Does fluorocarbon really make a difference?

[WinterrunRon]

Every once in a while, I come across a subject that no matter how much I try to experiment and answer on my own, I just can't arrive at a conclusive result. So I thought I'd seek your experiences.

Here's the question:

Does fluorocarbon (touted as being near invisible under water, more abrasion resistant and more dense to sink faster than mono) really make a difference in hooking up or landing trout/steelhead/striper in clear water conditions based on your experience.

Here's my question stated another way: If you had only two spools with you and you were fishing a tournament, given the choice of using a thinner diameter mono or thicker diameter fuoro, your choice would be...? (in other words, do you think it's a thinner diameter that is more effective or the material it's made out of?

I know it's a broad question and there's lots of factors that come into play depending on many variables, but I'm looking for the, "in general" answer. In other words, price aside, what's your choice?

[dtp916]

I always use flouro in clear water and heavily pressured waters (some places I fish are both). I use mono for dry flies. I've seen John Barr hyping up "high grade flourocarbon tippet" on dry flies, but I honestly think a dry will be more supple and float the way I want it to with mono.

I think flouro is great, and since I'm fishing nymphs most of the time, I'm using flouro.

And to answer your question, if I was fishing in a tournament, my answer is it would depend on the conditions, water color, fly I was using, and the mood I was in :lol: 8)

[Charlie Gonzales]

I dont think all flouro is thicker. I think that Gmax is stronger, thinner and near transparent compared to mono. Its been a long time since I have tested the two. But all I use is Gmax for stripers.

But flouro has very little use in fishing dry flies since it sinks, unless you want it to hang in the surface film.

Thens there's the knots. You either incease turns(triple surgeon,not double)or change knots, I use a non slip loop for just about everything.

JMO

[BigBill]

Is there really such a claim that it is more abrasion resistant than mono? I have found FC to be much less abrasion resistant than mono.

[jbird]

I use flourocarbon for nymphing. Theres no question it sinks faster. I almost never use dry flies for trout. Mainly cause the trout around here are mostly smolts. I think there are definitly circumstances where the transparency of flourocarbon can make all the difference in the world. For example, maybe with heavy shock leaders for laid up tarpon in clear water. Rooster fish can be some of the most selective gamefish i know of. I would always use flourocarbon for roosters. There is a place on klamath lake called crystral creek. The water is as clear as high mountain air. I wouldnt go there with anything but flourocarbon, its just not worth it to me. In clear conditions, you can easily see the difference between flouro and mono in the water. The mono glints sunlight and the flourocarbon doesnt. You can still see it, but it doesnt put off that glint of light.

Jay

[sacfly]

Every once in a while, I come across a subject that no matter how much I try to experiment and answer on my own, I just can't arrive at a conclusive result. So I thought I'd seek your experiences.

Here's the question:

Does fluorocarbon (touted as being near invisible under water, more abrasion resistant and more dense to sink faster than mono) really make a difference in hooking up or landing trout/steelhead/striper in clear water conditions based on your experience.


The answer is a simple No, fluorocarbon's "near invisibility" does not help. The learned Ralph Cutter has done experiments with 20 pound mono tied to a worm in clear water, and the trout would take the worm.

[jbird]

The answer is a simple No, fluorocarbon's "near invisibility" does not help. The learned Ralph Cutter has done experiments with 20 pound mono tied to a worm in clear water, and the trout would take the worm.

Thats a pretty poor example. Were not talking about worms here. A trout would probably take a worm from your hand.

J

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Is FC better than standard nylon mono?

Like many things in life, we will never get know for sure.

It doesn't go bad as fast as mono, it sinks faster and it does not transmit light. After that you are on your own.

We do not promote it to the general public but I can tell you that some of the top anglers and top guides use it when they think it is necessary.

I see it used on the shallow clear tropical flats when the wind is down.

I see it used in lakes too.

I personally like the fact that it is not supposed to break down like mono. This means I can feel confidant that it will not be rotten in a few years. For that reason it's all I use. I don't care if it catches more fish or not.

[Adam Grace]

When fishing for bass I find that I can fish the same tippet all day long catching multiple bass without changing my tippet when I use fluoro, that is not the case when I used to use mono for bass. Fluoro in my experience is MUCH more abrasion resistant than mono. Granted there are some monos out there that are designed to be more stiff or abrasion resistant but I would still put my money on fluoro material.

