Flourocarbon tippet worth it?

[WinterrunRon]

I know this subject has been discussed in the past, however, it's been a few years and would like to revisit the subject since we all have a few more years experience under our belt.

I'd like to limit the discusson to trout (hence the trout forum) and nymphing because my main and only concern is the line's ability to allow you to catch more fish due to it's highly acclaimed refractive index approaching that of water. Bottom line, if it doesn't offer the advantage to catch/land more fish, I'll save the extra $10 bucks for some other piece of equipment.

I honesty have not encountered a situation where I can conclusively say yea or nea based upon my catch rate on any give day. Seems to me you'd need to have simultaneaous fishing and identical setups, identical drifts starting with identical casts and... nearly impossible in my mind. With nothing more than a mask, I can tell you I can clearly see both under water. So this "invisibility" factor has me scratching my head.

I would really like to hear from real world experience, not what's listed on the box as advantages. So we can skip all the other "advantages/disadvantages" inherant in the line and focus on does it help in catching/landing more fish by outperforming mono based upon your experience.

In general, every fly fisherman I know or guide I've fished with that fishes clear trout water uses flouro. I would think if you're guiding, there's no reason to incur additional costs unless you're confident it helps your business. And if your business is catching fish...

You have a experience to share?

[Adam Grace]

Ron, unfortunately I cannot say whether fluorocarbon catches more fish for me but it lasts longer (abrasion resistance issue) and it sinks better too (more dense). When I use fluorocarbon I rarely have to change my tippet due to abrasion, I think that this leads to less fish loss when compared to mono. Sorry that I couldn't comment on the clarity issue.

[JGB]

Is there not an environmental issue too? Does flouro degrade like mono? Does flouro ever degrade?

Have experimented a little in the past, but have stopped. Much more of a pain in the a$$ as far as knots and stiffness...

Better suited for salt applications?

Seems like a big deal(and $$) over minimal performance difference...

Ralph done any underwater studies on it?

JGB

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

I think that it is a thing to try in very clear water in lakes or spring creeks and on the clear tropical saltwater shallow flats.

Because it sinks it is not supposed to be good for dry fly fishing.

Some of it is pretty tough.

Seaguar and Rio seem to be the most popular.

Hal Janssen uses it for some his hand tied leaders because it is supposed to sink faster than nylon mono.

I like it because it is supposed to last almost forever. Over the years I have spools of nylon tippet material all over the place and have no idea how old it is. With FC I don't have to even think about that....

At Kiene's we don't push FC on people.



PS: The big wads of fishing line in our streams, rivers and lakes are not from fly fishers...........I doubt if fly fishers account for 1% of the fishing line left in the environment. Most of us take it home with us....

PS2: It is here to stay........We do sell a lot of it.

.
.

[Ralph]

JGB-
I have spent quite a bit of time filming and simply observing fluoro and mono underwater. I have never encountered a situation where you could tell the difference between the two. Various brands differ in glossiness and visibility (as well as stiffness, abrasion resistance, and knot strength), but the variables don't seem to be in any way related to the use of fluorocarbon or monofilament. If you are looking for a nearly invisible line, by far and away the most difficult line to see in gin clear water is Stroft monofilament (NOT their fluoro!). Stroft is widely used by European competitive anglers, but is not available in the states since Rajeff stopped importing the stuff. It is still found in some of the steelhead shops in the Northwest, but once that runs out you'll have to buy from the UK on line.
From a fishing standpoint, I have yet to find a situation where fishing success changed when switching between mono and fluoro. IMHO the economic and environmental penalties of fluoro don't pencil out.

Update: Stroft is being carried by UNI for North American distribution. Stroft GTM monofilament is the stuff I played with last season. Pretty remarkable. Rumor has it that it is possibly the same material used in Trout Hunter tippets (which placed 1st in George Anderson's tippet shoot out). http://www.uniproducts.com/eng/produits.asp?noc=33&nop=77

[Lance Gray]

I use it and it's great. Here is why.

Abrasion as Adam says. It holds up better rubbing against the boat, rocks, logs and such. It's super tough.

Knots, it has a little harder surface than mono. The knots hold better and seem not to slip. I use the tie-fast tool for all my knots and that grip knot loves Flourocarbon.

It last for ever (the enviromental bad thing) but that is good for guys that don't fish that much. You don't have to replace your tippet when it degrades like mono does. You actually spend the same amount of money in the long run and you don't loss fish because of rot.

Ralph is right - I don't really think fish see it or don't see it. The main thing is that the person using it - has confidence in it and that helps.

Some people say that it's more senitive. I haven't found that.

There is some flouro material that is better suit for applications. Rio Flouro is very soft - less stiff than other brands and I like that for stillwater or fishing very small flies - like Putah Creek.

I think it's worth the money and as a guide I use a crap load every year. It does everything I want!!

[WinterrunRon]

My favorite two aspects of using flouro are:

1. Ditto on abrasion resistance. Stuff is tough, tough, tough!
2. A close second is the way it doesn't pig tail when cinching down knots. My favorite mono is Orivs Super Strong, but it's very susceptable to pig taling if you're not super careful when forming the knot. I often don't go slow enough and it's not uncommon for me to have to tie the da-gum knot more than once.

