Fluorocarbon Mainlines?
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Joined
·
2,889 Posts
hmmm, not too expensive ?
Well, its relative.
A decent fluorocarbon will cost £15 - £20
To spool on a reel, you'll need a generation 3 fluorocarbon line.
I have used loads of fluorocarbons but we have the Tenyru stuff ready to spool up.
However, I have used Airflo Sight Free and they do a G3 spool 100 meters long now.
In flyfishing, that line always served me well.
However:
As leader material, not on the reel.
There will some gambling involved as we start to spool fluorocarbon mainlines.
Do they have a place ? Absolutely.
Well, its relative.
A decent fluorocarbon will cost £15 - £20
To spool on a reel, you'll need a generation 3 fluorocarbon line.
I have used loads of fluorocarbons but we have the Tenyru stuff ready to spool up.
However, I have used Airflo Sight Free and they do a G3 spool 100 meters long now.
In flyfishing, that line always served me well.
However:
As leader material, not on the reel.
There will some gambling involved as we start to spool fluorocarbon mainlines.
Do they have a place ? Absolutely.
Joined
·
6,632 Posts
Ok Keith,
I am curious as to what you see as the down side of fluro, I have used it as a mainline before with any problems.
I am curious as to what you see as the down side of fluro, I have used it as a mainline before with any problems.
Joined
·
7,123 Posts
What's the problem with fleuro apart from the expense? Memory? I've got a spare spool itching to be filled. I been using Tubertini and I can't find anything wrong with it, 'tis my 1st experience of the stuff tho, so I can't gauge it against anything else.
Joined
·
2,581 Posts
I think memory will be the issue with some Tim, which is the gamble. Perhaps we're getting to the point now where there are a few more options around. Some of the bove do sound interesting. Traditionally for the past few years, fluorocarbon mainlines are only actually fluoro coated - to solve the stiffness/memory issues and get them to stay on the spool.
Perhaps I'm not too bothered with cost if I can find the right on easily available. I just want to avoid buying it from abroad if possible.
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
Due to their inherent springiness, and nasty ability come off the reel spool in great coils, the fluorocarbon line and smaller spinning reel combination can be real pain in the arse. Despite trying at least a dozen different varieties I haven't really found one that are ideal.
One of the fluorocarbon lines with best casting properties is X-Line, which was used by myself and many, many other carp anglers when slack-line fishing short to medium distances.
http://www.leslies-luton.co.uk/store/product/2192845/X-LINE-FLUOROCARBON-17lb-600m/
One of the fluorocarbon lines with best casting properties is X-Line, which was used by myself and many, many other carp anglers when slack-line fishing short to medium distances.
http://www.leslies-luton.co.uk/store/product/2192845/X-LINE-FLUOROCARBON-17lb-600m/
Joined
·
2,394 Posts
Another interesting thread.
I have never used flourocarbon as a mainline having never felt that there would be any advantage in the types of fishing I do. What I have noticed are trends from other types of related fishing. For example:
For freshwater bass fishing, judging by what I seen in magazine articles and websites, flourocarbon is popular as a mainline on baitcasting reels for many applications due to abrasion resistance. In finesse bass fishing it is used in preference to braid likely due to visibility perhaps but presentation must be unaffected.
For Australian bream, the predominant setup is braid with a flourocarbon or mono leader. When the fishing is hard though many anglers switch to flouro as light as 2lb fished direct.
For Heavy Rockfish, they use flourocarbon straight through or braid mainline with a flouro leader. For light rockfish, the same setups.
Not sure what brands are used as that is likely very country specific. Digging around on their respective forums may shed more light as to why even though the properties of each line are fairly well known.
Sometimes there are likely specific advantages, other times it looks like it could be as simple as personal preference.
I have never used flourocarbon as a mainline having never felt that there would be any advantage in the types of fishing I do. What I have noticed are trends from other types of related fishing. For example:
For freshwater bass fishing, judging by what I seen in magazine articles and websites, flourocarbon is popular as a mainline on baitcasting reels for many applications due to abrasion resistance. In finesse bass fishing it is used in preference to braid likely due to visibility perhaps but presentation must be unaffected.
For Australian bream, the predominant setup is braid with a flourocarbon or mono leader. When the fishing is hard though many anglers switch to flouro as light as 2lb fished direct.
For Heavy Rockfish, they use flourocarbon straight through or braid mainline with a flouro leader. For light rockfish, the same setups.
Not sure what brands are used as that is likely very country specific. Digging around on their respective forums may shed more light as to why even though the properties of each line are fairly well known.
