurs 90% of the time. What could be causing this and how do I fix it? Below is my process for production if that may help uncover the issue.

1. Trace blank, cut out with band saw, smooth edges with belt sander.

2. Run through router, sand finish rough edges. Use template to mark the center line, and holes, for screw eyes.

3. Drill holes and add screw eyes, seal bait with ca glue, add hooks.

4. Ballast test for horizontal sink, drill holes for weights, place weights, seal holes and confirm Ballast.

5. Take to river to test. If successful I dry bait and first base coat of etex lite.

6. Paint bait, then 3 coats of etex 1 every 6 hours. Wait 24/36 hours after final coat to test.

Usually after the cure is complete I'll take the bait down to test it and almost always the bait goes nose down limiting the distance that it can glide. The bait still glides but it's frustrating because I know what it's capable of without the nose dive. The bait still sinks horizontally so IDK what to do to fix it. 

Am I adding to much epoxy? Since I anchor the bait by its tail end to the rotation device is to much epoxy going to towards the head? IDK, any help would greatly be appreciated. As I feel like I've tried almost everything.

 

 

Edited by 350><]-[u|\|T3r
to shorten and clarify my issue to be helped with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit that I struggled to get my head around this problem. I understood that it was to do with the body shape and the addition of a heavy topcoat which shifts the COG. I assumed an Etex density of 1.2g/cm³ which I figured would move the COG forward due to the thicker part of the body. I was just about to post the idea, but decided to find the density of Etex Lite. The density is 0.97g/cm³ which actually makes it slightly lighter than water. This changed everything. My argument would actually prove that the lure would go nose up, so further investigation had to be done.

I modeled a shaped body and constructed the Center of floatation, the upward force of the wood. You would then fit the hardware and arrange your ballast so that the COG was directly below the COF, this would give a horizontal attitude, you achieved this by trial and error which is fine.

I then modeled the Etex coating at 0.5mm thick and constructed its COG, which was actually aft of the lure COG by 7.5mm.

So, the minimal float effect of the Etex aft of the COG causes the nose to dip.

Obviously the solution is to drill out a little of one of the forward weights and repair the hole.

Unfortunately, I cannot give you an exact number for the lead to be removed as this is totally dependent on the lure size and shape, so you are stuck with trial and error. I suggest drill a small amount, seal with CA glue (superglue) and test, repeat until you get your desired float, then repair your hole.

Another solution might be to make the first coat just on the front third of the body, but this would have no guarantees of getting a level float.

Incidentally, if you had used D2T which is heavier than water, you would have had a nose up problem. This was an interesting exercise.

Not much help I am afraid, but at least you know the reason why.

Dave

Edited by Vodkaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it is a musky lure, I'm assuming you're using a wire leader.

Do you do your float test with the leader attached?

Maybe try using a mono leader or no leader for your testing, to see if the wire leader is the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies.  I appreciate the help. I tried my best to do it alone but sometimes thats impossible. Anyways, Here is some more information about my bait with included picture.

The weight of the baits is 120g - give or take a few with equal  (31g each) or slightly more in the rear. The bait is 190mm long. Specific Gravity of the wood is .55. The shape is a typical drop belly glider that I shape using a table router with a jig I learned to make from this site. 

For now, I'll drill out some of the lead and patch up the baits. What would you suggest I do to avoid running into this problem again? I guess I'm going to have to figure in the weight of the epoxy and paint. Ugh, and I thought I could wing it lol. Ultimately, I feel that I am so close to obtaining the perfect glide for my specific fishing requirements. Thanks again!

20200809_235210.jpg

20200809_235214.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is always a way to 'wing it'.

What I would try, is to take the correctly balanced assembled lure without top coat, and balance it over a knife edge, say the body of a pencil, and mark the balance point. Measure the distance from the tow eye.

Complete the topcoat and repeat, find the position of the new balance position.

The difference between the two measurements is the correction distance for the next lure, this may only be a few millimeters (keep notes).

On the next build, after balancing level, mark the pencil balance point. Now, either add lead to the rear or drill lead from the front, enough to move the balance point the correction distance.

Do the float test again and make a note of the nose up angle for next time.

Complete the top coat, re-test to check for level.

