Crank Rod Vs Useing "crank Line"

[Mike L]

Guy's

At one of my clubs last meeting, there was a discussion about crank bait rods vs line.

One side feels that if you use mono on a fast action graphite rod, it would be the same as useing a med or moderate action rod, as most use.

The logic being that mono [most in this club use Big Game] would stretch enough to get the job done, about the same as a crank specific med action composite or glass rod useing floro would flex, thus not requiring the added cost of another rod.

We talk a lot about all pupose equipement on here, and I agree, an expierenced angler can make just about anything work for just about anything...But to me flipping/pitchin and crankin are the 2 that do require thier own set up to do it right.

Maybe useing mono on a fast action action rod would work just fine, but personally I feel that my crank rod with floro gives me what I need.

Thoughts?

Mike

[The Next KVD]

I'm with you on this one. I still use a graphite rod but one with a medium-heavy power with a moderate-fast action and use fluoro exclusively for cranking. Not only do I still got the feel but I still got some line stretch. The major misconception is that fluorocarbon does not stretch but in reality it does stretch just as much mono. This is something I've tested and found true and if you have not read tackletours fluorocarbon showdown articles I suggest you do because they found this to be the case as well.

[Bass_Fanatic]

I use a graphite M/M, a graphite MH/M, and a glass MH/MF with mono on them all for cranking. I like the castability and shock absorbtion of mono over bradi and floro for cranking, but I also like a Moderate action rod too.

[iabass8]

I've used both . M or MH/Mod /w fluoro is what i prefer.

[K_Mac]

For years I was in the 'fast with mono" group. I now use a glass MH (1/4-3/4) rod with copoly line. The cranking rod, with its slower action keeps fish buttoned when using trebles much better in my experience.

[S Hovanec]

I use a moderate rod with fluoro. I believe the sinking properties aide getting the crankbait deeper.

[Capt.Bob]

MM or MHM, with Big Game, best setup I have found. Unless I am going for Pike and Muskie, then its a different ball game altogether!

[aavery2]

I prefer a moderate or moderate fast action rod. I use FC line for med and deep cranks and mono/copoly for shallow baits. I understand the discussion about line vs rod, but in my experience a mono line does not have the same ability to help keep a fish on with treble type baits.

[Mike L]

Thanks Fellas

I thought the rod over the line would be the consensus.

It sure was a lively debate at the meeting

Mike

[Michael DiNardo]

The Next KVD, I am glad someone else said that mono and FC stretch about the same. Everyone thinks that FC is almost like braid. the benefit to FC is it sinks faster, if that is what is needed.

Mike

[Loop_Dad]

I'm with you on this one. I still use a graphite rod but one with a medium-heavy power with a moderate-fast action and use fluoro exclusively for cranking. Not only do I still got the feel but I still got some line stretch. The major misconception is that fluorocarbon does not stretch but in reality it does stretch just as much mono. This is something I've tested and found true and if you have not read tackletours fluorocarbon showdown articles I suggest you do because they found this to be the case as well.

Are you saying they both stretch about the same, but you still feel more with flouro?

I thought fluoro stretches far less than mono, because I feel more with fluoro.

[The Next KVD]

The Next KVD, I am glad someone else said that mono and FC stretch about the same. Everyone thinks that FC is almost like braid. the benefit to FC is it sinks faster, if that is what is needed.

Mike

Not only that but its more abrasion resistant when "wet".

Are you saying they both stretch about the same, but you still feel more with flouro?

I thought fluoro stretches far less than mono, because I feel more with fluoro.

Yes, they both stretch about the same but the difference is the fluoro is denser and in most cases with quality fluoro is much stiffer than a mono which helpstransmitt vibrations up the line better and thats why you can feel the baits vibration or a fish picking up a bait off the bottom easier than say a mono or copoly.

[retiredbosn]

IMO the major difference between mono and floro is that mono has an open cell construction. In other words it absorbs water. This adsorption is what causes mono to start sinking and it also weakens the line. 12 pound mono is 12 pounds dry after fishing for an hour or so and the breaking strength is compromised by 10-20%. The open cell construction is also why mono isn't as sensitive.

[papajoe222]

Rod/line choices are personal prefference topics and that's why they get a lot of replies on forums like this and are topics of discussion whenever guys get together to talk fishing.

The information about line stretch and sensitivity, as well as absorbtion are right on the money. What I'd like to point out is the fact that flouro does not get your crank deeper because it sinks. The resistance of water flow over the lip of the bait is what gets your bait down. The diameter of your line will increase or decrease that baits running depth. 10lb. flouro can be as thin as .012in. diameter with the avg cost line being around.027Mono will run anywhere from.028 in to .034 and lines like YoZuri's copolymer are similar. This is why identical baits fished with identical gear will run deeper with flouro of the same pound test.

I'm not a big fan of either flouro for cranking, though it does have applications where I love it. I stick to mono mainly because of the cost factor. I can respool often and know I have fresh quality line out there vs. respooling once or twice a season with flouro and because I buy bulk spools of mono, I can do it cheaper.

[Dwight Hottle]

I agree with retiredbosyn & papajoe on this one. I use medium moderate & medium heavy moderate for cranks & jerkbaits with 10lb braid when fishing open waters of lake erie. The thinner dia. of 10lb braid gets you down quick. The relationship between crank rod versus line has to have enough give or stretch to remain effective. It can be the line or the rod that puts enough cushion into the equation to keep fish hooked up. It is really personal preference based on the waters you fish.