Sometimes there are likely specific advantages, other times it looks like it could be as simple as personal preference.
Joined
·
2,889 Posts
I agree, great thread.
The yanks use mono, braid (superline) and fluorocarbon for various jobs all the time.
We have some catching up there as we seem to use braid for everything now and I know that it isn't always the right choice.
My main use of fluorocarbon mainline will be for SP Wrasse and fishing suspending lures. Both I think more suited to fluorocarbon than braid or mono.
The yanks use mono, braid (superline) and fluorocarbon for various jobs all the time.
We have some catching up there as we seem to use braid for everything now and I know that it isn't always the right choice.
My main use of fluorocarbon mainline will be for SP Wrasse and fishing suspending lures. Both I think more suited to fluorocarbon than braid or mono.
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
Yes indeed, fluorocarbon handles considerably better on baitcasting reels.
By the way, the perception among many that fluorocarbon lines have very little stretch is really nothing than a myth.
These Tackle Tour articles are by far the most comprehensive info on many of the market leading fluorocarbon lines to be found anywhere.
http://www.tackletour.com/reviewfluorocarbontest.html
http://www.tackletour.com/reviewfluorocarbon2.html
Joined
·
2,394 Posts
Thanks Vidar, an interesting read. At then end of it all there is no real conclusion as to whether FC is better than mono or not. It seems like it is very brand and application specific. I was hoping for something a bit more definitive.
Joined
·
1,132 Posts
If the lack of stretch is a myth, is there any reason why mono reel line with a fluoro leader wouldn't work? It would be cheaper, still have good abrasion resistance (and more replacable due to cost), the leader would retain it's invisibility advantage and the mono would settle nicely on the spool.
Or am I missing the point?
Or am I missing the point?
Joined
·
2,581 Posts
There are a few other things to it as well Rob. In fact, for me, unless you're proper finesse fishing) its visability is the last of a few things I consider important. Obviously this is only my understanding of the theory having not tried it on a reel, but....
Fluorocarbon sinks. Mono floats. So in theory if you want to fish a deep diving lure, it would dive deeper on fluorocarbon than it would on the same diameter mono. One example of this in use would be when using floating baits, mono would be best (floating line). For deep diving baits, fluoro would (probably) be better because it sinks.
I haven't read the above articles properly yet so may be proven wrong, but fluorocarbon supposedly has less stretch than mono. Monos themselves vary a bit (especially these days with some being more hi-tech than others), but fluoro is assumed to have a more direct link to the lure than mono.
Also its supposed to be more abrasion resistant. Now, gonna read those articles and prove myself wrong.
Its all still a bit of an unknown really til we crack it.
Joined
·
2,889 Posts
You need to remember that not all fluorocarbon lines are 100% if indeed ANY are.
Like a 'graphite' or 'carbon' rod, many labels are misleading. Mono absorbs water amongst other stuff like fairy liquid (makes it sink btw) So, some FC lines might show wet abrasion resistance falling but probably in proportion to the actual formula of the line.
Dry tests like in the tackletour reviews are pointless imho, we all fish in water right.
A stretch of 6.8% wet is way less than most mono's and they chose Trilene which is a known good performer as mono's go.
Vanish is known to be crap, hence we got it in the UK and now, people here too know that it sucks so its on sale everywhere.
Sunline seems to getting rave reports for it's braids and fluorocarbons and I believe that the sunline displayed a 6.8% stretch after 3 hours water immersion. Again..., how many lines spend a constant 3 hours submerged ? Not many lure fisherman would get close to that unless deep trolling for ferox etc.
Like Ben, I'm reserving judgement until we completed actual real world tests.
Joined
·
2,394 Posts
Ben, I was quite surprised to find that following all their tests that there was little to choose as far as stretch goes. The abrasion resistance was good when wet but only compared to one 'benchmark' monofilament line Trilene XL. How it would compare against harder monos would be interesting to see. The sinking properties weren't tested (unless I missed it).
I don't think at the end of it, it was especially in favour of FC or mono. The conclusion seemed to be that certain brands are better at some things than others but overall no single brand really stood out as being the be all and end all. Maybe there have been advances in the last few years that have changed that......
Maybe we should get some first hand appraisals from people on here who are using it (of which I am not one!).
I don't think at the end of it, it was especially in favour of FC or mono. The conclusion seemed to be that certain brands are better at some things than others but overall no single brand really stood out as being the be all and end all. Maybe there have been advances in the last few years that have changed that......