Hopefully the next build will be close if not perfect. Subsequent builds you can make small adjustments accordingly.

On future builds, instead of balancing level, you will aim to balance nose up at the same angle that you noted down.

If you have read any of my posts, you will understand that I take the scientific approach. I am sure other builders will offer up more user friendly ideas :)

Dave

Edited by Vodkaman
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I've read a lot of your informative post. Your engineering has definitely saved me a lot of time. I particularly love the ballast calculator and use it a lot. I try my best but mathematically I'm challenged. Basically I can see the physics in the world around me. I understand how the laws interact, but to explain in mathematically terms isn't something im very good at. I still love physics and am intrigued by how much engineering goes into everything - especially fishing lures/baits. Tomorrow I'll do the experiments you suggested and post the results. Thanks again for your help.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, please do post your results, it will be helpful for me at least.

I could take my CAD experiment further, but I will hold on it for now.

Fingers crossed for a good result :)

Dave

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thought; note the 'nose down' angle of the completed lure. Now, at the leveling stage, balance to a 'nose up' angle of the same value. On completion, the angles will cancel out.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vodkaman said:

Another thought; note the 'nose down' angle of the completed lure. Now, at the leveling stage, balance to a 'nose up' angle of the same value. On completion, the angles will cancel out.

Dave

I'm going to give that a shot tomorrow. I just got finished running some experiments one of which included adding a significant amount of weight to the rear to get a high nose up float. The bait nose dives worse than anything before. I've watched the "how to make a glide bait" video again today and I also did the suggested balance test. I first balanced an uncarved blank on an 1/8" piece of plexiglass. Then I sealed and added hardware to a carved blank and ballast tested to horizontal fall. I then balanced this bait on the same plexiglass. The difference was 6.5mm towards the nose from the uncarved blank. Finally, I balanced a completed bait that had nose dive blues. The difference was 6.5mm towards the tail. I'm not quite sure what to make of everything yet. But it was definitely interesting to find that added weight to the tail made the bait nose dive worse. I thought the opposite would occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just done a full CAD investigation. I created a body similar shape to yours, same length and density of wood. With hardware attached, I adjusted ballast and balanced the lure horizontal, then applied the top coat of Etex 0.75mm thick.

The lure went 1.7 degrees nose up. This is such a small angle that it would not be noticed.

The hooks that I used were much smaller but all I had in my system, this could possibly account for differences in our results.

I performed the balance angle adjustment and it did work to correct the final angle to level.

Of course, this method is dependent on accurate repeatability on your part when carving the bodies.

Dave

Edited by Vodkaman
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to do much today, but it's great to know that nose up ballast solution will work. Which leads me to another question that may very well be stupid. What creates the center line? Is it the shape of the bait or the weight added to the bait for ballast? Also, what, if any, does the screw eye affect the center line? I've been trying to design baits in which the middle of the nose lines up exactly with the middle of the tail and balance them accordingly. But sometimes it gets a little tricky because it seems that the center line isn't where I thought it should be.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly is not a stupid question. I had to go away and think about it for a few hours.

There are four lines to consider:
1 - nose to tail, the designers line.
2 - the line that the lure floats.
3 - the technical line from the tow eye through the COF (center of forces) this point is a combination of the COG (center of gravity) which is the center of down forces and COB (center of buoyancy) the center of upward forces.
4 - the line that the lure actually swims, the most important line.

All the testing done in a bucket with the lure not moving forward are called static tests. BUT, once the lure is moving, water forces start to affect the float line (1). The faster the lure travels, the more effect the water forces have. These are called dynamic forces. Essentially, the dynamic line is the most efficient path through the water, possibly close to the designers line (1).

For a nose-down glider, this means that when the lure is propelled, the lure swims nicely through the water despite the ballast dragging the nose down, but as the lure speed slows, the nose starts to drop. The nose drop gives more resistance and so the lure slows faster and so on. In other words, the glide is not as long as the designer would like.

The important line is the dynamic line. as a designer, if we can make the static float the same as the dynamic, then the maximum glide would be achieved. The technical line has no real bearing on things. The only thing that matters is that the COF MUST be below this line in order to stop the lure from rolling over. In other words, keep the ballast low down as possible.

