Interesting Article About Mono Vs Flouro

[Kevinator1]

I ran across this article which is another small comparison of mono vs fluorocarbon line:

NAILING THE FLUOROCARBON COFFIN LID SHUT

[TNBassin']

Main reason for me wanting to try fluoro or a copolymer, is that those lines don't absorb water.

[Kevinator1]

Main reason for me wanting to try fluoro or a copolymer, is that those lines don't absorb water.

Yeah, I really like to mainly fish with copolymer myself. I've used Silver Thread Excalibur for years and love it. I also like Yozuri Hybrid.

[Highhawk1948]

Testing some Yo-zuri out now on my flipping and pitching rods. Still thinking on it. Haven't seen that much difference at all from mono except has a larger diameter than the same pound mono. And it does have some memory but not bad at all.

[DeadEyeDavey]

I always buy the cheap stuff because it works simple as that. People will moan and groan all day about Mono. V.S. Fluoro. but besides the microscopic differences they're pretty much the same. Unless you're a pro being sponsored by the company and they want you to use their special line, use the cheap stuff, your wallet will thank you.

[TNBassin']

Mono's weakness is that it absorbs water which weakens it. Also plumps up the line and affects cast-ability some in my experience.

[OkobojiEagle]

While reading the above mentioned article, be sure to follow the links to Brian's original fluoro vs. nylon discussion "The Truth About Fluoro" (or some similar title).

oe

[roadwarrior]

I always buy the cheap stuff because it works simple as that. People will moan and groan all day about Mono. V.S. Fluoro. but besides the microscopic differences they're pretty much the same. Unless you're a pro being sponsored by the company and they want you to use their special line, use the cheap stuff, your wallet will thank you.

Hmm...

Line is so critical and inexpensive vs any other component of your fishing set-up.

I can't imagine anyone that is really into the sport using inferior line. I test many

and have my favorites, but no-name "cheap" line doesn't come into play.

[KevO]

Hmm...

Line is so critical and inexpensive vs any other component of your fishing set-up.

I can't imagine anyone that is really into the sport using inferior line. I test many

and have my favorites, but no-name "cheap" line doesn't come into play.

+1

[Jig Meister]

I have tried a lot of lines, and always go back to O.G. Stren mono's

I wish i had money to just test out YoZuri on my rigs, but I can't right now....but I am sure from what I hear that is what I would use most of the time.

For now, Stren does the trick and I have only had one break off this whole summer, from being hasty instead of a re-tie.

[DeadEyeDavey]

Hmm...

Line is so critical and inexpensive vs any other component of your fishing set-up.

I can't imagine anyone that is really into the sport using inferior line. I test many

and have my favorites, but no-name "cheap" line doesn't come into play.

By cheap I don't mean the "Fishing Line" brand at the flea market (but I have bought a spool of it once) but Stren and Triline, around here those are the cheapest (at 11 bucks for 300yd) and are what I refer to as "cheap line". By the way you sound quite pretentious.

[skeletor6]

I ran across this article which is another small comparison of mono vs fluorocarbon line:

NAILING THE FLUOROCARBON COFFIN LID SHUT

Thanks for posting the article Kevin.

Unfortunately, his results do not "Nail the Coffin Shut" in my eyes. The fact that he just chose 'Nylon 2' To compare it against "Fluorocarbon" is troubling. For one, why did he chose 'Nylon 2'? Probably because it exhibited he closest shape. What fluorocarbon did he used to the test? I hope he did not use vanish like he did in the first article he wrote. For one to accurately interpret the information we need a much thorough description of methods and materials he is using for his tests. Especially the materials (what fluorocarbons, what monos, why did you choose those certain lines?) and there are so many more questions I could ask just on his research methods. Seeing those graphs really does not prove anything to me. The only part that I will agree with is that there is not a large amount of information given by the companies to back up the claims that some of the companies make of their lines.

The best testing that I have seen so far has been done by tackletour. There you will see stretch comparisons over many different fluoro's with a baseline mono that is one that many would consider a reasonable control group to measure against. Furthermore, the results given on tackletour elude further to the point that I have made in many different posts, and that Roadwarrior is saying. The quality of line you buy makes a huge difference. Especially when buying fluorocarbon. I could almost guarantee you that he would not have the same test results if he chose a high end fluoro, especially if he chose Sunline Shooter FC.

Furthermore, I do not feel that there is an accurate an objective method that has been created to test "sensitivity". That is the question that we all really want an answer to. The stretch debate, in my eyes, is pretty much over. Yes, some fluorocarbon lines stretch equally or more than mono, but there are that stretch significantly less than mono as well. What does all this mean? That not all fluorocarbons are manufactured the same. If all lines were actually 100% fluorocarbon than you would see more of the same characteristics for each line. There are certainly impurities and different manufacturing processes that leads to such drastic changes in products that are all considered "100% fluorocarbon".

