|
|
Posts: 35
Location: Apple Valley, MN | I know that fluorocarbon has "invisibility" properties underwater, but I was curious about what advantages (if any) Fluoro would have over mono in stained lakes? I fish Vermillion quite a bit, and in several of the bays the water is almost rootbeer colored so I don't think that fish seeing the leader is an issue. What got me thinking about this was the Gregg Thomas video where he shows how to make his Hybrid half wire/half fluoro Leader. I like the concept, but not sure if it's necessary to invest in 80# Fluoro when something like 80-90# Big Game Mono could do the trick. Your thoughts? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | Durability is a big difference. Fluoro is a lot more abrasion resistant than mono. Mono will also break down over time or when exposed to the elements. As far as I know, this will not happen with fluoro.
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2037
Location: lansing, il | Pretty much what Aaron stated. Fluoro is UV resistant as well as more cold weather resistant. Fluorocarbon does not have as much stretch as mono either. I dont know if it makes a difference in stained water as much, but it has a lower refractive index making it more invisible in the water than mono.
The Thomas leader is actually only 4 inches of wire and about 30 inches of fluorocarbon. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | Stretch is a factor as well as durability stated. Mono is way softer. Also, Flourocarbon is made to sink. Even though it is micro seconds of difference in drop rate rate, it still sinks faster. The only complaints about flouro seem to be knot strength.
Last season I made some mono leaders, after a few weeks I noticed small cracks and unusual wear near terminal spots. Like the leaders, but the abnormal wear was a concern. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 210
Location: VA | #1. Fluorocarbon is not invisible in water, not even less visable, try it in a glass of clear water for yourself.
#2. Fluorocarbon is stiffer and less limp, I cant see where cold weather would make this property any better
#3. The gloss sheen on FC or Mono can been seen underwater when the sun hits it like a mirror. Both the same.
#4. Both materials break down in sunlight, ......as little sun as a leader see's...well....
#5. Both materials stretch, some of the fluoro's stretch more than mono.
All of this is just my opinion from a bass/striped bass fishing background. Much testing has been done on comparison of the two materials and their hybrids as well. Go to "tackle tour" on the internet and you'll find some real testing comparisons with the facts to back it all up. "Line Shoot Out" is what you're looking for. There are several and they are very eye opening.
I'd use mono or fluorocarbon alike and not worry one single bit, both will work and work well. I could make two leaders, one out of each material and send them to 99% of the folks on the site and I'll bet they couldn't tell one from the other. Neither can I and I have both!
Sales and marketing, sales and marketing.
DR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | Dr in VA, have you compared the abrasion/cut resistance between mono and fluoro? To me, the only concern would be the ability of the mono to withstand teeth and gills. Visibility in water....even if a slight difference I never felt that using wire leaders cost me many fish. Sunlight, well, I hope to need to replace them due to catching fish on them before the sun would break them down. Stretch, I just can't see the amount of stretch in 14" of 130lb mono or fluoro mattering much either way.
Anyway, that is my long winded post/question to the abrasion resistance between identical lb tests. I always thought fluoro was superior in abrasion resistance.
Tucker |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2037
Location: lansing, il | One thing to keep in mind is that all fluorocarbons are NOT created equal. All my information comes from 3 sources. All are makers of High Quality Fluorocarbon. Seaguar, Hi Seas and Yozuri. I think these people know what they are talking about and I trust the information they give me is correct. I have played around with Mono leaders and it is unreliable and inconsistant at best and WILL NOT last as long as fluorocarbon. I wanted to offer a cheaper mono leader a few years back and we did alot of testing with it but there were just too many reliability concerns. However if you want to take that chance go ahead. The weatherability of fluorocarbon from both UV rays as well as cold and heat is way better than that of mono. Yes fluoro does have some stretch, but pound for pound mono will have more. I spend at least an hour or two a week on the phone with reps from the 3 companies mentioned above and on average probably tie at least 200 leaders in a week by hand, but what do I know anyway?
Information from Seaguar:
Refractive index of water is 1.33
Refractive index of Fluorocarbon is 1.42
Refractive index of Mono is 1.53-1.62
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 531
| Correct me if i am wrong. My understanding is Mono is like one strand of material, and fluro is made of many strands bonded. So if you get a nick in the mono the whole structer is compromised while fluro only the affected area is weaker.
