posted by admin on Sep 17
Ever wonder if fluorocarbons should be on your reels? Are they really invisible? Worth the money? No matter what tests are done, certain anglers will always have their favorites and the debate over fluorocarbons is still on. Here is one view-
TackleTour.com, a site that promises 100% independent review, conducted a challenge in June, 2007 that was labeled the Fluorcarbon Showdown Sequel to their March 2007 article regarding fluorocarbons. They tested a number of manufacturers’ fluorocarbon lines for stretch, strain or deformity, visibility and knot-ability. The results are mixed but interesting. Some of the test methods used are iffy- line in a swimming pool to test invisibility- and hey, we aren’t fish and can’t really know what they see- but other tests, such as the stretch tests are easier to understand.
Here are some excerpts with links to the full article (a long one- good for when you are bored at work and need a fishing related diversion):
Perhaps no single review in recent TackleTour history has garnered as much attention and received as much comment as our March 2007 article comparing some of the more popular and well known fluorocarbon lines on the market today. It was our full intent to launch, from that previous article, a series of spinoffs and standalone product reviews, but it was becoming more and more obvious that there were some remaining, nagging issues that required our attention. Like how about our claim that fluorocarbon lines have as much stretch, if not more, than our baseline monofilament; or our use of the Polamar knot to assess knot strength; and how about the whole visibility issue? Yeah, how about all that stuff? Let’s find out!
Stretch II: Rather than take what was left of our supply spools to filling our reels and go fishing, we took them all back to the lab for some additional tests…. The majority of our fluorocarbon lines remained constant throughout but, surprisingly, a small number of them were affected by extended time in the water…READ MORE
![]()
Strain or Deformity: Some materials can be placed under a specific, constant load or stress and then, bounce back or recover from that stress once the pressure is relieved. Monofilament is a good example of this. While it might be stretchy if held between your fingers and pulled, once you stop and let go it returns to its original length. Fluorocarbon does not share this ability…READ MORE
Visibility: One of the other nagging issues regarding FC lines is the general claim of their invisibility under water. This has proven to be a difficult claim to test – that is without scuba certification and equipment. The following are some pictures we took in a swimming pool behind the premise that if the lines are invisible, or at best, hard to see in a swimming pool, results should be even more pronounced in a natural body of water where clarity will be considerably less. We rigged up the lines in a holder and marked a small section of each line with a black marker so we could have an idea of where to look for each product…READ MORE
Knots: Finally, the last remaining issue for us with the fluorocarbon lines, before making the decision on which products to really spool up and go fishing with, is what knot or knots to use? In Part I of our Fluorocarbon Showdown, we used the popular palomar knot exclusively. We tested each lines’ strength with this knot and compared it against tested tensile values. What we found was all but one of our test subjects, including our baseline Trilene XL, fell below 90% knot strength when compared to the tested strength of the line. Disappointing to say the least so we’re left to question, was it the line or was it the knot? We hear quite consistently that the palomar is not the best knot to use with FC lines, but we also hear that FC lines have terrible knot strength. So which is it?…READ MORE
Technorati Tags: fishing line, flourocarbon fishing line test, flourocarbon review, fluorocarbon fishing line
