Tippet material substitution...

[afishinado]

I bought an underwater camera and took some pics and vids of hooked fish, just messing around. I found it quite amazing how invisible the tippet really is in both the vids and pics. Not scientific since I didn't change over to mono to see the difference, but I believe it is less visible overall.

Anyway, I use a mono furled leader butt with single knotted mono sections to taper down to my tippet. For dries, I tie on a mono tippet to get a better drift since mono is limper than fluoro.

For nymphing, I use a fluoro tippet. I find it way more abrasion resistant than mono and also I tend to have less tangles in my dropper with fluoro since it's a little stiffer than mono. This was reinforced back a few months ago when I ran out of fluoro and used a mono tippet for nymphing....what a difference! I floss the rocks pretty good when I nymph and the mono really abraded quickly. I had to retie much more. Also I noticed my droppers had more of a tendency to tangle on the main line.

 

[pcray1231]

pcray style book incoming!!!!

Agreed on the visibility test. The background isn't "normal", but all that means is that both would look less visible, not that there isn't a difference between them.

The real reason that it's insufficient is because there is glass and air between the viewer and line. That does several things. First, any REFLECTED light, which is the easiest way to see line, is generally at more obtuse angles. Thus, when it hits the interface it will be either reflected away, or if it is passed through, will be refracted to even greater angles away from the eye. So the test in essence cancels most of the reflected light. Second, in the same manner, any light that is refracted will be refracted again, magnifying any true differences between them.

If you want to do the visibility test right, you gotta stick your head in the water. I have done so, and both fluoro and mono are plenty visible. I couldn’t tell if there was any difference. That’s not to say there absolutely wasn’t, but I tried different sizes of various brands of both, and all of the above looked like ropes to me. Theoretically there should be SOME difference, I think, but the physics aren't straighforward as the light passes 2 interfaces, entering and exiting the line. If a line were a flat panel with water on both sides the waves would just go back to the same direction, but the math on a round shape isn't back of the envelope stuff.

I agree on the most of the rest, though. Abrasion resistance, strength, water absorption, UV degradation, etc. Not sure on the density thing. I do accept that for dry flies, fluoro isn't dense enough to sink. But just sitting a little lower in the film may cause increased micro-drag, making it a slight disadvantage. When nymphing, after breaking the film it might also resist sinking a little less, hence be an advantage towards getting deep. I’m not claiming the density stuff is significant enough of a difference to actually care about.

I will call B.S. on the stiffness. It's true that fluoro has gotten more supple. And that there's a range of stiffness in both, and those ranges overlap. So the stiffest copolymers may be a touch stiffer than the most supple fluoro's. But the most supple of all materials are still, far and away, all copolymers. The top 10 would all be copolymers. This is reasonably easy to test, at least subjectively. Cut equal lengths, at equal diameters (measure it, don't take the label’s word for it). Put one end in a vice and let hang. Aside from possible memory issues, the one that hangs lower is more supple. You can bend them around and get an idea was well.

At least for MOST of the fishing I do, I think suppleness is most important to me. I haven’t been convinced of any visibility advantages of fluoro. And even if it is less visible, I think fish are far more often drag shy than line shy. Having a more supple material allows you to get better presentation without going thinner. So if you have to use 7x fluoro on tiny dries, you might get away with 5x or 6x copolymer and have the same presentation. The only place where fluoro starts to make sense to me is when dealing with larger fish with teeth that often cut lines. Like steelhead. The abrasion resistance is it’s major advantage, IMO. If you are a died in the wool bottom dredging nympher it could also make sense, as rocks can abrade the softer monos pretty quickly resulting in weak spots.

So to sum up my view, it’s abrasion resistance vs. suppleness as the main advantages of each. Which means more to you? For me, it’s more often suppleness, but there are exceptions.

 

[afishinado]

I was messing with my new camera and did a test with underwater pics. I noticed that you can't really see the tippet very well or at all the fluoro tippet holding the fish except in the last pic where the sun shines on the line near the surface. BTW, 5x fluoro.

 

[pcray1231]

Yeah, the upper part of that, where the sun shines, is pretty much what all of them looked like in my test. I did it in a swimming pool on a sunny day.

And that's kind of the problem. Recreating what a fish actually sees isn't an easy matter. Even a camera underwater is not capable of reproducing what our eye would see underwater (or above, for that matter). The physics of the lens and so forth just are not the same. And I'm not sure our eyes are capable of matching what a fish's eyes see either. They see different wavelengths of light, etc.

