The Truth about Flourocarbon

[sgrim]

Here's a lengthy, but informative and scientific approach to figuring out if flouro is really worth the extra money.

http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/the-truth-about-fluorocarbon.html



Enjoy.

 

[crghss]

It is, but as it relates visibility. The only reason IMHO to use fluorocarbon is because it’s less visible, never heard anyone claim it’s invisible.

As for all the points, stretch, density that doesn’t factor in to it for me.

 

[jifigz]

I have absolutely no problem with regular old nylon mono and would personally rather not spend the money on fluorocarbon. I have there spools of fluorocarbon right now that I accidentally bought last summer. Next time I'll be more observant when buying brands of tippet I'm not familiar with. This is Umpqua tippet and I somehow missed that it was fluorocarbon but my wallet surely noticed.

 

[pwk5017]

The author hits the nail on the head why i use flouro for nymphing. In his test, he states flouro sinks 3-4x faster than mono. He then goes on to say this isnt that big of a deal, because on a normal conventional cast, in 30-60 seconds your bait would sink 2-4' more than mono. When nymphing, that sink rate is an enormous factor for me catching fish. I need all the help i can get out there, so spending another $30-50 a season for a flouro leader and flouro tippet isnt that big of a deal for me.

The price disparity between the two is a bit much.

 

[sgrim]

I fish both. I wince as much as anyone when paying the extra for flouro and then I convince myself I notice a difference. I don't think I really do.
Did anyone hit the link with the mathematical explanation of refraction?
I tried, but remembered that there was a reason I was an English major in school.

 

[jifigz]

pwk5017 wrote:
The author hits the nail on the head why i use flouro for nymphing. In his test, he states flouro sinks 3-4x faster than mono. He then goes on to say this isnt that big of a deal, because on a normal conventional cast, in 30-60 seconds your bait would sink 2-4' more than mono. When nymphing, that sink rate is an enormous factor for me catching fish. I need all the help i can get out there, so spending another $30-50 a season for a flouro leader and flouro tippet isnt that big of a deal for me.

The price disparity between the two is a bit much.

I'd rather just slap some cheap split shot on my line. I rarely ever nymph without split shot.

 

[3oh4]

Interpretation is what this debate is about.

https://www.jans.com/blog/jans/what-tippet-should-i-use-mono-vs-fluoro


https://www.yellowstoneangler.com/gear-review/tippet-shootout-seaguar-grandmax-trouthunter-orvis-mirage-riopowerflex-pline-dairiki-varivas-sa-climax-maxima-froghair-stoft-umpqua

I'm a Fluoro Kool-Aid drinker

The real argument isn't if it is better or not but at what price difference is it really better? I just don't understand how I pay a 10$ difference. But I am an idiot and I do.

 

[Fredrick]

I cant give you guys the link to the video but there is video on youtube testing the abrasion resistance of nylon vs fluro and nylon beat fluro out by a big margin .

 

[pwk5017]

Absolutely, splitshot can compensate for the sink rate differences, but shot comes with a price. One, shot kills your ability to tight line. Two, shot reduces your detection rate under an indicator.

I think for me, it may be more of a psychological thing at this point. I feel like ive had better days after switching from a mono leader to a flouro leader(compensating for the crazy price tag maybe?), and so it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think it is working, so i have confidence in what im doing, which makes me do it with more attention, and i catch more.

 

[afishinado]

Fredrick wrote:
I cant give you guys the link to the video but there is video on youtube testing the abrasion resistance of nylon vs fluro and nylon beat fluro out by a big margin .

I saw the video. The guy ran the lines over sandpaper and counted the strokes. Don't believe everything you see on the internet.

Brands of line/tippet vary, but fluoro tests as more abrasion resistant under actual conditions. The real key to nylon vs fluoro is nylon absorbs water and becomes weaker, stretches more, and becomes less abrasion resistant when actually fishing it on in the stream.

Not long ago, I ran out of fluoro and used nylon mono tippet instead for nymphing. My tippet kept getting abraded on the rocks in short order with the nylon and I had to retie way more than I would when using fluoro.

Conversely, nylon is generally more limp than fluoro and floats better, so it may be a better choice for fishing dries. I use nylon tippet for dries.

Either will work, but especially for deep nymphing in the rocks, I find fluoro works best for me. Any savings I get by using the cheaper nylon tippet is eaten up by having to retie my rig more often. YMMV.

 

[Fredrick]

afishinado wrote:

Fredrick wrote:
I cant give you guys the link to the video but there is video on youtube testing the abrasion resistance of nylon vs fluro and nylon beat fluro out by a big margin .

I saw the video. The guy ran the lines over sandpaper and counted the strokes. Don't believe everything you see on the internet.

Brands of line/tippet vary, but fluoro tests as more abrasion resistant under actual conditions. The real key to nylon vs fluoro is nylon absorbs water and becomes weaker, stretches more, and becomes less abrasion resistant when actually fishing it on in the stream.

Not long ago, I ran out of fluoro and used nylon mono tippet instead for nymphing. My tippet kept getting abraded on the rocks in short order with the nylon and I had to retie way more than I would when using fluoro.

