Monofilament, What does it mean - Page 2

HarveysMinnow · 01-13-11, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBassin144

The no stretch factor is how the industry explain FCs increased sensitivity over a nylon mono. But because most do stretch, some even as much or more than nylon mono, why is it more sensitive. I attribute the sensitivity to the fact that it is denser than nylon mono. Similar to how tungsten weights transmit vibration better than lead because they're denser.
BB

Not an attempt to change the direction of this excellent thread, but I'm wondering, BB, if you (or other posters) have any thoughts on how line sensitivity could be actually measured? It seems like such a subjective quality to me. Unless we could somehow fish with two lines at once and have the exact same force applied to both our lures, how could we really detect or quantify a difference? Maybe when Tavery starts his thread on flourocarb lines, this sensitivity issue can be discussed more fully.

/

bamabassman · 01-13-11, 09:46 PM

harvey........that is interesting. to me now.....if there is a COATING of flouro on mono, how does that affect he sensitivety? hmmmmmm...........

Tavery5 · 01-13-11, 10:48 PM

Harvey, you make an interesting point. How do we know which line offers better sensitivity? I think in some cases it is obvious, it is fairly easy to feel the difference between braid and mono. Where it becomes harder to tell is between mono and fluoro. I am sure that vibration propagation plays a huge roll in this conversation. It is basically how fast the vibration or signal can travel through the line. It would be interesting to know which line composition best supports this. I think a person has to fish a line in different situations and just make a personal choice if the line works for him or not.

bamabassman · 01-13-11, 11:08 PM

tavery, you hit on something i think the industry is trying to do. make flouro and mono FEEL the same. am i correct in my thinking gang?

HarveysMinnow · 01-13-11, 11:30 PM

Well, there's little doubt in my mind that experience is the best teacher in this case. When I'm fishing, with whatever type of line, I either feel the nibble or I don't feel it, and there's very little conscious effort on my part to discern whether I felt it better with mono or flouro. But I guess the more we fish, the more it becomes second nature to detect those tiny nibbles, and to make our line choices by personal preference, as Tavery said.

However, when I'm sitting here in the dead of winter with not much else to do but think, I do wonder how the line makers do sensitivity tests, if they do them at all. One might think that they have some solid basis for their claims about sensitivity and the other attributes of any line type. If they don't, are they just jerking us around ?

/

WatterBoy · 01-13-11, 11:41 PM

Since I never know what to believe any more, I'll just post this link to a "Fluorocarbon myths and facts" page from the Seaguar site and let you guys read it and see what you want to doubt/believe from it.

Last year I think I had my 9 reels spooled like this:
- Seaguar InvisX fluoro - 4
- BPS fluoro - 2
- Braid - 3

HarveysMinnow · 01-14-11, 03:19 PM

That's an interesting and informative site, Watterboy. I don't really have any quarrel with any of their claims, but I think we all need to remember that most big tackle manufacturers are going to put a favorable 'spin' on whatever information they distribute. In terms of the details they furnish, they are holding all the aces, so we need not look for them to give up any of their trade secrets. Since they are in business to make money, we probably should not expect a lot more from them than what they give voluntarily.

/

cassidyta · 01-14-11, 04:46 PM

I do not have a way to put any scientific measurements into my sensativity tests, but I I will cast a drop shot weight into my pool and drag is across the bottom. I can say without a doubt that the flouro allows me to feel the bottom better then the mono.

For my tests, I was using a 7' Clarus with a Sahara 1000. I have 2 of them so I drug the weights through the same places with both hands. To make sure that I wasn't allwoing my mind to play tricks on me, I had my wife (who doesn't fish) repeat it and she said she could feel more with the fluoro.

WatterBoy · 01-14-11, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarveysMinnow

That's an interesting and informative site, Watterboy. I don't really have any quarrel with any of their claims, but I think we all need to remember that most big tackle manufacturers are going to put a favorable 'spin' on whatever information they distribute. In terms of the details they furnish, they are holding all the aces, so we need not look for them to give up any of their trade secrets. Since they are in business to make money, we probably should not expect a lot more from them than what they give voluntarily.

Yep, I agree, HM. Good points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cassidyta

I do not have a way to put any scientific measurements into my sensativity tests, but I I will cast a drop shot weight into my pool and drag is across the bottom. I can say without a doubt that the flouro allows me to feel the bottom better then the mono.

For my tests, I was using a 7' Clarus with a Sahara 1000. I have 2 of them so I drug the weights through the same places with both hands. To make sure that I wasn't allwoing my mind to play tricks on me, I had my wife (who doesn't fish) repeat it and she said she could feel more with the fluoro.

