Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 54
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Derwood, Maryland
    Posts
    780
    #21
    Quote Originally Posted by RazorCat View Post
    I use a Palomar for all my lines with the occasional flourocarbon knot that Gary Klein ties if I have time. Nothing wrong with a "properly tied" Palomar knot. Minimize the twists when tying and try to get a good, flat Palomar when finished.
    My line breaks before the knot. That's all I care about. I used to tie the Trilene knot with mono, and still do on occasion, but again, the Palomar has been working. So, it aint broke (or breaking)...........
    Tried tying the Rebeck knot a couple of times with braid. Tough one to tie consistently.
    Get you a spool of Sniper FC.
    Exactly!

  2. Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Lanier Gainsville GA
    Posts
    480
    #22
    I just buy the high dollar floral.. seagar, sun ect. Still trying to deside if I like it. I still can’t get used to the heavier line feeling like chain in the guides on retrieve. But I never have it break. And I wet my knots.
    2017 Puma FTD
    250 Pro XS
    lowrance gen 3, 9 and 12
    Ultrex 112 36v 45”

  3. Fishineer BleedingBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    High Point
    Posts
    1,528
    #23
    Rant alert.......

    I know many will disagree with me but IMO fluorocarbon is 99% hype. It is a useful tool when visibility is a concern or you want a sinking line, but beyond that you get lots of claims about how great it is but few real world head-to-head comparisons. Why, see below?

    Hype vs. Reality:
    1) Doesn't stretch: I think this myth is finally dying down but it stretches as much or more than mono: http://www.tackletour.com/reviewfluorocarbontest.html
    2) Abrasion resistant because it is more dense: Density has little to do with abrasion resistance, just think aluminum vs. lead. Also there isn't much difference in actual density between mono and fluorocarbon. One is slightly more than water and one is slightly less.
    3) More abrasion resistant because of chemistry: Sorry, mono destroys it (and also braid) check here:
    4) More abrasion resistant when wet: There is something here as fluorocarbon doesn't absorb water unlike nylon monofilament. However, co-polymer lines may be able to address this weakness somewhat but I can't find any tests/data. The Tackletour test uses Trilene XL which isn't copoly and is designed more for castability than toughness.
    5) Fish can't see it: Some truth here. The refractive index is much closer to water so it is HARDER to see but you can't say it is invisible to a fish (unless you can talk to fish)
    6) More Sensitive: This is true, since it sinks there is less slack in the line and vibration is better transmitted. Should translate to better hooksets on long casts. Braid with a leader is just as or more sensitive.

    Besides the above, it has a much lower melt temp than mono causing bad/poorly lubricated knots to fail easily. Also, I personally cannot find a leader knot with fluoro where the lure knot breaks before the leader knot, but I can with mono/copoly. The final nail in the coffin of fluorocarbon is price.

    Price per yard of largest spool (Tackle Warehouse 10 lb test)
    Sunline Sniper = $0.083
    Seaguar Invizix = $0.13
    Seaguar Tatsu = $0.19
    Pline CXX = $0.021 (my personal line of choice)

    So why would fishermen pay a 4x to 9x premium for a product that is at best better at some things than cheap mono or at worst not equal overall to mono? The only answer I can come up with is hype and advertising. I've used fluorocarbon and it is beneficial in certain situations but day-to-day there is no way I can justify that kind of premium for the relative difference in performance.

    Rant off....
    Tight Lines,
    Andrew

  4. Member DrewFlu33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Posts
    8,049
    #24
    I agree with the sentiment even though I'm someone who uses a lot of fluoro. I do have two comments on the above:

    1) Stretch: I used to agree with what you said, but after digging deeper and doing some experimenting on my own I learned that you lose a lot by just comparing stretch in a lab setting where they stretch it til it breaks. Yes, fluoro actually stretches more than mono before it breaks. Yes, that means it's true that fluoro stretches more than mono. Practically speaking, however, it still stretches much less though. What I mean by this is that you can't just compare how much they stretch, but you also have to compare how and when they stretch. Mono stretches much more "evenly" as force is applied then easily springs back. Fluoro doesn't stretch until a heavy load is applied, and it doesn't stretch substantially until it's about to break. Then when it does reach the point of "substantially" stretching, it doesn't rebound like mono. It will fracture and become compromised. I think this is both a blessing and a curse for fluoro for what I think are obvious reasons (lack of what I guess I'll call "initial" stretch means more sensitivity and other desirable things in fishing, fracturing when stretched to the max means you need to be very diligent when retying after breakoffs).

