Mono vs fluoro

[PaulVE64]

The guys at Salt Strong are always testing knots and lines.

In their abrasion tests mono lasted longer than fluoro.

 

Just sayin

[ironbjorn]

1 hour ago, RDB said:

Like I said, fishing line is like politics and I’m not looking to argue.  Choose someone else from the post and go nuts.  I just got a popcorn refill.

I'm not seeking an argument with you. I'm addressing your post. The umbrella rig argument isn't one I typically see. You're talking about close contact. It doesn't make sense that the bass isn't spooked by the hook and weed guard of a jig but it is spooked by the harder to see line. It doesn't make sense that a bass isn't spooked by the weight and exposed hook of a drop shot but it is spooked by the harder to see line. It doesn't make sense that a bass isn't spooked by the shiny hooks bending out of the worm of a Texas Rig or the weight but it is spooked by the harder to see line. And on and on it goes. The hook is usually thicker and definitely more visible than your line. I get what you're saying though. Usually nobody will be convinced either way, like politics and religion. 

[cyclops2]

I want the last word.

O K ?

[Deleted account]

1 hour ago, PaulVE64 said:

The guys at Salt Strong are always testing knots and lines.

In their abrasion tests mono lasted longer than fluoro.

 

Just sayin

Technically speaking, fluoro is more abrasion resistant than mono, however in the real world mono will hold up better. Once compromised, fluoro looses it's strength much faster than mono. This is why their tests favor mono, they abrade the line under tension until it fails. Mono will win that battle almost without fail (pun intended). 

[LrgmouthShad]

22 hours ago, Team9nine said:

BASS RESOURCE

Home of the

Monofilament Fan Club

 

 

For more information: www.ihatefluoro.com 

That’s great

[Deleted account]

20 hours ago, CrashVector said:

The whole "fluorocarbon is less visible than mono bc its refractive index is closer to water" garbage has absolutely been PROVEN to be complete bulls**t.

Wait now, that is not accurate. Fluoro's refractive index IS closer to water's than mono, and under most conditions it is less visible. What is bovine excrement is that that difference will make a difference to bass. there are certain fish that are line shy, LMB just aren't. 

Fluoro users have enough issues, no need for fake news....  

[LrgmouthShad]

1 minute ago, Deleted account said:

bovine excrement

?

 

I prefer to say cow ***** 

[Deleted account]

1 minute ago, LrgmouthShad said:

?

 

I prefer to say cow ***** 

Cow one three fishing?...  

[cyclops2]

Last year a lot of bass were wearing NASA grade Refractive Index sunglasses. 

[CrashVector]

1 hour ago, Deleted account said:

Wait now, that is not accurate. Fluoro's refractive index IS closer to water's than mono, and under most conditions it is less visible. What is bovine excrement is that that difference will make a difference to bass. there are certain fish that are line shy, LMB just aren't. 

Fluoro users have enough issues, no need for fake news....  

 

It's refractive index is closer to water has NOTHING to do with how visible or invisible something is in water.  

 

https://www.slideserve.com/lesley/mathematical-theory-of-fishing-line-visibility

 

That's a slide show version for ease.

 

TL:DR version: since fishing line is essentially a cylinder, the refractive index has very little to do with its visibility.  

 

Glass has a MUCH higher refractive index than water.  Sheets of glass are all but invisible under water except at the edges.

 

A substrates SHAPE matters more than its refractive index once submerged.

 

Fluorocarbon lines are NOT invisible OR less visible than monofilament.  It's flat out false info and marketing b.s.

 

Also this:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/activeanglingnz.com/2016/01/04/the-fluorocarbon-myth/amp/

[TnRiver46]

15 hours ago, FrankN209 said:

Gar? Those are no joke

 

15 hours ago, gimruis said:

I assumed alligator gar too.

Alligator gar are the biggest ones, yes. We don’t have that species in east TN but I regularly catch long nose gar over 40”

 

spotted gar can also get pretty big. Shortnose gar are the smallest ones

[cyclops2]

Angle of sunlight is FAR MORE important.  It can be a very bright line in the morning and evening. 

[Deleted account]

1 hour ago, CrashVector said:

 

It's refractive index is closer to water has NOTHING to do with how visible or invisible something is in water.  

 

https://www.slideserve.com/lesley/mathematical-theory-of-fishing-line-visibility

 

That's a slide show version for ease.

 

TL:DR version: since fishing line is essentially a cylinder, the refractive index has very little to do with its visibility.  

 

Glass has a MUCH higher refractive index than water.  Sheets of glass are all but invisible under water except at the edges.

 

A substrates SHAPE matters more than its refractive index once submerged.

 

Fluorocarbon lines are NOT invisible OR less visible than monofilament.  It's flat out false info and marketing b.s.

 

Also this:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/activeanglingnz.com/2016/01/04/the-fluorocarbon-myth/amp/

Ok, but I'm still using fluro leader when snapper fishing in clear water cause I likes fillets...

[Todd2]

I remember asking this same question probably 15 years ago. But time has a way of making you forget. Every few years, I'll buy a spool of fluoro and try again. Always...and I mean always... I return to mono. What's the definition of insanity? Trying the same thing over and over expecting different results...lol

 

But...I know guys who love it, like many on here. 

 

I expect it may be debated for another 15 years or more.

[Finessegenics]

To those of you exclusively using mono, what do you consider premium mono? I know Big Game is good, I use it myself. Just curious to see what else is out there. 

[Choporoz]

I'm sold on fluoro slack-line-sensitivity....even if its imaginary.

 

  But i am quite amused that I got a (commercial) email a few hours ago that contained this: Mark Zona: "Compared to the old days of using monofilament line, which was like a rubber band, fluorocarbon has much less stretch and greater sensitivity."