I wasn't familiar with it's shelf life, but that's a big plus in my book. Never have to worry about it being out of date. I'm using Orvis Mirage due to Yellowstone Anglers Tippet Shootout. Stiffer than RIO but marginally stronger.

But I'm still not hearing of personal experiences that can support the invisibility factor. Are we putting this in the myth column?

[Lance Gray]

My favorite two aspects of using flouro are:

1. Ditto on abrasion resistance. Stuff is tough, tough, tough!
2. A close second is the way it doesn't pig tail when cinching down knots. My favorite mono is Orivs Super Strong, but it's very susceptable to pig taling if you're not super careful when forming the knot. I often don't go slow enough and it's not uncommon for me to have to tie the da-gum knot more than once.

I wasn't familiar with it's shelf life, but that's a big plus in my book. Never have to worry about it being out of date. I'm using Orvis Mirage due to Yellowstone Anglers Tippet Shootout. Stiffer than RIO but marginally stronger.

But I'm still not hearing of personal experiences that can support the invisibility factor. Are we putting this in the myth column?

I have no evidence on the invisibility part. I think we catch more fish with it - because of the reason I stated. Other than that. I have no idea on it!!

[WinterrunRon]

My followup post wasn't directed at you, Lance. I was just stating, in general, that no one has yet offered an experience to support catching more fish with flouro.

[Lance Gray]

My followup post wasn't directed at you, Lance. I was just stating, in general, that no one has yet offered an experience to support catching more fish with flouro.

I know I just forgot to mention that!!

It's all good.

[steveg137]

So I was going to post on subject today but different angle. My question was is it worth paying for more expensive fluro or stuff like p line?

For those that use Fluro do you use rio and other premium priced stuff or lower cost options? Today I used p line fluro for 8 feet main line and rio for tippet. Worked really well and lot less $ than using rio straight through.

Realize retail margins on higher priced stuff helps angling stores as the margin is higher but is it worthwhile? Personally I'm going to stick with lower price for butt sections and finer stuff for tippet.

[JasonB]

I've had a little experience with flouro, and it's been almost all in the negative. I bought one spool from Rio on a lark to see if it helped out on some of those finicky trout on the LT and BT, and the only real difference I noticed was how my knot failure rate went up dramatically. Lost quite a few fish honestly. I swore myself off it... until I had a real steal deal on some older Climax flouro tippet spools. I figured that since it was supposed to last forever it would be ok, and the price was very cheap and I decided to give it another try. Now maybe it's just this brand, but it sure seems to me to have aged since it actually frays. On the up side, I have found that with a lot more careful attention to my knots that this tippet holds up almost the same as my knots tied on mono, but other than that these spools are all really weak and break far too easily. Basically this stuff just falls apart, not sure if it's age or manufacturer defect or whatever but it's the second time I've been burned by flouro so at this point I'd need convincing even if the stuff was much cheaper.

No idea on the "invisible" aspect, I tried comparing it in shallow water with my mono tippet and I found that I could see both of them a lot better than I would like to. I'd say count me as a skeptic on that account, but that's from pretty unscientific testing.
JB

[Chris Evison]

I have used flouro for the last 9 years as a guide. I love the stuff. I use Rio on trout lakes and streams/rivers. I use P-line at Pyramid Lake (10lb) and on the Delta (20lb).

For indicator fishing for trout I use straight chunks, no tapered leader for me.

For dry fly I still use a tapered mono leader, but always add an 18 inch piece of flouro to the fly. Smaller piece of flouro sinks, but doesn't bother small flies. Big dries are no problem. I like the fact that the flouro sinks just under the surface, hate seeing Tippett on surface reflecting light leading to a dry fly. Could be a confidence thing here!

Never had a problem with knots slipping or fraying of the line. I have noticed some fraying when stuck on bottom and line is rubbed over rocks. I only use 3-4 knots, improved clinch, non-slip mono loop, double surgeons and perfection loop. All of these knots hold with no problems when using flouro. For anything heavier than 10lb I stick with the non-slip mono loop knot.

I think Ralph did a underwater test with flouro and mono. He posted pics here or on Blanton's site, maybe both. It was very enlightening as the pics kinda disproved the invisibility thing to me. I do not think invisible leader is a big deal. I really do not think trout care much about your Tippett leading to the fly; after all, how many bugs have you seen on/in the water floating around with a big piece of metal hanging from their rear ends and still the trout eat the fly. I would think that the hook curve would spook fish, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

That's my 2 cents worth!

[Frank Alessio]

I have used flouro for the last 9 years as a guide. I love the stuff. I use Rio on trout lakes and streams/rivers. I use P-line at Pyramid Lake (10lb) and on the Delta (20lb).

For indicator fishing for trout I use straight chunks, no tapered leader for me.

