Mono/Copoly Rated Strength vs. Diameter

[fissure_man]

Inspired by a recent thread, I did some fact checking on monofilament/co-polymer rated strength vs diameter.  These were my results:

 

 

 

 

Notes:

- 17 lines were selected, all available on TW, which was also the source for most of the diameters.  Rated strengths from 6 lb to 20 lb were included – typical bass fishing range.

 

- Diameters were reported in mm and inches, to varying degrees of precision.  Attempting to avoid bias, both measurements were used in all cases – measurements reported in inches were converted to mm, and the two mm values were averaged.

 

- Different brands offer different sizes – to directly compare, diameters were estimated in 1 lb (rated strength) increments for each line from 6-20 lb test by linearly* interpolating between the offered sizes.  In 4 cases the minimum available size was greater than 6 lb test – these were not extrapolated beyond the range of offered strength, and were thus only compared at higher strengths.

 

- At each 1 lb increment (6 lb – 20 lb), an average diameter for the set of lines was calculated (this average includes interpolated values). 

 

- For each line, at each of its offered strengths (not interpolated values), the difference between its reported diameter and the group average diameter for the corresponding rated strength was recorded (% above/below average).  These values were then averaged to determine a representative “relative diameter” for each of the lines, between 6 lb and 20 lb test, which became the basis for ranking.

 

- I cannot guarantee the accuracy of this analysis (but I tried my best)

 

Thoughts, comments, errors?

 

*Linear interpolation seems inappropriate because line strength should not be linearly proportional to diameter.  But the curvature of the rated strength vs. diameter relationship is subtle between 6 lb and 20 lb test, even more so between line strength offerings.  For this reason I think the simplification is acceptable.

[Team9nine]

So, manufacturers stated diameters and rated strengths? That's a big leap of faith amd would explain the ugliness of the chart (data is what it is - no offense to the compiler). 

 

You have a different take?

[Hulkster]

notice the lines on the bottom of the list are the thicker lines relative to their rated strength and diamaters (the suffix monos, Trilene XT and Big Game) are all 'thicker' monos relative to their rated strength.

 

hence the deviation is positive.

 

problem is, their actual strength is probably a lot higher than their rated strength on the package.

 

so this would change everything.

[WRB]

All the lines listed are extruded monofilament that very in diameter, the variance relates to quality control and affects break strength and actual diameters depending if the smallest diameter is within the length of line measured or tested. Break strength varies greatly between the lines listed for each pound test, larger diameter tends to have higher strength.

Interesting comparison.

How did you reconcile a difference in the chart between Sunline Shooter and Armilo Nylon, they have identicle diameter per lb test starting at 11lb to 22lb? Armilo has higher break strength per dia then Shooter, both may be higher per dia then the lines listed?

Tom 

[fissure_man]

Agreed with the points above. To be clear, there’s no pretense that manufacturers’ rated strengths are equivalent, or even consistently proportional to actual breaking strengths.  I don’t think this is a problem, though.  Just throwing the numbers out there for discussion.  I guess I am under the impression that manufacturers’ stated diameters are reasonably accurate, is there reason to think otherwise?

 

As above, much of the difference in rated strength versus diameter of these lines has to do with their different marketing strategies and target markets – ‘tough’ lines (thick) vs. manageable lines (thin), etc.  Presumably there are also differences in the material properties and consistency in thickness between these different lines that will affect “true” strength to diameter, but this data set won’t show that (nor is it meant to).

 

Nonetheless, it’s frequently brought up anecdotally, so think it’s interesting to look at rated strength vs. diameter in a collective and quantitative way.  I’m not surprised at the difference in diameters per lb test, but I am a bit surprised at how much some of the rankings change at different rated strengths.  YZH for instance appears very oversized at 6 lb strength; decidedly average at 10, 12 lb; oversized again at 15 lb; and average again at 20 lb.  Interesting...

 

 @WRB good point and one of the things I had wondered about.  Not knowing much about the manufacturing of fishing lines, I might guess that premium manufacturers would be better able to control the variance in diameter of their product, and would therefore be able use a smaller diameter to achieve the same “true” strength as a line manufactured with less consistency.  Edit: regarding Sunline Shooter Defier vs. Shooter Defier Armilo: they plot directly on top of one another and are tied for third in the ranked list.  In terms of rated strength vs. diameter they are identical; actual breaking strengths may be different (as with all the lines).

 

@Team9nine no argument here (though I do think the stated diameters should be reasonable, no?).  In terms of a materials analysis the chart is fairly useless - not the intent.  But the manufacturer stated strength and diameter are what’s printed on the box, and what most anglers are using along with all the other marketing statements to drive purchase decisions.  From that perspective I think the comparison is interesting. 

Edited April 8, 2018 by fissure_man
responding to edit above

[Dwight Hottle]

Interesting to note that the first four lines are all Japanese manufactures and their stated poundage most equals their actual breaking strength hence the smaller line diameters. 

[Team9nine]

16 hours ago, fissure_man said:

I guess I am under the impression that manufacturers’ stated diameters are reasonably accurate, is there reason to think otherwise?

 

@Team9nine no argument here (though I do think the stated diameters should be reasonable, no?).  In terms of a materials analysis the chart is fairly useless - not the intent.  But the manufacturer stated strength and diameter are what’s printed on the box, and what most anglers are using along with all the other marketing statements to drive purchase decisions.  From that perspective I think the comparison is interesting. 

Mislabeling is a very big issue with many European brands of line, but even US brands vary considerably. Stated diameters are much better than labeled breaking strength, but you'll still see variations of up to ~25% in diameter, and up to ~75% in breaking strain (average = 5 and 30% respectively depending on data looked at).