    2) Water absorption: Unless things have changed, I saw some laboratory tests that showed that mono is better than fluoro in a bunch of ways - strength, abrasion resistance, and so on - when DRY. You touched on this, but I think it's more drastic than you suggest. I really wish I could find the link, though your Tackle Tour link does get at this briefly. What I remember reading was that mono lost nearly HALF of it's breaking strength when submerged while fluoro was basically unaffected. Clearly this is a really big concern for fishing applications. It also is significant for longevity concerns. Mono absorbing water then drying out repeatedly means it's much more susceptible to breaking down with use. I do agree with your suggestion that co-polymers can account for some of the downfalls of mono.

    I also tend to agree with you when you say it's probably driven by marketing a hype quite a lot. For me it's a confidence thing. I simply have a lot more confidence in using fluoro, even if my brain tells me it realistically doesn't make that much of a difference. Anytime there's that little shred of doubt in the back of your mind it messes with your confidence and that translates into your fishing. I'm definitely a victim of the hype.
    2011 Skeeter ZX225
    225 Yamaha HPDI Series 2
    Minn Kota Ultrex 112 52"
    Console: HDS 16 Carbon
    Bow: HDS 12 Carbon, Solix 12 G2, Mega 360

  5. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Waukesha WI
    Posts
    1,105
    #25
    Quote Originally Posted by BleedingBlue View Post

    So why would fishermen pay a 4x to 9x premium for a product that is at best better at some things than cheap mono or at worst not equal overall to mono? The only answer I can come up with is hype and advertising. I've used fluorocarbon and it is beneficial in certain situations but day-to-day there is no way I can justify that kind of premium for the relative difference in performance.

    Rant off....
    Because for jerkbaits, deep jigging and drop shot, the sinking nature of of fluoro is essential for presentation/sensitivity. I don't think it is the hype that sells it even though there probably are some who fall prey to that. Your points are mostly valid though.

  6. Fishineer BleedingBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    High Point
    Posts
    1,528
    #26
    Quote Originally Posted by DrewFlu33 View Post
    I agree with the sentiment even though I'm someone who uses a lot of fluoro. I do have two comments on the above:

    1) Stretch: I used to agree with what you said, but after digging deeper and doing some experimenting on my own I learned that you lose a lot by just comparing stretch in a lab setting where they stretch it til it breaks. Yes, fluoro actually stretches more than mono before it breaks. Yes, that means it's true that fluoro stretches more than mono. Practically speaking, however, it still stretches much less though. What I mean by this is that you can't just compare how much they stretch, but you also have to compare how and when they stretch. Mono stretches much more "evenly" as force is applied then easily springs back. Fluoro doesn't stretch until a heavy load is applied, and it doesn't stretch substantially until it's about to break. Then when it does reach the point of "substantially" stretching, it doesn't rebound like mono. It will fracture and become compromised. I think this is both a blessing and a curse for fluoro for what I think are obvious reasons (lack of what I guess I'll call "initial" stretch means more sensitivity and other desirable things in fishing, fracturing when stretched to the max means you need to be very diligent when retying after breakoffs).

    2) Water absorption: Unless things have changed, I saw some laboratory tests that showed that mono is better than fluoro in a bunch of ways - strength, abrasion resistance, and so on - when DRY. You touched on this, but I think it's more drastic than you suggest. I really wish I could find the link, though your Tackle Tour link does get at this briefly. What I remember reading was that mono lost nearly HALF of it's breaking strength when submerged while fluoro was basically unaffected. Clearly this is a really big concern for fishing applications. It also is significant for longevity concerns. Mono absorbing water then drying out repeatedly means it's much more susceptible to breaking down with use. I do agree with your suggestion that co-polymers can account for some of the downfalls of mono.
    A couple counter-points....

    Stretch: I didn't want to belabor the point in my post but I have read similar things. Mono behaves more like a rubber band and flouro behaves more like a metal rod. The rubber band bounces back and always retains the same diameter. However, with the metal rod once you apply enough force it starts necking (reducing diameter) and it doesn't bounce back so the tensile strength is reduced. If you hang up or set the hook hard with fluoro you have little way to tell if you over-stressed a section of your line and it could subsequently break easily just like if you had a knick. This is, to me, a potentially big disadvantage unless you understand and account for it.

    Water absorption: To test the difference in strength they soak the line for minutes continuously (10 min in the Tackletour test). This definitely changes the relative strength and abrasion resistance of the mono but I wonder how realistic this is. For example, your typical cast using a moving bait the line is underwater for only 30 seconds or less. Water is stripped from the surface going through the guides and then the residual water is flung off and you get some drying when casting. This would provide a much different real world experience than soaking. It also makes me wonder about the rate of water absorbtion and if it increases over time. Regardless, it does point toward fluoro being superior on slower applications.