For dry fly I still use a tapered mono leader, but always add an 18 inch piece of flouro to the fly. Smaller piece of flouro sinks, but doesn't bother small flies. Big dries are no problem. I like the fact that the flouro sinks just under the surface, hate seeing Tippett on surface reflecting light leading to a dry fly. Could be a confidence thing here!

Never had a problem with knots slipping or fraying of the line. I have noticed some fraying when stuck on bottom and line is rubbed over rocks. I only use 3-4 knots, improved clinch, non-slip mono loop, double surgeons and perfection loop. All of these knots hold with no problems when using flouro. For anything heavier than 10lb I stick with the non-slip mono loop knot.

I think Ralph did a underwater test with flouro and mono. He posted pics here or on Blanton's site, maybe both. It was very enlightening as the pics kinda disproved the invisibility thing to me. I do not think invisible leader is a big deal. I really do not think trout care much about your Tippett leading to the fly; after all, how many bugs have you seen on/in the water floating around with a big piece of metal hanging from their rear ends and still the trout eat the fly. I would think that the hook curve would spook fish, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

That's my 2 cents worth!




Chris brings up a point I have not thought about for some time... Trout will take a fly with a visible hook point and all but when I was a Kid I had to hide the whole hook when fishing salmon eggs or the trout would just not bite... never did figure that one out....

[catch&release]

I have used flouro for the last 9 years as a guide. I love the stuff. I use Rio on trout lakes and streams/rivers. I use P-line at Pyramid Lake (10lb) and on the Delta (20lb).

For indicator fishing for trout I use straight chunks, no tapered leader for me.

For dry fly I still use a tapered mono leader, but always add an 18 inch piece of flouro to the fly. Smaller piece of flouro sinks, but doesn't bother small flies. Big dries are no problem. I like the fact that the flouro sinks just under the surface, hate seeing Tippett on surface reflecting light leading to a dry fly. Could be a confidence thing here!

Never had a problem with knots slipping or fraying of the line. I have noticed some fraying when stuck on bottom and line is rubbed over rocks. I only use 3-4 knots, improved clinch, non-slip mono loop, double surgeons and perfection loop. All of these knots hold with no problems when using flouro. For anything heavier than 10lb I stick with the non-slip mono loop knot.

I think Ralph did a underwater test with flouro and mono. He posted pics here or on Blanton's site, maybe both. It was very enlightening as the pics kinda disproved the invisibility thing to me. I do not think invisible leader is a big deal. I really do not think trout care much about your Tippett leading to the fly; after all, how many bugs have you seen on/in the water floating around with a big piece of metal hanging from their rear ends and still the trout eat the fly. I would think that the hook curve would spook fish, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

That's my 2 cents worth!


I can only tell you from my experience on stillwaters and I have ten of thousands of hours on stillwaters because I only fish stillwater and never fish moving water.

Many years ago I could not be educated from anyone on the aspect of floro out fishing mono. I caught as many fish or more than my fellow anglers and felt the price difference was a big was of time. Finally after many years of fighting what I felt was the good fight I put some time in and educated myself fishing two rods at the same time. Anyone who know me well knows I put allot of time in fishing two rods side by side, not so I can catch more fish but to prove a point to myself that fish do indeed see things differently than we might image. Example I will fish two midges the same body size, shape, color and just change the color of the bead head and have found that something that we find so minor makes all the difference in the world.

I fished three months, 40 days on the water fishing the same midges, nymphs, baitfish patterns, leeches, etc under and indicator the same depth and the same flies, one with mono and one with floor. My conclusion was I caught almost three times the fish on floro as I did with mono. I COULD NOT BELEIVE IT. Indicator fishing is by far the easiest inspection a trout can give your offering before they eat it. It is just sitting there awaiting inspection.

I changed about 15 years ago and never looked back! I prefer Seaugar for its suppleness and strength but of course we all have to find the best floro for us. As with all anglers who put thousands of hours in on our trade we finally strip away all the things we dont like or agree with and come up with our finished product that is the most productive for use as individual anglers.

I know for sure for me floro is much better than mono and worth the extra cash!

Just my humble opinion but do have 40 days of fishing both side by side to prove it to myself.

[JasonB]

Ernie,
Thanks for sharing your studies, that's a lot more convincing than most typical "angler observations" which seem to constitute the vast majority of our own personal conclusions. It seems that in your situation the primary advantage has to do with the "invisibility" factor? Certainly in still water situations I could see that making a much bigger difference than say a freestone stream. I'd be curious if you noticed a more marked difference in hook up rate ratios between say indicator fishing (very slow presentation with long inspection times), vs streamers (presumably a bit faster presentations)? Or did you find that there was a fairly similar advantage level there?

JB

[catch&release]

Ernie,
Thanks for sharing your studies, that's a lot more convincing than most typical "angler observations" which seem to constitute the vast majority of our own personal conclusions. It seems that in your situation the primary advantage has to do with the "invisibility" factor? Certainly in still water situations I could see that making a much bigger difference than say a freestone stream. I'd be curious if you noticed a more marked difference in hook up rate ratios between say indicator fishing (very slow presentation with long inspection times), vs streamers (presumably a bit faster presentations)? Or did you find that there was a fairly similar advantage level there?

