Interesting stretch test

[T-Billy]

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrFPY1pogRjOS4E5Wlx.9w4;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzIEdnRpZANDT0NPNFRFU1QzXzEEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1661276905/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.fishtalkmag.com%2fblog%2ffishing-line-stretch-test-stretching-truth/RK=2/RS=3q5SLpgXZeyo_1.GPJfXKYlKA_g-

[fishballer06]

To make it easier for everyone else:

 

Line          Stretch at 50’        Stretch at 100’       Hook-set lbs. at 50’     Hook-set lbs. at 100’

Light braid	4 inches	10 inches	7 lbs	7 lbs
Light mono	12 inches	31 inches	5 lbs	4 lbs
Heavy braid	8 inches	12 inches	14 lbs	14 lbs
Heavy mono	41 inches	105 inches	5 lbs	3.5 lbs

[Choporoz]

Soooo....who would have thunk?  Dry mono stretches more than dry braid?

 

I guess I should applaud the author for sort of trying for a bit of data.  But he keeps torpedo-ing his own 'work' with silliness like 'scienc-y' and 'we tried to apply the same force each time'.  He's got ideas....maybe not ready for prime time yet

[Tennessee Boy]

That is a laughable bad way to measure stretch.   He sets the drag with a scale then uses the drag to measure the pull.  Your trying to measure the amount of stretch as the drag is slipping.  Why not just use the scale?  Also,  why do it horizontally where  line sag comes into play.  Looks like he was more interested in getting something for an online article than in being accurate.  There’s a lot of that on the Internet.  It’s easy to test line stretch.  Get a weight and a place where you can test it vertically.   I tested 20# Sunline Supernatural with a 5# weight off my upstairs balcony.  I got about 6% stretch.  I’ve never tested braid.

[T-Billy]

The author wasn't trying to conduct a controlled scientific experiment. He was just trying to get an idea of the amount of stretch to expect in real world use. The scienc-y comments were tongue in cheek I think. 

I found it interesting and was surprised at the amount of stretch with the heavier line.

[Tennessee Boy]

According to his numbers.  Light mono stretches 2% and heavy mono stretches 7%.

[Team9nine]

5 minutes ago, Tennessee Boy said:

According to his numbers.  Light mono stretches 2% and heavy mono stretches 7%.

In their testing, the heavy mono was subjected to double the force of the light mono, so that would be expected. When they locked down the drag, the light mono stretched 16 percent before breaking.

[ironbjorn]

My dad always says change will never happen in the world because you can't even get two people to agree on a cup of coffee. Funny how we see that in all things.

[A-Jay]

I simply refuse to respond to this thread unless it at least 10 degrees below zero with nipple deep snow.

?

A-Jay 

 

 

[Team9nine]

23 minutes ago, A-Jay said:

I simply refuse to respond to this thread unless it at least 10 degrees below zero with nipple deep snow.

?

A-Jay 

 

 

I wasn’t going to either, but… ?

 

It’s actually a pretty nice set of data with a few interesting findings worth pondering.

[ironbjorn]

[A-Jay]

6 minutes ago, Team9nine said:

I wasn’t going to either, but… ?

 

It’s actually a pretty nice set of data with a few interesting findings worth pondering.

How about we exchange the Mono with FC . . . .

Just for the 4 out of 5 bassheads who recommend FC 

to the bassheads who use mono. 

Wait, what now ??

A-Jay

[Team9nine]

12 minutes ago, A-Jay said:

How about we exchange the Mono with FC . . . .

Just for the 4 out of 5 bassheads who recommend FC 

to the bassheads who use mono. 

Wait, what now ??

A-Jay

That’s actually one of the nice corroborating data points from this study. If you compare this study using 14 lb XT (‘light mono’) with the Sunline produced study of 14 lb FC Sniper, elongation at knot break strength is practically identical at roughly 16% (Sunline ‘all knots’ average). 

[J Francho]

Lulz, saltwater guys call 14 lb. XT light mono.

[Tennessee Boy]

1 hour ago, Team9nine said:

In their testing, the heavy mono was subjected to double the force of the light mono, so that would be expected. When they locked down the drag, the light mono stretched 16 percent before breaking.

If I reading the numbers correctly,  both lines were tested with 1/3 of their ratings.   So 10# of force was applied to the 30# mono and 4.6# of force was applied to the 14# mono.   They should stretch about the same amount.  One stretched 12 inches,  the other stretched 41 inches.  Someone explain how this makes sense.

[Team9nine]

40 minutes ago, Tennessee Boy said:

If I reading the numbers correctly,  both lines were tested with 1/3 of their ratings.   So 10# of force was applied to the 30# mono and 4.6# of force was applied to the 14# mono.   They should stretch about the same amount.  One stretched 12 inches,  the other stretched 41 inches.  Someone explain how this makes sense.

