Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I am getting another baitcaster and I have one lined with braid already I was wondering if Flourocarbon is worth it and if it has decent castability I've heard a lot of bad things about it not sure what to think of it any thoughts?

Posted

I don't care for it.. I just lined my favorite baitcaster up with Suffix 832 Braid and I absolutely love it..

  • Like 1
  • Super User
Posted

You will receive a lot of different answers for that question.  Some hate it, some love it, and some use it for specific applications.  You have to find what is right for you.  I am in the third group.  I use it for deep running crankbaits/spinnerbaits/etc and I have one jig/T-rig rod with 15 lb fluoro.  My other jig/T-rig rods are braid with fluoro leaders.  

Fluorocarbon tends to require more work in the manageability department though there are some brands that handle pretty well.  It is a great line for getting cranks and other deep running baits to run a little deeper due to its density.  That same density seems to make it a more sensitive line as well, though braid with no stretch transmits everything when the wind isn't blowing a huge bow in it.  

  • Like 2
  • Super User
Posted

I use flouro for all setups except topwater, and punching. Tried a few different ones, stuck with Invizx on spinning and Abrazx on baitcasters. I don't have manageability issues with either one.

  • Like 2
Posted

fluro is a little hard to get used to i find you need to really feather your spool properly to get it to cast right. it will take practice but it is worth it. the only advice i have it back your spool with mono so you aren't using straight flouro

  • Like 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, Wayne P. said:

Fluorocarbon line should be one of the three types you use. It is best some some applications but not all.

Agreed, I have straight FC, Mono, Braid, Braid with FC leader - all for different applications.  

Try sniper probably the best FC for the money - IMO.

  • Like 1
  • Super User
Posted

Myths regarding FC line;

Stretches less than mono.

Cast better than mono.

Smaller diameter than mono.

Higher abrasion resistance than mono.

Truth about FC line;

Lower refraction of light than mono.

Lower knot stretch than mono.

Less abrasion resistance than mono.

Higher memory than mono.

Lower coefficient of drag in water.

Higher UV resistance than some mono.

Higher density than mono.

Less hygroscopic then mono; doesn't absorb water or some chemicals.

The bottom line is FC sinks, mono is lighter weight then FC and tends float or suspend.

Slight adavantage in strike detection for underwater lures, disadvantage in knot strength, abrasion resistance and tends to have high memory and dry line casting issues. 

If you choose FC line use a line conditioner to help wetting the line to reduce casting issues and practice knot tying.

Tom

  • Like 2
Posted
27 minutes ago, WRB said:

Myths regarding FC line;

Stretches less than mono.

Cast better than mono.

Smaller diameter than mono.

Higher abrasion resistance than mono.

Truth about FC line;

Lower refraction of light than mono.

Lower knot stretch than mono.

Less abrasion resistance than mono.

Higher memory than mono.

Lower coefficient of drag in water.

Higher UV resistance than some mono.

Higher density than mono.

Less hygroscopic then mono; doesn't absorb water or some chemicals.

The bottom line is FC sinks, mono is lighter weight then FC and tends float or suspend.

Slight adavantage in strike detection for underwater lures, disadvantage in knot strength, abrasion resistance and tends to have high memory and dry line casting issues. 

If you choose FC line use a line conditioner to help wetting the line to reduce casting issues and practice knot tying.

Tom

Anything to support these claims or is this strictly an opinion?

  • Like 1
Posted

I like to tie a 6" length of fluoro leader onto my monofilament main line. Then before I tie my lure on I trim back the first 6.5" to get rid of that section that is most likely to fail on me. :lol:

  • Like 2
  • Super User
Posted
14 minutes ago, Molay1292 said:

Anything to support these claims or is this strictly an opinion?

Tackle Tour Fluorocarbon line test to dispel the myths about fluorocarbon line.

  • Like 1
  • Super User
Posted

I personally use Flouro for every technique other that topwater or punching. 

Jeff

  • Like 2
  • Super User
Posted

The short answer is yes IMO.

I like the Seaguar red label just to absorb some of the cost, it's been a pretty good investment for the lesser price for me, I agree with WRB though, a little line conditioner helps a bunch !!!

  • Like 1
  • Super User
Posted

TT in 2013 was going to publish comparative data based on their new evaluation method and did publish initial FC using Seagar Abrix and Tatsu, MegaBass and Viciuos I recall.

The baseline is or was Monofilament and every category FC fell below mono performance.

No debate with FC light refraction. 

No debate with FC density.

Line diameters defer between mfr's regarding lb test vs greatly, compare one mfr of choice and compare, mono vs FC, FC is either equal or larger.

No debate comparing knot strength, this is FC's Achilles heel.

Mono is hygroscopic FC isn't.

