Downrigger weight shape?

[IronNoggin]

I had a daydream the other day that is essentially a cross between a DR ball and a planer....not with full on wings which could cause big problems and more blow back but add some slight hydrodymanic tweaks to the shape to give it some downward force so you could essentially get the performance of a 15lb with 10lb of lead. I think there could be something there...

There is. The OP's question may have come from this. Some of the eastern fish shaped (damn near a torpedo) "balls" were designed to perform exactly as you're thinking.
Used them.
They work.
Ran an 8 lb "fish" against a 12.5 lb ball.
The "fish" was much less pronounced for blow-back, But did put a fair bit more downwards pressure on the downrigger Arm.
Tested these fairly shallow (< 120 feet).
I can imagine the torque on the rigger arm might get a little to much for my Comfort Zone deeper than that...

Cheers,
Nog - Runs Round Balls

 

[Sharphooks]

I think these were designed for limnologists and oceanographers to tow sample gear.

I picked up about a dozen of them and have used them for years. I have attached the DR cable at both locations but I'm partial to the top so it hangs like a plumb weight---only 8 lbs but very little blowback down to 20 fathoms or so. Deeper then that, time to break out the heavy artillery

It is hugely effective for springs at 8 to 10 fathoms, but I suppose a bag of spark plugs would get the job done at that depth as well....

 

[walleyes]

I've heard the old chestnut about bending the fin on the pancake weight to get it to swim "outward" a little more. Which only works if you are at a certain speed in ideal water.

Should you decide to do something like run plugs at high speed, your pancake with it's previous bend most likely will overswim itself and turn, especially if you are going crosscurrent at the time.

The only time I like pancakes is for breakfast.

Nope,, doesn't happen. Been running pancake weights for the last 10 years on 30" fixed booms and have experienced nothing of the sort. Fish still waters at home and have ran the island from one end to the other. Fast tides, slow tides, no tides. 200 plus feet for winters and 30ft for summer fishing and the only time I have ever had a tangle is one day I made the mistake of putting my weights on the wrong sides and they crossed while I was fighting a strong cross tide on a tight turn with the weights at 180'. Just a slight bend is all that is required just enough that you can notice it by eye is enough. Its the reason I run pancake weights is to stop lines from crossing. Like I said I run 30" fixed boom Scottie's and fish some deep water and the pancakes ensure the weights run a nice spread from each other. Fished rounds for years as well, not saying they are bad,, I just find the pancakes are better,, for my use anyways. It boils down to preference in the end.

 

[Seafever]

Yes ..it does happen. I have a brother -in-law that fishes those deep on the Great Lakes all the time....where arguably there is way less current than out here in the chuck.

His number one beef is they don't track right...and he doesn't even run plugs.

He was kind of amazed when he saw that not many people use them out here.....

 

[Peahead]

what about this:


golf ball shaped DR balls?

LOL I like it !!!!!

 

[Clint r]

Checked out that Zwing thing. I think this is something I might like to try and build. What are the things you see on some commercial boats called? They look kind of like an anchor crossed with a Zwing and are used to stabilize the boat in rough water. I'm thinking something like that but on a much smaller scale.

 

[walleyes]

Yes ..it does happen. I have a brother -in-law that fishes those deep on the Great Lakes all the time....where arguably there is way less current than out here in the chuck.

His number one beef is they don't track right...and he doesn't even run plugs.

He was kind of amazed when he saw that not many people use them out here.....

Well with all do respect he is doing something majorly wrong then. Possibly his boat handling skills need tweaking. I live out on Cold Lake, 250 + feet of water. We regularly fish at depths of 150 for Lakers later in the summer and honestly I have never had an issue. Like I said there is no need to give them a bend like a hockey stick, just a slight tweak of the planer is all that is required.

Look I am not lying here,, you made a comment on something that I found over years of use was not correct and I just wanted people that may not know better to understand how they really work that's all.

 

[wolf]

DOES it really matter.... LOL they are all designed to do one thing .....GET the gear down and get fishing .... if it drags 3 degrees more than the other weights or your running braid go down 10 more feet deeper, if you think thats going to help or go right to the bottom bounce it and bring it up 5 ft problem solved....
SEE isnt that easy.......
In 40 years ive seen just about everything I remember our first downrigger made from a tricycle wheel on a board and a big bolt to hold it and we used cast window weights and counted the "turn" on the rigger we got fish all the time .....

Good luck wolf

 

[Fins -n- Skins]

LOL.. You got it right Wolf.. I was looking at my Dads old weights the other day.. He poured them in a Soup can back in the day and we caught fish.