Furthermore, the biggest problem I have with all of these testing is the straight ability for these comparisons to neglect the effect that density has on a line. Sure, people will talk about it only in terms of allowing the line to sink. And people indirectly will be talking about density when they talk about refractive properties of fluorocarbon (density plays a role in that as well), but my biggest problem is that density does play a role in vibration transmission. It is common for people to simply just measure the stretch of a line and say hey, this line is the most sensitive because of its stretch. Sure, that is a definitive answer for braid on a 'tight' line. But does braid feel dead when there is slack in the line? This deals with the density of the line! Those fibers are not as dense as fluorocarbon especially when considering the way in which they are wound together and the porous effect that has.What my point is, is that a line that is made of a denser material and denser structure will be able to not lose the energy that is given to it (via a fish strike), at the same rate as a line that is not as dense. Hence why slack line sensitivity is one of fluorocarbon's greatest strengths. Especially in the highest grade fluorocarbons (highest grade=greatest purity and structure of material).

I always buy the cheap stuff because it works simple as that. People will moan and groan all day about Mono. V.S. Fluoro. but besides the microscopic differences they're pretty much the same. Unless you're a pro being sponsored by the company and they want you to use their special line, use the cheap stuff, your wallet will thank you.

I am sorry, but I simply do not agree with you. In fact, fluorocarbon is the best example of how "you get what you pay for" in line. You do not see hardly anybody complaining about "Seaguar Tatsu" or "Sunline Shooter", people absolutely love these lines and they are expensive and they are superior to the cheap fluorocarbons. People even have monofilament lines that they prefer and feel are better than others. This is all not a placebo effect, some lines are simply made better and perform better. Going back to what RoadWarrior said, of all the expenses that goes into fishing, line is not very high on the list of expenses. Fishing with a cheap crappy line can ruin your day easily. Especially if you keep breaking off and backlashing etc. I thoroughly believe that when buying fluorocarbon that buying cheap to have your wallet thank you is an absolutely bad ideology. Also, the professionals do promote their products, it is their job if they are being sponsored, but they are not going to go out in a big tournament fishing with a crappy line just to make their sponsors happy. There is a reason why many professionals choose fluorocarbon and that is because it is advantageous in many areas and certain techniques period. It is not a gimmick for companies to rip you off.

Hmm...

Line is so critical and inexpensive vs any other component of your fishing set-up.

I can't imagine anyone that is really into the sport using inferior line. I test many

and have my favorites, but no-name "cheap" line doesn't come into play.

******Very Well Said****

Testing some Yo-zuri out now on my flipping and pitching rods. Still thinking on it. Haven't seen that much difference at all from mono except has a larger diameter than the same pound mono. And it does have some memory but not bad at all.

Yo-zuri has a breaking strength that is almost twice that of what it is rated. If the exra diameter is bothering you, get one with the same diameter and the yo-zuri will still be stronger. Plus, I believe it is more abrasion resistant. Yo-zuri, for the price has many good attributes to it. Keep testing it, if you can deal with the little bit extra memory I am sure you will appreciate that extra strength when pitching and flipping at some point and time.

[Highhawk1948]

Good comments Skeletor6. I am testing the Yo-Zuri 12 pound test and I have ripped some fish out of the grass flipping with it that I probably couldn't do with 12 pound regular mono. I am really concerned about the sensitivity. Haven't felt much difference.

[WRB]

Let's get thie vibration factor into perspective; no line can vibrate under water, the water dampens line vibration. What you feel is line linear movement, not line vibration. It's the lower coefficient of drag in water that increase the lines movement, less drag = more movement. Less drag also = less uncontrolled slack or belly in the line between you and your lure. FC line has lower coeffient of drag in the water, is more dense (heavier) and has a lower refraction of light then nylon monofilament line. Thee are positive factors for fishing line. The big negative with FC line is knot strength and cost.

I use Sunline Shooter FC, very carefull with knots. I also use P-Line FluoroClear hybrid, P-Line CXX copolymer line and Big Game mono, depending on the lures nd presentation or day time and night.

No reason to use a 100% FC line at night, or crankbaits or top water lures or in sharp rocky structure areas or off color water. Clear water, deep structure lakes fishing under lures like worms and jigs; FC line excels.

Tom

,

[Kevinator1]

Thanks for posting the article Kevin.