JB


I only fished two rods with the indicator at the same time. I never thought about stripping two streamer rods and once although I have seen many anglers fishing rods streamer fishing from pontoons at the same time.

I also feel the floro allows me to fish one size tippet stronger meaning same hookups with 4x floro as 5x mono and have put in some time also doing this but it was only 5 days and it averaged out to be not much in difference in hook up ratio.

floro is allot more tuff and abrasion resistant although most of my fishing is in open water with not allot of structure to have to worry about. I do like the fact it sinks at a much faster rate than mono.

I know I drive people crazy fishing two rods at the same time but in my opinion its tells the whole truth instead of switching rods. if you fish two flies 5 feet apart at the same time and catch 18 fish on one rod and 6 on the other you know you fly does make all the difference in the world.

[JasonB]

Thanks Ernie,
I guess I hadn't really considered the logistics behind testing two streamers, that would be kinda tough to get the same level of comparative data. I was wondering since I fish probably 99% of the time on streams, and it seems quite possible that the differences would be more appreciable in still water or very slow presentations vs faster water/ faster presentations. Mostly my question is just one of curiosity, as I have way too many things that I've already managed to convince myself are worth spending extra money on. I guess I'm honestly kinda relieved that my own (limited) experiences have been as negative, as I already spend way too much on Fly fishing "stuff" as is :rolleyes:

Regardless, I do very much value hearing the thoughts and experiences of others; especially those who have probably about 100 times the experience. Thanks again for sharing
JB

[jbird]

I have told this story befor here. I was fishing diamond lake a few years ago with a friend, things were getting tense in the boat because the extremely lopsided results. My buddy was being out fished 10-1. We compared our set ups over and over and just agreed it was a "lucky rod" scenario. For some reason I assumed he was using flouro. Most of us had been using it exclusively for years so I figured I didn't even need to ask. When he pipes up and asks if I'm using flourocarbon. He had been using maxima ultra green and switched to flouro. It INSTANTLY changed the game and he and I went fish for fish. That was the most conclusive experiment ive ever seen. When I was steelheading 250 days a year, I loved it for its sink rate. It just sinks so much faster than mono. Which puts your fly and keeps your fly in the zone longer. As for knots, no problems if you take care to lubricate it with water or spit. I love the stuff, and tho I hate the price, I gladly pay it.

[Walter]

I am with JBird on this one. I've watched the same thing happen with me. But I've also used good flouro line and BAD flouro line. You have to try everything for yourself. And tie knots well enough you can rule out operator error on that one.

A finer diameter has more natural movement in the water. Flouro often provides a greater pound test for a smaller diameter.

I personally feel there are times where everything has its advantages and disadvantages. Using things appropriately is the key. Flouro isn't always a necessity but it can make a difference in your fishing at times.

Pure Flouro line is expensive because of the mandated capture of the poisonous offgassing from its production, I have read and been told. It not JUST marketing and margins. But it's not always needed as a fishing tool. Sometimes you can bet your boat its highly recommended.

Ralph mentiond Stroft GTM as the best monofilament. Its actually a copolymer. Silicon and PTFE(a type of fluorocarbon). I got that from the distributor website. http://www.uniproducts.com/eng/produits.asp?noc=33&nop=77

Copolymers got a bad rap once, like everything does. "All you need is good ole mono." They call themselves mono. Its half and half. Sneaky!

[Ralph]

Fluorocarbon fishing lines are not made from chlorinated fluorocarbons (the stuff that wrecks the ozone layer). All plastics off-gas and require pollution control during manufacture. I don't think this is why fluorocarbon tippets cost 3-4x as much as standard monofilament.

ALL high quality modern monofilaments are copolymers. Even old standbys such as Maxima have been reformulated as copolymers. PTFE (also known as Teflon, Glide, and Gore-Tex) is commonly fused onto monofilaments to decrease friction and, more importantly, reduce water absorption which impacts line strength.

Raw fluorocarbon is inherently harder than monofilament, however, it is also more brittle and stiff. Early fluoro leaders had major problems with coil memory and knot strength. Modern fluoro leaders include softening agents that make them much easier to work with at the expense of reducing abrasion resistance. Modern monofilaments can be produced that are extremely abrasion resistant. Momoi "Marlin" and Mason "Rock" monofilaments are MORE abrasion resistant than most fluorocarbons out there. All lines are a compromise and just because the spool says "fluorocarbon" it does not necessarily mean the line is any more or less abrasion resistant than its monofilament cousin.

[JohnD]

I switched to fluoro for all nymphing. I like both the abrasion resistance and the improved strength/diameter. I tend to fish with heavier line than I did with mono without losing any fish catching ability. And I tend to lose less flies with the heavier line.

[Walter]

Fluorocarbon fishing lines are not made from chlorinated fluorocarbons (the stuff that wrecks the ozone layer). All plastics off-gas and require pollution control during manufacture. I don't think this is why fluorocarbon tippets cost 3-4x as much as standard monofilament.