    Finally, let me say that if you understand and accept fluoro for what it is, or need the things it does well like johnnybass posted then I absolutely agree with purchasing it. I'm mainly ranting against the notion that you should just throw away your mono and spool up with $$$$ fluoro because it is so much better. That is a falsehood and is just ripping off fishermen.
    Tight Lines,
    Andrew

  7. Member DrewFlu33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Posts
    8,049
    #27
    Excellent discussion, and don't really have a whole lot I disagree with.

    2 very minor comments I'd come back with are that you can always (in my experience at least) feel where the over-stressed fluoro is compromised by running it through your fingers or even just looking at it (it feels rough and takes on a cloudy appearance) and that I think that realistically a fishing day with numerous casts is probably very comparable to soaking it for 10 minutes for a one off test even though they're technically different (I don't think the water just runs right off of our "out of" the mono in the time it takes for you to pull the bait out of the water and make another cast, and to whatever extent it does you also greatly exceed 10 minutes with line in the water on a normal fishing day).

    100% with you on knowing and accepting fluoro for what it is. People doing this and not doing this are why we have people who absolutely hate it and others who like it or even love it, I think.

    Really appreciate the thoughtful and civil conversation. Just one of the reasons this is my favorite board on the net!
    2011 Skeeter ZX225
    225 Yamaha HPDI Series 2
    Minn Kota Ultrex 112 52"
    Console: HDS 16 Carbon
    Bow: HDS 12 Carbon, Solix 12 G2, Mega 360

  8. Fishineer BleedingBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    High Point
    Posts
    1,528
    #28
    Quote Originally Posted by DrewFlu33 View Post
    Excellent discussion, and don't really have a whole lot I disagree with.

    2 very minor comments I'd come back with are that you can always (in my experience at least) feel where the over-stressed fluoro is compromised by running it through your fingers or even just looking at it (it feels rough and takes on a cloudy appearance) and that I think that realistically a fishing day with numerous casts is probably very comparable to soaking it for 10 minutes for a one off test even though they're technically different (I don't think the water just runs right off of our "out of" the mono in the time it takes for you to pull the bait out of the water and make another cast, and to whatever extent it does you also greatly exceed 10 minutes with line in the water on a normal fishing day).

    100% with you on knowing and accepting fluoro for what it is. People doing this and not doing this are why we have people who absolutely hate it and others who like it or even love it, I think.

    Really appreciate the thoughtful and civil conversation. Just one of the reasons this is my favorite board on the net!
    I didn't know that you could readily see the stressed section on fluoro, that is good to know. I don't ever seem to notice line problems at the end of the day with co-poly but I also check my line often and re-tie frequently. By doing that I'm removing the section of line that is wetted the most so by taking off a few feet of line over the course of a day I'm reducing my chances of premature failure by water absorbtion. If you do the same with Fluoro you would remove the section most likely to become over-stressed and fail.

    I agree it is a very interesting discussion. Appreciate your comments and insight.
    Tight Lines,
    Andrew

  9. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,401
    #29
    Far too many generalizations being posted.

    "
    it stretches as much or more than mono" "it" being fluorocarbon line. Some fluorocarbon lines stretch more than nylon mono, not all.

    http://www.tackletour.com/reviewfluorocarbon2.html

    Look at the numbers for yourself.

    "Sorry, mono destroys it (and also braid) check here:" This was posted about the superior abrasion resistance that fluorocarbon is supposed to have over nylon mono. The linked video was interesting, and admittedly somewhat surprising. I'm curious though, did anyone else chuckled to themselves when the presenter said he couldn't figure out how to make the testing more accurate? How about doing the testing with wet lines? Anybody here fish without getting their line wet?

    "
    while our fluorocarbon lines were relatively unaffected by being wet, we did note an over 50% drop in abrasion resistance of our 12lb Trilene XL monofilament after being soaked in water for more than 10 minutes." This was referenced earlier and questioned as to how realistic this is as it pertains to actual fishing. I don't know of anyone that bass fishes that lets a bait sit in the water for 10 minutes without reeling it in and making another cast, so a continual 10 minute soak is out of the question, but ..... just as there is a cumulative affect in abrasion resistance testing, there is a cumulative affect to water absorption. Surface water may be wicked away by reeling in and casting, but how much of the water a nylon mono line absorbs while in the water, comes out of the line? I have no way of knowing. I also don't know if the rate of water absorption slows as the line absorbs water. For my personal purposes (realistic or not) if I fish a bait and the line is in the water for 30 seconds each time I fish that bait, then in 20 minutes it will have equaled a 10 minute soak. And that 10 minute soak could amount to a 50% loss in abrasion resistance.