 

You read it correctly, but it doesn't correlate that way. It is still a matter of applying double the force. Even though the pound test rating is theoretically doubled (100% increase), the force applied was doubled (100% increase), but the line diameter, when comparing the 14 and 30 pound lines (.016" to .022"), is only increased by about 38 percent, so the relationship won't be 1 to 1. If you doubled the line diameter (.016 to .032 in dia.) and doubled the force applied (5 lb to 10 lb), then you would probably see something much closer to what you were expecting (more similar stretch amounts).

[WRB]

Why use 14 lb XT @ .016D instead of 15 lb Big Game @ .015D?

Another factor is the rod was taken out of the equation point directly toward the pull force? Light vs heavy rod makes zero sense.

Tom

 

[Tennessee Boy]

1 hour ago, Team9nine said:

 

You read it correctly, but it doesn't correlate that way. It is still a matter of applying double the force. Even though the pound test rating is theoretically doubled (100% increase), the force applied was doubled (100% increase), but the line diameter, when comparing the 14 and 30 pound lines (.016" to .022"), is only increased by about 38 percent, so the relationship won't be 1 to 1. If you doubled the line diameter (.016 to .032 in dia.) and doubled the force applied (5 lb to 10 lb), then you would probably see something much closer to what you were expecting (more similar stretch amounts).

I think you need to measure the difference in the area of a cross section of the line not the difference in the diameter.   According to my math the 30# XT would be 89% more than the 14# XT.  So by that measure it is not twice as strong but it’s close.   The measured stretch of the 30# was 242% higher than the 14#.  That can’t be right according to my math.

[Team9nine]

14 minutes ago, Tennessee Boy said:

I think you need to measure the difference in the area of a cross section of the line not the difference in the diameter.   According to my math the 30# XT would be 89% more than the 14# XT.  So by that measure it is not twice as strong but it’s close.   The measured stretch of the 30# was 242% higher than the 14#.  That can’t be right according to my math.

Good point. Maybe one of our physics specialists can chime with what we’re missing. I still lean toward their data being correct because of how well it matches up with the Sunline data, and it just makes sense to me that doubling force would increase the elongation regardless of diameter/area, even if I can’t explain why ?

[Tatulatard]

6 minutes ago, Team9nine said:

Good point. Maybe one of our physics specialists can chime with what we’re missing. I still lean toward their data being correct because of how well it matches up with the Sunline data, and it just makes sense to me that doubling force would increase the elongation regardless of diameter/area, even if I can’t explain why ?

I'm in the same camp.  I fish big game mono in 8 and 20 lbs and regularly tug a length of line and admire the elastic stretch.  I can get both to stretch a good bit by hand.  It takes a little more force to get the 20 stretching but not double.  Tugging hard I can max out the 8# pretty easy and feel like I am past the elastic stretch and getting to the point where I am approaching plastic deformation.  When I do this with 20 lb bg I run out of reach to stretch by hand before I reach a point where I feel like I have stretched it to a point where it is maxing out elasticity.

[T-Billy]

3 hours ago, A-Jay said:

How about we exchange the Mono with FC . . . .

Just for the 4 out of 5 bassheads who recommend FC 

to the bassheads who use mono. 

Wait, what now ??

A-Jay

 

???

[Tatulatard]

? I  wonder if it is a simple as:

 

Low pound test mono = low amounts of force to stretch and a low stretch length before breaking 

 

High pound test mono = large amounts of force to stretch and a longer stretch length before breaking.  

 

If searching out that elastic stretch of the line and taking it into plastic deformation is what breaks the line the wouldn't higher pound test = higher stretch? 

[T-Billy]

2 hours ago, Team9nine said:

 

You read it correctly, but it doesn't correlate that way. It is still a matter of applying double the force. Even though the pound test rating is theoretically doubled (100% increase), the force applied was doubled (100% increase), but the line diameter, when comparing the 14 and 30 pound lines (.016" to .022"), is only increased by about 38 percent, so the relationship won't be 1 to 1. If you doubled the line diameter (.016 to .032 in dia.) and doubled the force applied (5 lb to 10 lb), then you would probably see something much closer to what you were expecting (more similar stretch amounts).

 

52 minutes ago, Tennessee Boy said:

I think you need to measure the difference in the area of a cross section of the line not the difference in the diameter.   According to my math the 30# XT would be 89% more than the 14# XT.  So by that measure it is not twice as strong but it’s close.   The measured stretch of the 30# was 242% higher than the 14#.  That can’t be right according to my math.

 Could it be a matter of volume? What's the difference in volume between the two lines over a 100' length? Same elasticity + more force applied to more volume = more stretch? Just a thought, I'm in over my head here.

[TnRiver46]

I’d rather have it stretch than break 

[Derek1]

I’m no expert here but we all no a skinny rubber band runs out of stretch and snaps. A fatter rubber band of the same length will stretch Much further. It’s as easy as there is more material to stretch. Regardless of the force it takes.