|
|
Posts: 802
| who's used them on the water? any difference between using them or 2 single clevises? i've heard a few 'pros' and 'cons', but curious since i just tied up a batch using the new "s" doubles... thanks
steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 802
| nobody? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 279
| There was a post over the winter Im pretty sure they just came out pry not too many people who have thrown them yet. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: Shawano, WI | I believe the Musky safari blades now have them?... havent tried the S clevises yet but I would almost think it would work better?... just a thought |
|
| |
|
| i think a serious part of the noise are created by the friction of both reg clevis
so for me its a big no no |
|
| |
|
| I made up a couple bucktails with them and tried them out the other day. They do not work!! It was almost impossible to get them to spin, and when they did there was hardly any resistance. I will stick to the two clevises. Neat idea but apparently they didn't test them out. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 802
| chad-
i made up 8 baits with blades ranging from #8's to 10's on .051 wire- no problems, they spin like mudderfunkers! wonder why you had problems? i don't know if they "sound" as good as the 2 clevis lures as pepsiboy said tho... thanks
steve bloss |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | I would imagine that if your post wasn't straight at the clevis that the S clevis not being able to "float" or adjust to the bend that it could bind. Even not actually bent, but just the normal flexing a post does during the retrieve, I could see it binding. I'll be sticking with conventional C clevises for all of my baits. I'm not saying it won't work; I just see it as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 496
| I tried them and they did not work either .............. |
|
| |
|
| Just tested some lures this morning using the S clevis.
Only used it on some with .051 wire. Double 13s and 10s.
Worked great. Slow, medium, and fast. |
|
| |
|
| Used them on some new bucktails I made. So far they have not worked. I moved the weight up and down the bait. No luck. I am using number 5 colorado blades. going to try larger number 7 or 8 to get more surfice area and weight to get them to move. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 462
Location: Antioch, IL | Esoxfly hit the nail on the head. I think they would have much less tolerance to a bend in the wire. Points of friction are too spread out. |
|
| |
|
| Agree the design will not work when the shaft bends near the line tie. Even with a slight bend. The design also forces the blades to run stagered one slightly behind the other whereas with two clevises the blades are running on the same plane (or very close). I think this would make a big difference in vibration, water displacement etc. Whether that's good or bad who knows but I know I will stick with two. Is getting blades started really that big of an issue? I lose maybe 2 casts a month to blades being stuck together, maybe, I lose a lot more to just me being stupid! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 956
Location: Home of the 2016 World Series Champion Cubs | 1 cleavis, 2........cleavi??????? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 152
| I just used them on some new bucktails myself and ya what a joke. They seem to work almost never and they position the blades funny. With double 8 Indiana blades the are useless but with bigger willows they seem to go around ok but ill never make a bucktail with them on the shaft again. They wont start without a lot of coxing so they get an F in my book |
|
| |
|
Posts: 98
Location: Franklin, WI | Ditto for me...tried them on several sizes of blades and they just don't work!  |
|
| |
|
| i HAVE MADE MULTIPULE LURES WITH THE "S" CLEVISES, YOU JUST NEED TO HAVE THE LARGER COLORADO, OR INDIANA BLADES 8 AND ABOVE TO GET ENOUGH WEIGHT TO TURN THEM. BECAUSE OF THERE SIZE AND DESIGN IT TAKES MORE INITIAL CRANKING TO GET THEM STARTED BUT ONCE THEY ARE MOVING YOU WILL FEEL THE DRAG AND THUMP. |
|
| |
|
| I must qualify my comments by saying that I haven't used them. But, my initial reaction was, "there is nothing wrong with the old style pair of single clevices." So if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Brian
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1136
Location: NorthCentral WI | I got two tails as a gift that had these on them and they didn't spin well at all.
I don't know who actually "invented" the S clevis but I remember a guy at the shows this year was really bragging it up, saying he invented it.
I had to walk away... laughing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 416
Location: Madtown, WI | An "S" clevis doesn't really make any sense, they should have tried for an "O" shape. Obviously it couldn't be a complete circle, but it could be made so that you could bend the top arms onto the shaft and they would overlap. Kinda like a "U" with holes on the ends and at the middle. That way the blades run exactly on the same plane.
But agree, 2 clevi work just fine...... |
|
| |
|
| s clevis works great if everything is put together correctly....funny i get deleted when i try to help out... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 297
Location: Not where I want to be! | The three holes in the "s" clevis must be perfectly inline. I've tried to spin a bunch of brand new ones on .051 wire without blades on them. Some spun real well and others did not. Now bang you bait off of a rock or pier and you probably have bent the clevice. And as stated above, if the shaft is not straight at the clevice they wont spin well. There is/was nothing wrong with the 2 clevice system. |
|
| |