ALL high quality modern monofilaments are copolymers. Even old standbys such as Maxima have been reformulated as copolymers. PTFE (also known as Teflon, Glide, and Gore-Tex) is commonly fused onto monofilaments to decrease friction and, more importantly, reduce water absorption which impacts line strength.



I was not talking about the ozone killers, cfc's. The other chemicals in the manufacturing of PVDF which is what most "flourocarbon" fishing lines are made of...

"PVDF may be synthesized from the gaseous VDF monomer via a free radical (or controlled radical) polymerization process. This may be followed by processes such as melt casting, or processing from a solution (e.g. solution casting, spin coating, and film casting). Langmuir-Blodgett films have also been made. In the case of solution-based processing, typical solvents used include dimethylformamide as well as the more volatile butanone. In aqueous emulsion polymerization, the fluorosurfactant perfluorononanoic acid is used in anion form as a processing aid by solubilizing monomers.[4] For characterization of the molecular weight via gel permeation chromatography (also called size exclusion chromatography), solvents such as dimethyl sulfoxide or tetrahydrofuran may be used." - from Wikipedia

Sorry to hijak the thread. Just explaining the cost. The stuff used in its manufacturing is particularly nasty.

I DO agree that some fluorocarbons are more and less abrasion resistant than each other, and with the varying true monofilaments, although most are actually copolymers really.

I like what my friend says, "It's all the same only different."

[Adam Grace]

When fishing for bass almost 200 times about 5 years ago (when I lived on a private warmwater lake) I rarely had to change out my fluorocarbon tippet, however if I broke off and tied to the end of the mono leader (due to laziness) I had to re-tie my flies way more frequently due to abrasion.

BTW, I love hearing all of your experiences with fluorocarbon, especially how it can make a big difference in stillwater situations. Thank you all for your participation in this thread. :)

[WinterrunRon]

I switched to fluoro for all nymphing. I like both the abrasion resistance and the improved strength/diameter. I tend to fish with heavier line than I did with mono without losing any fish catching ability. And I tend to lose less flies with the heavier line.

Ditto regarding the loosing less flies comment. With mono, I snap them off all the time. Using 4x Mirage, the hooks straighten before the line breaks. Have no problem puttin' the wood to a hooked fish with flouro. Lots of confidence once hooked. Has nothing to do with invisibility factor, however.

[rippinstreamers]

IMHO if we are talking about subsurface fishing for trout flourocarbon is the way to go. having been in the competitive circuit for a while as well as guiding for a number of years, time and time again it seems to make the difference. The problem I have with mono is its softness, more specifically in small diameters where it can stretch. having as little stretch as possible whether it is under an indicator, high sticked, stripped, etc. it can give you that split second edge over a fish that usually has had the fly in its mouth longer than you know. sinks fasters, it has a smaller diameter per pound test rating, abrasion resistant, and almost all companies if not all now produce it through years of testing and probably way more statistics that we all can come up with.

[wineslob]

Any recommendations for lb rating compared to "regular" tippet mono? Say, if using 5X, what would be the flouro equivalent? IE: dia. I nymph, allot.

[Walter]

Just start paying attention to diameter size of the lines. Sometimes they are only printed on the box and not on a spool.

Realize that youve also used a leader system for youself that you can cast. I find once I start screwing around with new leader material, I always end up adjusting proportions over time, so it casts better, or really so I cast it better.

[Dan LeCount]

From what I understand, one company(Seaguar) makes the vast majority of florocarbon line. (something like 90+%) and theres only 1 or 2 others besides them. They ask what other companies want from their floro and extrude it to their demands.

That said I usually just use Rio Powerflex mono cause its cheap, but reliable and wont last as long in the environment as floro.

[JohnD]

Any recommendations for lb rating compared to "regular" tippet mono? Say, if using 5X, what would be the flouro equivalent? IE: dia. I nymph, allot.

I never use smaller than 4x in flouro when nymphing. Usually 3x to the top fly and 4x to the bottom. This way if I snag the bottom fly I only lose one fly and a few inches of tippet. But with the 3x I've pulled tree branches off the bottom and straightened out plenty of hooks.

[pvsprme]

not to hijack the thread, but this makes me wonder why floro is so expensive in the flyfishing sized leader wheels compared to multi-hundred yard spools? Is it the marketing? I can buy 200 yards of quality floro for about the same price as a 30 yard leader wheel. I've been told it's better quality, but I don't think that's correct. Anybody out there doing this?

[jerryp85]

Yes, Robert. I definitely do this and as long as the Flouro is 100%, IMO there is no difference between the two. This was a topic of discussion in Tom Rosenbauer's Orvis Podcast. However, it will be tough for vendors to agree considering the money involved. In the end, if you're catching fish with whatever you use, keep on doing it. For many, that may be their favorite 30yd spool of RIO flouro tippit. Plus, the 30yd spools pack really well together on a necklace... Happy Fishing!