I am not saying you should not replace either leader if they get beat up. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 210
Location: VA | Curley,
I compare them every time I go fishing. I use 150lb mono and the leaders last and last. So much so that many times I clip the ends and add new hardware due to the failure rate of snaps being opened and closed so many times & I reuse the leader. The 150lb mono stands up to teeth and gills just fine.
One thing I did have happen, with 125lb Fluoro I had a musky nearly bite completely through the leader before he blew back up and threw the topwater. Once I got the topwater lure to the boat it was dangling by almost nothing. One bite and the leader was toast.
I'm not selling anything to anyone period, I dont speak to reps every week either, not that I'd trust them if I did. I'm just saying that 150lb Stren High Impact leader material stands up to every fluorocarbon I've tried hands down. As far as cutting each material goes, they seem to cut the same for me, but again, like said, different brands can be different.
Keep in mind that with the cost of mono versus fluorocarbon, if you make your own, you can surely afford to change leaders WAY more often cost wise if you feel the need too. I usually put on new leaders nearly every trip just for peace of mind. But again, I make my own and replacing them inexpensive to me.
DR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 375
| i jumped on the fluoro bandwagon before the beginning of last season, bought the correct crimping tool, etc. and made my own leaders. an interesting thing happened to me using them pretty much of the time casting all different types of baits. i fish only the same two lakes every year and call it bad luck or whatever but the number of fish i caught and the number of follows seen went way down last year for me when using the fluoro leaders! this year i will NOT be using fluoro leaders at all but will be going back to the single strand wire leaders i had used in the past and will also be experimenting with the 49 strand 90lb american fishing wire material for leaders. an interesting thing that dr in va above mentioned in his item #3 above concerning the "gloss mirror sheen" given off underwater by the fluoro, may this be "an issue" with the water color of the lakes i fish...who knows but something to certainly think about... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 210
Location: VA | Stushsky,
I too fish some clear clear waters, and over time I've noticed that the sheen from the sun reflected off the mono/fluoro can really SHINE when caught in the right light. The reflection is near mirror like.
I do know Segar had a fluoro out at one time that had the sheen knocked off it. The Segar looked quite dull in appearance and it's reflective properties were near nill. This was "spooling line" and not leader material.
DR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 375
| DR,
actually the two lakes i fish are far from clear water. one can certainly be considered dark / muddy pretty much year round and the other i would say is in the medium clarity range. when i commented about your "mirror effect" i was thinking more along the lines if the bait / leader is pretty high in the water where there is still somewhat enough light penetration then the "mirror / how not really invisible fluoro is" thing can still come into play... |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Can't believe this hasn't been mentioned but the fact that mono soaks up water causing it to expand and shrink (Jerry noticed cracks) is an issue. When mono has soaked up water it looses strength by something like 15%. Flouro is hydrophobic.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 339
Location: Denmark | @DR
I agree |
|
| |
|
Posts: 210
Location: VA | Will,
Do you have any data to back that up? It's my understanding (right or wrong) that both will absorb and I think 15% is way on the top end?
DR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | DR in VA - 3/9/2011 8:55 PM
Will,
Do you have any data to back that up? It's my understanding (right or wrong) that both will absorb and I think 15% is way on the top end?
DR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monofilament_fishing_line
Doesn't say anything about the 15% part, but does say the differences in the 2. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 572
| When searching the Stren site, I didn't see Stren High Impact leader material. However, I did see where they list
Tinted Fluorocarbon leader material, which goes up to 80lb test. Perhaps Stren found fluorcarbon better for leader material. Therefore, it is difficult for me to compare leader material to basic Monofilament fishing line. Are there any other LEADER material that is as good or better than fluorocarbon?
http://www.stren.com/cat.php |
|
| |
|
Posts: 210
Location: VA | http://www.overstockbait.com/Stren_High_Impact_Leader_p/st-sl.htm
They no longer carry the clear it seems.
DR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Personally I would never use mono over flouro....130-180 lb flouro leaders produced with the best flouro on the market by Stealth Tackle is all you need. When making the switch to flouro, many people at first use to light of pound test for whatever reason....don't mess around with 80 or even 100...use 130 lb test and up and Stealth Tackle can and will cover all your needs. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | DR in VA - 3/9/2011 8:55 PM Will, Do you have any data to back that up? It's my understanding (right or wrong) that both will absorb and I think 15% is way on the top end? DR
A quick search landed me on this article.
