Line Diameter to Break Strength

[J Francho]

Does anyone have a table that lists many of the lines, diameters and ratings?  It looks like XT is pretty similar in size but it's also known for it's stoutness.  A table with Yo-Zuri and others would be nice.  Maybe I'll compile one.

I think someone did one a year ago, or so.  Problem is, it seems to vary as you move from light to heavy lines.

I just peeled my numbers from the BPS site.

[J Francho]

P-Line Hydrafloat. Reviews from several ranged from ho-hum to hating it. Remember though, steelheading is a bit slower moving than bass angling as far as equipment evolution goes.

And as for the flyrod for trout, one thing: SNAGGER!!!!

(Just kidding ;D)

Say what?? Them's fightin' words you know.

Admit it, you have a spey rod loaded with 25# mono, and two gumball sized sinkers about 4" above a #2 hook.  ;D

[Team9nine]

After all is said and done, no line transition made a greater impact on my spinning experience than braided line.

Its line-diameter vs. test-strength is unparalleled, it's virtually non-stretch which in effect raises the tensile modulus of the blank,

enhancing the sensitivity and allowing "flick-of-the-wrist" hook-sets. And for spinning junkies like myself,

you can't help but fall in love with the "zero-memory" limpness of the line.

So what does that leaveLine Visibility? Ironically, in a recent thread Glenn stated that he didn't like Fireline braid

because he's a line-watcher and when wearing polarized glasses he can't see the braided line.

Yet, there are many anglers who fret over the visibility of braid and add a fluorocarbon leader (I never do).

Paradoxically, and in spite of its refractive index, I've seen fluorocarbon line that looked like an underwater icicle!

Back to braided line, I've tried Sufix braid, PowerPro braid and Berkley braid and though I like them all, my latest squeeze

is Berkley Fireline Tracer braid...yeah Tracer, so I can see the line ;D

Roger

The flame green Fireline or yellow PowerPro will fix that visibility issue up right quick  8-)  ;D

[J Francho]

It's a little uncanny John, but your line experience has taken many of the same paths as mine.

Except I did it in less time. Admittedly, just when I was really starting understand how to try and catch bass (late 80s through now) the industry open a ton of doors to new, and better tackle. There didn't seem to be much revolution going on before, besides plastic worms, spinning reels, and nylon mono filament.

By "zebes," I do mean zebra and quagga mussels. The latter seem less picky about where they grow, and I've even run into them encrusting coontail and milfoil! Talk about a terrible place to be with the 50# braid that everyone here recommends for heavy vegetation, LOL.

[Paul Roberts]

P-Line Hydrafloat. Reviews from several ranged from ho-hum to hating it. Remember though, steelheading is a bit slower moving than bass angling as far as equipment evolution goes.

And as for the flyrod for trout, one thing: SNAGGER!!!!

(Just kidding ;D)

Say what?? Them's fightin' words you know.

Admit it, you have a spey rod loaded with 25# mono, and two gumball sized sinkers about 4" above a #2 hook. ;D

#1's legal

Is sponge still popular? There was a time when that was all you EVER saw ANYONE using. I snagged one steelhead on sponge -being shown the ropes by a friend back in '76. Didn't feel right (and wasn't) so I broke out a spinning rod and marabou jigs and CAUGHT two more. My buddy almost had a heart attack. Anyway...we're going OT again. Oh yes, I caught them on Trilene XL.

[Paul Roberts]

After all is said and done, no line transition made a greater impact on my spinning experience than braided line.

Its line-diameter vs. test-strength is unparalleled, it's virtually non-stretch which in effect raises the tensile modulus of the blank,

enhancing the sensitivity and allowing "flick-of-the-wrist" hook-sets. And for spinning junkies like myself,

you can't help but fall in love with the "zero-memory" limpness of the line.

So what does that leaveLine Visibility? Ironically, in a recent thread Glenn stated that he didn't like Fireline braid

because he's a line-watcher and when wearing polarized glasses he can't see the braided line.

Yet, there are many anglers who fret over the visibility of braid and add a fluorocarbon leader (I never do).

Paradoxically, and in spite of its refractive index, I've seen fluorocarbon line that looked like an underwater icicle!