 

 

[Robin]

I have tried fluoro a number of times and it always ends up being a PITA. For moving baits I have stuck with P-Line cxx, McCoys Xtra Clear, or Big Game. These have proven to be very abrasion resistant over the years and I do not have to worry about the occasional/frequent line compromise issues that arise with fluoro. I have landed 40b+ fish in the surf on 12lb. test Big Game and can certainly attest to its strength and resilience. For bottom contact I now use braid exclusively and it has the sensitivity and low stretch qualities I need. Always fish it with a cxx leader though for the abrasion factor and it works perfectly.

 

Not bad-mouthing fluoro, but it did not work great for me. I tried several brands including some of the premium ones. The backlashes, casting distance compromises, etc. were not worth putting up with. I also experienced several hang-ups which resulted in overstretching/weakening the line. Frequent line changes end up being a chore and the dollars start to add up.

[RDB]

5 hours ago, ironbjorn said:

I'm not seeking an argument with you. I'm addressing your post. The umbrella rig argument isn't one I typically see. You're talking about close contact. It doesn't make sense that the bass isn't spooked by the hook and weed guard of a jig but it is spooked by the harder to see line. It doesn't make sense that a bass isn't spooked by the weight and exposed hook of a drop shot but it is spooked by the harder to see line. It doesn't make sense that a bass isn't spooked by the shiny hooks bending out of the worm of a Texas Rig or the weight but it is spooked by the harder to see line. And on and on it goes. The hook is usually thicker and definitely more visible than your line. I get what you're saying though. Usually nobody will be convinced either way, like politics and religion. 

I’m confused and guessing you didn’t read my post.  I literally quoted and was replying to a post that was using umbrella rigs to prove the fallacy of fluoro.  Do you agree that most people (didn’t say me…I’m not sharing my opinion) typically refer to the visability advantages of fluoro in close contact presentations (either rightly or in your case wrongly)?  If yes, we agree and that’s all I said.  I intentionally avoided having an opinion outside of the specific umbrella rig argument because I knew it was a waste of time.  Maybe you weren’t looking for a fight.  However, it looks like you read the post and it triggered you into thinking I said something that I didn’t.  I am cool with that as I know this is a polarizing topic and one I wish to avoid.

 

Edit:  In your defense (not that you need defending), I have voiced my advocacy of fluoro in the past and you may have been a party in those discussions.  If that is the case, it is understandable that you might have assumed I was taking a position that I intentionally avoided.  Either way, it’s all good.

[CrashVector]

1 hour ago, Finessegenics said:

To those of you exclusively using mono, what do you consider premium mono? I know Big Game is good, I use it myself. Just curious to see what else is out there. 

 

I use a lot of big game.

 

The "premium mono" that I use is Trilene Sensation.

 

On my panfish spinning setups, I use Trilene XL.

59 minutes ago, Choporoz said:

I'm sold on fluoro slack-line-sensitivity....even if its imaginary.

 

  But i am quite amused that I got a (commercial) email a few hours ago that contained this: Mark Zona: "Compared to the old days of using monofilament line, which was like a rubber band, fluorocarbon has much less stretch and greater sensitivity."

 

 

 

False on both.

 

Fluoro stretches just like mono... The difference is that it is not elastic so once it stretches, it stays stretched and weakened.

[Choporoz]

2 minutes ago, CrashVector said:

 

False on both.

 

Fluoro stretches just like mono... The difference is that it is not elastic so once it stretches, it stays stretched and weakened.

Don't tell me.  Tell Z.

 

But I disagree. On both.  With you.  Not Zona.  The sensitivity is not the same...to me.   And the stretch is most certainly not the same...sooo many variables to consider, not least of which is whether you have measured stretch and 'return to shape' under 'wet' fishing conditions. 

 

I am NOT going to try to tell anyone that any one line is better for them.  But I am happy to argue that most measurables (and all subjective points) are (still) inconclusive

[TnRiver46]

1 hour ago, Finessegenics said:

To those of you exclusively using mono, what do you consider premium mono? I know Big Game is good, I use it myself. Just curious to see what else is out there. 

Says it right there on the label man……….

 

im joking of course, because this is the cheapest fishing line I’ve found. That’s over a mile for $3 (maybe $4, can’t recall). I’ve reeled in a lot of nice smallmouth, a couple 30 lb striper, and lots of 40” gar with it. I’m not going to be the forum guy that says “never had an issue” or “never had a break off” because I’ve been using the same line for over 30 years, I’m sure I’ve tangled it up at least once………

 

but it’s good line. Stong, affordable, catches fish. The rest is a placebo effect in my opinion 

[Bluebasser86]

A lot to be said about confidence. If you're confident in what you're using, you'll fish better. I use both lines for different uses and do so with confidence so I use them effectively. 

[Bankbeater]

I tried fishing with fluoro for a few years, after fishing with mono for years.  Except for the fluoro being way more stiff, I couldn't tell any difference between the two.

[CrashVector]

1 hour ago, Choporoz said:

 

But I disagree. On both.  With you.  Not Zona.  The sensitivity is not the same...to me.   And the stretch is most certainly not the same...sooo many variables to consider, not least of which is whether you have measured stretch and 'return to shape' under 'wet' fishing conditions. 

I dont say anything unless I have testing data to back me up, not opinions.

 

The sensitivity isn't the same...to you.  Data says otherwise.

 

Stretch most certainly isn't the same...except testing by MANY labs says otherwise.

 

Stretch and elasticity has been tested hundreds of times.  I'm correct.  You are not.

[MN Fisher]

5 minutes ago, CrashVector said:

Except the stretch has been measured, and you can easily look the data up for yourself.

Ya - by our own Frydog...maybe a 'garage experiment', but it's still telling.