    I say "could" because not all lines, either nylon mono, or fluorocarbon are equal. We can't generalize, because not all lines are the same.

    I also wouldn't say that braid with a leader is just as, or more sensitive than straight fluorocarbon line. Braid is at its most sensitive when the line is under tension, not when it is slack or semi slack. I actually think that even nylon mono is more sensitive than braid when it is semi slack, and fluorocarbon line is more sensitive than nylon mono in the same instance. Braid is super supple, it floats, it has a textured surface so it catches wind, all of those things detract from its sensitivity under certain circumstances. Under tension though .... it is a different story. If I'm dragging a bait on the bottom, braid wins hands down. If I'm pitching weightless plastics or weighted plastics and the fish are hitting it as it's falling on a semi slack line .... give me fluorocarbon. But that's just me.

    There are disadvantages to fluorocarbon line. What was mentioned earlier about it staying deformed after being stretched. Not good. And it has bit me from time to time. It does tie weaker knots, but not all fluorocarbon lines are equal in that respect. But if the line you're using loses strength when it gets wet, how much stronger is that knot in reality? I'd love to see knot strength testing done with wet lines. Also fluorocarbon lines are less susceptible to degradation via UV rays. That's a good thing when your rods are setting on the deck of your boat.

    Anyhow, I do love the discussion, and I can understand the rant. I get the same urge to rant when I hear or see people talking about braided line in glowing terms. Every line has it's place. And for me, unless I absolutely need a line that floats, fluorocarbon line is far superior to nylon mono in every respect. It's only hype if the marketing doesn't ring true.


  10. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Wenatchee,Wa
    Posts
    1,035
    #30
    After trying a couple brands of flouro and having the same problems with knots failing, I've since switched to copoly and have had alot of success with it. I don't know if it does stretch less than mono does but I like it better than mono in that it sinks better for bottom contact baits and it's really abrasion resistant , which for me is important since it seems like I fish around alot of rocks. I've switched from using the palomar knot to the knot that swindle uses for flouro and love it. I don't have problems with the palomar failing with drop shotting flouro but it seems like any other techniques I use it has failed alot.

  11. Dumbass bilgerat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Down South Jersey
    Posts
    17,964
    #31
    I wonder how many guys out there are forcing the issue and trying to make FC work for them at all costs instead of just going with what's worked for them reliably in the past ? ... in other words, "everyone seems to be on board with it, I'm surely missing out" ...

    I dunno, it's like forcing yourself to learn a new technique that you hate and have zero confidence in because it works for someone else, vs just refining/tweaking something that works for you and mastering it.

    There's being well rounded and open minded, which is fine, then there's just bashing your head on the bricks
    Ranting incoherently

  12. Member RazorCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Texarkana, Ark.
    Posts
    19,243
    #32
    I say use whatever line you feel serves your needs. Me, I’ll stick with mono for topwater and surface baits, fluorocarbon for bottom presentation baits, crankbaits, and where Less visibility is important, and braid when I need a Winch cable. As for abrasion resistance of mono vs. fluorocarbon, I’ve done my own non-scientific tests over several years by using mono and fluorocarbon with the same lures in the same types of cover (i.e. pads, lay downs, and reeds). The mono was either Trilene XL or Sunline Super Natural. The fluorocarbon was Sniper FC. I deliberately did not retie throughout the day when I was doing the comparisons. The mono abraded noticeably more than the fluorocarbon under the same conditions every time. I don’t buy fishing line, or other equipment, based on hype or what the lastest “Pro of the month” is hawking. I buy it based on reviews and testimonials, then I try it, and keep buying it only if it achieves the results advertised, and meets all my expectations. And I sure won’t recommend line, or anything else, to anyone else if it doesn’t meet my expectations. I don’t get free line or equipment like a pro angler, so my product judgement is based on results and real world experiences. Not on who’s giving me free stuff so I’ll say their’s is the best.
    Considering how much longer I use fluorocarbon before replacing it vs. mono I deem it as cost effective as using mono in all situations.
    As for knot strength of fluorocarbon, I just haven’t experienced any consistent issues at all. Break offs have been very, very rare since started using Sniper FC, and learned to properly tie a Palomar knot.
    Use what you like, like what you use.
    BassCat Sabre FTD
    Mercury 150 Optimax
    "It's just fishing"

  13. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    499
    #33
    I hate it can't stand the stuff..I fish it only in wintertime vertical fishing..and b*tch about it all day