[QUAKEnSHAKE]

I would most want to know their knot strength with various knots, being the knot is usually the weakest point.

[Vilas15]

I like this. As mentioned you make no claims about the true strength of any lb test, only the diameter vs the rated strength. I would've expect the curves to be a little smoother, like if a given brand is known for a larger diameter you'd think that would be the case across all their sizes.

[Tywithay]

47 minutes ago, Vilas15 said:

I like this. As mentioned you make no claims about the true strength of any lb test, only the diameter vs the rated strength. I would've expect the curves to be a little smoother, like if a given brand is known for a larger diameter you'd think that would be the case across all their sizes.

It is odd that they don't have even gaps. Trilene XL, for example, is pretty standard through all of their sizes, except the jump from 10lb to 12lb. It is almost double the increase in diameter, when compared to every other size. Best guess is because 10lb and below is typically marketed more for spinning gear, so they can keep it thinner and claim it's super manageable. Then they beef up the higher pound line to make it seem like they have "the strongest line on the market, pound for pound" even though the breaking strength is actually 30-40% higher than what they have listed, based on diameter.

[Vilas15]

6 minutes ago, Tywithay said:

It is odd that they don't have even gaps. Trilene XL, for example, is pretty standard through all of their sizes, except the jump from 10lb to 12lb. It is almost double the increase in diameter, when compared to every other size. Best guess is because 10lb and below is typically marketed more for spinning gear, so they can keep it thinner and claim it's super manageable. Then they beef up the higher pound line to make it seem like they have "the strongest line on the market, pound for pound" even though the breaking strength is actually 30-40% higher than what they have listed, based on diameter.

That's an interesting theory. I've also always wondered if most people's expectation for breaking strength is warped due to companies trying to be stronger than others by increasing diameters and knowing the average person won't pay attention to diameter. Like if a 10 lb line actually breaks at 10 lbs everyone would think it's junk line because they're used to 10b rated line that breaks at 12 or more.

[Tywithay]

4 minutes ago, Vilas15 said:

That's an interesting theory. I've also always wondered if most people's expectation for breaking strength is warped due to companies trying to be stronger than others by increasing diameters and knowing the average person won't pay attention to diameter. Like if a 10 lb line actually breaks at 10 lbs everyone would think it's junk line because they're used to 10b rated line that breaks at 12 or more.

Happens fairly often. I know a lot of people that think Sunline Supernatural is a "weak" line, because they're used to their 14lb US line breaking at 17-20lbs, while Sunline 14lb breaks at precisely 14lb. I wish they'd do away with weight ratings altogether and just sell line by diameter, but that'd throw a serious monkey wrench into the process after so many years. The average fisherman wouldn't have a clue.

[Hulkster]

in the suffix lines as well there is a big jump from 10 to 12 pound test.

 

goes from 0.012 to 0.014 all other increases go up by 0001 inches.

 

not sure why either??

[fissure_man]

More examples, for those interested.  (data source: http://www.tacklebox.co.uk/images/line-test/Tackle-Box-Line-Tests.pdf).  Note that this is not the same data set as above, I didn't conduct the tests/measurements, and info on methods is available at the link.

 

 

 

[Team9nine]

And with better data, we see better graphs, and what seems to me like a nice positive correlation between breaking strength and line diameter without all the noise and variability in the first data set, regardless of how often the manufacturers choose to mislabel their lines. 

 

Nice job...

[WRB]

Now all that is needed is to identify the dots. This shows honesty in measuring vs published diameters, tensile strength is not as reliable.

Agree, nice work.

Tom

 

 

[fissure_man]

Thanks for the replies.

 

@Team9nine – to be fair, the second set is presented differently than the first.  The first set does show a pretty similar positive correlation between rated strength and stated diameter; I removed it by normalizing the data as % above/below the group average.  I’ve grouped everything together in the plot below:

 

 

- Average rated strength vs stated diameter is similar between data sets 1 and 2, data set 1 is somewhat more variable.

 

- For data set 2, comparing rated/stated vs tested/measured trends (red and black lines) confirms the tendency of manufacturers to under-rate their lines.

 

- Interestingly, the scatter in the relationship between ‘actual strength’ and ‘measured diameter’ is not significantly less than in the relationship between ‘rated strength’ and ‘stated diameter’ for data set #2.  Some of the variance must come from test/measurement methods and limited number of samples, but it was reported that 5 samples of each line were tested – not too shabby.  The rest should actually show the difference in material characteristics of the lines – the range of ‘true strength’ to ‘true diameter’ of the different line materials, as well as consistency in manufacturing.

[Team9nine]

I think a lot of the variation seen with the latter set was the fact that the initial test (source data) used two different knots to attach his lines, which while well intentioned, is questionable in approach.

 

The first data set, while nicely analyzed using a different methodology, just used an (arguably) wrong choice of graph (Note - I'm not a trained statistician, but I work with a bunch of them  ).

 

Enjoyed the analysis though ?

[fissure_man]

The link I posted doesn’t go into much detail (maybe there's a more complete source?), but reading between the lines I understood it to be two different knots, grinner (uni?) and knotless (snell?), used to attach to the two ends of the test frame.  I assume each test used the same two knots, and it was stated that 5 tests were averaged for each line.  If this is correct, it’s a pretty reasonable approach I thought.  If they were using different knots for different tests / line types I agree that’s questionable, not sure why they would do that.

 

Adding any knot brings another source for error or bias, but averaging 5 tests should help (with the error part), and knotted strength is more relevant than intact anyway.  It would be interesting to know the range of strengths observed in each set of five tests, not just the average.

[ChrisD46]

Thinnest line with greatest actual breaking strength above rated pound test (top five) would be great to see ...