Back to braided line, I've tried Sufix braid, PowerPro braid and Berkley braid and though I like them all, my latest squeeze

is Berkley Fireline Tracer braid...yeah Tracer, so I can see the line ;D

Roger

The flame green Fireline or yellow PowerPro will fix that visibility issue up right quick 8-) ;D

Brian isn't using a leader either -tying direct. He just didn't know any better . Turns out the bass didn't either -to the tune of...how many now Brian? Pretty cool test to an age old question on line visibility to fish, and what it means.

[Team9nine]

Brian isn't using a leader either -tying direct. He just didn't know any better . Turns out the bass didn't either -to the tune of...how many now Brian? Pretty cool test to an age old question on line visibility, and what it means.

Just over 200 bass on the flame green FL and more recently the red PP since Halloween. My warped theory on all of this right now is that bass have to learn (be conditioned) to correlate the line with the negative experience (being caught), not necessarily a quick process in the wild. It's also proven that they can identify and distinguish all colors of line once so trained (conditioned).

So my theory is that since very few bass anglers, at least around my parts, ever use the very Hi-vis lines (flame green FL, Berkley XT Solar, yellow PP, golden Stren, etc.), the fish haven't "learned" to react/relate negatively to it yet. Everybody likes to throw green or clear line, and so I think sometimes it's more difficult to catch bass on these lines than on the hi-vis lines due to the extreme difference in angler use (conditioning/over-exposure).

-T9

[Paul Roberts]

... It's also proven that they can identify and distinguish all colors of line once so trained (conditioned).

There was an early study that showed bass could actually see lines as light as they tested -6lb test. It's what line "means" to the bass that matters.

[RoLo]

Except I did it in less time.

Funny, but I came close to typing that you compressed the time frame (I'm okay with that).

Talk about a terrible place to be with the 50# braid that everyone here recommends for heavy vegetation, LOL.

To be sure, braid has many virtues, but it's NOT the weed-wacker that many would have us believe.

Living in the heartland of aquatic vegees, I'm in the habit of constantly feeling my line for frays

and frequently retying for any little reason.

Roger

[RoLo]

Team9nine wrote

My warped theory on all of this right now is that bass have to learn (be conditioned) to correlate the line with the negative experience (being caught), not necessarily a quick process in the wild.

We know for sure that every bass we catch on a plug has seen the lure.

It's almost certain that the bass also seen the gaudy treble hooks dangling from the plug,

but accepted them as part of the meal. They also accept the rattlebox and bristle weedguard

on a jig, the beads on a C-rig, the sliding bullet sinker on a T-rig and the weedless hook in a W-rig.

If bass are so tolerant of all these gaudy contraptions, why are all bets off

when they glimpse a fine filament in the water?

As I mentioned above, I've seen fluorocarbon line in sunlight that looked like an underwater icicle.

Fortunately for anglers, line visibility probably means little or nothing to bass.

On the other hand, "line-drag" caused by heavy diameter line is a whole other ballgame.

Regardless of line color or line visibility, skewing the natural drift of the lure (i.e. stream fishing)

or stifling the action of the lure can blow the gig. Clear water makes it much easier for fish

to detect unnatural lure action, where finer diameter line is often needed (e.g. Dale Hollow Reservoir).

Nevertheless, "line visibility" generally gets the blame. (Braid by the way, is fine diameter line)

Roger

[Paul Roberts]

...On the other hand, "line-drag" caused by heavy diameter line is a whole other ballgame.

Regardless of line color or line visibility, skewing the natural drift of the lure (i.e. stream fishing)

or stifling the action of the lure can blow the gig. Clear water makes it much easier for a fish

to detect unnatural lure action, where finer diameter line is often needed (Dale Hollow Reservoir).

Nevertheless, "line visibility" will generally get the blame.

Roger

Exactly.

As to the Dale Hollow reference -another BIG advantage with fine lines is their ability to maintain good presentation and detection to deeper fish.

[Team9nine]

We know for sure that every bass we catch on a plug has seen the lure.

It's almost certain that the bass also seen the gaudy treble hooks dangling from the plug,

but accepted them as part of the meal. They also accept the rattlebox and bristle weedguard

on a jig, the beads on a C-rig, the sliding bullet sinker on a T-rig and the weedless hook in a W-rig.

If bass are so tolerant of all these gaudy contraptions, why are all bets off

when they glimpse a fine filament in the water?

As I mentioned above, I've seen fluorocarbon line in sunlight that looked like an underwater icicle.