Unfortunately, his results do not "Nail the Coffin Shut" in my eyes. The fact that he just chose 'Nylon 2' To compare it against "Fluorocarbon" is troubling. For one, why did he chose 'Nylon 2'? Probably because it exhibited he closest shape. What fluorocarbon did he used to the test? I hope he did not use vanish like he did in the first article he wrote. For one to accurately interpret the information we need a much thorough description of methods and materials he is using for his tests. Especially the materials (what fluorocarbons, what monos, why did you choose those certain lines?) and there are so many more questions I could ask just on his research methods. Seeing those graphs really does not prove anything to me. The only part that I will agree with is that there is not a large amount of information given by the companies to back up the claims that some of the companies make of their lines.

The best testing that I have seen so far has been done by tackletour. There you will see stretch comparisons over many different fluoro's with a baseline mono that is one that many would consider a reasonable control group to measure against. Furthermore, the results given on tackletour elude further to the point that I have made in many different posts, and that Roadwarrior is saying. The quality of line you buy makes a huge difference. Especially when buying fluorocarbon. I could almost guarantee you that he would not have the same test results if he chose a high end fluoro, especially if he chose Sunline Shooter FC.

Furthermore, I do not feel that there is an accurate an objective method that has been created to test "sensitivity". That is the question that we all really want an answer to. The stretch debate, in my eyes, is pretty much over. Yes, some fluorocarbon lines stretch equally or more than mono, but there are that stretch significantly less than mono as well. What does all this mean? That not all fluorocarbons are manufactured the same. If all lines were actually 100% fluorocarbon than you would see more of the same characteristics for each line. There are certainly impurities and different manufacturing processes that leads to such drastic changes in products that are all considered "100% fluorocarbon".

Furthermore, the biggest problem I have with all of these testing is the straight ability for these comparisons to neglect the effect that density has on a line. Sure, people will talk about it only in terms of allowing the line to sink. And people indirectly will be talking about density when they talk about refractive properties of fluorocarbon (density plays a role in that as well), but my biggest problem is that density does play a role in vibration transmission. It is common for people to simply just measure the stretch of a line and say hey, this line is the most sensitive because of its stretch. Sure, that is a definitive answer for braid on a 'tight' line. But does braid feel dead when there is slack in the line? This deals with the density of the line! Those fibers are not as dense as fluorocarbon especially when considering the way in which they are wound together and the porous effect that has.What my point is, is that a line that is made of a denser material and denser structure will be able to not lose the energy that is given to it (via a fish strike), at the same rate as a line that is not as dense. Hence why slack line sensitivity is one of fluorocarbon's greatest strengths. Especially in the highest grade fluorocarbons (highest grade=greatest purity and structure of material).

I am sorry, but I simply do not agree with you. In fact, fluorocarbon is the best example of how "you get what you pay for" in line. You do not see hardly anybody complaining about "Seaguar Tatsu" or "Sunline Shooter", people absolutely love these lines and they are expensive and they are superior to the cheap fluorocarbons. People even have monofilament lines that they prefer and feel are better than others. This is all not a placebo effect, some lines are simply made better and perform better. Going back to what RoadWarrior said, of all the expenses that goes into fishing, line is not very high on the list of expenses. Fishing with a cheap crappy line can ruin your day easily. Especially if you keep breaking off and backlashing etc. I thoroughly believe that when buying fluorocarbon that buying cheap to have your wallet thank you is an absolutely bad ideology. Also, the professionals do promote their products, it is their job if they are being sponsored, but they are not going to go out in a big tournament fishing with a crappy line just to make their sponsors happy. There is a reason why many professionals choose fluorocarbon and that is because it is advantageous in many areas and certain techniques period. It is not a gimmick for companies to rip you off.

******Very Well Said****

Yo-zuri has a breaking strength that is almost twice that of what it is rated. If the exra diameter is bothering you, get one with the same diameter and the yo-zuri will still be stronger. Plus, I believe it is more abrasion resistant. Yo-zuri, for the price has many good attributes to it. Keep testing it, if you can deal with the little bit extra memory I am sure you will appreciate that extra strength when pitching and flipping at some point and time.

Thanks Skeletor. I don't totally agree with the article either, I was just trying to get opinions like yours that make this forum interesting. You also mentioned the detailed TackleTour breakdown of different fluorocarbon brands. For those who haven't read the 2 articles that TackleTour put out, take the time, they are very interesting. The synopsis is that all fluorocarbons aren't perfect lines either. I believe just as Skeletor and RW discussed, most of the premium lines are better than the cheaper ones no matter if they are fluorocarbon, mono, copolymer or braid. Of course there are always a few exceptions to every rule. Keep the interesting comments coming fellas. That's why I like being on here!