Maybe we should get some first hand appraisals from people on here who are using it (of which I am not one!).
Joined
·
2,581 Posts
Hmmmm, just read through.
Seems we do have a long way to go. I'm not surprised by a lot of the results (i.e. the ones with less stretch had less knot strength but were generally more abrasion resistant, and the lines with more stretch were more supple had better knot strength).
One thing that did stick out to me though was the "strain or deformity". While it shows that some fluorocarbons are easily deformed under loading, I'm really not surprised and I think that this is 100% where fluorocarbon SHOULD be going, or at least where it could be developing in to an allround line to surpass mono (in some conditions). You find a lot of pre-stretched monos these days. When I stopped coarse fishing a couple of years ago, they had started to overtake normal mono's in a real way - as a reel line. Previous to that they were reserved for hooklengths and pole rigs, but as abrasion resistance improved on them in recent years, they became a viable, thinner, stronger alternative to old, thick, stretchy classics like Maxima as a reel line. They made the word a much brighter place. We perhaps have a pre-conceived idea that fluorocarbon should be stiff, hard and have little stretch (perhaps just because this is what the original versions were like). My question is, why are fluorocarbon mainlines NOT pre-stretched?????????????????????????? We don't 'expect' them to stretch much anyway, so they might as well rid themselves of their own 'lie'. For those not sure what I'm on about, this would reduce stretch, decrease diameter (or at least allow a larger, therefore stronger diameter to be used), but still be more abrasion resistant than mono - if done right. AND have the more more normal fluoro advantages (less water absorbtion etc.).
Seems we do have a long way to go. I'm not surprised by a lot of the results (i.e. the ones with less stretch had less knot strength but were generally more abrasion resistant, and the lines with more stretch were more supple had better knot strength).
One thing that did stick out to me though was the "strain or deformity". While it shows that some fluorocarbons are easily deformed under loading, I'm really not surprised and I think that this is 100% where fluorocarbon SHOULD be going, or at least where it could be developing in to an allround line to surpass mono (in some conditions). You find a lot of pre-stretched monos these days. When I stopped coarse fishing a couple of years ago, they had started to overtake normal mono's in a real way - as a reel line. Previous to that they were reserved for hooklengths and pole rigs, but as abrasion resistance improved on them in recent years, they became a viable, thinner, stronger alternative to old, thick, stretchy classics like Maxima as a reel line. They made the word a much brighter place. We perhaps have a pre-conceived idea that fluorocarbon should be stiff, hard and have little stretch (perhaps just because this is what the original versions were like). My question is, why are fluorocarbon mainlines NOT pre-stretched?????????????????????????? We don't 'expect' them to stretch much anyway, so they might as well rid themselves of their own 'lie'. For those not sure what I'm on about, this would reduce stretch, decrease diameter (or at least allow a larger, therefore stronger diameter to be used), but still be more abrasion resistant than mono - if done right. AND have the more more normal fluoro advantages (less water absorbtion etc.).
Joined
·
2,889 Posts
I agree.
I remember 'upgrading' a float match rod years back. A bruce and walker XLT..
My god, serious, that rod cost me more money in lost fish than I could have ever predicted.
We had to adjust.
Same will be true of fluorocarbon mainlines I think.
Joined
·
1,132 Posts
Thankyou for the detailed replies! I'd been using braid since starting plugging a couple of years ago (both with and without leader) but have recently been trying out clear 10lb Suffix Tritanium mono on my spare spool to use with smaller surface lures like the Frosty, Bass Arrow and Dog-X Slider. With the lighter lures it seems to stretch very little, and with my Bar 270 being so stiff in the tip it seems to counter it nicely.
Another fascinating thread (no pun intended)
Another fascinating thread (no pun intended)
Joined
·
2,581 Posts
You've been getting on OK with it then Rob? I've got so much experimenting to do when I can find a day or 2 just to mess about with various thing!
Back on the subject of stretch, has anybody who has tried mono tried a pre-stretched version?
Back on the subject of stretch, has anybody who has tried mono tried a pre-stretched version?
Joined
·
2,581 Posts
With visibility being inconclusive in tests, if there are mono's such as this suffix version (http://www.sufix.com/international/fishing_line/feeder_fishing_line/feeder_mono/) available (sinking, reduced stretch), is there even a need for us to consider fluorocarbon? I used the Preston Direct Mono a lot for a while (which also has less stretch than your average mono). These lines have less memory than a 'pre-conceived' fluorocarbon, but otherwise, a lot of advantages. You should NEVER believe what it says on the tin, but...?
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