And we fish in so many different background and lighting situations.

The reality is that the refractive index is a bit different, with fluoro being slightly closer to that of water. Neither are really all that close to water, so both are going to refract. How much of a difference that makes, I dunno, and it's further complicated by the fact that seeing a line isn't all about refraction. It's also about color, absorption, and reflection. As the author said, it might be what coatings, leftover lubricants, etc. are on the line mean far more than the refractive index.

I really tried to dive into this before. Eventually I came to the conclusion that fish generally can see the line nomatter what you use. Numerous experiments of my own and others bear that out. You can pass an beetle fly over a feeding trout on 7x tippet time after time and not get a take. You can glue a real beetle to the end of the line and still not get a take. Then cut the line, leaving only a few inches and not attached to your rod, and that fish will take almost every time. Heck, make it 2x tippet, and it'll still take. Find yourself a japanese beetle trap and try it yourself.

I don't believe a trout is sitting there looking for a line and thinks "this is a fake, I'm not gonna take it." No, they're just sitting there with a billion objects floating by which they see quite well. They judge each and every one. "not food, not food, not food, food", and then there's a splash. And that determination typically has everything to do with the size and shape of the object together with how it acts. They refuse plenty of real food and eat plenty of twigs and little stones, so it isn't an exact science, and we can all get lucky or unlucky. But having a fly that looks like the natural, and a presentation that acts like it, is what we're after. There's so much floatsam around that even if it looks like a rope attached, I don't think it necessarily registers, they see the fly as a separate object.

Heck, we've all had times when fish actually strike our line! That at least tells me they can see the line!

 

[PennKev]

Big-Bass wrote:
So as I browsed my local Gander Mountain today looking for deals on ice fishing gear, I saw sales on berkley trilene xl mono in I think 150yd. spools for like $4. Could I use say the 2 or 4 lb. test as tippet material and to what X would this relate to? Also, could I do the same with flouro for hopper dropper rigs in similar pound test? Thanks and I know it's against the grain but let's face it...it's economical.

There is nothing wrong with using standard mono or fluorocarbon in place of ff specific tippet materials but keep in mind that you need to compare high quality tippet to high quality spinning/casting line, particularly when it comes to fluoro. Vanish is garbage, it can be difficult to even get rigged up as it breaks on knots so frequently at the slightest tug. On the other hand 100% fluoro lines from seaguar or p-line are pretty good and acceptable substitutes for specially packaged tippet material. I've been particularly impressed with p-line as it ties secure knots easily with few failures.

Whatever you end up buying, don't force yourself to use it if it is giving you trouble with knots or breakage or abrasion. Move onto another product.

Kev

 

[PennKev]

pcray1231 wrote:

I really tried to dive into this before. Eventually I came to the conclusion that fish generally can see the line nomatter what you use. Numerous experiments of my own and others bear that out. You can pass an beetle fly over a feeding trout on 7x tippet time after time and not get a take. You can glue a real beetle to the end of the line and still not get a take. Then cut the line, leaving only a few inches and not attached to your rod, and that fish will take almost every time. Heck, make it 2x tippet, and it'll still take. Find yourself a japanese beetle trap and try it yourself.

I don't see how this is an indication of the fish seeing the line ( or that it matters). It seems more like proof of unavoidable unnatural drag. If the fish are eating naturals with a short piece of line attached, visibility of the line does not seem to be problem. The problem seems to be when the fly and tippet are attached to a leader and line draped across many conflicting currents.

Kev

 

[johnstevens5462]

The only application I use fluorocarbon tippet is salt water fishing. In the salt flourocarbon really has a much higher catch rate than mono, especially for bonefish and stripers.

When it comes to trout, based on my experiments, I'd say catch rates were much less when using fluorocarbon, especially in tippets of 5x and smaller when you want a supple tippet that allows the fly to drift naturally. So in my conclusion, it has nothing to do with seeing something, as I have a hard time believing that a trout is bothered by seeing an 8x clear mono tippet (0.003 inches in diameter) yet ignores a solid piece of protruding metal whose diameter of a size 26-28 hook wire is about ten times larger than the 8x tippet. More than anything it is unnatural drift causing problems and flourocarbon is stiffer than soft mono.

That said, flourocarbon may work better for trout if actively working the fly where natural drift is not a consideration.

Lastly, nobody knows what the trout actually sees. Videotaping something and concluding that the trout sees the same thing as a human is faulty logic.

