Line Diameter to Break Strength 2024
Paul Roberts reply :
Looked into some tests people have done. This one looked fairly well done:
http://www.gamefishin.com/wa/features/linetest.htm
Couldn't get table formatted well. Just pick a brand and follow it over.
Brand/Model Avg strength Lbs Sq Inch/dry
P Line Evolution .011 13.912 146382.064
P Line CXX .0140 21.836 141846.656
Stren Magnathin .011 13.149 138353.778
Gamma Competition .013 18.249 137469.717
Stren Extra Strength .012 15.25 134825.25
Sufix Tritanium Plus 0.013 17.337 130599.621
Sufix Seige .012 14.744 130351.704
Izorline XXX Super .012 14.501 128203.341
Izorline Platinum .012 14.357 126930.237
Trilene Maxx .013 16.832 126795.456
Trilene XT .013 5 18.101 126453.586
Seaguar Fluoro 100% leader .01 9.888 125894.016
Sufix Elite .012 14.182 125383.062
Yozuri Hybrid .0125 15.08 123067.88
Big Game clear .012 13.776 121793.616
Berkely Big Game HT .014 17.676 114823.296
PLine CFX 100% Floro leader .012 12.649 111829.809
P Line Floroclear .012 12.618 111555.738
Cabela's Pro Line .012 12.445 110026.245
Cajun Red .012 12.107 107037.987
Maxima Ultragreen 0.012 12.101 106984.941
Stren Original .013 13.943 105032.619
Danielson Plus 7 .012 11.699 103430.859
Maxima Chameleon 0 .012 11.462 101335.542
Makima Ultragreen 0.014 15.519 100811.424
Ande green .012 11.142 98506.422
Maxima Chameleon .014 15.019 97563.424
The table gives break strength made relative to diameter by expressing it as lb/sq.in. (psi). The author suggested that anything with this value > 120,000 was good.
Team9nine reply :
I've seen this one before. Well done test, and you know how much I appreciate "self generated" data, but I've personally never been a big believer in tensile strength as the best measure of a fishing line.
The biggest argument I have against the tensile strength tests is that when fishing, regardless of bait or lure on the end of the line, there is a knot used to attach said item. As such, a straight line test as all tensile strength tests are carried out doesn't mimic what is actually happening on the water. The minute a knot is introduced into the picture, the breaking strength of that line has suddenly changed. And, there are way too many variables around knots and knot tying to be able to accurately predict outcomes.
Additionally, there are so many other characteristics that make a line "good" or better than another in a certain situation such as handling characteristics (limpness/stiffness), abrasion resistance, etc. that tensile strengths never really come into play, IMO.
There were a couple interesting observations though that I did get from the data. First, unless you're real picky about the Seaguar numbers, every line tested that was rated as 10# test broke at a higher test than what it was rated as - comforting in my eyes.
Another, nice irony that the "weakest" line in the bunch was the thinnest tested (Seguar), and the "strongest" line tested was the largest diameter (P-Line CXX) as absolute breaking strength- Table 2 data.
-T9
RoLo reply :
QuoteAnother, nice irony that the "weakest" line in the bunch was the thinnest tested (Seguar), and the "strongest" line tested was the largest diameter (P-Line CXX) as absolute breaking strength- Table 2 data.-T9
You make an excellent point!
Especially with regard to "abrasion-resistance", line-diameter is King
Roger
GRiver reply :
Thanks for the info...Been looking into changing line brand this spring, will use this to make up my mind.
islandbass reply :
QuoteLooked into some tests people have done. This one looked fairly well done:http://www.gamefishin.com/wa/features/linetest.htm
Couldn't get table formatted well. Just pick a brand and follow it over.
Brand/Model Avg strength Lbs Sq Inch/dry
P Line Evolution .011 13.912 146382.064
P Line CXX .0140 21.836 141846.656
Stren Magnathin .011 13.149 138353.778
Gamma Competition .013 18.249 137469.717
Stren Extra Strength .012 15.25 134825.25
Sufix Tritanium Plus 0.013 17.337 130599.621
Sufix Seige .012 14.744 130351.704
Izorline XXX Super .012 14.501 128203.341
Izorline Platinum .012 14.357 126930.237
Trilene Maxx .013 16.832 126795.456
Trilene XT .013 5 18.101 126453.586
Seaguar Fluoro 100% leader .01 9.888 125894.016
Sufix Elite .012 14.182 125383.062
Yozuri Hybrid .0125 15.08 123067.88
Big Game clear .012 13.776 121793.616
Berkely Big Game HT .014 17.676 114823.296
PLine CFX 100% Floro leader .012 12.649 111829.809
P Line Floroclear .012 12.618 111555.738
Cabela's Pro Line .012 12.445 110026.245
Cajun Red .012 12.107 107037.987
Maxima Ultragreen 0.012 12.101 106984.941
Stren Original .013 13.943 105032.619
Danielson Plus 7 .012 11.699 103430.859
Maxima Chameleon 0 .012 11.462 101335.542
Makima Ultragreen 0.014 15.519 100811.424
Ande green .012 11.142 98506.422
Maxima Chameleon .014 15.019 97563.424
Wow, I remember when the guy first did the test. This is a local fishing forum for me. Great information to recollect.
Paul Roberts reply :
QuoteI've seen this one before. Well done test, and you know how much I appreciate "self generated" data, but I've personally never been a big believer in tensile strength as the best measure of a fishing line.The biggest argument I have against the tensile strength tests is that when fishing, regardless of bait or lure on the end of the line, there is a knot used to attach said item. As such, a straight line test as all tensile strength tests are carried out doesn't mimic what is actually happening on the water. The minute a knot is introduced into the picture, the breaking strength of that line has suddenly changed. And, there are way too many variables around knots and knot tying to be able to accurately predict outcomes.
Additionally, there are so many other characteristics that make a line "good" or better than another in a certain situation such as handling characteristics (limpness/stiffness), abrasion resistance, etc. that tensile strengths never really come into play, IMO.
There were a couple interesting observations though that I did get from the data. First, unless you're real picky about the Seaguar numbers, every line tested that was rated as 10# test broke at a higher test than what it was rated as - comforting in my eyes.
Another, nice irony that the "weakest" line in the bunch was the thinnest tested (Seguar), and the "strongest" line tested was the largest diameter (P-Line CXX) as absolute breaking strength- Table 2 data.
-T9
Good response.
I tend to be reluctant to try new lines, bc I feel know what to expect from my Trilene. But adding FC to my game has had me shelling out the cash to find something I like. With nylons, I'm willing to stray from my XT, but only for a darn good reason.
I think strength (agree tested knot strength is better than tensile) is important -the starting point for me. After this I can look at all the other properties I might require. My thinking is that diameter is primary in terms of basic presentation--depth and speed control-- and I want that standardized.