Water Absorption
Nylon monofilament is a lot like spaghetti—it absorbs water in copious quantities. Trying to pull a piece of dry spaghetti apart end to end is tough, but as soon as it gets cooked (i.e., it has absorbed a bunch of water) it pulls apart with ease. That’s an extreme example, but you get the picture.
In reality, nylon monofilament will absorb up to about 10% of its weight in water. Water absorption is a mixed blessing. On the upside, nylon monofilament that has absorbed water becomes more limp and supple, and makes knot tying easier. On the downside, water-logged nylon monofilament swells, increasing its diameter, reducing its break strength by about 20% (i.e., 10-pound test becomes 8-pound), and increasing its elongation (stretch) by 25% to 30%.
Fluorocarbon monofilament, however, is basically impervious to water. Depending upon the formulation, it absorbs less than 0.05% of its weight in water, with the result that none of its physical properties change after a prolonged soaking. The diameter, break strength and elongation of wet fluorocarbon monofilament remain essentially the same as dry fluorocarbon—but so does its stiffness, resulting in no appreciable reduction in line-coil memory after prolonged use. If you can live with more pronounced memory, fluorocarbon gets the nod here.
http://flyfishamerica.com/content/fluorocarbon-vs-nylon
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1247
Location: On the Niagara River in Buffalo, NY | I have been using Seaguar 80 lb Fluorocarbon for Leaders since 1994. In all these years I have never had a bite off,break off or knot come untied.Fluorocarbon little peices peal off instead of nicks,mono the nicks usualy go all the way through the whole diameter of the line and result in a break off.Fluorocarbon over time will break down,turn milky looking,I inspect my leaders every time before putting them back out and replace when needed.I have gone a whole season one some fluorocarbon leaders,catching & releasing over 40 muskies on that one leader.
Late in the fall I troll Legend Plows on deep structure at speeds as slow as 1.5 mph,I'm directly on bottom with the Plows floating about 6" off bottom.I use Mason 60 lb Lead Core to get directly on bottom and Seaguar Fluorocarbon 80 lb to float the Plow just off bottom as I follow deep structure.Mono will not do this,it ends up nicking up almost every time,wire is to heavy and you end up with lots of snags.
I will not use Fluorocarbon bigger then 80 lb test,the bigger diameter takes away from the lure action and at higher speeds will take away depth.I have caught & released close to 2000 + muskies using Seaguar Fluorocarbon in 80 lb test!
Believe me in Gin Clear water Fluorocarbon does make a differance and we have clear water to 35 ft here on the Niagara River at times.
Capt. Larry D. Jones
NPAA #738 |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Larry - Are you talking specifically about trolling? I would agree that 80 is good for trolling but not casting. I had one fish inhale a crankbait, while casting, and cut through 80# like it wasn't even there. |
|
| |
|
| I can get 50 yds of 150lb mono for under $8. Is it worth experimenting with? Mono might be weaker than fluorocarbon, but doesn't the 150lb diameter compensate for that? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 210
Location: VA | Yes and yes... guest
DR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 286
Location: VA | For all I time and money I spend on musky fishing rods, reels, lures, etc . Why would you skimp on one thing that is between you and that musky. Cheap leaders, hooks and split rings just don't cut it. Lose one fish cause of something between you and that fish breaks down and I bet you upgrade then. I use vmc 4x hooks, bucher or wolverine split rings, and 100 or 130 lb fluoro and have never lost a fish due to terminal break down. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Guest - 4/3/2011 3:17 PM
I can get 50 yds of 150lb mono for under $8. Is it worth experimenting with? Mono might be weaker than fluorocarbon, but doesn't the 150lb diameter compensate for that?
If you read the previous threads, the problem with mono, is it just doesn't hold up for near as long as flouro. Sure, the 150lb would hold up. But if it gets to the point where it has too much water, then sun exposure, it will weaken. Keep an eye on it, and if it starts to have the smallest cracks when you try to kink it, toss it out. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 210
Location: VA | For the cost, you can use a new leader EVERY trip.
DR  |
|
| |
|
| is floro really any less visible to the fish than mono they look the same side by side....i would almost rather make a new leader out of mono every other trip than pay 40 bucks for 25 yards of flouro or pay people to makem....
im still using steel leaders havent gotten into it yet but interested |
|
| |
Mono Vs Fluoro Leaders