[smirkplug]

Ive Seen A Line / Knot Testing Machine At A Trade Show, That You Could Use For Hooks, Izorline Had It. If You Contact Them I Bet They Would Send You A Photo Or Schematic Of It. Be Very Careful So You Don't Fling A Hook At Yourself. Also For Lures You May Want To Check The Strength Of Splitrings You Use As They Usually Fail Prior To The Hook. Please Post Your Findings And Good Luck.

[bassrecord]

smirkplug said, "Ive Seen A Line / Knot Testing Machine At A Trade Show, That You Could Use For Hooks, Izorline Had It."

Yep, I emailed them and they sent the following:

"Our line testor is made by Chatillion. It costs about $10,000. Izorlline"

Google turned up: http://www.chatillon.com/index.html

Thanks for your info!
John

[Vodkaman]

As this testing rig is only going to have limited use, I have kept the design as simple and cheap as possible. The design is flexible and easily adapted to other applications. I think the diagrams are self explanatory; there are no critical dimensions so I will let them tell the story.

The only part requiring some explanation is the ‘metal plate’. Inside the upper hole is a small 1mm dia hole in which the hook point locates. In order to drill this hole, the plate may have to be bent over. This is not a problem and the plate can be flattened again after drilling. To enable the locating hole to be drilled means that the plate material will probably have to be at least 1.5mm thick, but aluminium plate will be plenty strong enough for the purpose. Alternatively, a thinner material can be hammered over to make a hook on which to locate the hook point. The original design was to enable both point and bend testing with the same plate.









As mentioned earlier, SAFETY GLASSES.

I have given a lot of thought as to what part of the hook should be tested, the point or the bend. In both cases, it is the resistance to bending that is being tested. In my most humble opinion I feel that the most useful and consistent method would be to test the point. As another contributor pointed out that the bend shape can vary dramatically from a round bend to a sharp bend under the point. Under testing, the round bend would register a much better performance given all other properties equal. This is because the load would be closer to the hook shank. It’s a lever thing (without getting too anal). The one constant thing for a given sized hook is the shaft to point distance.

Additionally, if the bend was tested, I feel that determining the point of failure consistently from hook to hook could be a problem due to the barb snagging on the plate. True, the barb could be crimped, but this invasive operation could affect the result and the snag issue will not have completely been removed. In reality, the same properties are tested, the results of a round bend test will be double the point test, as the shank/point distance is double the shank/bend distance (there I go again).

The point test failure point should be fairly consistent and is the moment that the hook slips out of the locating hole. Each treble gives three opportunities to verify the results, if they differ wildly then we will have to re-think the whole test method. I do have more ideas for test rigs should this be the case.

The water load can either be marked by the litre, as one litre = 1Kg. or simply borrow the wife’s bathroom scales, I know you guys like your lbs n’ ozzes (1Kg = 2.2Lb). The actual load value is really of little consequence as we are only performing comparative tests between different types of hook. Results within 5% – 10% of each other should not be considered bad results if we are to avoid law suits, anything higher than this deserves mention.

I wish that I could build it for you but unfortunately I am snookered at the moment as regarding a workshop. Good luck and report back.

[Vodkaman]

First of all I would like to congratulate all those members who have contributed to this fascinating post. Not a subject that I would normally have been attracted to, but the depth of knowledge and research shared has really grabbed my attention to the extent that I have invested more hours in thinking time and actual work than I care to admit, as I suspect have the other contributors. I am well and truly hooked, pardon the pun. For anyone searching for information on hooks or testing in general, this post will be a ‘must read’ in future.

Anyone who delves into any subject to the nth degree could be accused of being anal. But just by being an active member of this very specialized club could all be accused of the same crime. This is what we do. Anything that one would wish to know about lure design etc can be found within these pages. If it is not written, ask the question and the information will be forthcoming by the bucket load.