[aavery2]

Rod/line choices are personal prefference topics and that's why they get a lot of replies on forums like this and are topics of discussion whenever guys get together to talk fishing.

The information about line stretch and sensitivity, as well as absorbtion are right on the money. What I'd like to point out is the fact that flouro does not get your crank deeper because it sinks. The resistance of water flow over the lip of the bait is what gets your bait down. The diameter of your line will increase or decrease that baits running depth. 10lb. flouro can be as thin as .012in. diameter with the avg cost line being around.027Mono will run anywhere from.028 in to .034 and lines like YoZuri's copolymer are similar. This is why identical baits fished with identical gear will run deeper with flouro of the same pound test.

I'm not a big fan of either flouro for cranking, though it does have applications where I love it. I stick to mono mainly because of the cost factor. I can respool often and know I have fresh quality line out there vs. respooling once or twice a season with flouro and because I buy bulk spools of mono, I can do it cheaper.

Joe I think you are only partially correct with your statement above, the fact that FC line sinks does help get your baits deeper, no it does not pull your bait to the bottom, but it does reduce the amount of resistance that the bait must overcome to dive. 40-60 yards of mono floating line creates enough resistance that it will reduce the depth that the bait can dive. FC line being dense sinks and does not create that same floatation. It is similar to what you mentioned with line diameter, thinner line will get deeper because there is less resistance against the water to pull it deep, combine the two, small dia. and sinking line will get you an extra couple of feet in depth with most deep diving cranks.

Don't take my word for it, prove it to yourself.

[papajoe222]

Believe what you wish, but sinking line of the same diameter won't get you any deeper when cranking. The fact that it sinks has nothing to do with less resistance against the water, which is what restricts your crank from reaching it's optimum depth.

I know may pro fishermen tout flouro for cranking and some say it will get your crank deeper because it sinks. Statements like that and others, like calling a laydown structure, lead the fishing world to buy into it. Whether it's a marketing ploy, or just misinformation doesn't matter. Pro fishermen and marketing execs probably have never taken a course in physics.

If you have a swimming pool or a body of clear water available, you can prove it to yourself. If you drop two pieces of line into the water, one of which is flourocarbon, the flouro will sink. That's because of it's molecular density (that's also why flouro transmits more information to you through your rod). No argument there, but notice how long it takes to sink and think about how long it takes to make a cast. Now tie a crank on to a combo with flouro and make a cast. Count the turns of the reel handle it takes to get the crank to contact the bottom. Now tie the same crank onto an identical combo spooled with mono and do the same.

This is why I frequent sites like this. Everyone deserves to be able to learn as much as they can about this great sport. If learning is one of the reasons you're here, you need to keep an open mind. Believe me, I am in no way attempting to get you to change from using flouro. I'm just pointing out the misinformation that is out there about it's properties and what you can truly expect, performance wise, for the extra cash you spend on it.

[aavery2]

Believe what you wish, but sinking line of the same diameter won't get you any deeper when cranking. The fact that it sinks has nothing to do with less resistance against the water, which is what restricts your crank from reaching it's optimum depth.

I know may pro fishermen tout flouro for cranking and some say it will get your crank deeper because it sinks. Statements like that and others, like calling a laydown structure, lead the fishing world to buy into it. Whether it's a marketing ploy, or just misinformation doesn't matter. Pro fishermen and marketing execs probably have never taken a course in physics.

If you have a swimming pool or a body of clear water available, you can prove it to yourself. If you drop two pieces of line into the water, one of which is flourocarbon, the flouro will sink. That's because of it's molecular density (that's also why flouro transmits more information to you through your rod). No argument there, but notice how long it takes to sink and think about how long it takes to make a cast. Now tie a crank on to a combo with flouro and make a cast. Count the turns of the reel handle it takes to get the crank to contact the bottom. Now tie the same crank onto an identical combo spooled with mono and do the same.

This is why I frequent sites like this. Everyone deserves to be able to learn as much as they can about this great sport. If learning is one of the reasons you're here, you need to keep an open mind. Believe me, I am in no way attempting to get you to change from using flouro. I'm just pointing out the misinformation that is out there about it's properties and what you can truly expect, performance wise, for the extra cash you spend on it.

PJ, of course I am here to learn and to share, as I would believe the vast majority of people that are here. IMHO most of your arguement comes from personal opinion and very little fact, with that said I would ask that you follow your own advice and keep an open mind.

Your example of the swimming pool and a small piece of line is not a good example. Try it with 60 or 70 yards of line and I think you will see just how much difference in bouyancy there is between mono and FC. As far as misinformation and expected performance, I will take my own personal results and the opinion of many a pro over yours (no offense meant). I quess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[papajoe222]

You're right, I agree to disagree. What's your stand on the presidential candidates?

[The Rooster]

I will have to try this out. On paper, I'm with the 70 to 80 feet of fluoro making a difference until proven otherwise. As far as presidential candidates, my stance is I'm gonna be voting for one of them in November.

[Dwight Hottle]

You're right, I agree to disagree. What's your stand on the presidential candidates?

Now Joe don't go there.

[Capt.Bob]

As far as presidential candidates, my stance is I'm gonna be voting for one of them in November.

X2 I couldn't agree more, hope everyone does!