I was recently frustrated in purchasing 8lb Berkley 100% fluoroc, only to find that it's the 6lb that meets my diameter standard (.010) for an 8lb. line! I had to go back to the store and get the 6lb.
Another variable is strength when wet. Tackle Tour found a this to be a major variable in their testing. So..it appears that the real test would be: wet knot break strength. Knowing this I would consider purchasing the lines that rated highest, at the diameters I am used to, keeping in mind the other qualities I might need. Complicated? I suppose, but much less so than the existing "rating game" we seem to be stuck with.
Another issue might be age/history of the line spools he used. TT gets theirs directly from the factory I believe.
Finally , I had to wonder: Just how consistent is a spring scale AFTER it's been abused like this over and over? I didn't check, but wonder how often he re-calibrated that scale. This could potentially blow his entire dataset.
J Francho reply :
I go by line diameter as well. 8# CXX fishes like 10# XT. I generally use 8, 10, and 12# diameters.
If you are curious about abrasion resistance, I've caught most of my recent pike, including this one on 8 and 10# CXX, with no leader. I've yet to break off using topwaters, jerkbaits and hard swimbaits. Spinnerbaits and jigs, well that's another story....twist and melt for me. 
If it helps any, I was a XT/XL guy for years. To me, it is the bench mark that all others can be measured to, since most everyone that has fished for years has used them. A few years ago, I tried Suffix, and I felt is was a bit better, maybe more consistent. I still like Siege for all my steelhead applications. I tried CXX on a whim, 15# actually, for t-rig worms. To say I was blown away is understatement. I caught fish, big fish, where the lione was actually peeling due to contact with zebes, and I was still unable to break it with my hands.
However, its not a nice to handle as the previously mentioned lines, especially on spinning gear. I also don't feel that it is that strong or abrasion resistant at diameters smaller than 8#. But that goes back to the diameter - abrasion resistance relationship that Rolo brought up.
Paul Roberts reply :
QuoteI go by line diameter as well. 8# CXX fishes like 10# XT. I generally use 8, 10, and 12# diameters.If you are curious about abrasion resistance, I've caught most of my recent pike, including this one on 8 and 10# CXX, with no leader. I've yet to break off using topwaters, jerkbaits and hard swimbaits. Spinnerbaits and jigs, well that's another story....twist and melt for me.
If it helps any, I was a XT/XL guy for years. To me, it is the bench mark that all others can be measured to, since most everyone that has fished for years has used them. A few years ago, I tried Suffix, and I felt is was a bit better, maybe more consistent. I still like Siege for all my steelhead applications. I tried CXX on a whim, 15# actually, for t-rig worms. To say I was blown away is understatement. I caught fish, big fish, where the lione was actually peeling due to contact with zebes, and I was still unable to break it with my hands.
However, its not a nice to handle as the previously mentioned lines, especially on spinning gear. I also don't feel that it is that strong or abrasion resistant at diameters smaller than 8#. But that goes back to the diameter - abrasion resistance relationship that Rolo brought up.
Excellent. Yup I'm a Trilene guy, for the reasons you state -bc that was the standard, once upon a time. I've been aware of the talk around P-Line and am seriously tempted. If it's SOOOO strong I should be able to replace .009 XT with .009 P-Line, or maybe even with .008??? That is what I want to chip away at.
Sufix is the other I've heard good things about, and from some good sources. And the ratings are high on Stren MagnaThin -but the ads for it talk "walleye" a lot -which makes me think it may be lacking in abrasion resistance. Another I've used is Trilene Sensation, and was surprised at it's strength to diameter (compared to Trilene XL/XT). But, it's a low stretch formula and appeared to be a bit brittle (less shock resistance) -maybe just something to get used to. And this was just my own impression in fishing it.
As to FC, so far BPS XPS has performed the best for me and is highly rated. The other I'm curious about (due to rating) is Maxima FC. But one test gave it a not-so-great knot strength rating.
Yes Roger, braid IS great stuff. I use it a lot. But...it floats, so I am playing with FC for deep water(and high wind) use. Thus my spending my time here on the lines forum. Discussing the nylon/CoP is simply mission creep lol.
rubba bubba reply :
QuoteI tried CXX on a whim, 15# actually, for t-rig worms. To say I was blown away is understatement.However, its not a nice to handle as the previously mentioned lines, especially on spinning gear.
What was the line diameter of the 15# CXX and translate that to the other lines you tested - i.e. if it equals a 20lbs XT, then those are the 2 lines you should compare and determine which you like better. I would be curious if you would be as blown away because the gap should be much closer.
On the Seaguar being the weakest comment - that's superfluous because it had the smallest diameter. Compare equivalent diameter Seaguar / other fluoros (diameter, not lbs ratings) and then see where it falls in terms of strength.
Comparing lines by lbs rating, if they have different diameters, is comparing apples and oranges.
J Francho reply :
QuoteQuoteI tried CXX on a whim, 15# actually, for t-rig worms. To say I was blown away is understatement.However, its not a nice to handle as the previously mentioned lines, especially on spinning gear.
What was the line diameter of the 15# CXX and translate that to the other lines you tested - i.e. if it equals a 20lbs XT, then those are the 2 lines you should compare and determine which you like better. I would be curious if you would be as blown away because the gap should be much closer.
On the Seaguar being the weakest comment - that's superfluous because it had the smallest diameter. Compare equivalent diameter Seaguar / other fluoros (diameter, not lbs ratings) and then see where it falls in terms of strength.
Comparing lines by lbs rating, if they have different diameters, is comparing apples and oranges.
Try reading the REST OF MY POST!. Jeez, some dudes just want to debate and debate. I CLEARLY stated this here:
QuoteI go by line diameter as well. 8# CXX fishes like 10# XT. I generally use 8, 10, and 12# diameters.
I don't have the figures in front of me, but 15# CXX feels like 17# XT. Someone as critical as you should be able to look it up somewhere.
And, once again, in the realm of context, I was blown away by its abrasion resistance, or STRENGTH WHILE FISHING.
This is what you measurebators will never get - you actually have to try the freaking thing to actually get a meaningful impression, LOL.
Again, and again I say this: line preference is a VERY subjective thing. No quantifiable data will ever completely support any argument of why someone prefers on line over another.
:
J Francho reply :
QuoteExcellent. Yup I'm a Trilene guy, for the reasons you state -bc that was the standard, once upon a time. I've been aware of the talk around P-Line and am seriously tempted. If it's SOOOO strong I should be able to replace .009 XT with .009 P-Line, or maybe even with .008??? That is what I want to chip away at.
Now you're dipping into line so thin, the strength to diameter relationship is negligible. I don't see an advantage in the lines smaller than 8# (0.012).
I'll put it this way, I replaced 10# Trilene XT with 8# P-line, and see a real improvement.
I replaced 12# Trilene with 10# CXX, and see a really big improvement.
