Hi All,
A topical question as fluorocarbon is being discussed.
Given that pure fresh water has a specific gravity of 1.000, and oceanic sea water has a specific gravity of 1.035; and we have waters filling the diversity of that range once we include coastal water and brackish zones. And, within that range the refractive index of the different waters will change according to salinity.
Which water does fluorocarbon 'disappear?? Or is the whole issue of fluorocarbon a questionable concept??
Should manufacturers be more accurate in labelling their fluorocarbon products, as oceanic, coastal, brackish and fresh??? Or are we all being conned into buying a product that 'doesn't quite' do what it says it does???
Any wise souls out there with an opinion???
Cheers from sunny Africa
Jeri
Jeri from sunny S. Africa: I don't believe it ever disappears. If you look at the literature you will see that the manufacturers say it practically disappears. It is just less visible that other material. Dominick
I just ordered several spools from Black Pearl. I sure hope the whole fluoro thing isn't a chimera! :P
~A~
As I have said before, after the SOA trip I am a believer. I'm one of those guys who understands the science but who also understands that in the laboratory of the real world if it works it works. I am convinced floro works, weather it is do to increased sensitivity, near transparency or pixie dust, I dont care. I am just glad to bring home the extra fish.
Ron
i've gone back and forth on this one. i feel alot better about using spectra now, because i finally found a combination of knots that works with the line. i used alan chui's fluorocarbon on this last trip. the leaders were only 3-4 feet each. i had a tony pena knot from the spectra to the fluoro and a palomar or single san diego from the fluoro to the hook. that combination worked for me earlier this year on the maximus in puerto vallarta when i hooked into those six big yellowfin tuna. up until this time, i had tried a variety of knot combinations and just could not get it right. the knots were either too complicated or the failed. i'm feeling happy about fluorocarbon for the first time in 10 years.
as far as it's "invisibility," i'm not too worried. it is certainly not MORE visible that mono, so that makes it either a wash or better. for the minimal cost, i'll take the potential edge. :-\
Quote from: noyb72 on June 26, 2014, 05:42:34 PM
....in the laboratory of the real world if it works it works....
Words to live by!
My recent 15 day Red Rooster III trip was not one of my best by far, but I got bit better using the fluorocarbon so I have more confidence when I use it.
My favorite 100 pound sardine rig is 100 or 130 pound spectra connected to about 100' of 100 pound Izorline Premium XXX mono with a three foot section of fluorocarbon leader,. I use the overhand technique to connect the mono to the spectra, a Seaguar knot to connect the fluoro to the mono and a single San Diego knot to tie on a Mustad 11/0 or 12/0 circle hook. I've never had any failures using this connection method.
It was interesting to see that a lot of folks got bit just using a straight tie, mono to hook. I tried that a few times with not much success. I agree that using the fluorocarbon provides possible advantages and no discernible disadvantage.
josa1
My experiences with Flourocarbon for mangrove snapper fishing is that I can use it and catch fish and you can fish next to me with mono and not get a bite. Been proven many times over the years here.
I tend to agree with Dominick that it is less visible. I prefer the least number of knots possible, especially near the hook where there is the most pressure.
I concur with Dwight on the Mangrove Snapper they are notoriously leader and hook shy, I catch a lot more using flourocarbon than mono.
Sometimes even heavier 30# or 40# fluorocarbon will decrease the number of bites I get, and we typically use 20# and 25# leaders at least 20' long.
I'm not sure if this should be in this thread or not...but here goes. I've heard that when floro is nicked,scraped and or damaged, it will transmit light down it like those lamps from the 70's. You know the ones with the fiber optics. I use floro on EVERYTHING, including mono. So I can't say for sure that it is better or worse. It's worse if you don't have confidence in it. That's for sure.
I use mono for trolling (except for kokanee), almost everything else is short (5'-10') Fluro. On the LR trip the hot stick the first day of YT fishing was Jimmer's using one of my 40# rods with a sort 50# fluro topshot. He was in the top 5 or 6 the second day, so was I. I use Fluro for abrasion resistance, low stretch as well as clarity.
First, there is the question of: Is fluorocarbon line less visible underwater? In my opinion and based on what I have read and experienced over the years, I believe it is. However, I don't believe that it is completely transparent but rather more translucent then monofiliment.
Second, you have to ask: Does being more translucent really matter as much as the manufacturers would like us to believe? This is more contentious. I think that in certain applications that it can definitely matter but depends on a number of factors. What species you are fishing for? What time of day? How deep? How hungry are the fish? What's the water temp? Are you trolling or chunking with little current?
