Low stretch mono options

[fissure_man]

9 hours ago, WRB said:

It takes close to 30% of the lines tensile stretch to start to yield point where stretching begins to occur until it reaches it's ultimate strength and breaks.

How would you reconcile this with the chart I posted from Sunline?  Those samples elongated 7-10% by the time they reached 30% of their ultimate strength.  Does this not count as “stretch”?

[WRB]

Yes it's stretched, we don't know the time envolved or the length of line tested.

5 lbs is a lot of pulling force, Max to bottom out most MH average bass rods.

Tom

[BobP]

Have we confused you enough yet?  I like Yozuri Hybrid because it's pretty strong, pretty low stretch, pretty manageable, and moderately priced.  It’s easy to get wrapped around the axle about mono lines but there are lots of choices and many of them will work OK.  The biggest difference I notice among lines is that most companies sell a hard line that is stronger and has better knot strength and less stretch but more spool memory,  and a softer line that is more manageable (less spool memory) but with more stretch and less knot strength. Some American companies use names like XT (hard) versus XL (soft).  I’d choose XT in summer on a baitcaster and XL in winter, or anytime on a spinning reel. I tend toward using braided line with a leader these days.  It’s less trouble, lasts a long time, and performs well.  I can stop worrying about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and just go fishing.

[fissure_man]

1 hour ago, WRB said:

Yes it's stretched, we don't know the time envolved or the length of line tested.

5 lbs is a lot of pulling force, Max to bottom out most MH average bass rods.

Tom

We don’t really need to know the tested length if we’re describing “stretch” as % elongation.  Linear stretch (i.e. measured in ft) is proportional to length, strain or % elongation is not.

 

The loading rate is unknown, but there’s no reason to assume Sunline would be testing their lines so slow as to induce significant time-dependent creep (at least for the low-load portion of the curves, <30% ultimate strength).  Doing so would make their line appear “stretchier,” counterproductive to marketing.

 

Another example: Tackletour’s FC stretch tests used 12 lb Trilene XL mono as a control – static load of 3 lbs, “over a length of time just long enough to measure each samples’ change in length and write this down”.  Results showed ~10% stretch after soaking, with 100% linear rebound upon unloading.  If plastic creep was a factor in the elongation, the line would not have fully rebounded to original length.

 

Agreed that 5 lbs is a lot of dead weight, but probably (possibly?) achievable momentarily on a strong hook set.  In any case, my point was that the elastic stretch began immediately upon loading, not at 5 lbs or at 30% ultimate strength.

 

I don’t have any dynamic testing results for mono fishing lines, but one can prove that it still stretches by just tying 20-30 ft to a sturdy tree and yanking quickly on it, right?

 

@BobP the point that some are making is that the same qualities/differences you appreciate between XL and XT can arguably be found by just changing diameter of the same type of line.  And if you look at lines marketed as “hard” or “tough,” they tend to be thicker and stronger than lines of the same rated strength marketed as “limp” or “manageable” (12 lb XT is the diameter of 17 lb XL, for example).  So if you want a stronger, less stretchy, abrasion resistant line at the expense of poorer handling, just buy a couple sizes up from what you have now, cross out the rated strength and write whatever (lower) number you want to fish with that day.  Or buy an “extra tough” line where the manufacturer has already done this for you.  

 

 

[WRB]

What 99% of bass anglers feel as mono stretch is actually line bow do to high coeffient of drag  going though water. FC has far less drag so anglers feel less bow in the line and translates into better feed back to what a underwater lure is doing, no debate there. My issue with FC is knot strength.

My argument is you can achieve the same hook setting force at 40 to 50 yards of line out with mono as FC line if you maintain contact with the lure or minimized bow in the line using the proper hook setting technique. Proof, my catch record of several hundred DD bass caught on jigs using 10 lb to 12 lb mono line, every one of my giant bass over 16 lbs for examples.

I agree with the above post, well written. I haven't read a TT test that includes Sunline mono or groups line by diameter. TT does reference line diameters, it's up to the reader to group them. Trilene XL is 1 lb test size smaller (.002) then XT for example so comparing 12 lb XL (.013) to XT (.015) is comparing 10 lb test to 12 lb test for example.

Tom

PS, the 17 lb test Armillo is .013 for comparison.

 

 

[Boomstick]

Sufix Siege line would fit the bill well. It's a little bit more expensive, but well worth it imo

[Choporoz]

28 minutes ago, WRB said:

What 99% of bass anglers feel as mono stretch is actually line bow do to high coeffient of drag  going though water.

This is a very interesting wrinkle to the discussion.  And still not outside the realm of measurable.  Not anything I'm about to tackle, but it is a concept that won't occur to most fishermen considering 'stretch'; but could be quite significant.  Not just the drag, but possibly even the amount of bow or arc that different lines might have.  Straightening out the 'bow' will affect the angler about the same as 'stretch', but not as easy to picture, especially when considering dry 'stretch' tests that seem authoritative.

[WRB]

I know trying to educate bass anglers is sometimes like whipping a dead horse.

If Sunline wanted to market their Defier Armillo 17 lb (.0138) as 12 lb test like Berkley XT  12 lb (.015) and the majority of mono line on the market it would be by far the strongest 12 lb mono line. This is why diameter matters in line testing and in selecting line.

Peace

Tom  

[fishwizzard]

The thing I’ve always wondered about discussions of line stretch is this;

 

 The things we are dealing with are the rod, the line, the fish, and the fisherman. The rod will flex per it’s power and action, the line will stretch, and the unsuspecting fish will move a little before the hook penetrates and if we are fishing from a boat or kayak, we could move a little too.   So when looking at “line stretch” in isolation, are we really getting useful information, assuming we are testing line stretch between two fixed points? What percentage of the total “stretch” in the entire system comes from the line, and what is caused by these other variables, especially the rod? 

[Team9nine]

6 minutes ago, Choporoz said:

This is a very interesting wrinkle to the discussion.  And still not outside the realm of measurable.  Not anything I'm about to tackle, but it is a concept that won't occur to most fishermen considering 'stretch'; but could be quite significant.  Not just the drag, but possibly even the amount of bow or arc that different lines might have.  Straightening out the 'bow' will affect the angler about the same as 'stretch', but not as easy to picture, especially when considering dry 'stretch' tests that seem authoritative.

These tests have been done before and the data is out there, hence my suggestion to focus on the two things you really have control of to overcome them - line diameter and cast distances. Tom's point about technique to overcome distance plays into this as well.