My initial spool of CXX was 15#, because it was close to the 17# Trilene I used, and it was overkill. 12# CXX works fine.
Here's a story about 15# CXX. 18.5 ranger + 89 lb. thrust TM + hung bullet sinker in wood = boat lost. I had to cut it. This was down on SML this past April.
For most of my small diameter applications, I've gone to braid. 15# Power Pro with a long fluoro leader (I like P-line CFX, Gamma, and TriplFish leader material) in 4 to 10# sizes is working really well for me.
Hope that helps.
J Francho reply :
I looked up the diameters, and it actually surprised me how similar they are. I suppose some of CXX "feeling" bigger was purely subjective.
Trilene XT 17# - 0.017" (.43mm)
CXX 15# - 0.016" (.40mm)
Trilene XT 8# - 0.012" (.31mm)
CXX 8# - 0.012" (.30mm)
Apples to apples. 'Nuff said.
roadwarrior reply :
Well, since there's only one "right answer"
most of you guys are using the wrong line!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
J Francho reply :
QuoteWell, since there's only one "right answer"most of you guys are using the wrong line!
;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D
LMAO....Your Yo-Zuri is also excellent line. I've used Ultra Soft in smaller diameters before switching to braid. While bench testing a certain someone's repaired drag, I got silly break strengths with what I presume was 12# Hybrid. I could probably get used to using YZ, if it weren't for the 10 lbs. of CXX I have yet to use, LOL.
Paul Roberts reply :
QuoteQuoteExcellent. Yup I'm a Trilene guy, for the reasons you state -bc that was the standard, once upon a time. I've been aware of the talk around P-Line and am seriously tempted. If it's SOOOO strong I should be able to replace .009 XT with .009 P-Line, or maybe even with .008??? That is what I want to chip away at.Now you're dipping into line so thin, the strength to diameter relationship is negligible. I don't see an advantage in the lines smaller than 8# (0.012).
I'll put it this way, I replaced 10# Trilene XT with 8# P-line, and see a real improvement.
I replaced 12# Trilene with 10# CXX, and see a really big improvement.
My initial spool of CXX was 15#, because it was close to the 17# Trilene I used, and it was overkill. 12# CXX works fine.
Here's a story about 15# CXX. 18.5 ranger + 89 lb. thrust TM + hung bullet sinker in wood = boat lost. I had to cut it. This was down on SML this past April.
For most of my small diameter applications, I've gone to braid. 15# Power Pro with a long fluoro leader (I like P-line CFX, Gamma, and TriplFish leader material) in 4 to 10# sizes is working really well for me.
Hope that helps.
Get rid of mono??? :) 
OK, I'm over the shock.
You make a good point. I actually have been using 10# braids for my light applications the last couple of years. The only thing left is my UL spinning rig -which has mostly been collecting dust -and my CB rig filled with 10XT. For topwater, I'm using 20# braid w/mono leader.
AND...looking at Brian's (Team9nine) results with straight fluorescent braid (no leader) -that's fluorescent yellow --we might just be able to get rid of the leaders too:
http://www.bigindianabass.typepad.com/big_indiana_bass/page/2/
Quote"Squeezed about 4 hours of fishing in this afternoon and brought 48 fish aboard the tin machine. Best fish went 4 pounds, but the rest were 18" and under. Won't hear a single complaint from me though. Water clarity is very good for this lake, now aproaching 4'-5' on the lower end but the fish continue to bite strong on the flame green Fireline. I'm fairly certain/confident that the line color isn't in any way negatively affecting the bite at this point. "
But....NO MONO?? At all???
I'll have to let that sink in for a bit. Remember, I'm one of those "old dogs".
J Francho reply :
Essentially, it is mono filament, just not dad's nylon mono. I bet more of those so called monos aren't some type of copolymer anyway. How could anyone get away with 40 years of no technology advancement?
And yeah, I guess the only traditional mono I'm using is for trout. Its the only thing that seems to work in the cold.
rubba bubba reply :
QuoteTry reading the REST OF MY POST!. Jeez, some dudes just want to debate and debate. I CLEARLY stated this here:
:
Relax Francis - I read the rest of your post (after all it was only 3 more sentences) and my question wasn't a debate request it was an opinion request. I was speaking specifically to you being blown away by the 15# after you referenced normally using 8/10/12 lbs XT. You mentioned 8# CXX fishes like 10# XT and so I wanted to know if whatever the equivalent XT would be for the 15# would still result in you being blown away or if you would think they'd be much similar. I haven't used either in that size and I'm always looking for a game-improving change. You then answered it in your subsequent posts.
Good grief.
Paul Roberts reply :
QuoteEssentially, it is mono filament, just not dad's nylon mono. I bet more of those so called monos aren't some type of copolymer anyway. How could anyone get away with 40 years of no technology advancement?And yeah, I guess the only traditional mono I'm using is for trout. Its the only thing that seems to work in the cold.
I'm lumping nylons/CoPs together. FC and braid are different enough to separate -at least at this point.
Any use for braid for drift fishing?
J Francho reply :
Drift? As in Hezog's western syle? In my opinion, no. Too much contact with rocks is bad for braid, even with a longer leader. At least with nicked monu, you stand a sliver of a chance, whereas frayed braid is toast.
Now, for float rigs, it great, as long as you are using a slow action rod and a spinning or casting reel with a very light, smooth drag. You can use a much smaller diameter mainline which equates to lighter, which means longer trots downstream, while keeping your mainline off the water for a better float.
I started out three years ago with fused Fireline, and did well. Until the temp dropped below freezing. Same goes for traditional braid, like Power Pro. My last few trips I have been using 15# PP braid.
Most centrepinners shun braid, due to the fact that they have no drag, per se. Since the spool spins freely, their finger on the lip serves as resistance, and the stretch in mono acts as a shock absorber, along with the long, light power, slow action rod, giving them a bit more time to react to the fish.
I'm not 100% sold on pinning, though its hard to deny the results. I'm currently researching a 12' UL/moderate casting rod and round reel as my full time trout rig. I still like use a few bottom bouncing rigs in certain conditions, and that rig would allow me to use either terminal rig.
J Francho reply :
QuoteQuoteTry reading the REST OF MY POST!. Jeez, some dudes just want to debate and debate. I CLEARLY stated this here:
:
Relax Francis - I read the rest of your post (after all it was only 3 more sentences) and my question wasn't a debate request it was an opinion request. I was speaking specifically to you being blown away by the 15# after you referenced normally using 8/10/12 lbs XT. You mentioned 8# CXX fishes like 10# XT and so I wanted to know if whatever the equivalent XT would be for the 15# would still result in you being blown away or if you would think they'd be much similar. I haven't used either in that size and I'm always looking for a game-improving change. You then answered it in your subsequent posts.
Good grief.
Fair enough, then. Hard to tell the tone. It sounded as though you stated that P-Line CXX understates it line strength, showing larger diameters for comparable break strengths. That doesn't seem to be the case, though I still think each line size fishes like the benchmarks next line up, or so. Its got to be the inherent stiffness in CXX, even when treated with KVD Line & Lure.
Sorry, getting killed here at work.....bleeding into other things. :-[
RoLo reply :
QuoteI go by line diameter as well. 8# CXX fishes like 10# XT. I generally use 8, 10, and 12# diameters.If you are curious about abrasion resistance, I've caught most of my recent pike, including this one on 8 and 10# CXX, with no leader. I've yet to break off using topwaters, jerkbaits and hard swimbaits. Spinnerbaits and jigs, well that's another story....twist and melt for me.
If it helps any, I was a XT/XL guy for years. To me, it is the bench mark that all others can be measured to, since most everyone that has fished for years has used them. A few years ago, I tried Suffix, and I felt is was a bit better, maybe more consistent. I still like Siege for all my steelhead applications. I tried CXX on a whim, 15# actually, for t-rig worms. To say I was blown away is understatement. I caught fish, big fish, where the lione was actually peeling due to contact with zebes, and I was still unable to break it with my hands.
However, its not a nice to handle as the previously mentioned lines, especially on spinning gear. I also don't feel that it is that strong or abrasion resistant at diameters smaller than 8#. But that goes back to the diameter - abrasion resistance relationship that Rolo brought up.
It's a little uncanny John, but your line experience has taken many of the same paths as mine.
Like yourself and Paul, I too am a Trilene guy, and used it exclusively for about 45 years
(Xtra Limp on spinning & Xtra Tough on casting)
We've tried many other lines in the interim, but always came back, there's not a bad thing I can say about any Trilene line.
For sheer blood and guts though, it's pretty tough if not impossible to beat P-Line CXX.
With spinning tackle though, where a little less memory is much appreciated, the mono I personally prefer is Sufix Elite.
For everything else, I prefer Sufix Siege, it's one great line. Now then, if the goal were centered on abrasion-resistance,
I'm not aware of any line that's meaningfully better than Sufix Tritanium. On the chart above, Trilene XT edged out
Sufix Tritanium in average strength, but I have trouble aligning myself with that metric. Okay, if zebes means zebra mussels,
then we have the Archilles heel that'll quickly separate the men from the boys (hope to get the chance sometime next year).
Everything changed just a few years ago, when I took the giant step from mono to braid.
Technically speaking, "monofilament" includes all line that isn't "multifilament", which is to say
nylon, fluorocarbon and copolymers that aren't cofilament (fused vs. jacketed).
After all is said and done, no line transition made a greater impact on my spinning experience than braided line.
Its line-diameter vs. test-strength is unparalleled, it's virtually non-stretch which in effect raises the tensile modulus of the blank,
enhancing the sensitivity and allowing "flick-of-the-wrist" hook-sets. And for spinning junkies like myself,
you can't help but fall in love with the "zero-memory" limpness of the line.
So what does that leaveLine Visibility? Ironically, in a recent thread Glenn stated that he didn't like Fireline braid
because he's a line-watcher and when wearing polarized glasses he can't see the braided line.
Yet, there are many anglers who fret over the visibility of braid and add a fluorocarbon leader (I never do).
Paradoxically, and in spite of its refractive index, I've seen fluorocarbon line in the sun that looked like an underwater icicle!
Back to braided line, I've tried Sufix braid, PowerPro braid and Berkley braid and though I like them all, my latest squeeze
is Berkley Fireline Tracer braid...yeah Tracer, so I can see the line ;D
Roger
rubba bubba reply :
QuoteFair enough, then. Hard to tell the tone. It sounded as though you stated that P-Line CXX understates it line strength, showing larger diameters for comparable break strengths. That doesn't seem to be the case, though
No harm. I indeed was questioning CXX's #'s as based on that table CXX was by far the largest diameter, and it has been brought up by others previously. That's not an attack on CXX, though (as if they are hatching some deceptive marketing ploy), just that when comparing CXX (or any line's strength) if people could speak to equivalent line diameters they should. It would seem CXX's numbers are somewhat off, but if true, I liken it more to how St. Croix's MH action rods are like most other's H action; not bad just something people need to be aware of; which is why I wanted your further opinion.
Does anyone have a table that lists many of the lines, diameters and ratings? It looks like XT is pretty similar in size but it's also known for it's stoutness. A table with Yo-Zuri and others would be nice. Maybe I'll compile one.
Paul Roberts reply :
QuoteDrift? As in Hezog's western syle? In my opinion, no. Too much contact with rocks is bad for braid, even with a longer leader. At least with nicked monu, you stand a sliver of a chance, whereas frayed braid is toast.Now, for float rigs, it great, as long as you are using a slow action rod and a spinning or casting reel with a very light, smooth drag. You can use a much smaller diameter mainline which equates to lighter, which means longer trots downstream, while keeping your mainline off the water for a better float.
I started out three years ago with fused Fireline, and did well. Until the temp dropped below freezing. Same goes for traditional braid, like Power Pro. My last few trips I have been using 15# PP braid.
Most centrepinners shun braid, due to the fact that they have no drag, per se. Since the spool spins freely, their finger on the lip serves as resistance, and the stretch in mono acts as a shock absorber, along with the long, light power, slow action rod, giving them a bit more time to react to the fish.
I'm not 100% sold on pinning, though its hard to deny the results. I'm currently researching a 12' UL/moderate casting rod and round reel as my full time trout rig. I still like use a few bottom bouncing rigs in certain conditions, and that rig would allow me to use either terminal rig.
There's a high floating braid out there, specifically designed for steelheading I hear. Curious, if anything; I prefer fly-tackle for most things trouty anyway.
J Francho reply :
P-Line Hydrafloat. Reviews from several ranged from ho-hum to hating it. Remember though, steelheading is a bit slower moving than bass angling as far as equipment evolution goes.
And as for the flyrod for trout, one thing: SNAGGER!!!!
(Just kidding ;D)
Paul Roberts reply :
QuoteP-Line Hydrafloat. Reviews from several ranged from ho-hum to hating it. Remember though, steelheading is a bit slower moving than bass angling as far as equipment evolution goes.And as for the flyrod for trout, one thing: SNAGGER!!!!
(Just kidding
Say what?? Them's fightin' words you know.
J Francho reply :
QuoteDoes anyone have a table that lists many of the lines, diameters and ratings? It looks like XT is pretty similar in size but it's also known for it's stoutness. A table with Yo-Zuri and others would be nice. Maybe I'll compile one.
I think someone did one a year ago, or so. Problem is, it seems to vary as you move from light to heavy lines.
I just peeled my numbers from the BPS site.
J Francho reply :
QuoteQuoteP-Line Hydrafloat. Reviews from several ranged from ho-hum to hating it. Remember though, steelheading is a bit slower moving than bass angling as far as equipment evolution goes.And as for the flyrod for trout, one thing: SNAGGER!!!!
(Just kidding
Say what?? Them's fightin' words you know.
Admit it, you have a spey rod loaded with 25# mono, and two gumball sized sinkers about 4" above a #2 hook. ;D
Team9nine reply :
QuoteAfter all is said and done, no line transition made a greater impact on my spinning experience than braided line.
Its line-diameter vs. test-strength is unparalleled, it's virtually non-stretch which in effect raises the tensile modulus of the blank,
enhancing the sensitivity and allowing "flick-of-the-wrist" hook-sets. And for spinning junkies like myself,
you can't help but fall in love with the "zero-memory" limpness of the line.
So what does that leaveLine Visibility? Ironically, in a recent thread Glenn stated that he didn't like Fireline braid
because he's a line-watcher and when wearing polarized glasses he can't see the braided line.
Yet, there are many anglers who fret over the visibility of braid and add a fluorocarbon leader (I never do).
Paradoxically, and in spite of its refractive index, I've seen fluorocarbon line that looked like an underwater icicle!
Back to braided line, I've tried Sufix braid, PowerPro braid and Berkley braid and though I like them all, my latest squeeze
is Berkley Fireline Tracer braid...yeah Tracer, so I can see the line ;D
Roger
The flame green Fireline or yellow PowerPro will fix that visibility issue up right quick 8-) ;D
J Francho reply :
QuoteIt's a little uncanny John, but your line experience has taken many of the same paths as mine.
Except I did it in less time. Admittedly, just when I was really starting understand how to try and catch bass (late 80s through now) the industry open a ton of doors to new, and better tackle. There didn't seem to be much revolution going on before, besides plastic worms, spinning reels, and nylon mono filament.
By "zebes," I do mean zebra and quagga mussels. The latter seem less picky about where they grow, and I've even run into them encrusting coontail and milfoil! Talk about a terrible place to be with the 50# braid that everyone here recommends for heavy vegetation, LOL.
Paul Roberts reply :
QuoteQuoteQuoteP-Line Hydrafloat. Reviews from several ranged from ho-hum to hating it. Remember though, steelheading is a bit slower moving than bass angling as far as equipment evolution goes.And as for the flyrod for trout, one thing: SNAGGER!!!!
(Just kidding
Say what?? Them's fightin' words you know.
Admit it, you have a spey rod loaded with 25# mono, and two gumball sized sinkers about 4" above a #2 hook. ;D
#1's legal
Is sponge still popular? There was a time when that was all you EVER saw ANYONE using. I snagged one steelhead on sponge -being shown the ropes by a friend back in '76. Didn't feel right (and wasn't) so I broke out a spinning rod and marabou jigs and CAUGHT two more. My buddy almost had a heart attack. Anyway...we're going OT again. Oh yes, I caught them on Trilene XL.
Paul Roberts reply :
QuoteQuoteAfter all is said and done, no line transition made a greater impact on my spinning experience than braided line.
Its line-diameter vs. test-strength is unparalleled, it's virtually non-stretch which in effect raises the tensile modulus of the blank,
enhancing the sensitivity and allowing "flick-of-the-wrist" hook-sets. And for spinning junkies like myself,
you can't help but fall in love with the "zero-memory" limpness of the line.
So what does that leaveLine Visibility? Ironically, in a recent thread Glenn stated that he didn't like Fireline braid
because he's a line-watcher and when wearing polarized glasses he can't see the braided line.
Yet, there are many anglers who fret over the visibility of braid and add a fluorocarbon leader (I never do).
Paradoxically, and in spite of its refractive index, I've seen fluorocarbon line that looked like an underwater icicle!
Back to braided line, I've tried Sufix braid, PowerPro braid and Berkley braid and though I like them all, my latest squeeze
is Berkley Fireline Tracer braid...yeah Tracer, so I can see the line ;D
Roger
The flame green Fireline or yellow PowerPro will fix that visibility issue up right quick 8-) ;D
Brian isn't using a leader either -tying direct. He just didn't know any better . Turns out the bass didn't either -to the tune of...how many now Brian? Pretty cool test to an age old question on line visibility to fish, and what it means.
Team9nine reply :
QuoteBrian isn't using a leader either -tying direct. He just didn't know any better
Just over 200 bass on the flame green FL and more recently the red PP since Halloween. My warped theory on all of this right now is that bass have to learn (be conditioned) to correlate the line with the negative experience (being caught), not necessarily a quick process in the wild. It's also proven that they can identify and distinguish all colors of line once so trained (conditioned).
So my theory is that since very few bass anglers, at least around my parts, ever use the very Hi-vis lines (flame green FL, Berkley XT Solar, yellow PP, golden Stren, etc.), the fish haven't "learned" to react/relate negatively to it yet. Everybody likes to throw green or clear line, and so I think sometimes it's more difficult to catch bass on these lines than on the hi-vis lines due to the extreme difference in angler use (conditioning/over-exposure).
-T9
Paul Roberts reply :
Quote... It's also proven that they can identify and distinguish all colors of line once so trained (conditioned).
There was an early study that showed bass could actually see lines as light as they tested -6lb test. It's what line "means" to the bass that matters.
RoLo reply :
QuoteExcept I did it in less time.
Funny, but I came close to typing that you compressed the time frame (I'm okay with that).
QuoteTalk about a terrible place to be with the 50# braid that everyone here recommends for heavy vegetation, LOL.
To be sure, braid has many virtues, but it's NOT the weed-wacker that many would have us believe.
Living in the heartland of aquatic vegees, I'm in the habit of constantly feeling my line for frays
and frequently retying for any little reason.
Roger
RoLo reply :
Team9nine wrote
QuoteMy warped theory on all of this right now is that bass have to learn (be conditioned) to correlate the line with the negative experience (being caught), not necessarily a quick process in the wild.
We know for sure that every bass we catch on a plug has seen the lure.
It's almost certain that the bass also seen the gaudy treble hooks dangling from the plug,
but accepted them as part of the meal. They also accept the rattlebox and bristle weedguard
on a jig, the beads on a C-rig, the sliding bullet sinker on a T-rig and the weedless hook in a W-rig.
If bass are so tolerant of all these gaudy contraptions, why are all bets off
when they glimpse a fine filament in the water?
As I mentioned above, I've seen fluorocarbon line in sunlight that looked like an underwater icicle.
Fortunately for anglers, line visibility probably means little or nothing to bass.
On the other hand, "line-drag" caused by heavy diameter line is a whole other ballgame.
Regardless of line color or line visibility, skewing the natural drift of the lure (i.e. stream fishing)
or stifling the action of the lure can blow the gig. Clear water makes it much easier for fish
to detect unnatural lure action, where finer diameter line is often needed (e.g. Dale Hollow Reservoir).
Nevertheless, "line visibility" generally gets the blame. (Braid by the way, is fine diameter line)
Roger
Paul Roberts reply :
Quote...On the other hand, "line-drag" caused by heavy diameter line is a whole other ballgame.
Regardless of line color or line visibility, skewing the natural drift of the lure (i.e. stream fishing)
or stifling the action of the lure can blow the gig. Clear water makes it much easier for a fish
to detect unnatural lure action, where finer diameter line is often needed (Dale Hollow Reservoir).
Nevertheless, "line visibility" will generally get the blame.
Roger
Exactly.
As to the Dale Hollow reference -another BIG advantage with fine lines is their ability to maintain good presentation and detection to deeper fish.
Team9nine reply :
QuoteWe know for sure that every bass we catch on a plug has seen the lure.
It's almost certain that the bass also seen the gaudy treble hooks dangling from the plug,
but accepted them as part of the meal. They also accept the rattlebox and bristle weedguard
on a jig, the beads on a C-rig, the sliding bullet sinker on a T-rig and the weedless hook in a W-rig.
If bass are so tolerant of all these gaudy contraptions, why are all bets off
when they glimpse a fine filament in the water?
As I mentioned above, I've seen fluorocarbon line in sunlight that looked like an underwater icicle.
Fortunately for anglers, line visibility probably means little or nothing to bass.
On the other hand, "line-drag" caused by heavy diameter line is a whole other ballgame.
Regardless of line color or line visibility, skewing the natural drift of the lure (i.e. stream fishing)
or stifling the action of the lure can blow the gig. Clear water makes it much easier for fish
to detect unnatural lure action, where finer diameter line is often needed (e.g. Dale Hollow Reservoir).
Nevertheless, "line visibility" generally gets the blame. (Braid by the way, is fine diameter line)
Roger
That correlates exactly with my point Roger, just stated it in a different way. There are so many other "things" that a bass could try and associate negatively with being caught, it would be unlikely that they would immediately single out something like line. That said, things that might stand out the most (be most obvious or salient to the fish) like very hi-vis line could eventually become less effective if some bass eventually started associating those obvious cues to negative experiences in high pressure waters, especially the larger more "instinctive" bass.
Good second point also. I myself have generally played the odds by where using increased line diameter usually means increased weight of the lure to compensate for that drag, but you can only play that game to a certain end before you start losing some of the time.
-T9
RoLo reply :
QuoteQuote...On the other hand, "line-drag" caused by heavy diameter line is a whole other ballgame.
Regardless of line color or line visibility, skewing the natural drift of the lure (i.e. stream fishing)
or stifling the action of the lure can blow the gig. Clear water makes it much easier for a fish
to detect unnatural lure action, where finer diameter line is often needed (Dale Hollow Reservoir).
Nevertheless, "line visibility" will generally get the blame.
Roger
Exactly.
As to the Dale Hollow reference -another BIG advantage with fine lines is their ability to maintain good presentation to deeper fish.
Nowhere is the effect of line diameter more dramatic than in the ocean.
Let's say that you're drifting in 100 ft of water with 20 lb line, and a 4 oz sinker is just barely bumping bottom.
You fetch a rod out of the socket that's spooled with 30 lb line.
On this outfit you'll have to step-up to a 6 or 8 oz sinker before you feel the sinker bumping bottom.
Roger
rubba bubba reply :
I put together a table of lines and their sizes. The first is sorted alphabetically, the second I sorted by size for 12lbs rating. If there are other lines someone would like added, let me know. What's interesting is a 12lbs mono is approximately the size of a 15-17lbs fluoro - which begs the question and point you guys have been making: is Fluoro really invisible vs. Mono, or is it because of the difference in diameter?
Paul Roberts reply :
QuoteQuoteQuote...On the other hand, "line-drag" caused by heavy diameter line is a whole other ballgame.
Regardless of line color or line visibility, skewing the natural drift of the lure (i.e. stream fishing)
or stifling the action of the lure can blow the gig. Clear water makes it much easier for a fish
to detect unnatural lure action, where finer diameter line is often needed (Dale Hollow Reservoir).
Nevertheless, "line visibility" will generally get the blame.
Roger
Exactly.
As to the Dale Hollow reference -another BIG advantage with fine lines is their ability to maintain good presentation to deeper fish.
Nowhere is the effect of line diameter more dramatic than in the ocean.
Let's say that you're drifting in 100 ft of water with 20 lb line, and a 4 oz sinker is just barely bumping bottom.
You fetch a rod out of the socket that's spooled with 30 lb line.
On this outfit you'll have to step-up to a 6 or 8 oz sinker before you feel the sinker bumping bottom.
Roger
At a diff scale, I've found 4#XL matched with a 1/16oz jig to be akin to 8#XL with a 1/8oz jig. They seem to present similarly in terms of sink rate/depth and speed (Doesn't appear to be a linear relationship).
But I can go one better (not competitively of course) -moving water! Current separates the spiderwebs from the ropes quickly, as you mention. Then drop the temperature, with associated increased water density, and line diameter weighs in huge. If this sounds unnecessarily anal, ask trout in 40F moving water. They'll set you straight.
rubba -THANK YOU for that table. That's something I can use. BTW: FC is NOT invisible -that's a myth. Having a refractive index close to that of water is not all that's involved. Consider it a myth, a distortion of a scientific measurement.
RoLo reply :
Paul Roberts wrote
QuoteAt a diff scale, I've found 4#XL matched with a 1/16oz jig to be akin to 8#XL with a 1/8oz jig. They seem to present similarly in terms of sink rate/depth and speed (Doesn't appear to be a linear relationship).
Not linear at all.
If the line in the water remained arrow-straight then it might be linear, but the monkey-wrench is "Line-Belly".
Though rarely discussed on the boards, line-belly is the culprit that quickly converts negligible resistance into supra drag.
In my tenderfoot years on the ocean, I was marking bluefish about 30 ft below the surface in water about 150 ft deep.
Several unproductive trolling passes told me that my lure wasn't getting down to the fish. I began paying out line
behind the boat but to no avail. Frustrated, I paid more-and-more line astern, and though my backing was past the tip-top guide,
there was still no takedown. Then I noticed something weird, a raucous group of Franklin gulls were following my boat
about 100 yards in its wake. They seemed to be taking turns diving toward the ocean, but invariably
changed their mind just before entering the water. I finally come to my senses, and realized that they could see my Clark spoon
under the water, but it was just beneath their diving capability (a good thing for both of us).
Due to cumulative line-drag, my lure had reached its terminal depth, so when I paid out more line, the lure simply rode upward
in the water column as it departed from the nadir of the line-belly. That's a lesson I will never forget.
Roger
Paul Roberts reply :
QuotePaul Roberts wrote
QuoteAt a diff scale, I've found 4#XL matched with a 1/16oz jig to be akin to 8#XL with a 1/8oz jig. They seem to present similarly in terms of sink rate/depth and speed (Doesn't appear to be a linear relationship).Not linear at all.
If the line in the water remained arrow-straight then it might be linear, but the monkey-wrench is "Line-Belly".
Though rarely discussed on the boards, line-belly is the culprit that quickly converts negligible resistance into supra drag.
In my tenderfoot years on the ocean, I was marking bluefish about 30 ft below the surface in water about 150 ft deep.
Several unproductive trolling passes told me that my lure wasn't getting down to the fish. I began paying out line
behind the boat but to no avail. Frustrated, I paid more-and-more line astern, and though my backing was past the tip-top guide,
there was still no takedown. Then I noticed something weird, a raucous group of Franklin gulls were following my boat,
about 100 yards in its wake. They seemed to be taking turns diving toward the water, but invariably
changed their mind just before entering the water. I finally come to my senses, they could actually see my Clark spoon
under the water, but it was just below their diving capability.
Due to cumulative lin-drag, my lure had reached its terminal depth and as I paid out more line, the lure simply rode upward
in the water column as it departed from the nadir of line-belly. That's a lesson I will never forget.
Roger
;D That's a great, and telling, story.
Line belly: Hence my interest in the density of FC. Whether it pans out to be a real advantage -I find no other in FC -remains to be seen.
Also, (to get further anal -you can blame trout) I think the non-linear relationship when you change line diameters, even if you COULD keep a straight line, may also have to do with the 3D (cylindrical) shape of line -meaning, mathematically, volume comes into the picture. That's a guess --I am no mathematician.
Suffice it to say -diameter matters.
RoLo reply :
QuoteQuotePaul Roberts wrote
QuoteAt a diff scale, I've found 4#XL matched with a 1/16oz jig to be akin to 8#XL with a 1/8oz jig. They seem to present similarly in terms of sink rate/depth and speed (Doesn't appear to be a linear relationship).Not linear at all.
If the line in the water remained arrow-straight then it might be linear, but the monkey-wrench is "Line-Belly".
Though rarely discussed on the boards, line-belly is the culprit that quickly converts negligible resistance into supra drag.
In my tenderfoot years on the ocean, I was marking bluefish about 30 ft below the surface in water about 150 ft deep.
Several unproductive trolling passes told me that my lure wasn't getting down to the fish. I began paying out line
behind the boat but to no avail. Frustrated, I paid more-and-more line astern, and though my backing was past the tip-top guide,
there was still no takedown. Then I noticed something weird, a raucous group of Franklin gulls were following my boat,
about 100 yards in its wake. They seemed to be taking turns diving toward the water, but invariably
changed their mind just before entering the water. I finally come to my senses, they could actually see my Clark spoon
under the water, but it was just below their diving capability.
Due to cumulative lin-drag, my lure had reached its terminal depth and as I paid out more line, the lure simply rode upward
in the water column as it departed from the nadir of line-belly. That's a lesson I will never forget.
Roger
;D That's a great, and telling, story.
Line belly: Hence my interest in the density of FC. Whether it pans out to be a real advantage -I find no other in FC -remains to be seen.
Also, (to get further anal -you can blame trout) I think the non-linear relationship when you change line diameters, even if you COULD keep a straight line, may also have to do with the 3D (cylindrical) shape of line -meaning, mathematically, volume comes into the picture. That's a guess --I am no mathematician.
Suffice it to say -diameter matters.
True.
Let's do the math...without getting into chords (i.e. line-belly).
BERKLEY BIG GAME
20 lb = 0.017 line dia.
30 lb = 0.021 line dia.
Okay, 0.004 (4/1000 inch) doesn't sound like very much, but let's suppose you have 20 ft of line in the water.
If we multiply 0.004 x 20-ft, then we're dragging an extra wad through the water whose area is more than 1/4" square (0.281 or 9/32 square).
Mind you, that's only the DIFFERENCE between the two lines.
Now add the line-belly to the straight-line resistance and the planer board effect goes over the top.
Many years ago, there was a noted bluewater gamefisherman named Robinson (don't remember his first name).
He introduced a revolutionary technique for wearing down big bluewater gamefish like tuna, marlin and in his day, swordfish.
The so-called "Robinson System" called for nothing special for a rod, but mandated the use of very heavy line
and a large-capacity conventional reel (Penn Int'l). After hooking up, Robinson ran his boat abreast of the beast at full-throttle,
stripping off as much line from the spool as possible. He maneuvered the boat in order to stay constantly abreast of the big fish,
which was forced to drag a gigantic loop of heavy-diameter line around the ocean. Robinson never put a meaningful arch in his rod,
until he began pumping the exhausted beast to gaff (no C&R back then). Although the Robinson System was highly efficient,
it never became very popular because the line-belly and the ocean fought the fish, rather than the angler.
Roger
Paul Roberts reply :
Very cool Roger.
This comes into play in hook-set pressure too. Brian had a piece on his site that looked at this. Upon reading it, my mind immediately went to presentation and strike detection. I couldn't re-find the piece, so maybe he'll pop in again and add a link.
J Francho reply :
I'm just catching up with this thread...
Paul, I am sure just about everyone that fishes streams for trout has snagged at one point or another. I did. Then I learned about floating tiny jigs, and the rest is history. Nearly impossible to foul hook a fish on a float rig. Yeh, OT again, LOL.
Roger, your point about fishing at depth and line diameter is well taken. In many ways, I feel that the smaller diameter lines, and more specifically, fluorocarbon that is so popular for fishing for Great Lakes smallies actually has more to do with getting a straight line connection to the offering - usually a drop shot tidbit or tube jig - and getting it down. So many anglers have said to me that they get bit using FC more because the fish can't see it, and they are able to use a step up. I think its because the stuff sinks.
As I mentioned before, I use braid and a lonnnnng FC leader, and while braid doesn't sink, I am using a very small diameter line, which overcomes the bow in the line.
While doing house chores today, there was a saltwater fishing show on, Ted Hernandez, I believe. He echoed your point about deep salt fishing. His parents were rigged up with 30 lb. rigs, while he stressed the importance of carrying a few 20 lb. rigs. With his light line rig, he was able to penetrate the school of yellow fin tuna, and get to the bigger fish at the lower reaches of the feeding fish. He consistently brought in bigger fish than his parents, despite being slightly under matched, and this drove his point home.
Once again...great stuff gents.
Paul Roberts reply :
QuotePaul, I am sure just about everyone that fishes streams for trout has snagged at one point or another. I did. Then I learned about floating tiny jigs, and the rest is history. Nearly impossible to foul hook a fish on a float rig. Yeh, OT again, LOL.
There are LOTS of ways to catch steelhead and avoid foul-hooking. First you have to WANT to avoid it -the first hurdle for many. Then you have to get know your tackle and how it operates in moving water. Then you're home free. Nuff said. We're on the same page. Hey, and it was almost on topic!