If you are chunking for BFT during the middle of the day then I would say that you are putting yourself at a significant disadvantage by not using it. This type of fishing is already really expensive so why not doing everything you can to try and increase your hookup ratio even if it is only marginal. However, if you are fishing at night, on a new moon, and are casting plugs to stripers in the wash, I think that it is pretty overrated. I seriously doubt that the guy next to you is hitting fish left and right just because he is using fluoro.
I bring both and use it if the fishing is slow or it is a really bright day. If you can afford it, I would say use it all the time to be safe. I change my leader and fish a lot in the summer though; it adds up quick, as does everything else.
Hi All,
Didn't expect quite that volume of response, obviously there is a factor of 'less visible', that seems to come through as well as the inevitable 'confidence'. I had a mentor in my early days of fishing who believed strongly that 'confidence' was a large part of the content for a successful angler. Probably why so much money has been made for Rapala with their red head & white lures – there isn't a fish in the world with that colouration, but we probably all have at least one in our lure boxes.
I was hoping that someone with a bit more 'science' might have chipped in; as it is the science that interests me. Obviously fisheries like the California tunas and perhaps fly fishing for trout and salmon have a valid application for seriously 'less visible'. As to being 'invisible' – I think it is just marketing hype – 'less visible' might be a better description.
The factor of scratches I have seen at work with plain nylon mono leaders, even in a surf situation – in clear water and bright light, they 'sparkle' as light reflects off the scratch surface. Have adopted a policy of never re-using a trace or rig after it has been used for a day – as too many times I have found that a new rig will out fish an old one.
We are all looking for that edge to put more fish on our hooks – and that brought the finite question about fluorocarbon.
Thanks for the many responses.
Cheers from sunny Africa
Jeri
I didn't even know what fluorocarbon was until recently. I am fishing for Sharks, so fluoro is not on the agenda. Sharks are supposed to be super sensitive to metal and a lot of sharkers try to hide it by taping their rigs up. My hooks are attached to either 480 lb cable or wire and the shark still eats it. Untaped with the hook exposed. It has resulted in better hook ups for me. Whole different method of fishing.
If they are hungry enough. I guess it doesn't matter. I can't use mono or fluoro for a leader, they will just bite it off, or tail whip it. Sharks have tough skin. ;)
Fluorocarbon is stiffer than mono, I have made some Hapuka (grouper) rigs from 120lb stuff and it seems to present the hooks better on the dropper loops.
Rgds
Mark
Hi Shark Hunter,
Might get accused here of hijacking my own thread????/
We also fish for sharks, currently off the beach, and previously many hours off boats. In a deep thinking moment of trying to make dead baits more interesting to sharks, the thought of trying to replicate the electromagnetic signature of a live beast in a dead bait became a theme for thought.
On boats, and more specifically engines we use sacrificial anodes to take the punishment generated by aluminium in saltwater. This electromagnetic reaction is thought to be the source for sharks being curious about boat engines, and the fact that the whole of the front of a sharks face and mouth are surrounded by the ampullia Lorenzini (spelling???), just to detect electromagnetic signature of hidden or buried live fish.
The idea was to try and replicate this with a sacrificial anode on a stainless steel hook – the best suggestion was a small strip of zinc wrapped around the shank of the hook. Tried it a few times under bait, but could never prove that the zinc wrapped hook and bait were more attractive than one nearby in the same water.
Another aspect of anglers looking to 'get an edge'.
Cheers from sunny Africa
Interesting Jeri. Now I know why they bite boat engines! :o
Guess you enjoyed the Hijack. ;)
Quote from: Jeri on June 26, 2014, 04:32:10 PM
Hi All,
A topical question as fluorocarbon is being discussed.
Given that pure fresh water has a specific gravity of 1.000, and oceanic sea water has a specific gravity of 1.035; and we have waters filling the diversity of that range once we include coastal water and brackish zones. And, within that range the refractive index of the different waters will change according to salinity.
Which water does fluorocarbon 'disappear?? Or is the whole issue of fluorocarbon a questionable concept??
Should manufacturers be more accurate in labelling their fluorocarbon products, as oceanic, coastal, brackish and fresh??? Or are we all being conned into buying a product that 'doesn't quite' do what it says it does???
Any wise souls out there with an opinion???