[WinterrunRon]

It's not limited to flouro. Look at any line sold in small quantities, or anything else for that matter. One always pays more per unit for less. But I would agree that the difference seems to be out of line (no pun intended). I mean, I pay a little less per ounce for the family size box of Honey Bunches of Oats...

It appears there is agreement that flouro has a few compelling benefits over mono and there is anecdotal evidence, at least from members here, that, for whatever reason, flouro can and does outfish mono. Another way of presenting the same case, does anyone have an outing when mono outfished flouro when nymphing for trout or, if you prefer, cost being equal, would anyone choose using mono over flouro? (again, limiting the subject to nymphing for trout aspect of use).

I'm convinced (I think :confused:) that there is some physical characteristic, relative to visibility, that flouro must provide when nymphing for trout. As far as us being able to see either line under the water equally well, my conclusion is that what the fish is able to see or key in on and what we see must be different. I think this is the only logical conclusion and makes sense on a bunch of different levels. It answers the question of why hookup rates increase when flouro is used, it answers the queston of hook visibility, it answers the question as to why some imitations look nothing like the natural but work, it answers the question why fish strike at indicators and lead shot...

So the next line of curiousity (to piggy back where pmsprme is going) is:

1. Why are the small spools sooooooooo #$% expensive! :mad:

[rippinstreamers]

Aren't the diameters smaller with the products like Rio than the large spools of less expensive stuff? I use blue label seaguar when I'm in Alaska that shows ten pound test but looks like piano wire compared to its more expensive counterpart. I will say to that the rating for the seaguar seems a little off too, definitely a heavier pound test rating than advertised. On another note I understand that flouro takes longer to break down, but how much are you really leaving in the river?

[TyV]

This is a really interesting thread. So many experienced anglers with such a wide variety of experiences and this opinions based upon those experiences.

With almost two decades under my belt, here is what I have found. There are advantages and disadvantages to both mono and flouro, most of which have been covered. I DO NOT find higher hook up rates with either in most circumstances. Started fishing mono, got sold on flouro for a number of years and have since went back to mono.

For my personal experience, the benefits and cost of flouro do not come close to being worth it. One problem that I had with flouro was knots breaking on smaller size tippets. That could be the brands I used or even the particular batches the spools came from. I had this problem whether the flouro was tied to flouro OR mono. I almost never have knot issues with mono. That really has been the final straw for my decision. The number of fish I hook/catch isn't affected even on picky waters.

It should be noted that I mainly fish moving water so I can't speak at all for lakes etc...

Advice: try both n fish what works for you! There seems to be little consensus among the masses IMO.

Fish_ON

[Scott Thornley]

Depending on the use case, I'll choose mono or fluorocarbon. But there are gotcha's for using fluorocarbon.

If I know I won't be getting the full life out of mono (say, a spool lasting years...) I choose fluorocarbon. For instance, I use 40 lb leader material for my trips to AK. There's no way I'll use a full spool of Seaguar in a trip. So fluoro it is, and spools last for a couple years before completely used up. No way I'd trust mono to last that long.

As to the gotcha's:

There's flurocarbon, and then there's flurocarbon. Don't cheap out!. This has not presented itself with tippet material, but I did have to junk a spool of name brand, inexpensive fluorocarbon, as it's shock strength was utter crap. Kept busting off on the hook set. I switched over to Seaguar, same test rating, and voila!

Fluorocarbon is VERY sensitive to heat. Tighten knots SLOWLY, and be sure they are very well lubricated. Cranking down on a clinch knot in a hurry is a great way to weaken the line at that spot. Lubricate, snug and arrange the knot slowly, then slowly bring to full tight.

[Darian]

"Tighten knots SLOWLY, and be sure they are very well lubricated. Cranking down on a clinch knot in a hurry is a great way to weaken the line at that spot. Lubricate, snug and arrange the knot slowly, then slowly bring to full tight."

That's great advice regardless of the type leader/line material involved. :cool:

[wineslob]

I've had a little experience with flouro, and it's been almost all in the negative. I bought one spool from Rio on a lark to see if it helped out on some of those finicky trout on the LT and BT, and the only real difference I noticed was how my knot failure rate went up dramatically. Lost quite a few fish honestly. I swore myself off it..


This what I've found with Rio (5X). For me, it was a complete waste of $12.99. I won't use the......................stuff. My cheap azz "Fairplay" I get at Wally World ($1.95) is much better.

[Bob Loblaw]

Theres a very good article in the June California Fly Fisher by Ralph Cutter. After reading it, I'll never buy fluoro again.

[Ralph]

There's a very good article in the June California Fly Fisher by Ralph Cutter.

Thanks for the nice words Bob. It was a fun one to write and I learned a lot in the process.

[WinterrunRon]

Theres a very good article in the June California Fly Fisher by Ralph Cutter. After reading it, I'll never buy fluoro again.

beeeecaaause...?

[k9mark]

I read Ralphs article too. I found the former 3M guys statements an eye opener. Mono It is. Come to think of it Ralph, that might not be a bad article for your Trivia section on your site.

