Kind of a neat test.
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/KiQTvmM-1cY"
Wow.... I'm sold. Floro is too stiff anyway.
-steve
Steve, youve dashed my hopes you were one I was hoping might find reason to question the method of testing. I dont know for sure but the testing looks to me to have merit... Jeff
i wonder if the same holds true for the real heavy stuff? say 150- 200
Quote from: oc1 on March 02, 2018, 06:58:33 AM
Wow.... I'm sold. Floro is too stiff anyway.
-steve
X2
glad I've saved my money & only used it in rare, limited applications -- mostly for better sink-rate
...just lucky that I didn't like it w/ the simpler knots I use most often
Quote from: oc1 on March 02, 2018, 06:58:33 AM
Floro is too stiff anyway.
-steve
Maybe the extra stiffness restricted how much the line rolled across the sand paper during the test, causing it to abrade faster than the more flexible mono?
Mike
That same guy used to have a video comparing Red Seaguar (less expensive) to Blue Seaguar (more expensive). They broke with about the same number of passes of the sandpaper. He did the test several times and the results were surprisingly consistent.
If the floro stiffness influences his test it still seems valid to me. Rubbing against his sandpaper is not much different from rubbing it against the coral and rubble I'm fishing around.
-steve
hmmm,
wonder if results would be the same if:
1) friction were mostly parallel to the line, as in retrieving over something abrasive
2) tested under water, for realistic lubrication & heat dissipation
I was thinking the same thing philaroman, and was typing this while you posted;
The results for each the three lines were surprisingly consistent in this video as well. It would be interesting to see the same test done sliding the line in a linear direction ie. backwards and forwards rather than side to side.
Mike
Quote from: mhc on March 02, 2018, 10:26:51 AM
I was thinking the same thing philaroman, and was typing this while you posted;
The results for each the three lines were surprisingly consistent in this video as well. It would be interesting to see the same test done sliding the line in a linear direction ie. backwards and forwards rather than side to side.
Mike
Yep, I thought about the same as well, maybe he could also wet the lines next time.
Sal
I was reading the comments to his YouTube video, and he said he retested after soaking lines in water for 15 minutes and had the same results. Said he would try one more time after a 24 hour soak. Interesting results regardless. High cost is why I prefer mono over floro....and only use a 4 foot leader of floro if the fish are really line shy when flying live bait.
Brett
That's a notable difference, but I think the degree of risk depends on the circumstances and fishing environment, and the type of fish you're targeting.
I bought some 12lb Seaguar AbrazX fluoro a couple weeks ago. Used it for leaders on the baitcasting and spinning outfits I carry for freshwater. Caught considerably more stripers and largemouth than usual (though that could be attributed to other factors). The stripers were mostly in open water (large lake) but not always and when hooked they don't head for the nearest structure like a snook does, and LM bass hardly go anywhere much. Others I fish with have been using fluoro for years with no problem other than breakage from tying bad knots.
I also fished 3 & 4 lb fluoro tippets tied to fly leaders for trout in rocky rivers for many years and never had a problem with breakage from abrasion.
Just yesterday I bought a spool of 15lb Seaguar AbrazX for striper fishing. I'll be using it for leaders on two baitcasters loaded with 20lb power pro. I'm not worried about breakoffs where I'll be fishing; the AbrazX is said to be tougher than the Red and the Blue Label and a little stiffer. It's still smaller diameter than same test mono and doesn't at all seem stiff; the 12lb handled nicely. I'll find out tomorrow about the 15 lb.
If I head to the coast I'll stay with mono leaders.
I've never cared for fluoro as leader material because of it's sinking tendencies, and also rigidity.
This is even more interesting, though.
https://youtu.be/g2ilksQgUMg
Interesting. Regarding the mono/fluoro test, I wonder how much to generalize, as there is a large variation in physical properties in different brands of mono. He was using Ande leader material, and that is very hard stuff, as is Ande Premium mono line.
But fluoro is invisible in water! Ok, that's bunk but I guess it may be less visible. I do use it for Tuna fishing but not YT or lures.
I have decided to stick to mono for my leaders...fluoro has consistently broke off upon hook sets. I do believe it's less visible than mono, and have proven it while fishing extra clear water, but it's just too brittle.
There is another factor here that has merit regarding fluoro. It does have less stretch than mono & very possibly holds up better after having caught multiple fish. Not needing to changed out as often. However I fish every day outside of winter & this fluoro stuff gets down right spensive.
I find good O'l Walmart bought, very stretchy, Trilene Big Game works very well for most every thing I do. I simply shorten my top shot to leader length if the stretchiness becomes an issue. I do use Ande Monster when going above 50 lb. line.
More than anything I think this shows when we blindly accept methods & tools as the best path for success with out questioning we can fail in some manner.
Seems that the most successful, those who excel in the world of business & this business of catching fish are the ones that continually question & put to test the truth of accepted norms. Those who at times cast where others dont..... Who are willing to change & try whats different... Jeff
I switched to fluoro for my leaders for salmon fishing several years ago. I use 40 lb for bait rigs and spoons and 60 lb for shorter hootchie leaders. I think the stiffness helps with the hootchies behind the flashers as I think it gives them more action. The big plus is the amount of fish that you can catch before the leader is toast. Mono is usually done after one chinook but the fluoro is usually good for several or more fish. Granted we are not catching really tooth critters (chinook do have decent teeth though) and the fish don't run us into the rocks. The big thing is to have confidence in you gear at the end of the day; go with what gives you the most.