Fortunately for anglers, line visibility probably means little or nothing to bass.

On the other hand, "line-drag" caused by heavy diameter line is a whole other ballgame.

Regardless of line color or line visibility, skewing the natural drift of the lure (i.e. stream fishing)

or stifling the action of the lure can blow the gig. Clear water makes it much easier for fish

to detect unnatural lure action, where finer diameter line is often needed (e.g. Dale Hollow Reservoir).

Nevertheless, "line visibility" generally gets the blame. (Braid by the way, is fine diameter line)

Roger

That correlates exactly with my point Roger, just stated it in a different way. There are so many other "things" that a bass could try and associate negatively with being caught, it would be unlikely that they would immediately single out something like line. That said, things that might stand out the most (be most obvious or salient to the fish) like very hi-vis line could eventually become less effective if some bass eventually started associating those obvious cues to negative experiences in high pressure waters, especially the larger more "instinctive" bass.

Good second point also. I myself have generally played the odds by where using increased line diameter usually means increased weight of the lure to compensate for that drag, but you can only play that game to a certain end before you start losing some of the time.

-T9

[RoLo]

...On the other hand, "line-drag" caused by heavy diameter line is a whole other ballgame.

Regardless of line color or line visibility, skewing the natural drift of the lure (i.e. stream fishing)

or stifling the action of the lure can blow the gig. Clear water makes it much easier for a fish

to detect unnatural lure action, where finer diameter line is often needed (Dale Hollow Reservoir).

Nevertheless, "line visibility" will generally get the blame.

Roger

Exactly.

As to the Dale Hollow reference -another BIG advantage with fine lines is their ability to maintain good presentation to deeper fish.

Nowhere is the effect of line diameter more dramatic than in the ocean.

Let's say that you're drifting in 100 ft of water with 20 lb line, and a 4 oz sinker is just barely bumping bottom.

You fetch a rod out of the socket that's spooled with 30 lb line.

On this outfit you'll have to step-up to a 6 or 8 oz sinker before you feel the sinker bumping bottom.

Roger

[rubba bubba]

I put together a table of lines and their sizes. The first is sorted alphabetically, the second I sorted by size for 12lbs rating. If there are other lines someone would like added, let me know. What's interesting is a 12lbs mono is approximately the size of a 15-17lbs fluoro - which begs the question and point you guys have been making: is Fluoro really invisible vs. Mono, or is it because of the difference in diameter?

[Paul Roberts]

...On the other hand, "line-drag" caused by heavy diameter line is a whole other ballgame.

Regardless of line color or line visibility, skewing the natural drift of the lure (i.e. stream fishing)

or stifling the action of the lure can blow the gig. Clear water makes it much easier for a fish

to detect unnatural lure action, where finer diameter line is often needed (Dale Hollow Reservoir).

Nevertheless, "line visibility" will generally get the blame.

Roger

Exactly.

As to the Dale Hollow reference -another BIG advantage with fine lines is their ability to maintain good presentation to deeper fish.

Nowhere is the effect of line diameter more dramatic than in the ocean.

Let's say that you're drifting in 100 ft of water with 20 lb line, and a 4 oz sinker is just barely bumping bottom.

You fetch a rod out of the socket that's spooled with 30 lb line.

On this outfit you'll have to step-up to a 6 or 8 oz sinker before you feel the sinker bumping bottom.

Roger

At a diff scale, I've found 4#XL matched with a 1/16oz jig to be akin to 8#XL with a 1/8oz jig. They seem to present similarly in terms of sink rate/depth and speed (Doesn't appear to be a linear relationship).

But I can go one better (not competitively of course) -moving water! Current separates the spiderwebs from the ropes quickly, as you mention. Then drop the temperature, with associated increased water density, and line diameter weighs in huge. If this sounds unnecessarily anal, ask trout in 40F moving water. They'll set you straight.

rubba -THANK YOU for that table. That's something I can use. BTW: FC is NOT invisible -that's a myth. Having a refractive index close to that of water is not all that's involved. Consider it a myth, a distortion of a scientific measurement.

[RoLo]

Paul Roberts wrote

At a diff scale, I've found 4#XL matched with a 1/16oz jig to be akin to 8#XL with a 1/8oz jig. They seem to present similarly in terms of sink rate/depth and speed (Doesn't appear to be a linear relationship).

Not linear at all.

