Difference between regular flouro line and tapered leader?

[Digger38]

Just curious what the difference would be between using just plain old 6 or 8 lb test fluorocarbon line as your leader opposed to using a tapered leader? Would using a tapered leader give you more of an advantage in your catch ratio? Does a tapered leader offer a better fly presentation when nymphing or using dry fly's for trout on the river? Just curious about the advantages to using a tapered leader really and what times you don't need one?

[Bob Laskodi]

You need a tapered leader when the fly you are flinging doesn't have much mass and is not very aerodynamic (like most dry flies). This is because you need the energy transfer available in the line to turn the fly over. You don't need a tapered leader when the fly has mass (like most weighted nymphs). Once the fly (mass) is moving, the leader will turn over due to the mass of the fly. Whether the material is flouro (or not) has no significant role in turning over the fly. I rarely use a tapered leader when nymph (or streamer) fishing. I always use a tapered leader when fishing a dry fly.

[DFrink]

When you use floro for nymphing what is the best method for attaching it to the fly line? I have been making a loop connection, but I read that the floro line can cut into the fly line (because it's so thin)? Thought maybe someone had some experience with this. I would hate to hook something nice only to have it break the rig at the loop!

[Darian]

I think I read somewhere that Flourocarbon was thicker in diameter than Monofilament for equal pound test. I'm sure that there're variances in diameter between brands as well. Maybe someone more with knowledge than I can confirm or deny this.... :confused:

[mikel]

I have been making a loop connection, but I read that the floro line can cut into the fly line (because it's so thin)?

My Rio Nymph Taper's loop was cut up, as you describe. I cut off the loop and nail knotted a butt section on. Seems like that's a down side of those loops. If you're using a tapered leader there's no issue, but straight 4 lb will definitely cut your line up.

I have another RIO Nymph line and have saved the top 2.5 feet of a tapered leader to use with it. I loop to loop with the leader remnant and then connect my tippet to that. Saves the loop on my fly line and is easier material to use attaching an indicator if you want to use one. That's the best I've come up with...-Mike

[DFrink]

Mike - I like the idea of using an old tapered leader section for connecting. I'll give it a try.

Darian - I don't know for sure about the thickness of floro vs mono, but I think you are right. I was using some 4lb floro last weekend and thought it seemed awfully thick for such a light weight line (compared to the mono that I usually use). I know floro is supposed to be "invisible" under water. Do you know if the thickness of the floro can cause problems with the fish seeing it?

[Mike R]

Here's what I do in a nutshell:

1. On the end of the flyline, I either have a welded loop or a short (6-12") piece of 30-40lb mono butt section nailknotted or albrighted to the flyline and perfection looped to the other.

2. Leaders- for dries, I use a tapered leader with a p-loop (loop-to-looped with the weled loop or butt section) on the line end and a 2 or 4 turn surgeons knot to the tippet on the fly end. For nymphs, I use a straight piece of mono (usually 8-10lb, always a little heavier than tippet, with p-loop and looped to welded loop or butt section) and a 4 turn surgeons knot to the tippet.

With this quick and dirty system, I have to tie (and then cut) very few pieces of line, especially expensive leaders and fly line. Also, it makes changing out rigs easy. I will chop up the tippet and the ends of leaders because those are easily retied with inexpensive material. Another variation I have seen is a loop-to-loop connection between leader and tippet, but I haven't experimented with that.

As far as fluoro goes, there is some difference in line diameter vs. breaking strenght, especially depending on what generation fluoro you're using. For example, the original rio fluoroflex had larger diameter to break strenght than mono, but the newer fluorflex plus has smaller. I swear by the newer generation fluoro and have used it without problem for ~8 years. The stuff is great.