Cheers from sunny Africa
Jeri
Maybe not so wise, but still with an opinion :)- but first some data:
Fluro sinks - mono is slight buoyant
Fluro is generally thinner for the same LISTED breaking strength and stiffness combination. Actual breaking strength at the knot for the same thickness gets a bit more complicated.
Fluro and mono both initially stretch about the same, but fluro elonates and deforms under load and loses stretch- mono returns to its original shape and retains elasticity. I could not find any data on the fatigue/decreased capacity on deformed fluro, but there has to be some.
Fluro is UV resistant, mono will degrade over time.
Most fluros do not change properties when soaking for a long time, most mono will add some stretch- but not a lot.
Fluro knot strength and repeatability is bad. So on the water and tying up during a hot bite, it is easy to have a repertoire of 90%+ knots for mono, much more difficult for fluro. Loop creasing is very bad in fluro - this is a big issue for saltwater fly casting weighted flies. The leader breaks in the middle of the loop, the loop knot holds. Stiff mono is also hard to tie well, but knot creasing is not as big an an issue.
Fluro properties vary significantly by vendor, mono seems to be more consistent.
Now the opinion:
If fluro gets you bit more- that's great. It may not be the visibility/reflective properties though. You might just be getting a more natural, deeper drift on your live bait, or a better action on your cast lure (this is why the bass tournament guys use fluro for specific situations -and they are playing for money- so they tend to be less dogmatic- they want to know why/when something works better).
I personally think that leader buoyancy, stiffness and thickness may have more of an effect than visibility. These interfere directly with the type of things more likely to cause strike trigger/response in a tiny but highly optimized fish brain. So it may be that fluro provides advantages that has nothing to do with visibility.
I view fluro as a niche material, generally inferior to mono, but with some interesting properties that could help in certain situations.
-Jurelometer
No science to my response, but only reasoning: After "scientifically" evaluating this question, consider that the only meaningful issue is whether it works better for you or not. For me, it doesn't seem to make a difference, but I may use it "just in case".
Is my opinion science based? Heck in no way is it but if you want to check the refractive index of mono to a copolymer vs. a pure fluorocarbon line you can do it yourself. Take said lines and put them inside a see through glass container. Fill said container with liquid of your choice. I hope it will be some kind of water and have all three lines weighted at the bottom to hold them somewhat strait in the container side by side. Next back light the container, and look which material is easiest to see. If your like me you can see a 100% fluorocarbon has a less refractive index than the other lines, which mean it is harder to see. Yep that's it, it only has a more closer refractive index to water than other lines, making it harder to see but not invisible.
Most manufactures of fluorocarbon lines are on their third or fourth generation if line. If you are still using the first generation of any line it is not surprising you will get the same results time after time. I use a manufacture on its 4th generation and each time their line gets better and better.
The first generation of lines were to me were thick, stiff and had poor knot holding power. After checking closely I noticed fracturing at the knot, even with wetting the line before syncing down the knot in the flouro had micro fractures in the line. I was getting bit but losing many fish to break offs very quickly after hook up.
Since then with the manufactures recognizing the issue they have come out with softer, limper lines with a smaller diameter and with same breaking strength. So if your using the same first generation lines in your testing your going to get the same results. Also, some manufactures have not changer the line they provide they just change the label and call it new and improved.
For me in a tough bite I feel fluorocarbon line has made a difference and I use a copolymer mono/flouro long topshot over spectra line as my main lines and add fluoru if needed or spectra strait to fluoro. Also with the more dense, harder fluorocarbon leader I'm able to use a smaller diameter leader which I feel has led to more bites and has more abrasion resistance of the same test line in mono.
Quote from: Shark Hunter on June 27, 2014, 07:02:31 AM
I didn't even know what fluorocarbon was until recently. I am fishing for Sharks, so fluoro is not on the agenda. Sharks are supposed to be super sensitive to metal and a lot of sharkers try to hide it by taping their rigs up. My hooks are attached to either 480 lb cable or wire and the shark still eats it. Untaped with the hook exposed. It has resulted in better hook ups for me. Whole different method of fishing.
If they are hungry enough. I guess it doesn't matter. I can't use mono or fluoro for a leader, they will just bite it off, or tail whip it. Sharks have tough skin. ;)
I've been using 300 lb mono for my shark rigs, with a short bite leader of steel, 8-10" long. I have fished it side by side with heavy all metal rigs like yours. When the bite is good, it doesn't matter. But I've had times where I hooked multiple sharks without the metal rigs even getting a bite.