If the line in the water remained arrow-straight then it might be linear, but the monkey-wrench is "Line-Belly".

Though rarely discussed on the boards, line-belly is the culprit that quickly converts negligible resistance into supra drag.

In my tenderfoot years on the ocean, I was marking bluefish about 30 ft below the surface in water about 150 ft deep.

Several unproductive trolling passes told me that my lure wasn't getting down to the fish. I began paying out line

behind the boat but to no avail. Frustrated, I paid more-and-more line astern, and though my backing was past the tip-top guide,

there was still no takedown. Then I noticed something weird, a raucous group of Franklin gulls were following my boat

about 100 yards in its wake. They seemed to be taking turns diving toward the ocean, but invariably

changed their mind just before entering the water. I finally come to my senses, and realized that they could see my Clark spoon

under the water, but it was just beneath their diving capability (a good thing for both of us).

Due to cumulative line-drag, my lure had reached its terminal depth, so when I paid out more line, the lure simply rode upward

in the water column as it departed from the nadir of the line-belly. That's a lesson I will never forget.

Roger

[Paul Roberts]

Paul Roberts wrote

At a diff scale, I've found 4#XL matched with a 1/16oz jig to be akin to 8#XL with a 1/8oz jig. They seem to present similarly in terms of sink rate/depth and speed (Doesn't appear to be a linear relationship).

Not linear at all.

If the line in the water remained arrow-straight then it might be linear, but the monkey-wrench is "Line-Belly".

Though rarely discussed on the boards, line-belly is the culprit that quickly converts negligible resistance into supra drag.

In my tenderfoot years on the ocean, I was marking bluefish about 30 ft below the surface in water about 150 ft deep.

Several unproductive trolling passes told me that my lure wasn't getting down to the fish. I began paying out line

behind the boat but to no avail. Frustrated, I paid more-and-more line astern, and though my backing was past the tip-top guide,

there was still no takedown. Then I noticed something weird, a raucous group of Franklin gulls were following my boat,

about 100 yards in its wake. They seemed to be taking turns diving toward the water, but invariably

changed their mind just before entering the water. I finally come to my senses, they could actually see my Clark spoon

under the water, but it was just below their diving capability.

Due to cumulative lin-drag, my lure had reached its terminal depth and as I paid out more line, the lure simply rode upward

in the water column as it departed from the nadir of line-belly. That's a lesson I will never forget.

Roger

;D That's a great, and telling, story.

Line belly: Hence my interest in the density of FC. Whether it pans out to be a real advantage -I find no other in FC -remains to be seen.

Also, (to get further anal -you can blame trout) I think the non-linear relationship when you change line diameters, even if you COULD keep a straight line, may also have to do with the 3D (cylindrical) shape of line -meaning, mathematically, volume comes into the picture. That's a guess --I am no mathematician.

Suffice it to say -diameter matters.

[RoLo]

Paul Roberts wrote

At a diff scale, I've found 4#XL matched with a 1/16oz jig to be akin to 8#XL with a 1/8oz jig. They seem to present similarly in terms of sink rate/depth and speed (Doesn't appear to be a linear relationship).

Not linear at all.

If the line in the water remained arrow-straight then it might be linear, but the monkey-wrench is "Line-Belly".

Though rarely discussed on the boards, line-belly is the culprit that quickly converts negligible resistance into supra drag.

In my tenderfoot years on the ocean, I was marking bluefish about 30 ft below the surface in water about 150 ft deep.

Several unproductive trolling passes told me that my lure wasn't getting down to the fish. I began paying out line

behind the boat but to no avail. Frustrated, I paid more-and-more line astern, and though my backing was past the tip-top guide,

there was still no takedown. Then I noticed something weird, a raucous group of Franklin gulls were following my boat,

about 100 yards in its wake. They seemed to be taking turns diving toward the water, but invariably

changed their mind just before entering the water. I finally come to my senses, they could actually see my Clark spoon

under the water, but it was just below their diving capability.

Due to cumulative lin-drag, my lure had reached its terminal depth and as I paid out more line, the lure simply rode upward

in the water column as it departed from the nadir of line-belly. That's a lesson I will never forget.

Roger

;D That's a great, and telling, story.

Line belly: Hence my interest in the density of FC. Whether it pans out to be a real advantage -I find no other in FC -remains to be seen.