Conversely, nylon is generally more limp than fluoro and floats better, so it may be a better choice for fishing dries. I use nylon tippet for dries.

Either will work, but especially for deep nymphing in the rocks, I find fluoro works best for me. Any savings I get by using the cheaper nylon tippet is eaten up by having to retie my rig more often. YMMV.

The sandpaper was there to simulate the mouth of a bass or similar fish with sandpaper type teeth. I'm not giving up on my fluro because of the sinking properties and higher shelf life, but will be using mono a little more now in the future.

 

[afishinado]

Fredrick wrote:

afishinado wrote:

Fredrick wrote:
I cant give you guys the link to the video but there is video on youtube testing the abrasion resistance of nylon vs fluro and nylon beat fluro out by a big margin .

I saw the video. The guy ran the lines over sandpaper and counted the strokes. Don't believe everything you see on the internet.

Brands of line/tippet vary, but fluoro tests as more abrasion resistant under actual conditions. The real key to nylon vs fluoro is nylon absorbs water and becomes weaker, stretches more, and becomes less abrasion resistant when actually fishing it on in the stream.

Not long ago, I ran out of fluoro and used nylon mono tippet instead for nymphing. My tippet kept getting abraded on the rocks in short order with the nylon and I had to retie way more than I would when using fluoro.

Conversely, nylon is generally more limp than fluoro and floats better, so it may be a better choice for fishing dries. I use nylon tippet for dries.

Either will work, but especially for deep nymphing in the rocks, I find fluoro works best for me. Any savings I get by using the cheaper nylon tippet is eaten up by having to retie my rig more often. YMMV.

The sandpaper was there to simulate the mouth of a bass or similar fish with sandpaper type teeth. I'm not giving up on my fluro because of the sinking properties and higher shelf life, but will be using mono a little more now in the future.

The main reason why I use fluoro is it's abrasion resistance vs nylon for nymphing as well as becoming abraded in the mouth of certain fishes.

After nylon is fished it loses a lot of it's abrasion resistance because it absorbs water (fluoro does not). The sinking properties of fluoro are very slight and not really noticeable when fishing.

 

[Fredrick]

Fluorocarbon on the other hand has a density of about 1.78. So how does this translate under the same test conditions? A similar piece of fluorocarbon will make that same 12" journey in about 15 seconds, still 3 times faster than mono but not overly fast in the big scheme of things.

I believe this guys science . I have made hand furled fluro leaders and they sink like a sink tip .

So do you believe the sand paper test would be better preformed if they conducted it underwater ?

 

[mcwillja]

I fish the salmon river in NY and let me tell you from experience that fluro absolutely has to be used because of abrasion resistance. Whoever said nylon is better than fluro is flat out wrong IMO. I have used both and Nylon gets beat up real quick on those rocks in that river. Fluro is necessary when there is a chance for abrasion.

 

[Dave_W]

I use flouro often for abrasion resistance and for toothy critters.

A few months ago, I did a little experiment with 20lb mono and 20lb flouro: I pulled a length along a scissor blade (I though this was a good approximation of the sharpness of a muskie tooth). I assumed it would take more pulls to sever the flouro. In fact, it took 13 pulls to sever the mono and 13 to sever the flouro. I repeated the experiment and got roughly the same result.

I still like flouro for abrasion resistance but I'm not as confident as I used to be.

 

[afishinado]

Dave_W wrote:
I use flouro often for abrasion resistance and for toothy critters.

A few months ago, I did a little experiment with 20lb mono and 20lb flouro: I pulled a length along a scissor blade (I though this was a good approximation of the sharpness of a muskie tooth). I assumed it would take more pulls to sever the flouro. In fact, it took 13 pulls to sever the mono and 13 to sever the flouro. I repeated the experiment and got roughly the same result.

I still like flouro for abrasion resistance but I'm not as confident as I used to be.

Fredrick mentioned a video of a guy that did a similar experiment as you, Dave. And with pretty much the same results.

In the link from the OP, there is a great article with actual scientific testing of nylon vs fluoro lines > http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/the-truth-about-fluorocarbon.html

With respect to using fluoro tippet because of it's better resistance (the main reason I use it for nymphing in the rocks and rough-mouth or toothy fish).

Scientific testing of the actual hardness (abrasion resistance) confirm your results > out of the water there appears to be no difference. But under actual conditions, when the lines are used in the water, nylon softens, which makes it more limp, but it also becomes less abrasion resistant. Here is the data from the article:

Rockwell Hardness - I found this one interesting. Rockwell Hardness is a standard method of measuring hardness of a material. Everyone seems to state that fluorocarbon is much tougher than mono, but it depends on the specific formulation used and tested. Whereas the different types of nylon can vary with a reading between 88 -114 in the test, fluorocarbon scores 100. So though fluoro seems tougher due to a slightly higher modulus in flexure, in actual hardness tests it doesn't score appreciably better. But keep in mind these are dry tests, and once nylon absorbs water, it can lose between 30-40% of its modulus and would definitely feel (if not become) "softer" at that point.