Fluoro is more dense so it sinks faster, for this reason I only use fluoro when fishing subsurface. I still use mono when fishing dries, I really like Frog Hair for fishing dries it's nice and supple and full of stretch to support lighter diameter tippets.

IMHO, fluoro is great for any type of fishing below the surface. Due to the abrasion resistance causing the tippet to last longer than mono I believe that the extra money required to buy fluoro can be very well spent!

[dtp916]

The answer is a simple No, fluorocarbon's "near invisibility" does not help. The learned Ralph Cutter has done experiments with 20 pound mono tied to a worm in clear water, and the trout would take the worm.

Thats a pretty poor example. Were not talking about worms here. A trout would probably take a worm from your hand.

J

Very true. :thumbsup: that's an odd example.

[sacfly]

The answer is a simple No, fluorocarbon's "near invisibility" does not help. The learned Ralph Cutter has done experiments with 20 pound mono tied to a worm in clear water, and the trout would take the worm.

Thats a pretty poor example. Were not talking about worms here. A trout would probably take a worm from your hand.

J

Really? My experience with trout is they spook when you get anywhere near them. It has been proven by experiment that trout do not mind 20 pound mono by one of the experts in fly fishing. You talk of using flouro in clear a clear lake but it has already been proven that trout will readily take food on 20 pound mono as long as the presentation is right. Dont worry about mono versus flouro (in the inivisivibility aspect of flouro), worry about the presentation. Ralph Cutter has alread proven the invisibility aspect of mono does not matter, even in clear water with 20 pound mono.

Sure it is cool that your flouro wont break down, but it sucks that it wont break down in water and may have harmful affect on fish. Do you really want cut off and broken off flouro that will last a lifetime in our streams and lakes?

[Darian]

Hmmm,.... Not sure that Mr. Cutters experiment could be said to be "proof". It is a demonstration that supports his theory that it doesn't matter if we use flouro or Mono when Trout fishing. 8) 8)

Haven't read anything about the "shelf life" of fluoro in water (after a break or cut off). I do know that flouro absorbs water, quickly..... Neither Flouro or Mono is desireable left in a wad on the bank or bottom any water. :( :(

Sorry if I'm showing some impatience.... :( :(

[JT]

I've learned to be skeptical with experimental results before knowing how the experiments were designed. What kind of fish were used in the Ralph Cutter experiment? Were they hatchery fish or high mountain wild trout? Were the fish starving or well-fed? Were similar experiments conducted with artificial lures or flies?

I, personally, use fluorocarbon in most of my fishing. I almost always use subsurface flies, so I like the faster sink rate. I also like the near invisibility of fluorocarbon. If I'm not mistaken this near invisibilty is caused by the index of refraction of fluorocarbon (the angle that light bends as it passes through the line). Apparently the index of refraction of fluorocarbon is the same as that of water, so the fish cannot see a difference in the way the light passes through the line.

I'm not a big fan of the stiffness of fluorocarbon, though. With the gamma-processed line it is better but still not as good as mono. I'm sure it will improve with time.

[SteelieD]

I use it... while nymphing for trout. Dries = Rio mono. Steelhead and salmon = Maxima Ultra Green.

I posed this same question on another board awhile back and answers were all over the place. I can't be sure it works better (i.e.: more hookups) but, I feel more confident using it. And sometimes, that's what counts!

[jhaquett]

It probably works better for nymphing but man is it expensive when bought as tippet! I usually just buy 2 lb test Berkeley Vanish. Seems to work well and it costs $10 for 200 yards instead of $13 for 30 yards...

That Cutter experiment sounds ridiculously flawed, at least it is in the way it is referred to here. The actual experiment may not have been. Live bait (like a big fat 8 inch nightcrawler) and flies are completely different, making that experiment not even worth applying to fly fishing. You could tie a hook onto a piece of rope and thread a worm on it and catch fish. Good luck fooling a fish with a #18 PT tied on anchor rope.

[bubzilla]

Ralph Cutter has alread proven the invisibility aspect of mono does not matter, even in clear water with 20 pound mono.

