Braid diameter question

[dgkasper58]

I have noticed that a lot of people on here are using various break strength on their braids while stating that 50 lb is overkill.  Most of my baitcasters with braid have 40-50 lb on them.  The only reason I chose one or the other is because of price/availability at the time of purchase.

 

Most braid is relatively VERY close in diameter.  Looking at 20 lb braid it is .010'' while the 50 lb braid is .014''.  Do you think that the .004'' (or .1mm) is a big deal?  My thinking is that I would rather have 30 lbs of break strength for .004''. 

 

What are your thoughts?

[WRB]

Have you ever tried to measure braid, it's yard and flattens. I realize the manufacture lists the braids diameter which is calucaleted by the number is strands in  circular mil area. You read that 4 carrier braid flattens and 8 carrier braid stay rounder and could be based on how tight, number picks per inch, the braid is made, it's not round. 

Most anglers select braid by it's advertise dia, not break strength.

Tom

[Choporoz]

I've never measured my braid and have no idea what the diameters of it are.  But, I do know that the 20# on my MF 'light flipping' rod (and heavier spinning rods) casts much better than the 40-50# that I use on my 'heavier' rods. 

[Team9nine]

Braid diameter is usually a close measurement, but not exact. Most people use a particular pound test of braid because it mimics the approx diameter of the nylon/fluoro they would typically use, or they go heavier because thicker braid tends to handle better on a baitcaster (less digging, etc.).

 

As for your diameter difference (.004), one could argue a matter of opinion, but why not treat braid like you would other line types and assume the thinner diameter will deliver some presentation benefits (longer casts, less line drag, better lure action, etc.).

[dgkasper58]

1 minute ago, Team9nine said:

Braid diameter is usually a close measurement, but not exact. Most people use a particular pound test of braid because it mimics the approx diameter of the nylon/fluoro they would typically use, or they go heavier because thicker braid tends to handle better on a baitcaster (less digging, etc.).

 

As for your diameter difference (.004), one could argue a matter of opinion, but why not treat braid like you would other line types and assume the thinner diameter will deliver some presentation benefits (longer casts, less line drag, better lure action, etc.).

That is kind of what I am looking at does the longer cast, lure action, and line drag outweigh the 30 lbs break strength, assuming more abrasive resistant, and less spool digging.

[Team9nine]

26 minutes ago, dgkasper58 said:

That is kind of what I am looking at does the longer cast, lure action, and line drag outweigh the 30 lbs break strength, assuming more abrasive resistant, and less spool digging.

A decision everyone has to make for themselves. For me, it's a no-brainer...I always go smaller, though I could see a specific instance or two where the opposite might be better (perhaps frogging, punching).

[Further North]

4 hours ago, WRB said:

Most anglers select braid by it's advertise dia, not break strength.

I select by advertised diameter, then do a little figurin' about leaders...then work from there, based on how it works on the water.

 

PDCA.

[soflabasser]

On 5/2/2018 at 3:01 PM, dgkasper58 said:

I have noticed that a lot of people on here are using various break strength on their braids while stating that 50 lb is overkill.  Most of my baitcasters with braid have 40-50 lb on them.  The only reason I chose one or the other is because of price/availability at the time of purchase.

 

Most braid is relatively VERY close in diameter.  Looking at 20 lb braid it is .010'' while the 50 lb braid is .014''.  Do you think that the .004'' (or .1mm) is a big deal?  My thinking is that I would rather have 30 lbs of break strength for .004''. 

 

What are your thoughts?

You are going to get a lot of answers on this subject since everyone has their idea of what the best pound test is for braid for bass fishing. For example, most people use 50-65 pound braid for frog fishing and feel thats what they need and others like me are comfortable with 30 pound test braid for frog fishing. For me 50 pound braid is for saltwater fishing or throwing muskie/big bass lures and even then I prefer using 20-25 pound test mono mainline when fishing with big lures. With that said I do see the use of using 65-80 pound test braid if someone is fishing extremely heavy aquatic vegetation for big bass.

[Angry John]

When I look at braid I am worried about shock strength.  20 lb mono was used for frog fishing long ago.  The hook set in most cases would not breAK the line.  You try and hammer home a frog fish with 20 braid and the line is toast.  The same case applies to larger baits.  If you backlash on light braid the bait is gone.  If you always had perfect casts then you can use much lighter line.  It's all about your skill and how much risk you want to take.

[WRB]

It's true that braid dia published are all within .001 dia for lb test.

The variance lies in monofilament line FC, Copoly, Nylon mono where can be .002 to .003 dia Per lb test. Comparing .004-.005 difference; Sunline Defier Armilo 13 lb (.012d) vs 25 lb (.016d), or Berkley Big Game 12 lb (.014d) vs 25 lb (.019d).

So yes .004 is a big difference with line diameters. 50 lb braid (.014d) is so much easier to cast and handle with a baitcasting reel vs 20 lb (.010d).