[Ralph]

This week Orvis acquired Scientific Anglers and Ross Reel. Bruce Richards will be coming back on board to assist with R&D. He is a very close friend and the guy who provided the very candid comments regarding fluorocarbon in my article. I envision some exciting developments with Bruce and Jim Lepage working together at Orvis.

[Bob Loblaw]

beeeecaaause...?

2 main reasons. First. I don't want to buy anything that will be hanging off a creekside tree or off a submerged log 4000 years after I'm dead. the stuff doesn't degrade.

Second. Its no better than mono according to one of the guys who developed it. Bruce Richards from 3M/Scientific Anglers gets it for free and still fishes mono. "the whole visibility thing is bunk" he says.

3...3 main reasons! Mikey Wier doesn't use it. Nuff said.

And you really ought to subscribe to California Fly Fisher!!!!

[the_gnarwhale]

Any place to view this article online?

[k9mark]

Any place to view this article online?

I checked CA Flyfisher online but its not there...Maybe you local fly shop might have an issue there. In any event, I would urge you to subscribe. It is one of the finest publications in my opinion.

[Ralph]

Any place to view this article online?

Sort of . . . http://www.calflyfisher.com/pages/subscribe.asp

[the_gnarwhale]

Sort of . . . http://www.calflyfisher.com/pages/subscribe.asp
How about a summary for those of us no place near CA Ralph? I personally fish flouro quite often, and have seen the tests other companies besides SA do. I'd love to hear the counter points.

[Ralph]

How about a summary for those of us no place near CA Ralph? I personally fish flouro quite often, and have seen the tests other companies besides SA do. I'd love to hear the counter points.

Publishing a Cliff Notes version of an article that is in current or recent circulation is hardly the way an author stays in good graces with his publisher. You might want to drop the royal sum of $3.15 and you'll get a lot of other information to boot.

[Dan LeCount]

You can get my lovely fly tying in the "At the Vise section" as well. Probably not as helpful as Ralph's insight on tippet material, but better then a sharp stick in the eye....barely. But seriously, Richard puts together an awesome publication and its worth every penny, I'm sure he'll have no problem sending one to wherever you hang your hat.

[Dan LeCount]

Speaking of publications and such, did I hear right that "Sierra Trout Guide" is no longer being printed? That's a shame, that and the "Curtis Creek Manifesto" were my default books for anyone picking up a fly rod, plus maybe Schollmeyers "Hatch guide to Western Streams." Luckily it had a very long run, so their are still a bunch of copies in circulation. You can still get it on Amazon and such. How many editions has it been, and any chance you guys going to do another down the road?

[Ralph]

Speaking of publications and such, did I hear right that "Sierra Trout Guide" is no longer being printed? That's a shame, that and the "Curtis Creek Manifesto" were my default books for anyone picking up a fly rod, plus maybe Schollmeyers "Hatch guide to Western Streams." Luckily it had a very long run, so their are still a bunch of copies in circulation. You can still get it on Amazon and such. How many editions has it been, and any chance you guys going to do another down the road?

Hey Dan. I thought your caddis piece in the current CAFF was quite good. In fact, I ordered some of your winging material, never used it before.
Sierra Trout Guide is out of print (I have a few cases). It is in LONG need of an update but a new edition would require a new contract and I was offered 90 cents a copy (down from $11.00 a copy). I don't blame the publisher, they are between a rock and a hard spot, but my time is worth more than that. Except for self promotion, there simply is no incentive for writing small market books any longer. For some reason, people expect authors to publish their work for free on the internet. This thread being a perfect example. Every issue of California Fly Fisher results in a dozen or more emails requesting copies of my article so they don't have to spend three bucks on the magazine. Wish I could do that to my dentist, gas station or grocery store!
Sheri Anderson is dead so Curtis Creek won't be updated. Jim's book, I believe, is now being published by Stackpole under a slightly different name.

[k9mark]

Hey Ralph, what if you did the Sierra Trout Guide update and made it an ebook? People would order directly from you and you charge what you want...cut out the middle man.

[Ralph]

Hey Ralph, what if you did the Sierra Trout Guide update and made it an ebook? People would order directly from you and you charge what you want...cut out the middle man.

Astute observation Mark. I have to wait two year after last printing before the copyright reverts to me and I can do as you suggest.
From the outside it seems so simple but writing is a legal quagmire.

[k.hanley]

Ralph have you settled on any specific ebook service/software? Any security issues about your work once it's placed as an ebook?

Thanks bud.

Cheers, Ken

[Ralph]

Ralph have you settled on any specific ebook service/software? Any security issues about your work once it's placed as an ebook?

I spent a fortune on Adobe In-Design but after playing with it haven't jumped into it. Pretty daunting learning curve and I'm not sure how motivated I am to spend that much time in front of a computer. In-Design was rated #1 by the majority of folks I know who have self published. Very flexible and can output into a bunch of different formats . . . or so I'm led to understand.

[k9mark]

Hmmm, yanno, you might be able to get a local college student versed in Adobe to handle that for in exchange for extra credit/grades. Kinda like and intern...just brainstorming. Give him/her the info and they handle the rest.