Also, (to get further anal -you can blame trout) I think the non-linear relationship when you change line diameters, even if you COULD keep a straight line, may also have to do with the 3D (cylindrical) shape of line -meaning, mathematically, volume comes into the picture. That's a guess --I am no mathematician.

Suffice it to say -diameter matters.

True.

Let's do the math...without getting into chords (i.e. line-belly).

BERKLEY BIG GAME

20 lb = 0.017 line dia.

30 lb = 0.021 line dia.

Okay, 0.004 (4/1000 inch) doesn't sound like very much, but let's suppose you have 20 ft of line in the water.

If we multiply 0.004 x 20-ft, then we're dragging an extra wad through the water whose area is more than 1/4" square (0.281 or 9/32 square).

Mind you, that's only the DIFFERENCE between the two lines.

Now add the line-belly to the straight-line resistance and the planer board effect goes over the top.

Many years ago, there was a noted bluewater gamefisherman named Robinson (don't remember his first name).

He introduced a revolutionary technique for wearing down big bluewater gamefish like tuna, marlin and in his day, swordfish.

The so-called "Robinson System" called for nothing special for a rod, but mandated the use of very heavy line

and a large-capacity conventional reel (Penn Int'l). After hooking up, Robinson ran his boat abreast of the beast at full-throttle,

stripping off as much line from the spool as possible. He maneuvered the boat in order to stay constantly abreast of the big fish,

which was forced to drag a gigantic loop of heavy-diameter line around the ocean. Robinson never put a meaningful arch in his rod,

until he began pumping the exhausted beast to gaff (no C&R back then). Although the Robinson System was highly efficient,

it never became very popular because the line-belly and the ocean fought the fish, rather than the angler.

Roger

[Paul Roberts]

Very cool Roger.

This comes into play in hook-set pressure too. Brian had a piece on his site that looked at this. Upon reading it, my mind immediately went to presentation and strike detection. I couldn't re-find the piece, so maybe he'll pop in again and add a link.

[J Francho]

I'm just catching up with this thread...

Paul, I am sure just about everyone that fishes streams for trout has snagged at one point or another.  I did.  Then I learned about floating tiny jigs, and the rest is history.  Nearly impossible to foul hook a fish on a float rig.  Yeh, OT again, LOL.

Roger, your point about fishing at depth and line diameter is well taken.  In many ways, I feel that  the smaller diameter lines, and more specifically, fluorocarbon that is so popular for fishing for Great Lakes smallies actually has more to do with getting a straight line connection to the offering - usually a drop shot tidbit or tube jig - and getting it down.  So many anglers have said to me that they get bit using FC more because the fish can't see it, and they are able to use a step up.  I think its because the stuff sinks.

As I mentioned before, I use braid and a lonnnnng FC leader, and while braid doesn't sink, I am using a very small diameter line, which overcomes the bow in the line.

While doing house chores today, there was a saltwater fishing show on, Ted Hernandez, I believe.  He echoed your point about deep salt fishing.  His parents were rigged up with 30 lb. rigs, while he stressed the importance of carrying a few 20 lb. rigs.  With his light line rig, he was able to penetrate the school of yellow fin tuna, and get to the bigger fish at the lower reaches of the feeding fish.  He consistently brought in bigger fish than his parents, despite being slightly under matched, and this drove his point home.

Once again...great stuff gents.

[Paul Roberts]

Paul, I am sure just about everyone that fishes streams for trout has snagged at one point or another. I did. Then I learned about floating tiny jigs, and the rest is history. Nearly impossible to foul hook a fish on a float rig. Yeh, OT again, LOL.

There are LOTS of ways to catch steelhead and avoid foul-hooking. First you have to WANT to avoid it -the first hurdle for many. Then you have to get know your tackle and how it operates in moving water. Then you're home free. Nuff said. We're on the same page. Hey, and it was almost on topic!

[Team9nine]

Brian had a piece on his site that looked at this. Upon reading it, my mind immediately went to presentation and strike detection. I couldn't re-find the piece, so maybe he'll pop in again and add a link.

Here you go Paul (Jul. 2007):

About 25 years ago, BASSMaster magazine ran a series of articles on monofilament line testing. Now we see line tests in magazines and online quite frequently. However, the neat thing about these tests were some of the variables covered that you don't typically hear about. In one particular test they documented transfer of energy through monofilaments at different distances using two different line ratings.