Dave

Edited by Vodkaman
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2020 at 4:14 PM, Vodkaman said:

I must admit that I struggled to get my head around this problem. I understood that it was to do with the body shape and the addition of a heavy topcoat which shifts the COG. I assumed an Etex density of 1.2g/cm³ which I figured would move the COG forward due to the thicker part of the body. I was just about to post the idea, but decided to find the density of Etex Lite. The density is 0.97g/cm³ which actually makes it slightly lighter than water. This changed everything. My argument would actually prove that the lure would go nose up, so further investigation had to be done.

I modeled a shaped body and constructed the Center of floatation, the upward force of the wood. You would then fit the hardware and arrange your ballast so that the COG was directly below the COF, this would give a horizontal attitude, you achieved this by trial and error which is fine.

I then modeled the Etex coating at 0.5mm thick and constructed its COG, which was actually aft of the lure COG by 7.5mm.

So, the minimal float effect of the Etex aft of the COG causes the nose to dip.

Obviously the solution is to drill out a little of one of the forward weights and repair the hole.

Unfortunately, I cannot give you an exact number for the lead to be removed as this is totally dependent on the lure size and shape, so you are stuck with trial and error. I suggest drill a small amount, seal with CA glue (superglue) and test, repeat until you get your desired float, then repair your hole.

Another solution might be to make the first coat just on the front third of the body, but this would have no guarantees of getting a level float.

Incidentally, if you had used D2T which is heavier than water, you would have had a nose up problem. This was an interesting exercise.

Not much help I am afraid, but at least you know the reason why.

Dave

Hi Dave!

Not sure if anyone has pointed this out to you but your specific gravity for envirotex lite is actually incorrect. 
According to the spec sheet here (https://www.eplastics.com/pdf/envirotex-lite-resin.pdf) the HARDENER has a specific gravity of 0.97 but if you scroll down to page 9 you'll see that the resin has a specific gravity of 1.15

Since these are mixed in a 1:1 ratio I would assume (maybe incorrectly) that the specific gravity would then be 1.06 when mixed together; making it more dense than water. In which case I would agree, more etex buildup near the thickest part of the lure (the head) will cause the nose to dip down.

-

Andy

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, thanks for all of the help. I'd be so lost without this forum and the help I've received. I got some more wood and this evening it was cool enough for me to get outside in my "temporary tent shed" and cut-out a blank. I ballanced slightly nose up, accounting for the 4 gram leader, confirmed that it still had a slightly nose up ballast after drilling the holes and placing the weights (only needed 28g per weight this time). I went to the river to test the glide and it was extremely good! Now it's cooking on the rotisserie with a little basting of etex. Going to test it again before I paint and will post the results. 

On a another good note, I gave one of my functioning baits to a friend to test and he had phenomenal results fishing from the bank. While he didn't catch anything during the hour and a half he fished, he had several followers and one particular fish lunged at the bait at the end of the retrieve and banked itself lol. It looks like this FalI/Winter is going to be awesome once I get rid of these nose divin blues.. Fingers crossed for tomorrow's test!! I'll definitely post the results.

Thanks again to everyone that has helped. From the ballast calculator, to the faustner bits, to the Lowe's rotisserie and everything in between - this website (and the people on it) has definitely made my bait making easier. I look forward to contributing as I continue to learn.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pleased to say that the nose dive blues have been corrected! In attempting to fix the issue, I have learned  a lot from experimenting with different angles. I haven't fixed all of the other baits yet but I did fix one by adding two additional coats of epoxy more 

The bait has fully cured and completed. I ended up applying a total of 5 coats of etex lite; however, I took great care to make sure the epoxy wasn't too think and spread evenly. I tested after the first two seal coats, the first coat after painting and after the final two coats.

During each test, the action was perfect and as desired. The bait glid from one to almost two feet in each direction and suspends on the pause for a good two and a half to three seconds before slowly sinking at an estimated foot every two seconds.

Overall, the bait is extremely stable and no matter how the bait is worked it glides extremely well. Occasionally it will arc back at the end of the glide as if to check if it's being followed. Needless to say, I am very pleased. I thought I had reached the limit of effectiveness with my other glides but this bait proves that I was wrong. It's amazing how complex these baits are and how very small changes can be the difference from a bait that works perfectly or a bait that doesn't. 