I don't have a pool (

), but I'm with you on this, Cass. I feel quite strongly that I have better "feel" when I'm using the two brands of fluoro that I use vs. any mono I've used. Maybe it's all in my head, who knows, but I don't think it is.

Tavery5 · 01-14-11, 08:29 PM

To me it makes sense that Fluoro would be the more sensitive of the two. It is a denser line and is typically more stiff than mono. These two factors would lead me to believe that it would be a better conductor of vibration.

There is a very in-depth test of several FC lines as they compare to Berkley Trilene XT. What I took away from this study in general was this.

Fluorocarbon lines have a much higher wet abrasion resistance than mono.
Fluorocarbon lines have poor knot strength
In a lot of cases Fluorocarbon lines are no less visible under water than many mono lines
There are many Fluorocarbon lines that have an equal or greater amount of stretch than mono.
Many Fluorocarbon lines will permanently deform under strain or load.

The tests that I am referring to can be found here
http://www.tackletour.com/reviewfluorocarbontest.html
http://www.tackletour.com/reviewfluorocarbon2.html

Please keep in mind that these tests were conducted a few years back, and I am sure that there have been many advancements in fishing lines since these tests.

bamabassman · 01-14-11, 09:12 PM

now THIS is great reading guys. thank you all for this. really. i may have to try some flouro now. DANG YA'LL!!! lol

CamG · 01-14-11, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tavery5

To me it makes sense that Fluoro would be the more sensitive of the two. It is a denser line and is typically more stiff than mono. These two factors would lead me to believe that it would be a better conductor of vibration.

There is a very in-depth test of several FC lines as they compare to Berkley Trilene XT. What I took away from this study in general was this.

Fluorocarbon lines have a much higher wet abrasion resistance than mono.
Fluorocarbon lines have poor knot strength
In a lot of cases Fluorocarbon lines are no less visible under water than many mono lines
There are many Fluorocarbon lines that have an equal or greater amount of stretch than mono.
Many Fluorocarbon lines will permanently deform under strain or load.

The tests that I am referring to can be found here
http://www.tackletour.com/reviewfluorocarbontest.html
http://www.tackletour.com/reviewfluorocarbon2.html

Please keep in mind that these tests were conducted a few years back, and I am sure that there have been many advancements in fishing lines since these tests.

While I agree with most of what you said, this just hasn't held true for me. The only abrasion resistant Fluoro I've used has been AbrazX, and I still don't think it is as abrasion resistant than Trilene Big Game mono.

Tavery5 · 01-14-11, 10:37 PM

Cam, keep in mind that when they performed these tests that they used Trilene XT as the baseline. I found it suprising that the XT had a much better Dry abrasion resistance than many of the lines tested, but once you got the lines in the water, the FC lines far out performed the Trilene XT in wet abrasion performances. I am sure it has to do with the fact that mono line will soak water, while FC does not.

It has been said before, but probably worth sayin again, don't take tests results for the gospel. Fish the line and see if it works for you.

CamG · 01-15-11, 10:21 AM

I agree - fish what you want. Fluoro really just doesn't really have a place in my fishing as a main line. Now I do use it for leader material when fishing for smallies. The whole reason I quit using fluoro was the abrasion problem. My line would come in looking like yarn if there were any rocks nearby.

01-13-11, 09:46 PM	#27
bamabassman BassFishin.Com Premier Elite Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: cedar bluff, alabama Posts: 15,292	harvey........that is interesting. to me now.....if there is a COATING of flouro on mono, how does that affect he sensitivety? hmmmmmm........... __________________ so many lures, so little time.

01-13-11, 11:08 PM	#29
bamabassman BassFishin.Com Premier Elite Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: cedar bluff, alabama Posts: 15,292	tavery, you hit on something i think the industry is trying to do. make flouro and mono FEEL the same. am i correct in my thinking gang? __________________ so many lures, so little time.

01-13-11, 11:30 PM	#30
HarveysMinnow BassFishin.Com Active Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Central NC Posts: 224	Well, there's little doubt in my mind that experience is the best teacher in this case. When I'm fishing, with whatever type of line, I either feel the nibble or I don't feel it, and there's very little conscious effort on my part to discern whether I felt it better with mono or flouro. But I guess the more we fish, the more it becomes second nature to detect those tiny nibbles, and to make our line choices by personal preference, as Tavery said. However, when I'm sitting here in the dead of winter with not much else to do but think, I do wonder how the line makers do sensitivity tests, if they do them at all. One might think that they have some solid basis for their claims about sensitivity and the other attributes of any line type. If they don't, are they just jerking us around ? / __________________ It's time for less talk and more fishing!