Hope this helps,
Mike

[Darian]

As I understand it, Flourocarbon has low light reflecting properties. So, it's supposed to be less visible in water, regardless of diameter. I'm not sure I believe that fish are unable to see it, tho. :confused: In smaller diameters, it's my belief that there's no significant difference between mono and flouro. In larger diameters it may be important.... :-k

For example, like most tropical areas, the clarity of the sea water in the Sea of Cortez is exceptional (like alcohol clear) and I can see 15 - 20 pound test flouro quite well when bringing a fish to the side of the boat for landing.... :nod: I still use it occasionally down there when fish seem to be "spooky" but otherwise, I use mono exclusively. 8-)

[john]

My thought is that the mono or fluor distinction is not the reason for cut loops. There just isn't much difference in their respective diameters at the same test. Maybe a single "X" designation difference, and that gets smaller when #strength goes down.i.e. Mono is usually stronger at a given diameter at and above .012. Below that fluor gets stronger(Orvis). However if you want 4# tippet and use tapered leaders you have a butt section substantially thicker than straight 4#. It's the straight 4# at the loop that seems to me to be the problem, and one that's not present using 20# straight saltwater leaders. Maybe if you used an albright, but that defeats the purpose of the loop. Of course a girth hitch might contibute too. my 0.02

[David Lee]

Where the hell is Ralph Cutter ??

As I understand it ..... Mono rots-out due to Sunlight exposure over time , Fluorocarbon does not - that broken tippet hung on a rock or log will be there for a LONG time . I used to use Fluoro for several years running (6 or 7 ?) and don't bother with it now because of how long it will hang around in the ecosystem .

Just my opinion here , but I don't believe that Fluorocarbon will get bit more than Mono .

David

[Darian]

I agree with the other posters about the problem of using straight leaders cutting into welded loops (flouro or mono). 8) Forgot to mention in my other posts, when using lighter tackle for Trout (including Steelhead) or warm water species, I connect to the fly line with a nail knot.

[sgr]

Where the hell is Ralph Cutter ??

As I understand it ..... Mono rots-out due to Sunlight exposure over time , Fluorocarbon does not - that broken tippet hung on a rock or log will be there for a LONG time . I used to use Fluoro for several years running (6 or 7 ?) and don't bother with it now because of how long it will hang around in the ecosystem .

Just my opinion here , but I don't believe that Fluorocarbon will get bit more
than Mono .

David

Not only do the PFOAs and fluorinated telomers stay on rocks and logs FOREVER, but it's proven to be poison; the reproductive capacity of rats was affected by levels in their blood as low as 50 parts per billion. What does that mean? Well, if you scale it up to a human being, a 110 pound (50kg) individual would only have to have one milligram in their body to arrive at these levels – one millionth of a gram, 0.04 of a millionth of an ounce. Now, bear it in mind that this chemical is persistent in your blood (it never leaves your body), and you can see that there is a massive potential problem.

Back in '06 the SAB reviewed the information that was available at the time, and suggested that the PFOA cancer data are consistent with the EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment descriptor "likely to be carcinogenic to humans." In January 2006, EPA asked eight companies in the industry to commit to reducing PFOA from facility emissions and product content by 95 percent no later than 2010, and to work toward eliminating PFOA from emissions and product content no later than 2015. All eight of the invited companies submitted commitments to the Stewardship Program by March 1, 2006.
There is a reason that ScotchGard was reformulated, folks, and it's because of the proven health/environmental issues. Check the 3M site yourself, if I sound too hyperbolic.

If at any point PFOA, PFOS and PFOS-related products get into the food chain, it's going to get in YOU.

Please don't use fluorocarbon products in our streams.

[john]

I'll give you the arguement that fluorocarbon lines don't degrade and could represent a problem for fish/waterfowl. However, I refuse to buy the I'm an oversized rat deal. We've had enough regulations based on "likely to be..." scenario.

[john]

Did I just buy into a troll? my bad.

[sgr]

Did I just buy into a troll? my bad.

No John, you did not buy into a troll.
You simply disputed 9 years of scientific study with, well, nothing.

[Mike R]

I don't dispute that the PFOAs are toxic, but, in their current form as tippet, how bioavailable is it?

There are thousands of materials out there that are toxic in one form and relatively benign in another. I would be interested to see how fluoro breaks down and what the primary constituents are.