Again, I'm truly thankful for all the help. I'm not trying to kiss ass and I'm not a sycophant I'm just extremely thankful. On a side note, I ordered some Musky Magnets from Kermit Good, and I guess he thought that my overly starstruck flatteration was sycophancy because I recieved the baits in a box that had a clearly visible buttocks on the side lol.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad you solved your problem. I have never built gliders or jerk baits, but I do know how temperamental building lures can be.

Dave

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I've done with my gliders, is always find a CoG and then back it up a bit, depending the size of the bait one to two or three millimeters.

When you've done a quite few of these, you'll start to get hang of it and kinda "wing it".

Coating materials that I constantly use, adds up a bit weight and are heavier than water which means that coating always, and I emphasize, ALWAYS moves CoG towards the nose. 

On the opposite end, when you use coating with density less than water, it moves CoG towards the back as it adds flotation of the nose more. 

Why? Well basically no matter what kind of glider you make, bait has more surface to be coated from mid to nose than mid to tail.

So after you've done a few, you'll just wing it after initial measurement of CoG and move it millimeter on three towards nose or tail.

Another thing I'd say, and this is just my opinion and depends what kind of leaders etc you use... As they usually add nose dive rather than lift the nose up, so if you manage to screw up balancing the lure, it's in my opinion, better to rather nose up than nose dive a bit when gliding.

So moving CoG towards the nose just a tad is almost always better than moving towards the back. Trying to get it dead center is usually prominent of tipping nose down. 

Cheers, Jarmo from O'Baits

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is not the simple solution to this, just adjust the hardware you are using?  Need more weight up front, use double spilt ring. Need more weight in back, double split and bigger hook. All hardware is at the very bottom of the bait and should have the most effect on "nose up or nose down"?

Edited by IronBass
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2020 at 4:34 PM, O'baits said:

What I've done with my gliders, is always find a CoG and then back it up a bit, depending the size of the bait one to two or three millimeters.

When you've done a quite few of these, you'll start to get hang of it and kinda "wing it".

Coating materials that I constantly use, adds up a bit weight and are heavier than water which means that coating always, and I emphasize, ALWAYS moves CoG towards the nose. 

On the opposite end, when you use coating with density less than water, it moves CoG towards the back as it adds flotation of the nose more. 

Why? Well basically no matter what kind of glider you make, bait has more surface to be coated from mid to nose than mid to tail.

So after you've done a few, you'll just wing it after initial measurement of CoG and move it millimeter on three towards nose or tail.

Another thing I'd say, and this is just my opinion and depends what kind of leaders etc you use... As they usually add nose dive rather than lift the nose up, so if you manage to screw up balancing the lure, it's in my opinion, better to rather nose up than nose dive a bit when gliding.

So moving CoG towards the nose just a tad is almost always better than moving towards the back. Trying to get it dead center is usually prominent of tipping nose down. 

Cheers, Jarmo from O'Baits

How do you dictate the CoG? For the most part I've been successful at getting the baits to work consistently and correctly. I've found that when I balance for nose up, they swim nose down and when I balance for nose down they swim upwards or horizontally. One of the most difficult things I've discovered is trying to discern what is horizontal in regards to different shapes. Some shapes appear to be horizontal when slightly nose up and vise versa.

I have also discovered that water entering a bait has been the reason for some of my nose dive blues so I'm extra careful to seal the baits before testing now. And Iron is right, definitely not a simple solution to anything related to glide baits, there are so much variables that can affect everything. That's why it is important to take notes, and if making changes only do one at a time - unfortunately I learned this the hard way lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my post (No12) I mentioned:

4 - the line that the lure actually swims, the most important line.

I should really have spoken about this more. The one thing that I forgot to mention was the hooks. As the lure travels through the water, there is drag on the hooks. The drag from any belly hooks will tend to make the lure swim slightly nose down.

The aim is to get the lure to float at the same angle that it swims. Belly hooks spoil everything, but I do realize that they are necessary on a long lure. So, a very slight nose down would make sense.

This is obviously not something that can be tested in a bucket, so will be dependent on build experience.