The test setup was basic but neat. Attach one end of your monofilament to a gauge down in the water at depth and then have a person set the hook at different distances and see how much energy is transferred to the hook. They did this with 8 pound and 20 pound monofilaments. They found several things. One was that as distance from the hooksetter increased (i.e. a longer cast), final force at the hook decreased. The closer the "fish" was to you when you set, the more force you delivered to the hook. Another was that 30' was the crossover point between the two different pound test ratings. In other words, at 30 feet, the force exerted at the hook was identical between the 8 and 20 pound test lines. The further you moved out past 30 feet, the more the advantage of using 8 pound line increased. Anything shorter than 30 feet and the 20 pound mono resulted in more force at the hook.

They explained this via stretch and the "bow" effect. The heavier the line the less the inherent stretch. However, this is overcome apparently at the 30 foot mark. This is then explained by the "bow" effect, basically not having a straight line to your bait at distance. You cast, the bait sinks, but it has to drag the line with it. Eight pound test being thinner, is pulled more easily through the water column and subsequently gives you a more straight line to your bait resulting in better transfer of energy, to the point of overcoming its stretch bias.

Kind of interesting and a little eye-opening. To this day you'll still hear people refer to these explanations when talking about the subject of lines and hooksets, though many of the materials have changed (braids, fusion and and fluorocarbon). After all this time though, I realized there was also one explanation I never heard given or considered. Maybe someone at some point has thought of this, but I haven't come across it yet in all my readings.

That is the factor of surface area. Every line for a given length has a given surface area. The longer the length of line in the water, the greater the surface area. This surface area has a resulting amount of drag. You have probably experienced this before and just never thought about it. Have you ever let a bunch of line trail off your spool into the water and trolled it behind your boat to undo line twist? Notice how the more line you let out, even with no bait attached the more your rod starts to bend because of this drag? Enough line out and it can feel just like winding in a fish or heavy object.

The chart attached (click for full chart) gives you the surface area in square inches for a given pound test/diameter of line and a given length of that line in the water. Double the diameter of your line or double the distance of your cast and your surface area increases proportionately. Now imagine the difference required to catch a bass that eats your bait at 80' on 14# test line versus one caught finessing off a bed on 6# test at say 40' distance. Surface area of your line is tripled and that resulting difference in drag has to be overcome. Just something to think about the next time a fish clears the air on a long hookset and throws your bait

[Paul Roberts]

Yes, that was it.

Line diameter affects presentation greatly and is one of the things that novices often tend to overlook. When I see lures that require a light line tied to rope -and "rope" could be 8lb line in some circumstances -I cringe.

It's not that they are lazy, but that they don't know, or have been unwilling to put the bucks into the range of rigs one needs to cover many bases. When I buy a new spinning reel, I buy 3 or 4 extra spools right off the bat -it's part of the purchase.

My spools now contain braid for shallows, and FC for the depths. And I'm still experimenting. At one time "mono" was virtually all we had.

I've thought for a long time that the biggest breakthroughs in tackle technology will come in the form of lines -and it appears to be happening. Can't wait to see what's coming!

One more thing to add about potential sensitivity in lines:

Rigidity. This makes line a bear to cast, but conversely should affect the ability of line to transmit vibrations.

Braid is so sensitive bc it has no stretch to absorb vibrations. But it loses sensitivity -completely -with any slack. This leads me to believe that stiffer lines, like FCs, should be more sensitive due to their rigidity. I distinctly remember fishing with a new rod and line combo I had years ago mid 80s. It was when IM6 appeared I believe. The rod was a Berkley Bionix and felt like a blade of straw in my hand. It was so sensitive coupled with XT (then the formula was stiffer low stretch now some shock absorption has been added), or with a Stren co-filament available then, with a polyester core. It actually shocked me to feel takes on plastics with a good bow hanging from the rod tip. Tap! Very cool, esp when fishing plastics and jigs on a nearly slack line.

So, I'm waiting for the next generation of line. My wish list is:

-Minute diameter

-Density to sink

-No stretch

-Rigidity for vibration transmission. (It will be SOOOO thin that it will handle beautifully on spinning reels of course lol).

SO, you engineers out there get busy. I'm sure they already are.

[Paul Roberts]

So...what do you all think? What would be the key properties would you like to see in line technology?

[K_Mac]

Paul I would add one to your list: High visibility above the water and low in the water.