If you ever get the chance at a sportsmen show, I would run that theory past Denny Rickards. Oh, and can I watch? :D

No question about the breakdown problem, though. It's the conventional mainlines that really concern me in that regard.

[WinterrunRon]

Okay, so we're 15 replies and 300 views into the topic and the answer is...? :?

Here's my take. Although I'm looking to be convinced it's worth the price, I've never used the stuff and I'm very skeptical, feeling it's just another one of those overpriced products the industry has developed that has no evidence to back it's claim of catching more fish. More abrasion resistance,perhaps- longer shelf life, seems reasonable- lower refractive index to light, okay... but so what? Where's the evidence these factors work in the fisherman's favor to catch more fish?

Anyone willing to claim an experience that they can hang their hat on saying it absolutely outperformed mono on a given occasion or they were fishing mono with poor results and as soon as they changed to fluoro, their catch or hookup rates increased dramatically? Because, I'm willing to bet that, fishing with, say 3x diameter mono, is far more effective than 0x diameter fluoro in presentation and invisibility under same conditions.

Anyone care to disagree (again, I'm looking to be convinced :D ).

BTW, what's the inside scoop about Denny Rickards? :?

[Hairstacker]

Ron, like several others have mentioned, I use fluoro because it will sink your fly noticeably quicker than mono. There's a certain creek David Lee and I have fished a few times where you're often casting conehead leeches into little slots where there's not a lot of room to lead the fly and get it down to where it should be. I tried both mono and fluoro in that situation and the fluoro was unquestionably superior. So, I use it when the sink rate is important.

[Rick J]

unlike many who have posted, I use it FC for fishing dries - I fish Silver Creek each year in August and am using very small flies and 6x and 7x tippet -

First, I do not want my tippet floating right up to the fly - I know I have read some articels that say a sunken tippet is easier for a fish to see than a floating one but I have also seen serious refraction from a floating tippet so even if I used mono I would not grease it to the fly.

I use FC as a tippet attatched to a mono leader - have not had break off problems with the 4 turn surgeons and I do not grease the leader within say 6 to 10 inches of the fly - never had a problem getting the fly to float and can get great drag free drifts

[bubzilla]

Anyone willing to claim an experience that they can hang their hat on saying it absolutely outperformed mono on a given occasion or they were fishing mono with poor results and as soon as they changed to fluoro, their catch or hookup rates increased dramatically? Because, I'm willing to bet that, fishing with, say 3x diameter mono, is far more effective than 0x diameter fluoro in presentation and invisibility under same conditions.

I do not believe anyone is going to convince you that fluoro makes a difference. The fact that you have never tried it, despite the fact it has been around over a decade at this point, speaks volumes by itself. That's not a criticism--just an observation.

I learned the benefits of fluoro with a good ol' fashioned Pepsi challenge on the Sugar Creek Ranch back in 1996. The difference wasn't between 3x and 0x, but between 5x mono and 4x fluoro. The result was more fish landed with the stronger tippet, and a considerable increase in the number of hook ups. Everything else, i.e., fly, line, retrieve, was the same save the tippet. Going down to 6x mono would get similar results in terms of takes, but landing fish that size with the smaller diameter mono was virtually impossible. I believe the difference was the result of the difference in visability of the two materials.

Denny Rickards has been a big fluoro advocate for a long time. It makes an undeniable difference in stillwater applications. There are lots of fish and fisheries for which it is not necessary, i.e., swinging for anadromous fish, but there are definitely times when it makes a huge difference in catching.

[Amador]

Better is a subjective word. Without offering another opinion; here are the -

Pros-
less visable
more durable that mono
sinks faster
higher "tensile strength" than mono of the same diameter

Cons-
knots slip
less supple than mono
extremely heat sensitive
weaker "shock strength" than mono
knots tend to break because FC can cut into itself

[jbird]

I have literally been using nothing but flourocarbon for the last 5 years. (actualy, I use mono for LMB, but rarely fish for them) I have never experienced a single one of the cons amador presented.

Ron

I would suggest you get some and try it for yourself. Orvis Mirage is a great price for flouro standards, has one of the smallest diameter/break strength of all the flourocabons and its pretty much all I use. I dont suggest you take flourocarbon out on the delta for a day and make a decision based on that. But keep it with you, and based on the answers youre getting here, use it when it seems apropriate.