Dave

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, trial and error is the best teacher - for me at least. I need to meet some baitmakers in my area. That'd be cool if there was some type of baitmakers gathering or something - I'd definitely attend. Always cool meeting new people with the same interests.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2020 at 4:00 PM, 350><]-[u|\|T3r said:

How do you dictate the CoG?

I use one of two ways, depending whether the bait is one part or jointed. 

For one part I use papertrick, shown below.

IMG_20200925_182034.thumb.jpg.053766b4e1915e1699c83967987ad4e0.jpg

First, I trace the bait to a peace of paper and cut it out. 

IMG_20200925_182124.thumb.jpg.a95029f1b777e74510305c6c9339831d.jpg

Then I fold it in half, find the balancing point and press my pen through. 

IMG_20200925_182155.thumb.jpg.a79248172c1dcf6aff2649b44389c69d.jpg

Then I mark the point to my bait. Easy way to find center of gravity for one part bait. 

For jointed baits, I always find the CoG for each segments. I could use this paper trick to find the center but then there's an weight distribution problems...

So I use this method below instead. 

I'll take an rubber band and twist a small wire on to it. You can also use fishing line. I'll loop that rubber band on the segment of my bait and start adding weights to that wire. I can change the distribution of the weights by moving the rubber band to front or back, or adding a second one, like shown in pics below. 

GIF-200925_183959.gif.d493180554eb4fe41bdab431e6fb8587.gif

Weight in front of the CoG.

GIF-200925_184054.gif.19fabcaf51936ef1fab4745f97b13baa.gif

Weight behind the CoG.

GIF-200925_184201.gif.2ac79ac60e52e9be90103e8e70a426fc.gif

Almost perfect weight distribution.

 

Then I mark these spots, drive holes and add these weights.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O'baits, thank you for showing me your method of determining the CoG. One would think it is quite simple, and in reality it is, but the complexity involved is magnified by the fact that wood is perfectly inconsistent in it's being. Add that to the fact that I like working with softwoods and you have a recipe for a headache lol.

I now understand why most choose to use a hardwood, such as maple,  when building a glider as the wood is more consistent and easier to manipulate with less lead. I have built many gliders with using hardwoods like maple; however, I find that it is difficult to work as a result of the hardness and thus prefer softer uncharacteristically preferred woods like pine and Basswood.

Additionally, I prefer lighter using lighter glide baits because I have issues with arthritis and throwing 9oz baits really isn't too good for my arms. I don't quite understand the current trend of giant heavy baits. It seems like the standard has become an ounce per inch. I personally feel that anything over 5 ounces is too heavy. No one ever said that a 9" glide bait has to weigh 9oz - but they typically do. There I go again rambling about lol.

When it comes to perfect balance, I've found that that having exactly the same amount of weight on each end at exactly the correct place for a horizontal fall provides the best glide possible. It is however, easier said than done. Again I thank everyone for their help and input. I am definitely going to implement your method of determining the CoG today when I finally get the motivation to get up and go outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if you wish to make good "walk-the-dog" glider, then you have to consider that distributing the weight evenly on nose to tail, hinders the desired glide.

You have to consider that to make an efficient walk the dog motion, weight or CoG needs to be behind Center of Forces.

Center of forces is tallest and widest part of your bait, the point where water starts to flow freely pass the bait. Usually pretty easy to just look your bait from front and finding that point.

Easy to understand with a dart. Flight of the dart is the widest and tallest point of the dart. Obviously. That's the CoF. Weight is in front of it. If you throw dart as it's supposed to be threw, it flies straight. In the other hand, if CoF is in front of the weight, weight wants to go pass this as air hinders the motion of the darts flight. So if you throw your dart flight first, it turns around, ie walk the dog motion of the baits. 

If weight is distributes evenly on both sides of the CoF evenly, motion is hindered quite a bit.

If CoG is in front of CoF, walk the dog motion blunts away totally, it just glides straight. Like when you throw that dart the right way. 

If all weight is behind CoF, then the bait might do even as much as 180 degree turns. Throw your dart backwards and you'll see. 

 

Obviously needless to say, not all likes that motion nor they want that dominating their gliders. Then it's obvious they'll try to hinder that motion by getting the weight in front of CoF.

Edited by O'baits
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...
Top