Tom

[Brad in Texas]

I don't know if this will help, but part of the confusion with tensile strength metrics relates to the fact that there are two formulas at work and . . . at odds with each other a bit.

 

One is the circumference of a line is = 2 * Radius * 3.14 (pi) (so that is the same as diameter * pi).  But, the formula for the cross-sectional area is = 3.14 (pi) * r squared.

 

Whenever you see a number in an equation squared (or cubed, etc.) it means it makes an outsized contribution to the result.

 

Well, getting back to that tiny difference the OP mentions in braid diameters (or, of course the radius, too). It is tiny as it relates the the circumference of the line; but, the tiny increment is much more significant in the calculation of area. 

 

Why is the cross-sectional area of a line important? The tensile strengths of things like string, line, fishing line, ropes and muscles are proportional to the cross-sectional area. If you double the cross-sectional area, you essentially double the line strength. A line's diameter doesn't have to increase all that much to make such a leap in strength.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Math quiz for those of you not already bored to death with my math primer: If you are paddling a kayak or a canoe and getting a speed of 3 MPH using a larger paddle blade and making less strokes to achieve the speed, then achieve the same speed using a thinner paddle blade but making more strokes, in which case do you burn more energy? The answer, oddly, relates to the same rationale as I mentioned above.  Brad  P.S. Going fishing in the AM, will answer later!

[NittyGrittyBoy]

What is larger paddle with less strokes burns less energy Alex. 

 

 

 

 

(Jeporady reference)

[WRB]

1 hour ago, Brad in Texas said:

I don't know if this will help, but part of the confusion with tensile strength metrics relates to the fact that there are two formulas at work and . . . at odds with each other a bit.

 

One is the circumference of a line is = 2 * Radius * 3.14 (pi) (so that is the same as diameter * pi).  But, the formula for the cross-sectional area is = 3.14 (pi) * r squared.

 

Whenever you see a number in an equation squared (or cubed, etc.) it means it makes an outsized contribution to the result.

 

Well, getting back to that tiny difference the OP mentions in braid diameters (or, of course the radius, too). It is tiny as it relates the the circumference of the line; but, the tiny increment is much more significant in the calculation of area. 

 

Why is the cross-sectional area of a line important? The tensile strengths of things like string, line, fishing line, ropes and muscles are proportional to the cross-sectional area. If you double the cross-sectional area, you essentially double the line strength. A line's diameter doesn't have to increase all that much to make such a leap in strength.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Math quiz for those of you not already bored to death with my math primer: If you are paddling a kayak or a canoe and getting a speed of 3 MPH using a larger paddle blade and making less strokes to achieve the speed, then achieve the same speed using a thinner paddle blade but making more strokes, in which case do you burn more energy? The answer, oddly, relates to the same rationale as I mentioned above.  Brad  P.S. Going fishing in the AM, will answer later!

You over look the basics, braid isn't the area of 1 circle, it's the combined area of several circular bunches or similar to calculating circular mil area of a multi strand wire bundle made up of several wire groups. This is further compounded by the fact that braid isn't round.

Tom

[Brad in Texas]

21 hours ago, NittyGrittyBoy said:

What is larger paddle with less strokes burns less energy Alex. 

 

 

 

 

(Jeporady reference)

You win the prize! A bigger paddle, less strokes, less kinetic energy than the dude with smaller paddle, paddling very fast. Again that squaring thing.  Brad

[Brad in Texas]

20 hours ago, WRB said:

You over look the basics, braid isn't the area of 1 circle, it's the combined area of several circular bunches or similar to calculating circular mil area of a multi strand wire bundle made up of several wire groups. This is further compounded by the fact that braid isn't round.

Tom

Exactly. I overlooked the "basics" since roundness wasn't the real issue nor is the number of strands in braid, just that tensile strengths in objects relate to their cross-sectional areas. It could have been any number of shapes but, man, how often do you get to work pi into a fishing post! But, anyway, using what are essentially round things (our fishing lines), it was just a way of showing that a little bit of extra diameter gets magnified by the squaring of the radius. 

 

Brad

[ChrisD46]

Most tend to standardize on a bait caster with either 30 lb. braid for swim jigs , chatter baits , etc. then jump up to 50 lb. or 65 lb. for frogs and flipping . Line digging in the reel is a consideration thus why the 30 lb. tends to be at the smallest end of what most throw without line digging in .

[dgkasper58]

On 5/6/2018 at 8:14 PM, Brad in Texas said:

Exactly. I overlooked the "basics" since roundness wasn't the real issue nor is the number of strands in braid, just that tensile strengths in objects relate to their cross-sectional areas. It could have been any number of shapes but, man, how often do you get to work pi into a fishing post! But, anyway, using what are essentially round things (our fishing lines), it was just a way of showing that a little bit of extra diameter gets magnified by the squaring of the radius. 

 

Brad

Thanks for the math basics...

 

Doesn't really apply to 4 strand or 8 strand braid but you got your pi on