Mike

[Hairstacker]

Bob nailed the comparison of tapered versus straight.

David's right about it lasting forever in the environment.

I have found that when fishing shallow, moderately moving water with moderately weighted flies, that a leader with a fluorocarbon tippet will get a fly down just noticeably faster than one with a mono tippet; hence, that's the only time I have used fluorocarbon.

Is it cancerous? I try not to eat the stuff and suggest others don't eat it either.

Sgr -- Are we sure that the fluorocarbon used in tippet is the same as the stuff that was subjected to study? Seems like there's different types of fluorocarbons, chemical processes for producing them, and various derivatives labelled as "fluorocarbon." I'm no chemist so I have no clue.

[Mike R]

Not only do the PFOAs and fluorinated telomers stay on rocks and logs FOREVER, but it's proven to be poison; the reproductive capacity of rats was affected by levels in their blood as low as 50 parts per billion. What does that mean? Well, if you scale it up to a human being, a 110 pound (50kg) individual would only have to have one milligram in their body to arrive at these levels – one millionth of a gram, 0.04 of a millionth of an ounce. Now, bear it in mind that this chemical is persistent in your blood (it never leaves your body), and you can see that there is a massive potential problem.

Back in '06 the SAB reviewed the information that was available at the time, and suggested that the PFOA cancer data are consistent with the EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment descriptor "likely to be carcinogenic to humans." In January 2006, EPA asked eight companies in the industry to commit to reducing PFOA from facility emissions and product content by 95 percent no later than 2010, and to work toward eliminating PFOA from emissions and product content no later than 2015. All eight of the invited companies submitted commitments to the Stewardship Program by March 1, 2006.
There is a reason that ScotchGard was reformulated, folks, and it's because of the proven health/environmental issues. Check the 3M site yourself, if I sound too hyperbolic.

If at any point PFOA, PFOS and PFOS-related products get into the food chain, it's going to get in YOU.

Please don't use fluorocarbon products in our streams.

Okay, this may be a troll and, if you saw my last reply, I bit. But, I also did some research into the possible toxicity of fluoro. Here's what I found: Fluorcarbon line is a polymer of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), a highly non-reactive and pure thermoplastic fluoropolymer, NOT a fluorinated carbon. It's basically plastic. PVDF is more or less inert in the environment and exhibits low toxicity. Just don't vaporize a block of it and inhale it!

Yes it may have a longer breakdown time, but as far a toxicity concerns, they are more or less nonexistent. I wanted to clear this up before there was a panic. Just dig a little deeper and do a little research.

Mike

[sgr]

Yes it may have a longer breakdown time, but as far a toxicity concerns, they are more or less nonexistent. I wanted to clear this up before there was a panic. Just dig a little deeper and do a little research.

Mike

I tried to ignore your accusation of my being a troll. I even tried to ignore your condescending and ignorant accusation that I failed to "do a little research."
I respectfully suggest that your own research might benefit from a little deeper dig than a perfunctory skimming of Wikipedia.

n June 2000, EPA indicated that it was expanding its investigation of PFOS to encompass other fluorochemicals, including PFOA, in order to determine whether these other fluorochemicals might present concerns similar to those found with PFOS.

PFOA is used primarily to produce its salts, which are used as essential processing aids in the production of fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers.

PFOA is persistent in the environment. It does not hydrolyze, photolyze, or biodegrade under environmental conditions. Based on recent human biomonitoring data provided by industry, which found PFOA in the blood of workers and the general population in all geographic regions of the United States, exposure to PFOA is potentially nationwide, although the routes of exposure for the general population are unknown.

The major fluoropolymers manufactured using PFOA salts are polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and polyvinylidine fluoride (PVDF). PTFE has hundreds of uses in many industrial and consumer products, including soil, stain, grease, and water resistant coatings on textiles and carpet; uses in the automotive, mechanical, aerospace, chemical, electrical, medical, and building/construction industries; personal care products; and non-stick coatings on cookware. PVDF is used primarily in three major industrial sectors: Electrical/electronics, building/construction, and chemical processing.

