Fluorocarbon vs Regular tippet and leader

[Flat Rock native 0]

Flouro tippets all the way.

 

More than 90% of time the fish are feeding subsurface. Even fishing dries you can just slime the tippet with the floatant. I could be wrong but undertand that flouro has a better strength to diameter ratio, I have had few fish break the line ever, mostly at my bad knots. My two cents worth.

[Piker20 0]

Think most fluro is thicker for same B/S. Maxima mono for example is 10lb 0.12mm fluro is 10lb 0.28mm

[SilverCreek 0]

The breaking strengths of fluorocarbon and nylon mono vary a bit from manufacturer to manufacturer. Nylon is thought to be a bit stronger than fluorocarbon but some like Rio has the fluoro rated a bit higher than mono. Regardless, they are pretty close.

 

The problem is that this is DRY breaking strength and leader and tippets get WET. Nylon absorbs water and weakens up to 20% of its dry breaking strength. The result is that for actual fishing fluorocarbon is the stronger material per diameter.

 

"what happens to nylon monofilament when it gets wet? That’s right, it absorbs water . . . lots of water . . . to the tune of 10% of its dry weight, in the process losing up to 20% of its dry break strength. As we’ve learned, fluorocarbon is essentially impervious to water—absorbing less than 0.05% of its dry weight—with zero effect on its dry break strength. After a half hour or so of fishing, nylon’s break-strength advantage has been negated by water absorption, and as immersion time increases, fluorocarbon quickly becomes the front runner."

http://www.flyfishamerica.com/content/fluorocarbon-vs-nylon

[Piker20 0]

Taking that on board I can still increase my maxima mono in example above to 15lb and come in under the dia of the 10lb fluro and allow for the 20%loss in wet strength. Especially given that in my experience maxima snaps above the rated BS by a pound or 2

[Flat Rock native 0]

Good point Piker20. I have to confess to sometimes using mono when hurling flies into submerged timber (frequent domain of largemouth bass) because it is faster and cheaper to break it off quickly. And invisibility is not a premium requirement.

[Piker20 0]

Personally 99% of my wet work is fluro but I think its important to highlight mono that typically costs a fraction of fluro has a lot of plus points, hence its endurance over many many years.

Also not wanting to stir a nest of sleeping vipers but fluro will take centuries to rot if left in the environment, mono breaks down much faster... of course take all your crap home with you and dispose of it responsibly.

[SilverCreek 0]

Actually mono takes many centuries to break down. According to the article I referenced earlier, every piece of nylon monofilament line made since 1939 is still around and will be for another 500 years. So when you break off monofilament and leave it, it will be around long after you and your great grandchildrens' great grandchildren have died.

 

The point is that any broken loose leader should be removed and thrown in the garbage.

 

"First introduced by DuPont in 1939, millions of miles—perhaps tens of millions of miles—of nylon monofilament fishing line have been produced in the last 70 years, and every inch of it is still sitting out there somewhere in the ecosystem . . . and will be for at least the next 530 years. That’s right, whether buried underground or floating around in our rivers, lakes and oceans, nylon monofilament takes 600 years to biodegrade."

[SilverCreek 0]

Think most fluro is thicker for same B/S. Maxima mono for example is 10lb 0.12mm fluro is 10lb 0.28mm

 

 

Piker,

 

 

You have confused the relative diameters of the mono vs fluoro. The diameter of 0.12 for the mono you post is NOT IN MM but actually 0.012 INCHES. You have confused hundreds of a mm. with thousands of an inch. The 10 lb. Maxima mono is actually THICKER than the Maxima fluorocarbon.

 

It's an easy mistake to make. I even confused right and left in my earlier post. :^))

 

I thought the diameters you posted could not be correct because line strength varies with the trans-sectional area, and the trans-sectional area is proportional to the diameter squared. That would mean you would need (28)(28)/(12)(12) = 728/144 or 5.4 times the fluorocarbon to equal the strength of nylon if 10 lb. mono really was 0.12 mm and 10 lb. fluorocarbon really was 0.28 mm.

 

From the images below you can see that both the Maxima 10 lb nylons are actually 0.30 mm and not 0.12, so the fluorocarbon is 0.02 mm. and 0.001 in. thinner than the monofilament

 

As I said previously, the diameters of mono and fluorocarbon will be about the same and the fluorocarbon will have an advantage in wet strength.

 

 

10 lb test Maxima fluorocarbon 0.28 mm. and .011 in. diameter

 

 

 

10 lb test Maxima Ultrageeen nylon 0.30 mm. and .012 in. diameter

 

 

 

 

Maxima Chameleon nylon 0.30 mm. diameter and .012 in. diameter

 

[Piker20 0]

So it is. I took the dia info from a table on a popular shop web site that sells both lines. They too have the info wrong way round. Should have gone out to look at the actual spools in my bag!

[JSzymczyk 0]

Think most fluro is thicker for same B/S. Maxima mono for example is 10lb 0.12mm fluro is 10lb 0.28mm

 

 

Piker,

 

 

You have confused the relative diameters of the mono vs fluoro. The diameter of 0.12 for the mono you post is NOT IN MM but actually 0.012 INCHES. You have confused hundreds of a mm. with thousands of an inch. The 10 lb. Maxima mono is actually THICKER than the Maxima fluorocarbon.

 

It's an easy mistake to make. I even confused right and left in my earlier post. :^))

 

need to consider that the stated breaking strength of ALL fishing line is usually much less than the actual breaking strength under a static load, not counting knots.

[JSzymczyk 0]

There are two issues in the underwater visibility of mono vs fluorocarbon. One is refractive index and fluorocarbon is much closer to water. Refractive index measure the bending of light as it travels THROUGH the material. So fluorocarbon is LESS visible IN water since there is very little disturbance of the light that is passing through the fluorocarbon to your eyes. Refractive index is visual DENSITY so fluorocarbon will be closer to the visual density of water.

 

The second is reflection which is light that bounces back from the material. I am not sure which material reflects more light. Both of these material are extruded and the extrusion process leaves a sheen of due to a thin layer of sheen on both materials.

 

Seeing is believing.

 

yes, seeing is believing. That is why I have, on several occasions, looked at many different types of line in the water with mask and snorkel and SCUBA, in bodies of water where I fish- not aquaria, and will say with no hesitation that fluoro CAN be as visible as any other type of line, and at times some types of nylon mono CAN be less visible than some types of fluoro. There are just WAY too many variables to make a blanket statement. The "invisibility" claim for flouro is nothing more than marketing hype aimed at gullible consumers. I am not referring to any other qualities of fluoro vs nylon, only the visibility.