 

[Kildonan]

You guys are balls deep into this discussion.

 

[greenhornet]

Hello fellow fishers

Ive used every shape and weight round,round with fin ,torpedo,fish shaped,pancake all with good results theres a few pros I know that only use the pancakes and a few that will use nothing else but plain round.What I prefer is pancake with fin for ecvi and round for wcvi thats my preference some wicked currents out by thrasher and nanaimo area.

That all being said does anyone know where a guy could buy a few pancakes 15 lbders as Ive been looking but with no success,love to find a guy who makes them… thanks in advance.

Tight lines
Billydoo

 

[Fish Assassin]

My favorite weight of all times has to be the pancake weight. I ran them for years and never had any issues untill the price went over the top. Last time I bought them they were $56 plus tax. The two best were Gibbs which I belive no longer makes weights and Alberni Foundry which only sells to retailers now.

 

[willyqbc]

anyone ever use "sticks" ie long thin steel round bar hung vertically? I recall reading somewhere that they have the least blowback. I am going to make up a few to try this year just cause it will be cheap and easy to try. 14" of 2" will go 12.5 lbs or 24" of 1 1/2" for pretty much the same. I suspect that they will take a slight backward angle (/) while trolling and that may present a very hydrodynamic surface and less blowback. gonna try it out just cause!

Chris

 

[Fish Assassin]

anyone ever use "sticks" ie long thin steel round bar hung vertically? I recall reading somewhere that they have the least blowback. I am going to make up a few to try this year just cause it will be cheap and easy to try. 14" of 2" will go 12.5 lbs or 24" of 1 1/2" for pretty much the same. I suspect that they will take a slight backward angle (/) while trolling and that may present a very hydrodynamic surface and less blowback. gonna try it out just cause!

Chris

Haven't used them but I have looked into them a few times. Seems down south of us they are more popular. I tried pricing them out but the cost of steel, welding on an eye and coating them it turned out lead balls were still cheaper.

Not only do they say there's less blow back they say hooking bottom is less frequent and over all is better when dragging your gear on the bottom.

I belive Harbour Chandler sells mud rackers made with coated rebar as a weight.

It's not that it can't be done but whats the cost.

 

[willyqbc]

I have access to scrap steel where I work so should be able to find an old line shaft or something in the scrap bin that will work so cost for me will be next to nothing as I can make it myself. was also interested in the claim about less problems grabbing bottom as we often drag bottom while fishing for lakers ... definitely worth giving them a try I think! I was also looking at a weight called a ridgeback rattler I think... basically rectangular steel with angles cut on the nose and holes drilled through from the nose on about 45 deg angle crossing before exiting. they also claim very little blowback....I may experiment with something like that as well. Maybe allowing some water to pass through the weight will create way less drag? My buddy claims his 10lb rattler blows back less than his 15 lb round ball.

Chris

 

[ziggy]

I'd think a tear drop shape would be the most hydro dynamically efficient shape. Its been used on nuclear submarine hulls for years. I've heard it described as squeezing a watermelon seed. The displaced water presses in on the sides and aids forward motion.

 

[SpringVelocity]

Drag force is only depending on the Area of the object, and physical shape... Its a very simple equation..

The best thing you can do is reduce the cross section at the front... When you do that you alter what is known as the coefficient of drag...The problem is it a balance you may actually start to produce torsion as you start to screw around with it...We all know with currents they are not exactly laminar, and can be turbulent... Honestly the round down rigger ball with fin is pretty good ..If you built up the cross section you actually increase the drag, and yes will get less blow back but probably a ridiculous amount of stress on your down riggers.... There also is a point on pricing...How much would someone pay for that... I just can't see anything replacing a round 20lb ball which is pretty effective... If I get some time next week I will load it into our software at work and play around with it.... I can load the 3d model up and screw around and see flow around it... I think I looked at this long time ago.

Its is good conversation, but i just don't know if its doable for what we are looking for... As for golf ball idea that is great in air not so much water... Good ideas though....

Here is the math on it for interest......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

 

[ziggy]

Could you run a model using a tear drop shape? I' d be interested because it has been the choice for submarine hulls, airplane wings and noses of commercial freighters for many years. It would seem to be an easy shape to cast as well.

 

[Fish Assassin]

Have you looked closely at the Do-It balls most guys pour? They are not actully round with a fin. They are actually skinny'd up.

 

[SpringVelocity]

Could you run a model using a tear drop shape? I' d be interested because it has been the choice for submarine hulls, airplane wings and noses of commercial freighters for many years. It would seem to be an easy shape to cast as well.

That would be a good choice possibly...