Jay

[Dan L]

Yes!!!!! Rick J is 100% right. I use mono tapered leaders and fluoro tippet with dries for selective trout also. I want the tippet to break through the surface film to avoid creating disturbance between the leader and the fly. I connect the two material using a Climax Tippet Ring and a simple seven turn clinch knot(not improved)with long tags. I never have any connection problems. As for the cost, the material I use cost $0.30 some cents a meter, and I would rarely use more than 2 or 3 meters a day, about 1/2 a fly. The way I look at it there are situations when fluoro is better but few situations where mono is better, at least for trout. I use fluoro tippet because I have proven to myself that it allows me to catch more fish.

Dan L

[dtp916]

Ok, I'm going to give in. I've used flouro for dries and it works fine. I like to use mono because I find it more supple than the flouro in the same diameter. So if you want it to float use mono. If you want it to sink, use flouro - and either way you can use a dry.

Not that I really fish dries.

What I have noticed, is that when I tie a czech nymph style leader and hang 2 copper johns (same size, color, and weight) off two tags - 1 mono and one flouro - the fish will take the fly tied to flouro EVERY time. But thats just me....

Just get some and try it.

[DocEsox]

Floro is definitely still stiffer than mono.....used to be decidedly more. Here in Alaska I have gone to using floro almost exclusively because for me it has a defiinitively better resistance to abrasion than mono. I have caught over 20 large trout in a row without retying....could never do that with mono...as a matter-of-fact have almost never broken off a fish up here while using floro.....but I lose the battle with rocks and submerged branches frequently. A few years ago I had real bad luck attaching floro tippet to mono leader.....unless the mono is decidedly thicker than the floro....the floro will knife through it short order under stress.....since then I have gone to floro leaders and tippets.

Maybe there is a difference between brands when using light and heavier tippets (up here in the fall I usually don't have less than 10lbs tippet on) but I have had very poor luck with Orvis Mirage in the higher categories breaking....not so with Rio Floro....anyway a personal observation but since I haven't done much light, or any dry fly fishing since changing to floro I have no experience in the light tippets.

On the clearer, more heavily fished rivers here in Alaska there is a difference between mono and floro. Best personal experience is on Quartz Creek which is fairly small, slow and crystal clear with heavily fished over dollies. The one day 3 years ago I fished half the day with mono and only caught 3 dollies.....after changing to floro I picked up 20 dollies in the afternoon. Not exactly scientific but the difference has proven itself to me.....especially with big fish on the upper Kenai River. Lost far fewer big fish since switching to floro of the same test.

I say this even in the overwhelming evidence of the "worm" experiments..... :D :D

Brian

[bruce mace]

Okay, I had the same question. Then last year, 3 of us were fishing a certain river which produces a lot of fish. We fish it a lot together 10+ days per year @ 10 hours per day average. On this particular day, it was very sunny and the water was clear to very clear. Fisher "M" was catching almost 2-2.25 to 1 over fishers "B" and "C". We checked rigging and found we all were almost identical. We checked flies and we were all identical. Our styles in this particular river have developed over the many years and we all have very good results as a by-product. At just about lunch-time... we re-grouped and just drilled the "What can we be doing different?". FluoroCarbon! Mr. 2 to 1 was using all Fluoro - So, we rigged fisher"B" with fluoro and all of a sudden, both of us are outfishing fisher"C"!!! Now, we switched fisher "C" and we are all catching at the higher rate. We should have had the original fluoro-fisher "M" go back to mono for a good test, but, he wouldn't do it!

[Adam Grace]

Nice story Bruce! Thanks

[WinterrunRon]

I stated earlier I've never used the stuff. I should have said never bought the stuff. Several times, fishing partners have thought me foolish to not use it when they were. They'd insist I tie on some of theirs. I'd tie some on, use it until it broke off without noticing any different results between us or within my own fishing, so when it broke off, I went back to the mono in my pocket. Perhaps it's because I'm equally unskilled with fluoro as I am with mono!

However, it sounds reasonable to conclud that the majority who have responded agree fluoro is stiffer, sinks noticibly faster, is stronger than same diameter mono and some of you say it absolutely makes a difference when it comes to clear water applications, especially stillwater.