01-14-11, 03:19 PM	#32
HarveysMinnow BassFishin.Com Active Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Central NC Posts: 224	That's an interesting and informative site, Watterboy. I don't really have any quarrel with any of their claims, but I think we all need to remember that most big tackle manufacturers are going to put a favorable 'spin' on whatever information they distribute. In terms of the details they furnish, they are holding all the aces, so we need not look for them to give up any of their trade secrets. Since they are in business to make money, we probably should not expect a lot more from them than what they give voluntarily. / __________________ It's time for less talk and more fishing!

01-14-11, 04:46 PM	#33
cassidyta BassFishin.Com Super Veteran Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,928	I do not have a way to put any scientific measurements into my sensativity tests, but I I will cast a drop shot weight into my pool and drag is across the bottom. I can say without a doubt that the flouro allows me to feel the bottom better then the mono. For my tests, I was using a 7' Clarus with a Sahara 1000. I have 2 of them so I drug the weights through the same places with both hands. To make sure that I wasn't allwoing my mind to play tricks on me, I had my wife (who doesn't fish) repeat it and she said she could feel more with the fluoro. __________________ If you have ever wondered if you should retie, the answer is yes.

01-13-11, 10:48 PM	#28
Tavery5 BassFishin.Com Super Veteran Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Wichita, KS Posts: 2,427	Harvey, you make an interesting point. How do we know which line offers better sensitivity? I think in some cases it is obvious, it is fairly easy to feel the difference between braid and mono. Where it becomes harder to tell is between mono and fluoro. I am sure that vibration propagation plays a huge roll in this conversation. It is basically how fast the vibration or signal can travel through the line. It would be interesting to know which line composition best supports this. I think a person has to fish a line in different situations and just make a personal choice if the line works for him or not.

01-13-11, 11:41 PM	#31
WatterBoy BassFishin.Com Super Veteran Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Owatonna, MN Posts: 2,280	Since I never know what to believe any more, I'll just post this link to a "Fluorocarbon myths and facts" page from the Seaguar site and let you guys read it and see what you want to doubt/believe from it. Last year I think I had my 9 reels spooled like this: - Seaguar InvisX fluoro - 4 - BPS fluoro - 2 - Braid - 3

01-14-11, 08:29 PM	#35
Tavery5 BassFishin.Com Super Veteran Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Wichita, KS Posts: 2,427	To me it makes sense that Fluoro would be the more sensitive of the two. It is a denser line and is typically more stiff than mono. These two factors would lead me to believe that it would be a better conductor of vibration. There is a very in-depth test of several FC lines as they compare to Berkley Trilene XT. What I took away from this study in general was this. Fluorocarbon lines have a much higher wet abrasion resistance than mono. Fluorocarbon lines have poor knot strength In a lot of cases Fluorocarbon lines are no less visible under water than many mono lines There are many Fluorocarbon lines that have an equal or greater amount of stretch than mono. Many Fluorocarbon lines will permanently deform under strain or load. The tests that I am referring to can be found here http://www.tackletour.com/reviewfluorocarbontest.html http://www.tackletour.com/reviewfluorocarbon2.html Please keep in mind that these tests were conducted a few years back, and I am sure that there have been many advancements in fishing lines since these tests.

01-14-11, 09:12 PM	#36
bamabassman BassFishin.Com Premier Elite Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: cedar bluff, alabama Posts: 15,292	now THIS is great reading guys. thank you all for this. really. i may have to try some flouro now. DANG YA'LL!!! lol __________________ so many lures, so little time.

01-14-11, 10:37 PM	#38
Tavery5 BassFishin.Com Super Veteran Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Wichita, KS Posts: 2,427	Cam, keep in mind that when they performed these tests that they used Trilene XT as the baseline. I found it suprising that the XT had a much better Dry abrasion resistance than many of the lines tested, but once you got the lines in the water, the FC lines far out performed the Trilene XT in wet abrasion performances. I am sure it has to do with the fact that mono line will soak water, while FC does not. It has been said before, but probably worth sayin again, don't take tests results for the gospel. Fish the line and see if it works for you.

01-15-11, 10:21 AM	#39
CamG BassFishin.Com Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Superior, NE Posts: 974	I agree - fish what you want. Fluoro really just doesn't really have a place in my fishing as a main line. Now I do use it for leader material when fishing for smallies. The whole reason I quit using fluoro was the abrasion problem. My line would come in looking like yarn if there were any rocks nearby.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)