  14. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    King William VA
    Posts
    3,434
    #34
    I use alot of FC. Remember SUNLINE IS GOOD LINE!!?
    Roger Jenks Jr
    2021 Bass Cat Lynx
    250 Pro xs 4S Serial # 3B010758


  15. Fishing is a Passion
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    3,176
    #35
    Gave it up a long time ago
    2002 Pro Craft 200 Super Pro- 2005 200 Mercury Optimax, Retired
    Empty Nester- Proud Grandfather 5-30-2014-Boy-Aiden, 8-2-2017-Boy-Calen

  16. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Blenheim Ontario
    Posts
    999
    #36
    Interesting thread. Been using Trilene 100% last few years. Works okay, but always wonder if I'm missing out with a better line. Had an awful experience with Sunline Sniper so I went back to the 100%. Lately though I've been pondering switching back to P-Line Floroclear. Never had a problem with that line, so not even sure why I ever switched. I think the hype got me onto using 100% Floro lines instead of the floro coated co-poly.

  17. Member DrewFlu33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Posts
    8,049
    #37
    I used to like Berkley 100% more than others as well....figured it was great for the price. Strong, abrasion resistant, good knot strength, and all the rest. Compare line diameter on the Berkley 100% to other brands. It will be eye opening.

    ....and so as not to leave a cliffhanger... Berkley 100% 8 lb diameter is roughly the same as Sunline's 12 lb diameter. That's a massive difference in ratings for the same diameter line, and would explain a lot of the issues people have with other lines after switching from that one.
    2011 Skeeter ZX225
    225 Yamaha HPDI Series 2
    Minn Kota Ultrex 112 52"
    Console: HDS 16 Carbon
    Bow: HDS 12 Carbon, Solix 12 G2, Mega 360

  18. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Blenheim Ontario
    Posts
    999
    #38
    Quote Originally Posted by DrewFlu33 View Post
    I used to like Berkley 100% more than others as well....figured it was great for the price. Strong, abrasion resistant, good knot strength, and all the rest. Compare line diameter on the Berkley 100% to other brands. It will be eye opening.

    ....and so as not to leave a cliffhanger... Berkley 100% 8 lb diameter is roughly the same as Sunline's 12 lb diameter. That's a massive difference in ratings for the same diameter line, and would explain a lot of the issues people have with other lines after switching from that one.
    Wow that's insane! I definitely knew the Trilene had a higher diameter but had no idea it was that much different. I will say this though, I can't remember the last time I broke off on a fish, or even anything other than a snag in the river using the 100%. Could've been a bad batch, but at the time I was between lines it seems like the would take more force the break my 8lb 100% than it would to break my 10lb sniper. Kept breaking at the leader knot too. However, now that the FG is my go to knot I am thinking I am going to give the sniper another try. Everything I ever read about it is how much people rave about it.

  19. Member DrewFlu33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Posts
    8,049
    #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Aric11 View Post
    Wow that's insane! I definitely knew the Trilene had a higher diameter but had no idea it was that much different. I will say this though, I can't remember the last time I broke off on a fish, or even anything other than a snag in the river using the 100%. Could've been a bad batch, but at the time I was between lines it seems like the would take more force the break my 8lb 100% than it would to break my 10lb sniper. Kept breaking at the leader knot too. However, now that the FG is my go to knot I am thinking I am going to give the sniper another try. Everything I ever read about it is how much people rave about it.
    I'm sure I've said this in this thread or one like it already, but I'd strongly suggest trying the FC Leader Material instead of the Sniper. Sniper is designed to have qualities to make it better behaved when spooled up on a reel. It ends up being more supple and having less memory, but it also then is less abrasion resistant and has a lower knot strength. If you're drop shotting or doing something where abrasion isn't a concern (particularly if you like to spool on 20 or 30 feet of "leader" for those applications) then Sniper is a good choice and may even be the best way to go. For just about every other leader application, though, the Leader Material is the best choice.

    Same story with the Berkley 100% fluoro re: choosing the leader material variant, to be fair. And all that being said, I don't think there's anything wrong with the Berkley 100%. I just think it's a good idea to buy it based on line diameter (comparing to other brands "standards" for a given lb test ratings), not lb test ratings listed on the label. In my experience this transforms it from being a superior choice to an inferior one, though your mileage may vary.
    2011 Skeeter ZX225
    225 Yamaha HPDI Series 2
    Minn Kota Ultrex 112 52"
    Console: HDS 16 Carbon
    Bow: HDS 12 Carbon, Solix 12 G2, Mega 360

  20. Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    3,711
    #40
    Personally I think FluoroClear is a better line than Sniper. Sniper may have a bit better knot strength, but that's it. I wouldn't call it a "great" line.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast