Can fishing line spook fish?

[forrest]

the tests....

 

Well...one flouro line rated at a higher knot strength than mono. But, they only tested one knot...the palomar....and did not say what diameter the knot hole was.

 

No stretch is about the only thing that is a common myth....but that is a good thing. People buy braid for no stretch...no secret, flouro for something else.....a stretch in a leader is good IMO.

 

Not sure what the abrasion test was about: they had dry and wet abrasion tests for the mono baseline test but only dry for the flouro? (I am not catching too many fish on rocky above water cliffs) Why is this important? Because the mono did a lot poorer when wet, so how did the fluoro do?

 

 

The tackle tour tests were not in any way of a scientific nature...more of a magazine nature.

 

forrest

[kemper]

I have gone to a flouro lead for steelheading, 5 lb.

 

I find it totally depends on the maker of the line and not realy about flouro/mono etc.

I also use a mono lead sometimes and I dont find it really affects the number of fish I catch. For example when its cold enough that there is ice at the sides of the river I actually switch my lead to a 4 or 6 lb trilene XT. I find that I lose too many fish when the light flouro gets clipped by the ice, but 6 lb XT can slide over just about anything and not break.

[Dabluz]

the tests....

 

Well...one flouro line rated at a higher knot strength than mono. But, they only tested one knot...the palomar....and did not say what diameter the knot hole was.

 

No stretch is about the only thing that is a common myth....but that is a good thing. People buy braid for no stretch...no secret, flouro for something else.....a stretch in a leader is good IMO.

 

Not sure what the abrasion test was about: they had dry and wet abrasion tests for the mono baseline test but only dry for the flouro? (I am not catching too many fish on rocky above water cliffs) Why is this important? Because the mono did a lot poorer when wet, so how did the fluoro do?

The tackle tour tests were not in any way of a scientific nature...more of a magazine nature.

 

forrest

 

Did you see the second article about the second battery of tests? Other knots were tried out.

 

The diameter of the knot hole was the same for the mono. It was a test between fluorocarbon and mono.

 

Most people have been buying fluorocarbon because the common myth was that fluorocarbon did not stretch as much as mono and thereby better hook sets. The testing was a comparison between Trilene XL against a bunch of fluorocarbon lines. Trilene XL is a mono with about the most amount of line stretch when compared to other mono lines.

 

No need to test fluorocarbon when wet....it does not absorb water even when soaked for 3 hours. So the 3 hour soaking was eliminated in order to make the testing a bit faster.

 

The testing was scientific enough to my tastes. What more should have been done?

 

The tests were done to debunk all of the suposed advantages that fluorocarbon lines have over mono. There are no advantages to using fluorocarbon instead of mono. Actually, with mono, you have more advantages such as stronger knots, no stiffness, no line damage after the line is stressed, better resistance to shock, just as good resistance to abrasion if not better, better over all strength.

 

So, if a fisherman decides that if fluorocarbon is invisible in water (not been proven yet) and therefore fish will be less shy to bite (which has not yet been proven) he will have to accept the fact that fluorocarbon is inferior in all other aspects (except it's price) when compared to mono.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Dabluz

[singingdog]

the tests....

 

Well...one flouro line rated at a higher knot strength than mono. But, they only tested one knot...the palomar....and did not say what diameter the knot hole was.

 

No stretch is about the only thing that is a common myth....but that is a good thing. People buy braid for no stretch...no secret, flouro for something else.....a stretch in a leader is good IMO.

 

Not sure what the abrasion test was about: they had dry and wet abrasion tests for the mono baseline test but only dry for the flouro? (I am not catching too many fish on rocky above water cliffs) Why is this important? Because the mono did a lot poorer when wet, so how did the fluoro do?

The tackle tour tests were not in any way of a scientific nature...more of a magazine nature.

 

forrest

 

If you read both reviews, you will see that they tested 5 different knots: Improved Clinch, Palomar, Uni, Trilene, San Diego Jam. This is really the achilles heel of fluoro: for equal "real world" line strength you have to use a heavier fluoro.

 

Not sure where you are getting the "dry only" info. Here's a direct quote from the article: "We performed tests with each line in both wet and dry conditions and were able to validate one claim right off the bat. That is, that fluorocarbon lines, do not absorb much water and were not very affected during our tests whether wet or dry. For this reason, the data presented here-in represents dry line conditions."