Annual Line Stretch Test (Updated 2016)

[Maxximus Redneckus]

I think whats happening with this line stretch thing is it is bein way over thought  .....lets go in order how line works for fishing 1.hook goes in 2.rod bends.3 line gets tight 4 then just maybe after your rod bends 5.and said fish  takes off your drag kicks in 6 after all other varibles kicked in and nothing is  left.7 maybe line stretch all of this in less then a minute.

[thirtysixit]

Bunch of rednecks talking about science...... Hilarious!!!!!!!

Great thread!

[roadwarrior]

Great thread indeed!

[FryDog62]

I just read one of the headline articles on the home page of this web site titled:  "Swim Jigs Are Not Just For Largemouth"

Here is an excerpt which relates to this thread:  "For this I use a seven foot medium action baitcaster rod, teamed with a matching reel, spooled with twelve to fifteen pound P-Line Halo line. This is a fluorocarbon line that gives me more sensitivity than mono. Also, the lower line stretch helps get a good hook set at the end of the cast."

[WhiteMike1018]

awesome post, thank you for youre efforts

[Molay1292]

3 hours ago, FryDog62 said:

I just read one of the headline articles on the home page of this web site titled:  "Swim Jigs Are Not Just For Largemouth"

Here is an excerpt which relates to this thread:  "For this I use a seven foot medium action baitcaster rod, teamed with a matching reel, spooled with twelve to fifteen pound P-Line Halo line. This is a fluorocarbon line that gives me more sensitivity than mono. Also, the lower line stretch helps get a good hook set at the end of the cast."

I want to ask a serious question, so please give thought about it if you are so inclined to reply.    Do you really care how much stretch a line has at or near it's rated breaking strength?

[Maxximus Redneckus]

Nope my rod and drag will do its job before im worried about line stretch not that it worries me never had problem 

[mhilgtx]

On March 23, 2016 at 6:45 PM, WRB said:

When testing elastomeric polymers like fishing line hanging a dead weight over long time periods introducing time over stress factors called creep not normally experienced when fishing, except leaving knot tied over 24 hours.

The physical strength of Nylon 6 vs FC (PVDF) monofilament fishing line, elongation before break is 90% for Nylon and 200% for FC. Nylon gets stronger when it absorbs water, FC doesn't absorb water. The experiment is accurate, Nylon stretches less than FC everything being equal. 

What anglers feel as stretch is higher coefficient of drag going through water with Nylon/mono fishing line creating a bow in the line.

Tom

Now that my friends is an answer!

[BillyBassMaster]

Thanks I never knew that fluoro stretched that much

 

[Montanaro]

Nevermind

[Deleted account]

On March 23, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Catt said:

That's a fine bit of work!

Here's a little fuel for thought on line stretch

After making a cast my t-rig is on the bottom in 15' of water & 25 yds away from the boat. I detect a strike, drop the rod, reel any slack,& set the hook on a 3# bass.

My rod is a Shimano Crucial 6' 10" medium heavy extra fast

Using 15# Big Game how much stretch do y'all think I'll encounter.?

 

Impossible to determine accurately, since we don't know the magnitude of your hook set force, and to a lesser degree the arc .(or whatever other shape the rod tip ends up traveling) But can we at least standardize the units of distance.

Just now, reason said:

 

Impossible to determine accurately, since we don't know the magnitude of your hook set force, (I'm sure it's manly) and to a lesser degree the arc .(or whatever other shape the rod tip ends up traveling) But can we at least standardize the units of distance.

 

[PatrickKnight]

Perfect timing for this thread to show up as I am looking at trying something other than braid on one of my set ups this year!

[FryDog62]

On 3/4/2017 at 7:51 AM, PatrickKnight said:

Perfect timing for this thread to show up as I am looking at trying something other than braid on one of my set ups this year!

 

I'm sure there are many options to consider - but a year later and after trying numerous lines ... I still end up going back to Yo-Zuri Hybrid when not using braid.  Strong, great abrasion resistance, never had a knot fail yet ... and of course low stretch - and doesn't soak up water like mono (which equates to additional stretch over a day of fishing).    