My experience using both confirms that fluoro is more abrasion resistant. I carry both types of tippet with me all the time, and fluoro is be a lot tougher and tends to fare better when nymphing and with the toothies and rough-mouth fish.

The second thing one can glean from the data, is nylon becomes softer and more limp after it absorbs water, plus it is a little less dense than fluoro > perfect for fishing dries, especially smaller flies where floating well and preventing drag is very important.

I use nylon tippet for most of my dry fly fishing for trout and fluoro tippet for nymphing and streamer fishing.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

Afish: "I use nylon tippet for most of my dry fly fishing for trout and fluoro tippet for nymphing and streamer fishing."

I currently do the same.

I will say, though, that flouro use puts a premium on knot tying b/c it's slicker than mono. in my experience, knot failure seems to be more frequent with flouro (user error?).

So, mono seems more likely to fail from abrasion and flouro form knot failure. In any case, the functional differences between the two seem to narrow upon closer inspection and removal of marketing hype.

This circles back to the question of cost : benefit. I'm starting to lean towards mono only for trout and bass.

 

[Bamboozle]

Tossing science & shootouts aside, I stated using fluoro (Vanish) on my baitcasters years ago and couldn't be happier with the handling, abrasion resistance and the results however I still prefer mono on spinning reels.

For fly-fishing I was a dyed in the wool fan of mono for tippets but HATED the flat spots and resultant curly cues it got if I drew a knot improperly or from pulling a tangle from around a hard surface like a tree branch or rod tip. Not even a rubber pad would get rid of flat spot curls.

For that reason alone and because of my baitcasting experience I decided to try fluoro for my tippets and again, I couldn’t be happier with the results. I use it for dries too and have no problems with sinking flies and to be honest, I prefer my dry fly tippets to NOT float.

In regards to the cost difference…

On an average day I am hard pressed to use more than a yard or two of tippet since I tend to swap leaders versus fussing with cutting back or adding tippets when I go from surface to subsurface.

That two yards of fluoro represents about 25% of the cost of the gas I used getting to the creek, or the same percentage of the cost of the cigar I am usually smoking, the beers I drank beforehand or one of the strike indicators I may lose because I drank the beer.

In other words I don't fret about it.

 

[afishinado]

Bamboozle wrote:
Tossing science & shootouts aside, I stated using fluoro (Vanish) on my baitcasters years ago and couldn't be happier with the handling, abrasion resistance and the results however I still prefer mono on spinning reels.

For fly-fishing I was a dyed in the wool fan of mono for tippets but HATED the flat spots and resultant curly cues it got if I drew a knot improperly or from pulling a tangle from around a hard surface like a tree branch or rod tip. Not even a rubber pad would get rid of flat spot curls.

For that reason alone and because of my baitcasting experience I decided to try fluoro for my tippets and again, I couldn’t be happier with the results. I use it for dries too and have no problems with sinking flies and to be honest, I prefer my dry fly tippets to NOT float.

In regards to the cost difference…

On an average day I am hard pressed to use more than a yard or two of tippet since I tend to swap leaders versus fussing with cutting back or adding tippets when I go from surface to subsurface.

That two yards of fluoro represents about 25% of the cost of the gas I used getting to the creek, or the same percentage of the cost of the cigar I am usually smoking, the beers I drank beforehand or one of the strike indicators I may lose because I drank the beer.

In other words I don't fret about it.

Sounds like your trips are a combination of fishing and par-tee, with all the smokin' and drinkin'. Nice!....it great to get out there and have a good time.

 

[NewSal]

afishinado wrote:

Bamboozle wrote:
Tossing science & shootouts aside, I stated using fluoro (Vanish) on my baitcasters years ago and couldn't be happier with the handling, abrasion resistance and the results however I still prefer mono on spinning reels.

For fly-fishing I was a dyed in the wool fan of mono for tippets but HATED the flat spots and resultant curly cues it got if I drew a knot improperly or from pulling a tangle from around a hard surface like a tree branch or rod tip. Not even a rubber pad would get rid of flat spot curls.

For that reason alone and because of my baitcasting experience I decided to try fluoro for my tippets and again, I couldn’t be happier with the results. I use it for dries too and have no problems with sinking flies and to be honest, I prefer my dry fly tippets to NOT float.

In regards to the cost difference…

On an average day I am hard pressed to use more than a yard or two of tippet since I tend to swap leaders versus fussing with cutting back or adding tippets when I go from surface to subsurface.

That two yards of fluoro represents about 25% of the cost of the gas I used getting to the creek, or the same percentage of the cost of the cigar I am usually smoking, the beers I drank beforehand or one of the strike indicators I may lose because I drank the beer.

In other words I don't fret about it.

Sounds like your trips are a combination of fishing and par-tee, with all the smokin' and drinkin'. Nice!....it great to get out there and have a good time.

But wait! Someone has to be the ****** that points out that fluoro is mono!! Gotta use the correct terms round here (nylon mono, and fluorocarbon mono), we are sophisticated folk.

As for me I blast through tippet like no-ones business, I'll run fluoro and join the #fluorogang if someone gifts me a lifetime supply. Id rather drink good beer than have another expensive "gotta have it" in fly fishing.