After a big shark, the leader looks like someone took sandpaper to it, but has always held fine. I've had more trouble with swivels breaking under high drag than anything else. But I still only use the leaders once on a big shark. The mono ones are pretty cheap to replace.
I've read a more or less scientific presentation about the visibility for fluorcarbon. I will try to dig it up, i must have it somewehere.
My own believe: it is not invisible. It might be less visible than mono under specific circumstances. Nevertheless I had instances where I had tied fluor to braid (both same strength, 40 lb) and could not get bites on the fluorocarbon but I did get bites on the straigth braid. The braid was much thinner of course and therefore probably less visible than fluor of same breaking strength. It was dark green power pro, fished on the surface in blue water on a sunny day.
I do use fluorcarbon. It is more the abrasion resistance than the invisibility what I am after. After all the fluorcarbon, even the good brands like seaguar and the likes turn milky in a relative short period. I cannot believe that a milky fluorcarbon is less visible than mono to fish.
In specific area's of the mediterranean where the fish are leader shy (bft) there are people who walk away from fluorcarbon again and turn back to mono. Specifically maxima and jinkai seems to get more popular and do seem to get more fish than fluor. I say seem to because I can't proof it and also have no accurate figures.
I also like the fact that fluoro does not (almost) pick up water and doesnt lose strength when in the water very long. AGainst would be again the "knotability"
In short: there are pro's and cons. It is not the holy grail unlike some advertisement would like you to believe. It has its purpose but at a high price (too high?) when you need it a little thicker and a little longer.
Whether you need it in a specific situation is up to you
Quote from: Three se7ens on July 20, 2014, 03:17:14 PM
Quote from: Shark Hunter on June 27, 2014, 07:02:31 AM
I didn't even know what fluorocarbon was until recently. I am fishing for Sharks, so fluoro is not on the agenda. Sharks are supposed to be super sensitive to metal and a lot of sharkers try to hide it by taping their rigs up. My hooks are attached to either 480 lb cable or wire and the shark still eats it. Untaped with the hook exposed. It has resulted in better hook ups for me. Whole different method of fishing.
If they are hungry enough. I guess it doesn't matter. I can't use mono or fluoro for a leader, they will just bite it off, or tail whip it. Sharks have tough skin. ;)
I've been using 300 lb mono for my shark rigs, with a short bite leader of steel, 8-10" long. I have fished it side by side with heavy all metal rigs like yours. When the bite is good, it doesn't matter. But I've had times where I hooked multiple sharks without the metal rigs even getting a bite.
After a big shark, the leader looks like someone took sandpaper to it, but has always held fine. I've had more trouble with swivels breaking under high drag than anything else. But I still only use the leaders once on a big shark. The mono ones are pretty cheap to replace.
What kind of swivels are you breaking Adam?
Quote from: Shark Hunter on August 01, 2014, 07:49:17 PM
What kind of swivels are you breaking Adam?
I think they were Bass pro offshore angler, 150 lb rated swivels. They were brass, and only a few actually parted, but every time I caught a big shark, all of the swivels were stretched straight. I'll see if I still have one I can take a pic of.
I have switched over to stainless swivels, don't remember the brand offhand, maybe sea striker, but they are about the same size, but 300 lb rated. Haven't fished any of those yet though.
You need to go a little higher for Sharks. I use Rosco 6/0's. They are rated at 450lb. Most Sharkers use 600lb ones minimum. They are $1 each from SNL Corporation. I know this seems like overkill with 130 lb main line, but the head shakes will put them to the test.
Do not underestimate the added plus of the better abrasion resistance of fluoro. Mono is like butter in comparison.
Abrasion resistance plus less visibility = win win.
I am much more comfortable fishing 30lb Fluoro than 30lb Mono etc.
Anytime I am serious about catching it's fluoro on the end. Of course, mono and cheapo hooks when it is for grins and giggles.
My sentiments exactly John.
I consider it a must for serious catching. especially around coral, reef, oyster'd mangroves & pilings, and clear blue water
I don't really use flouro for trolling. And for heavy popping I stick with 80-130lb twisted mono leaders..no need for stealth there really ;)
But for any other casting, jigging, inshore, kayak, flicking or presentation fishing... Flouro's the go.
It doesn't cost.. it pays !
Good example about line shy fish today.
I was slaying the mangos with 30 lb Fluorocarbon and Captain Al came over to get some action with the exact same bait and fished beside me with 40 lb fluorocarbon and could not get a bite and our baits were dropping right into the fish zone together.