 

[poopdeck]

Interesting topic. I bought one spool of 2,3,4 and 5x tippet just to have the cool spools. I refill them with whatever I have left after refilling my spinning reels. For me fishing is very uncomplicated so why complicate the simple. I seem to repeat myself a lot when I say that everything is better then 20 years ago when my father was a very accomplished fly fishermen. IMHO Gear and line is a distant second to knowledge and experience. Right now I suck at fly fishing and buying expensive leaders will not change that.

 

[moon1284]

I buy large spools of maxima ultragreen down to 4lb test (I cant find large spools lighter than that). I don't think their is a difference between their tippet and bulk spools.

 

[pcray1231]

I don't see how this is an indication of the fish seeing the line ( or that it matters). It seems more like proof of unavoidable unnatural drag.

That was my point (that it doesn't matter, but drag does).

The only application I use fluorocarbon tippet is salt water fishing.

That makes sense. But you say it has a higher catch rate. I'm curious. Higher hooking rate? Or higher rate of landing the fish you do hook? I don't do much saltwater fishing, I'm just curious as to your take on it.

IMHO Gear and line is a distant second to knowledge and experience.

Agreed, but knowledge and experience PLUS the gear and line is the bee's knees. Frankly, when it comes to gear helping you to actually catch fish, the biggest advancements in the industry have come in tippet materials, and I don't think it's all that close.

 

[Chaz]

The pound test on tippet material is listed on the labels usually, 6X is 2 lb.

 

[JackM]

Likewise, diameter is listed on most "regular" fishing lines. When I built my own leaders, I gathered together all my old fishing lines and used what I could for the butt and mid-sections, but always felt once I got to 5X (.006) that I should buy "tippet" instead.

 

[pcray1231]

Yes, but the labeled diameter very often doesn't match up so well with the actual diameter.

Tippet is typically closer than line meant for spinning rods, but even that is far from exact. And in all of them, it varies greatly by brand.

Same goes for lb test, really.

I think it's probable that the label spells out the MINIMUM diameter and lb test per the spec. The average is considerably higher than that. And the looser the tolerances, the more off it's going to be.

As a general rule of thumb:

Take the lb test/diameter ratio. The higher it is, the stiffer the material. For tippets, if you fish dries, you want lower ratios. Streamers and such, higher ratios. Nymphs, you'll find more varying preferences....

 

[johnstevens5462]

Mr. PCray, if quoting my response, takes would be the proper terminology. I apologize for any confusion caused.

This conclusion has been proven many times offshore bait fishing and also fly fishing.

Offshore I have fished with multiple people on the same boat on many occasions (not a head boat either, a private boat with friends fishing) and all 4-5 folks are using the same live or dead bait except one or more is using a flourocarbon leader and the others mono because they don't believe it matters (I was initially one of those). Typically it will be 50lb braided line and a 40lb+ leader targeting 50lb+ stripers at night in 50+ foot water and the ones using flourocarbon have far more takes than those using mono - even against smaller diameter mono leaders. Then the non-believer switches to flourocarbon and immediately their take rate increases. Why? Don't know but flourocarbon significantly outperforms mono time and time again when targeting large offshore stripers so there's obviously something to this.

Fly fishing is the same with the one exception of when targeting stripers in tidal rivers where they are positioned in feeding stations and taking smaller baitfish drifting broadside in the surface "film" with the current. But that represents a dry fly drifting to a trout, which is why I conclude softer mono works best in natural drift scenarios. But in surf and active presentations, flourocarbon far outperforms mono when it comes to hookups and that is from experience of a non-believer.

In my opinion soft mono is better abrasion resistant, as with flourocarbon you need to continually inspect your leader or tippet and replace at the slightest nick. Mono you can land a fish on a frayed leader or tippet, not so much with flourocarbon.

 

[lestrout]

Interesting thread, with some thoughts new to me. I can contribute three points, one based on science (to make PCray happy) and two my observations over the decades:

Re surface tension, fluorocarbons will repel water more than monos and copolymers when uncoated. Think about Teflon and Goretex - they share similar chemistry. So I don't worry about my 7and 8X fluoro tippets sinking.

The second is the progressive problem with mismatching tippet sections. It seems the thinner harder tippet sections, such as many fluoros, will cut into the knot of the softer thicker stuff. This takes awhile, such as prolonged catching and casting. Ever try out a new (such as a brand new fluoro tippet, but harder monos do the same thing) and everything's fine for a few hours? Then something seemingly innocuous happens: you lightly strike on a fish, or maybe your backcast touches a blade of grass. The fly and the tippet are gone, and when you inspect the damage, you see a clean cut of the thicker (softer) leader. So you feel validated that the new stuff is strong and the older, thicker brand is not so good or maybe deteriorated.