Cheers:
Todd
I'll try not to go into the merits of one line over another. I fish a braid backing to a co-polymer (mono-fluoro combo) topper on all my rigs. Most often these are longer topshots like 50-100 yards to exceed any casting I will do. I personally don't like casting braided lines for my type of fishing. But, in a picky bite I will tie on a piece of strait fluoro on top of my co-polymer, a short piece like 5-7 foot long. This is short enough to keep the knot of the two lines connecting out of my rods guides when casting. For me in picky bites I do notice a better bite on the fluoro than just going with the co-polymer. Maybe it is because my attitude changed, I pick better baits, more focused, I really don't know? But for me it works.
P.S. Fluorocarbon lines can fracture, micro cracks in the line or it can will burn against it's self when tying it. I have had and seen this happen a couple of times in my connections before I was shown how any why this is. The right knots tied slowly and always moistened can help against the above.
I used to use P-Line CXX as my go to line but now use Izor XXX up to 50# line. It's good stuff, cast well and is strong. My 80-130#. Bait rigs have 20' of Seaguar fluoro tied to the spectra. The lighter rigs get a few feet of fluoro when fishing live bait for YFT/BFT.
I use the triple X up to 80 without issue. Above that I go to Ultra Soft Steel above my braid and then add a short of fluoro of needed.
More than anything I think this shows when we blindly accept methods & tools as the best path for success with out questioning we can fail in some manner.
Seems that the most successful, those who excel in the world of business & this business of catching fish are the ones that continually question & put to test the truth of accepted norms. Those who at times cast where others dont..... Who are willing to change & try whats different... Jeff
[/quote]
Yes indeed! Well said Riverrat. There is no substitute for empirical data.
I was actually thinking of getting some fluro for sharp toothy macks. However, i am still not able to tie heavy mono well. Was wonder if fluro is easier to tie than mono. Do not want to spend a few hundred dollars on this stuff and throw half of it away due to bad knots.... But i read the video comments and i do feel that the better test was to put the whole setup in water and see if mono really holds better.
My 2 cents. I moved to fluoro leaders after a party boat salmon trip in No. California with my son and daugther. The 3 of us caught ~50% of the fish and the 2 largest of 20 anglers. The deck hand came to the cabin to see me tying extra leaders. He said "So that's your secret. Fluoro leaders!" That was my first trial of fluoro leaders and I was sold.
If I'm using a short leader to braid I use floro for bait fishing and think it gets bit better. I couldn't prove it but seen enough times when it made a difference. With the cost of fishing these days a few extra bucks for leaders seems worth it. I don't have to retie as much either.
After going through tangles and crossed lines on the morro bay trip. I am increasing the length of my top shot. I will stick with mono because of the price since I will be replacing it almost every time. I had to splice the hollow braid once. I dont want to do that again so a longer top shot will have to do.
Mike
Any opinions about which holds-up better after a succession of fishin trips, given the exposure to the elements: mono. or fluoro.?
In Theory Floro should I guess. My theory is if I think my line is questionable I change it, floro or mon
Some swear it's fluro. I'm sure there is some difference between brands. Cant say I've used them all.
However I've seen no line that I've used match Ande Monster for longevity, abrasion resistance, casting ability, with low stretch along with the smallest diameter. Not Izoreline or P-Line. While both are good lines they make their claimed gains by using a larger diameter.
Ande Monster may not the best line for use with a spinner. But it doesn't do to bad... Jeff
Quote from: Reel Beaker on April 14, 2018, 12:40:52 PM
I was actually thinking of getting some fluro for sharp toothy macks.
This would scare me. Even the little Spanish will strip the plastic coating off Steelon in a matter of seconds.
-steve
I honestly believe there are times when floro gets bit better than mono. I've spent days in pick tuna bites where the tuna wouldn't touch a bait on mono and the only baits getting picked up were on floro. You'd see the fish swim right by the mono and eat the floro bait. I've also seen days when they'd only eat pink floro.
Jeff I use tournament Ande for throwing jigs, I'll have to try the Monster,never heard of it before. I use mostly Ande of one sort or another for just about everything, always had good luck with it.
Swami, I've found nothing better than Ande Monster for my fishing in heavy current around rocks & logs & having its characteristics at the level it does... Jeff
I know very little about saltwater fishing. Can't comment on mono vs flouro for that application. For freshwater fishing however, I have tried just about every line material out there made since the late 70's. Keep coming back to a quality mono. I use a lot of Maxima Ultragreen. I also have a large stock of some old late 90's to mid 2000's BassProShops camouflage that was made in Germany. It strongly resembles Maxima Chameleon but is softer. I use a lot of Stren fluorescent mono for night time catfishing. Was given a large service spool of Berkley Big Game. I use some of it on baitcasters. Never had a problem catching fish, tying knots, or breaking off. When I look at the 'big picture' nothing else out there has as many 'pro's' compared to 'cons' as mono. While a braid or flouro may excel in one category, they fall behind mono in other aspects.
I wonder how things would have compared if both lines had been the same diameter. I think the mono would have still prevailed but maybe lasted longer due to the increase diameter.