[Paul Roberts]

Ugh, hate to bring this up. Line rating (i.e. lb test) is not a real standard. Diameter I would think would be the best standard. I see you did that for some lines that happened to be same diameter, but they should all be done that way. Frustrating thing about how lines are marketed.

[J Francho]

2 minutes ago, Paul Roberts said:

Frustrating thing about how lines are marketed.

 

They are sold by diameter in Europe, I think.

[PatrickKnight]

1 hour ago, FryDog62 said:

 

I'm sure there are many options to consider - but a year later and after trying numerous lines ... I still end up going back to Yo-Zuri Hybrid when. It using braid.  Strong, great abrasion resistance, never had a knot fail yet ... and of course low stretch - and doesn't soak up water like mono (which equates to additional stretch over a day of fishing).    

 

How does it do on spinning reels as that is all I use? I have read the memory can be pretty bad with it, but it seems that is only with the heavier lb tests and I will be using 6lb line.

[WRB]

If want your mono/fc/copoly/hybrid to have Yo-Zuri hydrid diameter or lb test simply get out a sharpie pen and remark the label; 10 lb test change to 6 lb test, Don't worry be happy!

Tom

[FryDog62]

36 minutes ago, PatrickKnight said:

 

How does it do on spinning reels as that is all I use? I have read the memory can be pretty bad with it, but it seems that is only with the heavier lb tests and I will be using 6lb line.

 

I think it does fine with spinning gear.  The thicker line diameter is the one knock on YH, and for fast moving baits not a big deal to me.  To Tom's point above, if you need something more finesse style, you can drop down in size.  I think the 12 pound rated breaking strength is like 19 pounds (and about the same diameter as 20 lb line).  So for many spinning applications, I use 6 or 8 pound YH line.  I Prefer it MUCH over several other 100% fluorocarbon lines I have tried.  Stronger, less stretch, better knots, and not a tangly pia to work with like 100% fluorocarbon can be.  

[fissure_man]

Nice thread @FryDog62
 

Concerning the above posts on line diameter:
 

In theory you could normalize the results to cancel out differences in diameter – at that point you’d be essentially calculating a representation of tensile young’s modulus* for each line type.  The precision and consistency of reported line diameter would come into play – 0.0086” vs 0.0094” diameter is not an insignificant difference in cross-sectional area (and thus, tensile stress for a given load), though they might both be reported as 0.009”

 

*You could calculate it if the tests did not exceed the elastic limit of the materials or induce creep, which I don’t think is the case here.

 

A very informative test that someone could perform without any fancy equipment could go like this:

1. Hang a basket (known weight) from a known length of line A.  Record length before and after hanging the basket.
2. Gently add 1 oz weights to the basket, one at a time, and record the new length after each weight is added.
3. Working steadily without delay, continue adding weights and taking measurements until the line fails (or you run out of weights).
4. Repeat the test for different line types, wet vs dry
5. Normalize the results to diameter by plotting results as “stress vs strain.” 

• Stress = [Force (weight) ]/[X-Section Area (pi)*(D/2)^2]  
• Strain = [Change in length]/[Original Length]

Plotted with strain on the x axis, stress on the y axis, tensile young's modulus is calculated as the slope of the line in the elastic portion of the curve.  Steeper slopes indicate higher modulus, stiffer materials (low stretch).  Shallower slopes indicate lower modulus softer materials (high stretch).  Changes in slope as load increases could indicate the onset of plastic vs elastic behavior (related to yield strength).

 

Any volunteers? Any kids need a science project?

[Team9nine]

2 hours ago, fissure_man said:

A very informative test that someone could perform without any fancy equipment could go like this:

1. Hang a basket (known weight) from a known length of line A.  Record length before and after hanging the basket.
2. Gently add 1 oz weights to the basket, one at a time, and record the new length after each weight is added.
3. Working steadily without delay, continue adding weights and taking measurements until the line fails (or you run out of weights).
4. Repeat the test for different line types, wet vs dry
5. Normalize the results to diameter by plotting results as “stress vs strain.” 