The last observation concerns nylon's documented propensity to absorb water. As it absorbs, it swells a little bit. Then when it dries out, it shrinks. After a few hundred or maybe dozen cycles of soaking up and drying out, the knot becomes very weak. If you test the knots of a knotted leader at the end of the winter, are you ever surprised how weak they become?

 

[pcray1231]

I can contribute three points, one based on science (to make PCray happy) and two my observations over the decades

Science is observation combined with understanding. But you start with observation.

Interesting stuff. John, am I getting this straight? I got that fluoro seems to outperform mono for stripers in deep water situations, but not so much in shallow water-river situations? If so, I'll offer a hypothesis. Perhaps fluoro is less visible in TRANSMITTED light, but that in shallower clearer water like us trout guys fish, reflected light dominates visibility. Hence no difference and the more natural drifting material wins. But go deep, or color up the water and the game changes.

Just thinking in type...

les, yes, mono does weaken over time. In regards to mismatched knots, the expansion/contraction thing makes more sense, especially if the fluoro is the skinnier of the two lines. The larger the difference in diameter, the more the small one acts like a knife edge. You tie knot when both are reasonably small. Expose to water, and in this already tightened knot, the mono soaks up water and expands, while the fluoro does not. You now have pressure on an edge.

In regards to mono-mono knots, the same still applies. But add UV exposure as perhaps the biggest thing to degrade mono. It's not just the knot that degrades.

 

[johnstevens5462]

I will rephrase, in all shallow salt situations where one is actively moving and/or controlling the fly and influencing its behavior with line tension, flourocarbon outperforms mono. This can include active strip retrieves or simply holding the fly in place against a retreating current. It also holds true when the stripers have corralled a huge school of baitfish into a confined area and you may be doing nothing more than throwing your fly to the side of the school and letting it sink.

The one area where mono seems to outperform flourocarbon in salt is when fishing in a current to stripers positioned in feeding stations. These situations are typical in areas influenced by tide such as salt ponds, rivers, coves, etc. Many times stripers will position themselves in areas that constrict and funnel the bait taking up stationary feeding stations, just like a trout, and let the current bring the bait to them. In these instances there may be millions of small baitfish or blue crabs or sand eels or whatever all suspended in the surface film simply riding the current. They are not moving, swimming or anything just riding the current like a dry fly in a trout stream. In these instances you are greasing your leader and essentially fishing a streamer like you would a dry fly on a dead and natural drift. In these situations I have found that softer mono outperforms flourocarbon just as I have found that softer mono outperforms flourocarbon when dead drifting flies to trout both surface and subsurface.

I cannot comment on whether flourocarbon would work better than mono for trout in active retrieves as I simply have concluded I am not going to spend $15 a spool for tippet material to catch trout.

 

[afishinado]

From my experience/ observation:

Mono tippet for dries because it's limper for more drag-free float and floats a little better than fluoro.

Fluoro tippet for nymphing because it's way more abrasion resistant for fishing in and around the rocks. Also the stiffer material tangles less when using a dropper. Being a little stiffer isn't an issue, IMO....I can't see it influencing the drift of a tung bead weighted fly.

I also like fluoro for big fish and SW fishing. Tougher line and stronger since it does not absorb water and weaken.

Visibility of fluoro...can't say for sure, but it may be a little less visible in certain lighting conditions. A bonus if so.

 

[allan_s]

I think Stroft ABR is a good all around tippet material. Its a copolymer but is a little harder than normal copolymers, thus the abrasion resistance ABR, you can get it in 100m spools and even larger ones as well. It is especially good in spring creek applications with lightly weighted flies, just seems to help give a great presentation. I usually put on a little snake river mudd to help break surface tension.

You do have to order it online, I usually like to test the strength before I buy tippet material, but I haven't had a bad experience with it yet.

Now if I am using big stoneflies on Penns during the winter I use 3x flouro and I have never had a fish break it. Last year I used the same 3x tippet for probably 4-5 all day trips on Penns in Feb/March and it was amazing how little you could tell I had even used it.

I have been told the Seaguar flouro you buy for spinning rods is a great way to save money since its cheaper than the Seaguar tippet material, but I have never used it so I can't really comment on it.