I use Sunline FC, don't like the negatives and like lower coefficient of drag and higher density. I tie knots very, very carefully when using FC knowing knot strength is a issue.

Reaaly like Sunline Defier Nylon and hope they come out with more choices like 5 lb to 9 lb for spinning and 30 lb for larger swim baits.

Tom

  • Like 1
Posted

I have seen their tests, and the methods they used to conduct them.  They did a good job recording and reporting the results as tested.

 

37 minutes ago, Wayne P. said:

Tackle Tour Fluorocarbon line test to dispel the myths about fluorocarbon line.

 

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, BrianinMD said:

Only one test matters, time on the water and finding what works for you.

I agree with you to a point, but if there is a method of testing that you can use to eliminate lines without having to spend wasted time on the water and money purchasing, would that not make more sense, and better use of your time on the water?

  • Like 1
  • Super User
Posted
1 hour ago, Molay1292 said:

Anything to support these claims or is this strictly an opinion?

Persons like Tom or Catt don´t post opinions when it comes to tackle.

  • Like 2
Posted
20 minutes ago, Raul said:

Persons like Tom or Catt don´t post opinions when it comes to tackle.

The only thing I find very hard to believe is the abrasion resistance.  But maybe it's true.  

  • Like 1
  • Super User
Posted
1 hour ago, Nitrofreak said:

The short answer is yes IMO.

X2

16 minutes ago, cottny27 said:

The only thing I find very hard to believe is the abrasion resistance.  But maybe it's true.  

It's a mixed bag when both are tested dry based on multiple test results I've seen (really depends upon brands tested and methodology), but not much of a contest when tested wet (minimal amount of time to absorb water to simulate actual fishing conditions), where FC is nearly always superior in abrasion resistance since it isn't (almost 0, not quite) hygroscopic.

-T9

  • Like 1
  • Super User
Posted

So much of this depends on the fluorocarbon. I like  Red Label for the money, but it does not have good abrasion resistance. Abrasx is not quite as manageable but has much better abrasion resistance. Invisx is between those two. What I use depends on the application. These are my observations, based on my experience. 

To sum up: Yes, fluorocarbon is "worth it" to me, but all fluorocarbon is not equal. You can read all the analysis you want, but you until try it on the water you cannot know whether it is worth it to you. 

  • Like 3
Posted

I'm probably beating a dead horse here because I haven't taken the time to read over every post in the thread but here I go. There is a time and place for all variations of lines when fishing. This all depends on variables such as what baits or techniques you're fishing. Fluoro is pre stretched therefore has far less line stretch than mono. You also should avoid using some knots with Fluoro that you use for mono. Fluorocarbon is a much denser line than monofilament. If you notice, your mono or braid will float where a fluorocarbon line will sink. The advantage to this is you have a direct line to your bait when fishing baits like Texas rigs or jigs. This gives you higher sensitivity when fishing these baits. Personally I prefer a fluorocarbon line when fishing bottom baits and diving baits 90% of the time. Other factors contribute to the other 10%. The question "is fluorocarbon better than mono?" Is much like comparing apples to oranges. At this point I feel like I'm rambling so if anyone has any questions or criticism about lines and applications feel free to PM me. 

  • Like 1
  • Super User
Posted

About 20 years ago Damyl came out with Tectan Superior FC line, this came out just after Sunline Shooter and was about 1/2 the cost.

I bought 12 lb and tried it after testing it's knot strength using a Instron machine. Tectan tested good, better knot strength than Shooter. After catching a few good size bass using Tectan I decided to try 16 Lb during a night tournament and that turned out to be a deasater! I usually use 15 lb Big Game at night and respooled those reels with the new Tectan line. Got into a great jig bite and broke off every bass, never broke off bass before like that night and didn't have any back up reels because of fishing out of a partners boat and he only had 10 lb P-line with him. So re spooled the 10 lb P-line and managed to salvage enough weight to get a check, we should have easily won the event.

What went wrong, poor impact strength, at night the bite was on shorter casts and I was over powering the hot big fish on a shorter string, the failed. By the time I figured this out the bite shut off. I will never use FC at night again!

You test line, but fishing with it is the real test.

Tom

PS, pre stretched.....now that's a stretch, look up physical properties of PVDF (FC line); 200% elongation before breaking....that is a stretch!

  • Like 1
Posted

I don't think most fluorocarbon is worth the heavy cost discrepancy at all.  Are there a couple of pros?  Sure, but I'd rather save that money for gas and time on the water.  I also don't think the pros are close to being enough to justify the increased cost.

  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Outboard Engine

    fishing forum

    fishing tackle

    fishing

    fishing

    fishing

    bass fish

    fish for bass



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.