[k.hanley]

Thanks Ralph. I'll check it out. If it's a steep curve for you, it would probably be an Everest climb for me.

Cheers, Ken

[WinterrunRon]

2 main reasons. First. I don't want to buy anything that will be hanging off a creekside tree or off a submerged log 4000 years after I'm dead. the stuff doesn't degrade.

Second. Its no better than mono according to one of the guys who developed it. Bruce Richards from 3M/Scientific Anglers gets it for free and still fishes mono. "the whole visibility thing is bunk" he says.

3...3 main reasons! Mikey Wier doesn't use it. Nuff said.

And you really ought to subscribe to California Fly Fisher!!!!

Two things come to mind:

1: If the guy who developed the stuff says one of the main marketing features of the line is a flat out misrepresention of the truth, why is the marketing allowed to continue? My guess would be it's not worth litigating?

2: If flouro lasts 4,000 years, how long does mono last? Because if both their degredation is measured in thousands of years, I don't see it as an issue. Another ice age will be, or starting to occurr, and line in rivers will be the least of our worries as a civilization. If one really cares that much about the environment, they wouldn't use either. To be honest, I find this argument rather silly. We all use products everyday that adversely affects the environment and lasts hundreds if not thousands of years. Heck, driving our vehicles is partially blamed for global warming. Global warming! An actual changing of our global environment. But I don't see a bunch of flyfishers walking along the highways and backroads to thier favorite fishing venues. And there's concern about small pieces of practically invisible broken tippet left in trees and river rock?

[Ralph]

As a rule of thumb nylon loses 25% of it's strength under every 100 hours of sunlight. Thin monofilament likely degrades faster than that. Find any year old nylon mono on the river bank and it will shatter when you tug on it. Fluoro is insert and does not degrade. Fluorocarbon is used to line toxic waste drums and carries a minimum shelf life of several hundred years.
Both products make equally good fishing line and while the benefits of one over the other are debatable (and largely based on urban legend), the potential consequences are not.

[Bob Loblaw]

Two things come to mind:

1: If the guy who developed the stuff says one of the main marketing features of the line is a flat out misrepresention of the truth, why is the marketing allowed to continue? My guess would be it's not worth litigating?

2: If flouro lasts 4,000 years, how long does mono last? Because if both their degredation is measured in thousands of years, I don't see it as an issue. Another ice age will be, or starting to occurr, and line in rivers will be the least of our worries as a civilization. If one really cares about the environment, they wouldn't use either. To be honest, I find this argument rather silly. We all use products everyday that adversely effects the environment and lasts hundreds if not thousands of years. Heck, driving our vehicles is partially blamed for global warming. Global warming! An actual changing of our global environment. But I don't see a bunch of flyfishers walking along the highways and backroads to thier favorite fishing venues. And there's concern about small pieces of practically invisible broken tippet left in trees and river rock?


Mono starts to breakdown if left in the sun as little as 24 hours. Thats why mono tippet has a sell by date and fluoro does not. If you're not concerned about "invisible broken tippet in trees and river rock" for 4000 years, then i guess we just have different values and there's not much else to discuss. And nobody is claiming to have a zero impact, a zero carbon footprint on this earth, we all do. All Im saying is that I try to make choices to limit any needless and permanent impacts...not using fluoro being just one small one. I

[TyV]

As a rule of thumb nylon loses 25% of it's strength under every 100 hours of sunlight. Thin monofilament likely degrades faster than that. Find any year old nylon mono on the river bank and it will shatter when you tug on it. Fluoro is insert and does not degrade. Fluorocarbon is used to line toxic waste drums and carries a minimum shelf life of several hundred years.
Both products make equally good fishing line and while the benefits of one over the other are debatable (and largely based on urban legend), the potential consequences are not.

Sanity, knowledge and common sense, what novel concepts! Thanks Ralph for always seeming to bring the needed perspective and knowledge to most discussions!

[WinterrunRon]

Bob,

Not attempting to shut down conversation at all, just the opposite. Trying desperately to steer it away from all this publishing talk! ;))

I value your opinion as I would any other. I think our values are the same, it's just where we choose to focus them. I honestly don't see the longevity of tippet material as a factor in deciding whether I use it or not. Simple as that. I know we disagree and there's thousands of others that surely agree with you. But it doesn't change my opinion... yet.

"potential consequences". I guess that's where I'm at regarding this longevity thing, Ralph. What is the "potential consequence"? I don't see a consequence at all, and too further describe it as "potential", well, I'm back to "what's all the fuss about" mentality.

I know you're much more of a naturalist and protector of the environment and all than I am, no disrepect. But my feeling is there will be a lot more "stuff" here on earth a hundred years from now that our future generations will be dealing with and and I'm quite certain whatever is here in 3013, the focus of discussion won't be regarding the 5X piece of flourocarbon some flyfisher broke off a hundered years ago. The way things are headed, the discussion will more likely be, what is a fish?

I'm keeping an open mind...

[wineslob]

I'm more worried about all the wads of mono from spin casters.