[skeletor6]

Let's get thie vibration factor into perspective; no line can vibrate under water, the water dampens line vibration. What you feel is line linear movement, not line vibration. It's the lower coefficient of drag in water that increase the lines movement, less drag = more movement. Less drag also = less uncontrolled slack or belly in the line between you and your lure. FC line has lower coeffient of drag in the water, is more dense (heavier) and has a lower refraction of light then nylon monofilament line. Thee are positive factors for fishing line. The big negative with FC line is knot strength and cost.

I use Sunline Shooter FC, very carefull with knots. I also use P-Line FluoroClear hybrid, P-Line CXX copolymer line and Big Game mono, depending on the lures nd presentation or day time and night.

No reason to use a 100% FC line at night, or crankbaits or top water lures or in sharp rocky structure areas or off color water. Clear water, deep structure lakes fishing under lures like worms and jigs; FC line excels.

Tom

,

Tom, it sounds like you are well versed on the topic. I was wondering if you could expand more on how exactly force travels through a fishing line. And how this differs between fluorocarbon and braid. I assumed it was some type of vibration, you claim it has to do with linear movement. I understand your correlations between drag coefficients, but I am more interested in how sensation is traveled through a line. If you could expand upon this I would greatly appreciate it since it is a topic that intrigues me.

Thank you

[Bankbeater]

I'll go with Big Game for mono and Yo-Zuri for a coploymer. I have used a lot of different cheap lines, and what I have found is that they weaken a lot faster than the better lines do. You have to respool more ofter so you don't really save any money because you are always buying line.

[Team9nine]

Not to belabor the points, but in the interest of clarification and further discussion, since it's hard to discuss a topic if only one side of the issue is being expounded upon, I offer the following:

"Skeletor6": The fact that he just chose 'Nylon 2' To compare it against "Fluorocarbon" is troubling. For one, why did he chose 'Nylon 2'? Probably because it exhibited he closest shape. What fluorocarbon did he used to the test? I hope he did not use vanish like he did in the first article he wrote. For one to accurately interpret the information we need a much thorough description of methods and materials he is using for his tests. Especially the materials (what fluorocarbons, what monos, why did you choose those certain lines?) and there are so many more questions I could ask just on his research methods. Seeing those graphs really does not prove anything to me. The only part that I will agree with is that there is not a large amount of information given by the companies to back up the claims that some of the companies make of their lines.

You miss the point with the data in question. First, it wasn't generated by the author of the post in quesion, so he had no control over the methodology used. It was a very high end test though using Instron-like machine that tested 5 lines, 4 of which were monos. The point that was trying to be made was to disprove the argument many make that, 'OK, maybe fluoro stretches as much, but it somehow stretches differently than mono. It stretches less than mono with light force applied'. It doesn't matter which curve you would have selected of the 4 monos tested, they all stretched equal or less for a given force than the fluoro sample. The fact that the company that did the testing didn't/couldn't mention brand names doesn't change the outcome. The othe point to be made is that you have to be very careful in making blanket statements about monos/copolys versus fluorocarbons, because there are so many differences among brands.

The best testing that I have seen so far has been done by tackletour. There you will see stretch comparisons over many different fluoro's with a baseline mono that is one that many would consider a reasonable control group to measure against. Furthermore' date=' the results given on tackletour elude further to the point that I have made in many different posts, and that Roadwarrior is saying. The quality of line you buy makes a huge difference. Especially when buying fluorocarbon. I could almost guarantee you that he would not have the same test results if he chose a high end fluoro, especially if he chose Sunline Shooter FC..[/quote']

It would be so easy to rip the TT test methodology to shreds, or at least raise some big issues about it's validity. I'm surprised you put so much faith into that testing given the limited amount of details provided into their methods. Additionally, what determines "quality" in a high end fluoro other than price in your mind? In the TT test, Shooter came out the best of the limited number of fluoros they tested in regards to elongation, but it was one of the worst in terms of knot strength. They even mention how they got to watch one of their hard to get high dollar swimbaits go sailing across the lake when testing the line and the knot failed. When looking at TT's comparison ratings and taking into consideration about 6 different attributes of fluoro lines, Shooter's final score placed it in the bottom third of all lines. Are you really getting what you pay for? Again, all lines are a tradeoff in qualities. What makes a great line in some regards usually makes for a poor line in others. Anglers have to determine what is more important to them in any given line.

