Jump to content
Will This Work???
8 replies to this topic
Posted 09 April 2007 - 01:39 PM
ok ive been searching for a way to duplicate any lip.i have come up with this. mold the lip in rtv.then fill the mold up with thishttp://www.alumilite...php?cPath=22_31.after that has been cured put it in your lure rtv mold and then use foam.would this work?so its eliminating the lexan for a tough clear material.
Posted 09 April 2007 - 02:36 PM
This is along the same line I was thinking of, I think it would work. Vodkaman said strengthwise the water clear is ideal. but I didn't understand what he meant about the bouyancy part.
Posted 09 April 2007 - 03:03 PM
i think he was talking of making the whole lure in water clear but i think it should bwe fine with justh the lip.it may be a weight placement question but im thinking itll work
Posted 09 April 2007 - 05:55 PM
He was saying it's lighter than water, where the other stuff isn't, which would make the lure try to float from the lip, if I understood correctly.
Best thing to do would be try! I've got a kit for this stuff on the way, gonna play with it some, but not the clear.
Posted 09 April 2007 - 10:54 PM
Bamabass, I think you have a good idea. I am still fairly new at crank making and have been very happy with the circuit board lips. But I have been thinking about this also for a while. Just havn't ordered the stuff and tried it. I have used the Alumanite plastics and they work great for a sinking plug, to make one float you have to add in the micro-balloons. My thoughts was to make a rtv mold of a crank that I like (My Own)then pour the foam. after it has set up, put it on the band saw and slice out the foam lip back into the plug about 1/2 to 3/4 inch. I think I would narrow the tang end a little so that it would be completely inside the next mold. Make another rtv mold of this lip then pour in the water clear. This should give you an exact fitting lip for your original plug mold, keeping everything in line.
My 2¢ worth
Posted 10 April 2007 - 06:03 AM
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.
Posted 10 April 2007 - 12:59 PM
Thanks Vodkaman, I know this is getting away from the initial post but that last part about large action and changing lip sizes will be very helpful to me I think. I have been making my baits using thirty year old Red Wood that came off my old deck. It is well seasoned, very lite, strong and the lures have a really large action (Yaw, Waggle, X). I am using the #004 bill from Janns Netcraft. So if I understand the last part of this post, I can tighten up the yawing (X-ing, Waggling) by putting in a smaller bill. Would this be a narrower bill, shorter bill or both and will I need to change the lip angle to keep it running at the same depth as the one with the larger bill?
Posted 11 April 2007 - 06:18 PM
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.
Posted 11 April 2007 - 11:04 PM
The reason I asked this question is, I am told that as the weather and the lakes gets warmer that I need a crank that has a faster, tighter vibration I don't like throwing traps because I lose to many fish on them.
I am going to try different types of wood with the same shape and lip to see what effect this has on yaw, waggle, X-ing. Today, I whittled a couple out of poplar wood it was a little easier to work with than the redwood. Will take one to the lake on Friday to see how it runs. Don't know if its possible or not but I would like to make a crankbait that has the tight vibrations of a trap. Thanks again for sharing your extensive knowledge and all your help.