• Stress = [Force (weight) ]/[X-Section Area (pi)*(D/2)^2]  
• Strain = [Change in length]/[Original Length]

Plotted with strain on the x axis, stress on the y axis, tensile young's modulus is calculated as the slope of the line in the elastic portion of the curve.  Steeper slopes indicate higher modulus, stiffer materials (low stretch).  Shallower slopes indicate lower modulus softer materials (high stretch).  Changes in slope as load increases could indicate the onset of plastic vs elastic behavior (related to yield strength).

 

Any volunteers? Any kids need a science project?

 

Trust me when I say I have done this exact test numerous times on numerous line samples (and types) over the years, especially comparing fluorocarbons to nylon/copolys.  All my observations suggest the best you can do is make some nice generalizations (based on hints and trends in the data). I've tried getting the detail needed to differentiate slopes and determine yield points, and you simply can't with the precision necessary to be able to make any absolute statements. I'm now convinced that if there truly is a difference in elongation/Youngs modulus,yield curves, etc, you are only going to see it with an Instron machine or similar high tech piece of equipment as @WRB Tom had mentioned using. I believe the differences are such that unfortunately, a nice home-brewed experiment simply can't determine the answer too some of these questions.

 

-T9

[Angry John]

3 hours ago, fissure_man said:

Nice thread @FryDog62
 

Concerning the above posts on line diameter:
 

In theory you could normalize the results to cancel out differences in diameter – at that point you’d be essentially calculating a representation of tensile young’s modulus* for each line type.  The precision and consistency of reported line diameter would come into play – 0.0086” vs 0.0094” diameter is not an insignificant difference in cross-sectional area (and thus, tensile stress for a given load), though they might both be reported as 0.009”

 

*You could calculate it if the tests did not exceed the elastic limit of the materials or induce creep, which I don’t think is the case here.

 

A very informative test that someone could perform without any fancy equipment could go like this:

1. Hang a basket (known weight) from a known length of line A.  Record length before and after hanging the basket.
2. Gently add 1 oz weights to the basket, one at a time, and record the new length after each weight is added.
3. Working steadily without delay, continue adding weights and taking measurements until the line fails (or you run out of weights).
4. Repeat the test for different line types, wet vs dry
5. Normalize the results to diameter by plotting results as “stress vs strain.” 

• Stress = [Force (weight) ]/[X-Section Area (pi)*(D/2)^2]  
• Strain = [Change in length]/[Original Length]

Plotted with strain on the x axis, stress on the y axis, tensile young's modulus is calculated as the slope of the line in the elastic portion of the curve.  Steeper slopes indicate higher modulus, stiffer materials (low stretch).  Shallower slopes indicate lower modulus softer materials (high stretch).  Changes in slope as load increases could indicate the onset of plastic vs elastic behavior (related to yield strength).

 

Any volunteers? Any kids need a science project?

I was thinking of something along this line but much less complicated.  All the numbers generated can be back calculated and related to actual dia.  A data set alone that shows actual dia vs claimed is important.  I look for line by the metric number as it seems to reflect a much more accurate system due to the smaller units being used.  If they added another digit to the american standard it would be much better.

[FryDog62]

I'll admit I'm not a classically-trained scientist and this test could be done with a more sophisticated approach and equipment I'm sure.  But the reason I decided to conduct this test in the first place was because I bought all kinds of advertised "low-stretch" fluorocarbon, but when I used those lines, my instincts were - that these lines stretched as much or more than monofilament.  And having fished all of these lines in the test (I was actually hoping to find a true low-stretch fluorocarbon) I have to say that the test results were extremely close to my on-the-water experience with each of these lines.  

[Angry John]

I think work like what you did helps out the hobby a lot and people will always want more or have something to say about how you did your test.  If your satisfied with your results then dam it good on you.  I feel like people willing to put in the time and effort to test something out deserve a thumbs up.  Not many willing to put in the time and more often than not now a days there are some serious keyboard warriors!!!!