Furthermore' date=' I do not feel that there is an accurate an objective method that has been created to test "sensitivity". That is the question that we all really want an answer to. The stretch debate, in my eyes, is pretty much over. Yes, some fluorocarbon lines stretch equally or more than mono, but there are that stretch significantly less than mono as well. What does all this mean? That not all fluorocarbons are manufactured the same. If all lines were actually 100% fluorocarbon than you would see more of the same characteristics for each line. There are certainly impurities and different manufacturing processes that leads to such drastic changes in products that are all considered "100% fluorocarbon"..[/quote']

Sensitivity seems to be the question that "you" really want the answer to, not everyone else. Sensitivity could be easily tested among lines with the right equipment, it's just that nobody has done it yet. Also keep in mind that there are way more monos out there on the market than you probabaly realize, and just like different fluoros have different properties, so is the case with monos. There are several monos being made that stretch equally or less than fluoros, even your beloved Shooter. Sensor, Platypus, No-BO and Powersilk all stretch less than Shooter.

Furthermore' date=' the biggest problem I have with all of these testing is the straight ability for these comparisons to [b']neglect the effect that density has on a line. Sure, people will talk about it only in terms of allowing the line to sink. And people indirectly will be talking about density when they talk about refractive properties of fluorocarbon (density plays a role in that as well), but my biggest problem is that density does play a role in vibration transmission. It is common for people to simply just measure the stretch of a line and say hey, this line is the most sensitive because of its stretch. Sure, that is a definitive answer for braid on a 'tight' line. But does braid feel dead when there is slack in the line? This deals with the density of the line! Those fibers are not as dense as fluorocarbon especially when considering the way in which they are wound together and the porous effect that has.What my point is, is that a line that is made of a denser material and denser structure will be able to not lose the energy that is given to it (via a fish strike), at the same rate as a line that is not as dense. Hence why slack line sensitivity is one of fluorocarbon's greatest strengths. Especially in the highest grade fluorocarbons (highest grade=greatest purity and structure of material)..

If you took the time to read through all the mentioned fluoro articles on the site in question, you'd see that the density/sensitivity issue was addressed. It is one of the few places I've seen that does mention it, as it largely gets overlooked by most as you said.

[BASSHUNTER1961]

Come on Irene, where are you? LOL

[BobP]

If you use fluorocarbon much, you realize there are significant differences among brands regarding stretch, density, sensitivity, knot strength, handling, etc. From a sensitivity perspective, which is why I use the stuff, it seems the basic choice is between dense and therefore more sensitive but stiffer fluoro versus more stretchy fluoro that is softer and easier to handle. In that respect fluoro is like copolymer brands that market an "XT" and an "XL" version. No fluoro can be all things to all people. And some of the copolymer and hybrid fluoro-nylon lines probably have equivalent stretch/strength/handling/abrasion resistance to some of the softer, "good handling" fluoros. You need to buy line based on your own criteria, understanding that there is no free lunch: it can't be softer, better casting and at the same time be more sensitive, denser, etc.

[roadwarrior]

Come on Irene, where are you? LOL

The other post was locked because it got nasty. As long as people are cordial we will let this

one run. Some members like the detail, others I suspect lost interest about half way through

the second page.

[dam0007]

I stand 110% behind Spider Ultimate mono. Sinks like Fluoro almost zero stretch like braid and castability of Mono. You can't go wrong. I love it so much that if you read this and live in CT I will give you a spool! Lol Still dying to try Fluoro on a BC set up tho.

[3dees]

Yeah, I really like to mainly fish with copolymer myself. I've used Silver Thread Excalibur for years and love it. I also like Yozuri Hybrid.

man, I thought I was the only one using Excalibur. been using it for many years. I have tried all of the new lines and have always gone back to Excalibur. I often fish rocks for smallmouth and this line it really abrasion resistent. low stretch and not over priced. the problem is I have to order it online as not many stores still carry it. I have seven casting and three spinning rods on my boat. one casting with braid and one spinning with flouro. the rest all have Excalibur.

[Kevinator1]

man, I thought I was the only one using Excalibur. been using it for many years. I have tried all of the new lines and have always gone back to Excalibur. I often fish rocks for smallmouth and this line it really abrasion resistent. low stretch and not over priced. the problem is I have to order it online as not many stores still carry it. I have seven casting and three spinning rods on my boat. one casting with braid and one spinning with flouro. the rest all have Excalibur.

3dees, I think more people would buy it if they tried it. I am the same as you. I've tried others but it's hard to find a line that seems to cover most situations like Excalibur does. I've never had any issues with it. Casts a mile, very low memory and very strong. Great price for the amount you get also. Glad to hear someone else is using it. And yeah, it is a little hard to find sometimes.