I take umbrage at being accused of wasting my time, not upset, just mildly irritated. This is not the first post that I have been involved with were someone feels the need to belittle the efforts of like minded TUists. Clamboni, I am surprised at your comment as all your previous posts have been very interesting and instructive, always worth reading. Maybe I am just being a bit touchy having just spent about twenty hours thinking about the subject and doing a little drawing. Respect anyway.

[David Reid]

Vodkaman, Good effort I will look at it later and add my 2c worth. Re Safety Glasses Excellent Advice. Like they say Hindsight is Perfect. You have obviously been a parent or are a parent. Havnt time to read it at present but will get to it. John and others when you have found some really good hooks send them down to me for infield testing. Our Kingfish are notorious for straightening hooks out and breaking them as well and grow to over 100 lbs here where we hold most of the world records for them. In the States you have even changed the name and call them Yellowtail so you can have your own records. On the West Coast and California generally they are lucky to reach 60 lbs generally although you do get them at 80 lb. Its probably all those darn Japanese and darn Hawaians catching all the big ones I suppose. (sorry folks I am not being racist just commenting on people that catch fish which have my name on them but someone else pulls out of the water). Unfortunately that happens when you have large populations. Such is life unfortunately. These are certainly the ultimate testing machine and even the undersized rats give some hooks a hammering. When you hook one of these and if they dont bust you off on foul or piles or whatever you often have a 20 minute and sometimes over half an hour battle to ensure you land it. I am sure you have similar fish in the States. From that point of view John you are on the right track and anything that helps an angler land a prize fish is possibly a good thing (although that means I can no longer catch that fish). Most of the well known brand names of hooks such as Mustad, Owner, VMC, Gammakatzu etc and even Eagle Claw who have upped their act do a good job and put out reasonable hooks but anything that can encourage them to improve their act put out better more reliable hooks and keep them honest is a good thing in my opinion.

[smirkplug]

Sorry Izorline Gave You The Runaround. Im Not Too Interested In The Results But I Did Try To Help, For $10,000 I Should Have Been In The Line Testing Biz. Instead Of Roofing !!! My Last Try Is Get A Simple, Accurate, Scale, An Old Deep Sea Reel With A Big Strong Handle, Tightly Mount It To A Board Or Metal Rod With Hose Clamps Or Screws, Wind On Some Strong Wire With Strong Snap Or Welded Ring, Attatch The Scale To An Unmovable Object The Attatch The Hook In The Middle At The Various Points You Want To Test, Crank Down The Reel Till It Fails.. Then Waa--laa!!

[David Reid]

Smirkplug, You should be doing alright as a a roofer, roofers make good money. I used to do it myself when I came back here and I had a hefty mortgage on my first house. Heck a man like yourself should be able to buy one of those $10,000 units and donate it to TU members to use and test hooks and keep these hook companies honest. I use to advertise under the name R & R Plumbing as a sideline. People would ring up and say whats the R & R stand for btw and I would tell them Rough & Ready. You would be amazed at how many humourless people there are out there at times. It certainly sorted the punters out quickly. I was amazed at how quickly once I did a job I got repeat work and often months later the same people would put someone else on to me. The trouble with a lot of us is we believe its always greener elsewhere when often it is right under our nose if we learn to look and often use a bit of lateral thinking. Eg. I imagine there was a lot of work in New Orleans and still is fixing and renewing roofs but the chances of being paid these days wouldnt be too bright would they? Thats the good thing about roofing as long as you have a Romalpa clause in your contract you dont get jerked around. You only have to threaten to remove the roof and people normally pay up when they realise you are serious. I only ever had one problem with being paid and that was with a friend who was trying to use me to finance a venture of his down country without asking me. I got my lawyer to send him a letter and once he realised I meant it and was serious he paid up like a lamb. I suspect there would have been some very wet patrons and guests of that hotel otherwise. Heck I wouldnt like to do the same thing with soft baits you would be likely to end up with a load of real smelly fish on your doorstep as payment as a result and possibly a load of hooks that had been tested on this tester for good measure.
With a bit of thought and contributions from others as well yet I am sure between us all We should be able to come up with quite a good tester. That is certainly the one thing I like about this group there is certainly a heap of good people who will throw in their 2c or give you good advice. Thanks Vodkaman for your input. Anyone thought of using a load-cell? Although it might be expensive you could certainly come up with a nice compact unit that would do the trick.