Guess I'll break down and buy my first spool...

Jay likes Orvis Mirage. I'm sure Seagar, Rio, Scientific Anglers all make a good product. Or do they?

What's in your pouch? Any to absolutely avoid?

[roostersgt]

I use the Rio and Orvis FC, however, I don't care for the lack of knot holding of FC. It seems I'm constantly re-tying each fly 2-3 times before the knot finally takes and doesn't slip apart. The stuff sinks great, but costs tons. I've not had many break-offs, probably due to my inability to catch the bigger fish.

I'm not convinced FC is worth $13 a spool. The el-cheapo Berkeley 2 or 4 pound straight mono stuff seems to work just fine for me. I use both. Usually whatever comes out of the vest first.

[mike N]

When I used to catch fish the use of flouro did make a difference in the number of fish I landed. I would break off less fish with flouro than with mono, but I would straighten more hooks with flouro than with mono, specifically half pounders on 3x and 4x.

Hook rate didn't change much if at all.

MN

[bruce mace]

And, now that I think about it... the river test with the three of us is from a river which is very dependent on being deep with nymphs - especially on a sunny day. So, some more thought process... the inherent higher sink rate with Fluoro is a positive for nymphing sunny days as well.

[jbird]

And, now that I think about it... the river test with the three of us is from a river which is very dependent on being deep with nymphs - especially on a sunny day. So, some more thought process... the inherent higher sink rate with Fluoro is a positive for nymphing sunny days as well.

Bruce, I would venture to say that this was more likely the determining factor in your experience. IMHO

Jay

[jhaquett]

Ron,

I have some flouroadvantage or whatever the heck its called from Rio. Its good stuff. Like I said before though, Berkely Vanish seems to work just fine! They sell them in small tippet syle spools that hold 200 yards. In fact, I had the 2 pound tied on yesterday. I caught around 20 fish on one PT that I never even thought to retie or even check for abrasion or anything like that...whoops :roll: . I was catching hard fighting, decent fish (around 13")and the knot was nice and tight when I cut it off at the end of the day. I didn't think to check for any knicks.

Seriously, before you start buying $13/30 yard spools, try the Berkely Vanish or something similar. They have a few others. 8)

[WinterrunRon]

I hear you, Josh. I have the same gripe. At $13/30 yards, it should catch the fish for you! I think you mean Fluoroflex, or for $2 more, you get the word "plus" on the spool. :D

I'll head down to the shop tomorrow and browse the wall o' tippet material. :)

[jhaquett]

Yea it is flouroflex. I was even swindled into the "plus" and didn't even realize it. :lol:

[WinterrunRon]

I was even swindled into the "plus" and didn't even realize it. :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[jbird]

Beware of the Vanish. It doesnt compare price wise cause it doesnt compare period. I went thru that whole thing a couple years ago. I was using 12# Vanish for steelhead. It seemed great at first but as I used it more I had more failures. as "Sculpin" once put it so elequently...its called Vanish cause thats what happens to the fish you hook. :lol: :D
Its not worth it to skimp on the connection thats gonna make or break a great fish.

Jay

[BigBuddha]

I went to one of Denny Rickards' presentations at one of the ISE shows and he absolutely believes in flouro. That guy spends a pretty fair amount of time catching big trout.

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Most of the FC comes in 100 yard spools too.

[jhaquett]

Jbird,

I don't plan to use it for steelhead. Just for trout. I have 11 lb flouroflex for the steelies on the T & 8 lb for the feather.... :wink:

[Amador]

As Jbird stated. Stay away from Vanish, it is terrible. i used to be a tournament bass fisherman and used Flouro almost exclusively. I have probably tried every brand out there. IMHO, Seaguar and P-line are by far the best flour lines out there.

[WinterrunRon]

I don't think I recall seeing P-line fluoro on the shelfs? Love their CXX super strong though. I could winch my boat up with the stuff.

What about Maxima fluoro? When I use a casting or spinning rod, I'm pretty loyal to their ultra green. Never tried their fluoro, however.

PS You mean Fluoroflex Plus, don't you Josh? :wink:

[jhaquett]

:lol: yea