EPA has also received data which indicate that the 8-2 telomer alcohol... (CAS No. 678-39-7)) although not itself made with PFOA, can be metabolized by living organisms or biodegrade under environmental conditions to produce PFOA (Refs. 8 and 9). Other telomer chemicals have not been tested to determine whether they may also metabolize or degrade to form PFOA. Telomers are used widely in a range of commercial products, including some that are directly released into the environment, such as fire fighting foams, as well as soil, stain, and grease resistant coatings on carpets, textiles, paper, and leather. The extent to which these telomer-containing products might degrade to release PFOA is unknown. However, anecdotal evidence of the atmospheric presence of telomer alcohols in a multi-city North American survey suggests that telomers may be one source of environmental PFOA.

I've got more, if you think you need it.

If you still want to use the material, go right ahead, it has not yet been banned, but don't pretend that you want to avert a "panic" by producing sophomoric, inaccurate, and shallow information prefaced with insults.

[sgr]

Sgr -- Are we sure that the fluorocarbon used in tippet is the same as the stuff that was subjected to study? Seems like there's different types of fluorocarbons, chemical processes for producing them, and various derivatives labelled as "fluorocarbon." I'm no chemist so I have no clue.

Hairstacker,
There actually aren't different processes for producing them, fundamentally. It's a salt of PFOA.
This stuff, polyvinylidine fluoride, has been used for years as an element in electrical wiring because it could be cheaply made and initially appeared inert. Then interesting things began to happen under burn tests.
Now, evidence is starting to appear that telomer chemicals (PVDF as an example) may metabolize over time to form PFOA.
If it does, in fact, metabolize in the environment (as yet unproven) without the burn trigger it will not be a good thing.

So the choice is yours, I've passed on the info and have been accused of trolling for my effort.
I'm done with the subject.

[Darian]

sgr,..... I don't think anyone was actually trying to insult you (condescending maybe). As you pointed out, your post sounded a bit hyperbolic. Not uncommon to have someone disagree with a point on this BB.... :rolleyes: Lighten up a little. :nod:

You're obviously educated in this area and I certainly wouldn't try to disagree with any of your point(s). However, it's almost overkill. :confused: Also, from the info you provided, it's already in the environment to some extent and probably in more volume than in flourocarbon leader materials. :confused: At the risk of perpetrating overkill myself, the danger from PFOA's in the environment is just another one of the many scary dangers that already invade our collective consciousness. What the H__l!!! Yer gonna die from one of 'em.... :lol:

As practical matter, I thought David Lee's point that it doesn't degrade quickly (entangling fish, etc.), it's expensive and there's an acceptable alternative was enough to make me decide not to use it. :nod:

Stick around. You've got some good stuff to offer.... :D :D

[Hairstacker]

Sgr, thank you for responding to my question and clarifying. For what it's worth, I never thought you were trolling. I also had no idea about the toxicity of this stuff and appreciate your warning. I sincerely hope you pipe in whenever other items of concern come up.

[ifsteve]

Two points, well one maybe. I won't address the potential bio hazard question. I am a chemical engineer and have seen so many of these "studies" lately to....well never mind. Anybody hear of global warming. Oh thats right now we have to call it global climate change.

Ok nuf of my rant.:D

I use flurocarbon when I am still water fishing exclusively and have so for about 15 years. I use a mono tapered leader but add about 3' of flouro. My experience is that I not only catch more fish but larger fish since I switched to fluoro tippets. I didn't believe it until one day on a famous lake on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana. I was fishing at ice out right next to a guy using the same fly line (brand, line weight, and type) and he was catching fish about 4 or 5 to every one I got. He even gave me the fly pattern he was using. Same thing. While taking a break from standing thigh deep in the cold water we were chatting on the bank discussing why the difference in our success. Finally he asked me what type of tippet I was using and I told him....3X RIO. He asked me if it was mono for fluorocarbon and of course it was mono. So he gave me a hunk of 3X RIO flouro and said try 3' of this. Unreal difference and I haven't gone back since.