[fissure_man]

2 hours ago, Team9nine said:

 

Trust me when I say I have done this exact test numerous times on numerous line samples (and types) over the years, especially comparing fluorocarbons to nylon/copolys.  All my observations suggest the best you can do is make some nice generalizations (based on hints and trends in the data). I've tried getting the detail needed to differentiate slopes and determine yield points, and you simply can't with the precision necessary to be able to make any absolute statements. I'm now convinced that if there truly is a difference in elongation/Youngs modulus,yield curves, etc, you are only going to see it with an Instron machine or similar high tech piece of equipment as @WRB Tom had mentioned using. I believe the differences are such that unfortunately, a nice home-brewed experiment simply can't determine the answer too some of these questions.

 

-T9

 

Fair enough, good sir

 

Gaining insight into yielding behavior from a home experiment might especially be a “stretch”   Young’s modulus hinges on accurate line diameter measurements, and then kind of assumes that the diameter is constant throughout the sample – neither is likely very reliable.

 

BUT I’d think with a long-ish piece of line, it should at least be possible to get fairly precise measurements within the elastic range. It’d be nice, but it’s not necessary to have the whole curve.

 

The apparatus I’m picturing would be:

• 10-15 ft long stiff pipe (aluminum or steel), 1” diameter, held upright during test.
• Line is threaded through the pipe and attached to a cap on the top end, extending 6-18” out of the bottom end with a snap swivel to attach the basket. 
• A measuring tape/stick can be fixed to the bottom of the pipe, and the knot to the snap swivel is used as the measurement point.

With this setup, the initial length is fairly easily measured (pipe length + whatever sticks out at the bottom).  Running the line through the pipe prevents swinging, and holds the line close to the measuring tape for easy and accurate reading. 

 

In my mind, this setup could reasonably achieve 0.5 cm precision when measuring stretched length (<0.2% error for a 10 ft line).  If it takes greater precision than that to differentiate between lines, then that’s a conclusion in and of itself  

 

1 hour ago, Angry John said:

I was thinking of something along this line but much less complicated.  All the numbers generated can be back calculated and related to actual dia.  A data set alone that shows actual dia vs claimed is important.  I look for line by the metric number as it seems to reflect a much more accurate system due to the smaller units being used.  If they added another digit to the american standard it would be much better.

 

I do tend to over-complicate 

 

In this case, having measurements at different loads and especially smaller loads would add a lot to the experiment IMO.  As others stated, 8 lbs dead weight on 8 lb line is not really reminiscent of a typical fishing condition.  There’s no guarantee that the “stretchiest” line at 8 lbs force will also show the most stretch at 8 ounces.

 

I agree on the importance of diameter measurement.  Interestingly, if you run Frydog’s dry numbers for Trilene XT and XL to correct for the published metric diameters (0.30 mm, 0.25 mm), XL material actually appears somewhat stiffer than XT, although the raw test results showed XT with significantly less stretch.  The reason - jumping from 0.25 mm to 0.30 mm diameter is a 44% increase in cross-section area!  In general, running the tests with heavier line would reduce the impact of uncertainty in diameter measurements, because a rounding error on a larger number is proportionally less significant.

 

In any case, even if we don't know the diameters precisely, test results are still interesting.  It's still cool to know Brand X stretches more than Brand Y in 8 lb test, even that result is a combination of difference in diameter AND material properties.  One might say: "Who cares?!"

 

Anyway, I’m just rambling now…  

 

55 minutes ago, FryDog62 said:

I'll admit I'm not a classically-trained scientist and this test could be done with a more sophisticated approach and equipment I'm sure.  But the reason I decided to conduct this test in the first place was because I bought all kinds of advertised "low-stretch" fluorocarbon, but when I used those lines, my instincts were - that these lines stretched as much or more than monofilament.  And having fished all of these lines in the test (I was actually hoping to find a true low-stretch fluorocarbon) I have to say that the test results were extremely close to my on-the-water experience with each of these lines.  

 

Kudos for doing the dirty work.  I hope my posts don't come off as critical, I like the tests and think it's spurred an interesting discussion.  Cheers

[FryDog62]

Not at all, I just know there's the attempt to do an experiment and the gut feel on the results - and do they match?  I'm also one of those however, that would be entirely open to someone else doing this on a more sophisticated level ... and I'd want to be in the front row to watch/learn.  -Fry