Team9nine reply :
QuoteBrian had a piece on his site that looked at this. Upon reading it, my mind immediately went to presentation and strike detection. I couldn't re-find the piece, so maybe he'll pop in again and add a link.
Here you go Paul (Jul. 2007):
About 25 years ago, BASSMaster magazine ran a series of articles on monofilament line testing. Now we see line tests in magazines and online quite frequently. However, the neat thing about these tests were some of the variables covered that you don't typically hear about. In one particular test they documented transfer of energy through monofilaments at different distances using two different line ratings.
The test setup was basic but neat. Attach one end of your monofilament to a gauge down in the water at depth and then have a person set the hook at different distances and see how much energy is transferred to the hook. They did this with 8 pound and 20 pound monofilaments. They found several things. One was that as distance from the hooksetter increased (i.e. a longer cast), final force at the hook decreased. The closer the "fish" was to you when you set, the more force you delivered to the hook. Another was that 30' was the crossover point between the two different pound test ratings. In other words, at 30 feet, the force exerted at the hook was identical between the 8 and 20 pound test lines. The further you moved out past 30 feet, the more the advantage of using 8 pound line increased. Anything shorter than 30 feet and the 20 pound mono resulted in more force at the hook.
They explained this via stretch and the "bow" effect. The heavier the line the less the inherent stretch. However, this is overcome apparently at the 30 foot mark. This is then explained by the "bow" effect, basically not having a straight line to your bait at distance. You cast, the bait sinks, but it has to drag the line with it. Eight pound test being thinner, is pulled more easily through the water column and subsequently gives you a more straight line to your bait resulting in better transfer of energy, to the point of overcoming its stretch bias.
Kind of interesting and a little eye-opening. To this day you'll still hear people refer to these explanations when talking about the subject of lines and hooksets, though many of the materials have changed (braids, fusion and and fluorocarbon). After all this time though, I realized there was also one explanation I never heard given or considered. Maybe someone at some point has thought of this, but I haven't come across it yet in all my readings.
That is the factor of surface area. Every line for a given length has a given surface area. The longer the length of line in the water, the greater the surface area. This surface area has a resulting amount of drag. You have probably experienced this before and just never thought about it. Have you ever let a bunch of line trail off your spool into the water and trolled it behind your boat to undo line twist? Notice how the more line you let out, even with no bait attached the more your rod starts to bend because of this drag? Enough line out and it can feel just like winding in a fish or heavy object.
The chart attached (click for full chart) gives you the surface area in square inches for a given pound test/diameter of line and a given length of that line in the water. Double the diameter of your line or double the distance of your cast and your surface area increases proportionately. Now imagine the difference required to catch a bass that eats your bait at 80' on 14# test line versus one caught finessing off a bed on 6# test at say 40' distance. Surface area of your line is tripled and that resulting difference in drag has to be overcome. Just something to think about the next time a fish clears the air on a long hookset and throws your bait
Paul Roberts reply :
Yes, that was it.
Line diameter affects presentation greatly and is one of the things that novices often tend to overlook. When I see lures that require a light line tied to rope -and "rope" could be 8lb line in some circumstances -I cringe.
It's not that they are lazy, but that they don't know, or have been unwilling to put the bucks into the range of rigs one needs to cover many bases. When I buy a new spinning reel, I buy 3 or 4 extra spools right off the bat -it's part of the purchase.
My spools now contain braid for shallows, and FC for the depths. And I'm still experimenting. At one time "mono" was virtually all we had.
I've thought for a long time that the biggest breakthroughs in tackle technology will come in the form of lines -and it appears to be happening. Can't wait to see what's coming!
One more thing to add about potential sensitivity in lines:
Rigidity. This makes line a bear to cast, but conversely should affect the ability of line to transmit vibrations.
Braid is so sensitive bc it has no stretch to absorb vibrations. But it loses sensitivity -completely -with any slack. This leads me to believe that stiffer lines, like FCs, should be more sensitive due to their rigidity. I distinctly remember fishing with a new rod and line combo I had years ago mid 80s. It was when IM6 appeared I believe. The rod was a Berkley Bionix and felt like a blade of straw in my hand. It was so sensitive coupled with XT (then the formula was stiffer low stretch now some shock absorption has been added), or with a Stren co-filament available then, with a polyester core. It actually shocked me to feel takes on plastics with a good bow hanging from the rod tip. Tap! Very cool, esp when fishing plastics and jigs on a nearly slack line.
So, I'm waiting for the next generation of line. My wish list is:
-Minute diameter
-Density to sink
-No stretch
-Rigidity for vibration transmission. (It will be SOOOO thin that it will handle beautifully on spinning reels of course lol).
SO, you engineers out there get busy. I'm sure they already are.
Paul Roberts reply :
So...what do you all think? What would be the key properties would you like to see in line technology?
K_Mac reply :
Paul I would add one to your list: High visibility above the water and low in the water.
RoLo reply :
QuoteSo, I'm waiting for the next generation of line. My wish list is:
-Minute diameter
-Density to sink
-No stretch
-Rigidity for vibration transmission. (It will be SOOOO thin that it will handle beautifully on spinning reels of course lol).
SO, you engineers out there get busy. I'm sure they already are.
Though most of us were not aware of it, the line industry came very close to breaking away
from both fluorocarbon and polyethylene. Japan concocted a revolutionary new line
that's far stronger than fluorocarbon and even stronger than polyethylene braid.
In keeping with the name Nylon, the new line was dubbed "Zylon".
Actually, nylon is a binary name that stands for New York (NY) and London (LON),
so I'm surprised Japan didn't name their new line Toklon.
Unfortunately Zylon has a huge stumbling block; it is rapidly degraded
by the ultraviolet rays in sunlight. On the other hand, Zylon has all but replaced Kevlar
in Bulletproof Vests, because the outer jacket protects Zylon from UV deterioration.
With respect to the fishing industry, line manufacturers are presently working
on ways to hybridize Zylon with polypropylene (Dyneema). Keep your fingers crossed,
because this will be the biggest fishing line breakthrough since 1939
when Nylon was introduced. After seven decades, nylon is still the most popular line material
in the world, as it's used in the production of all nylon, copolymer and cofilament fishing lines.
Roger
roadwarrior reply :
Amazing information that I have never heard.
Great post Roger!
Team9nine reply :
Here's the article which details all the specifics for those interested:
Nylon, braid,but wait there will be Zylon
http://www.westernangler.com.au/default.asp?action=article&ID=115
-T9
K_Mac reply :
QuoteHere's the article which details all the specifics for those interested:Nylon, braid,but wait there will be Zylon
http://www.westernangler.com.au/default.asp?action=article&ID=115
-T9
First I have seen from this writer. A well written and informative article. Thanks for the link.
related Fishing Rods Reels Line Knots topic
previous topic
most viewed Fishing Rods Reels Line Knots topic
© 2024 - fishing.qciss.net. All Rights Reserved.