[bassrecord]

Hats off to vodkaman! The intellectual effort you put in your post exceeded my fondest hope but considering this forum was not surprising!

vodkaman said,

As this testing rig is only going to have limited use, I have kept the design as simple and cheap as possible.

Good. $10,000 is out of my range big time.

The design is flexible and easily adapted to other applications. I think the diagrams are self explanatory;

It is for me!

I have given a lot of thought as to what part of the hook should be tested, the point or the bend. In both cases, it is the resistance to bending that is being tested. In my most humble opinion I feel that the most useful and consistent method would be to test the point.

I agree.

As another contributor pointed out that the bend shape can vary dramatically from a round bend to a sharp bend under the point.

This part is true.

Under testing, the round bend would register a much better performance given all other properties equal. This is because the load would be closer to the hook shank. It’s a lever thing (without getting too anal).

If by round bend, you mean the Perfect or Aberdeen or 180 degree half of a circle bend, it is not clear that this type bend would register any better performance at all. In fact all other things being equal, I would very much like to see which bend type did in fact perform better.

The one constant thing for a given sized hook is the shaft to point distance.

Sadly this is NOT always true. Even from the same manufacturer, same size hooks will often have different gapes. This variance is what got me into this testing gig anyway. Going from an Aberdeen to a Sproat or Limerick bend gives up some gape space and then if the hook maker goes to point bend back toward the shaft, it further reduces the gape width. Mustad is doing this with some of their new Signature series hooks and it frustrates me big time!

I agree with the unnecessity of bend testing. I also want to see failure anywhere from eye, to shaft to bend to point. It seems like your water test tool will detect failures anywhere along the fish hook.

The point test failure point should be fairly consistent and is the moment that the hook slips out of the locating hole. Each treble gives three opportunities to verify the results, if they differ wildly then we will have to re-think the whole test method. I do have more ideas for test rigs should this be the case.

Since I don't fish much with double or treble hooks, I'll yield to the testing done by those that do. As any hook's point reaches failure, any bumping or nudging of the test platform may cause premature failure.

The water load can either be marked by the litre, as one litre = 1Kg. or simply borrow the wife’s bathroom scales, I know you guys like your lbs n’ ozzes (1Kg = 2.2Lb). The actual load value is really of little consequence as we are only performing comparative tests between different types of hook. Results within 5% – 10% of each other should not be considered bad results if we are to avoid law suits, anything higher than this deserves mention.

Actually, I am very interested in replicable load values by manufacturer, model and hook size. To obtain thiose values, I might have to buy a scales and have it calibrated and certified to obtain thiose consistent results. A friend said that my torque wrench idea would be less that 5 to 10% accurate and would need to be calibrated frequently or more probably replaced with a higher quality torque wrench.

I've got a couple lead possibilities to make the hook tester. With all your help and ideas and those on this forum, I'll post results.
John

[Vodkaman]

I suspected that Bassrecords comments regarding the hook to shaft variance might be the case. This need not cause a big problem. If the hook load is multiplied by the point/shaft distance, this will give a number that allows a direct comparison. Slightly more complicated but do-able. This problem is going to exist no matter what method is used for testing.

I was hoping that the hook manufacturers would have agreed some kind of standard pitch, apparently not.

Regarding the round bend discussion. I was not referring to any variations in stiffness or strength due to the shape, merely that if the bend had an odd shape, the load would be applied further out from the shaft compared with a pure round bend. The greater offset would effectively apply more load. All else being equal, the odd shape would fail first. This does not mean that the hook performs less. The fault lies with the test. This is why I prefer the point test. Which brings us neatly to the start of this reply.

[bassrecord]

I see where David Reid wants to find a better hook to catch Kingfish. AKA Yellowtail. A fish hook tester may be useful.

What size and model hooks do you use? Do you use lures or bait? Is corrosion a problem?
John