+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Thanked 32 Times in 27 Posts

    Fluorocarbon vs. Mono - Visibility

    First, I wish I had more time and variety of lines to do a more scientific study, but for now this will have to do. This is my second test under different conditions testing line visibility (1st Test on Line Visibility). Photos don't show as much unfortunately, but looking at the lines there was no real clear difference between any of them. A cheap-o (Big Game) 20 lb. mono and 15 lb. premium fluorocarbon. The second photo is under flash, so I'm guessing may be similar to bright sunshine near the surface. You can see they all show a refraction under water from the light (despite the claim that the refractive index of fluoro is near that of water). That doesn't seem to hold up from what I can tell. Visibilty of all of the lines is pretty similar. The Big game does show up a little more in the 1st photo, but I think mainly because it is a green line on a light sand background.

    My conclusion:

    The visibility difference of fluoro vs. mono underwater is probably not significant. I'd be much more interested in finding a good solid line that you are comfortable with and pay more attention to line diameter. If anything that seems to make some difference in visiblity and we all know it does in presentation.

    The advantages and disadvantages of sink rate, stretch, knot strenght, cost, etc. all need to be factored in when you are deciding on fluoro vs. mono. But from what I have seen in a couple different visibility tests, that shouldn't necessarily be a factor in the equation.

    There is no doubt that fluoro is hyped to be the best thing since the senko, but is this all hype? It seems that at least some of it is. Between this test and some of the testing ProStaff Brett Vegoe has published recently, the fluoro mystery is beginning to look more clear. Stay tuned for more testing from our staff.

    Dan Wood
    MidWest Fishing Forums

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Rogers, MN
    Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
    Great post, Dan. It's really seeming more and more that Flourocarbon is not worth it. You mentioned find a good solid line and working with that. I've got the Gamma copolymer on in 17 lb. and I'm very impressed casting in the pond. Can't wait to catch a fish on it next Saturday. I've also got Machine Gun Cast by Sunline on. Now this seems like a good line. It's gotten some excellent reviews on TT. It's more expensive for monos and copols, but Tackle Warehouse has the 12 lb. on sale. Check it out.
    Aaron Cavanaugh - Rogers, MN
    FishinFreaks Custom Rods and Guide Service

    "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll rip lips for a lifetime." -A lesser known Irish philosopher-

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Waverly, MN / Lake Vermilion
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Thanks Dan - I really want to try and get away from braided line on all my reels this year and thought I need to go with Flourocarbon. Aaron - I think I will pick up some Gamma tomorrow and try it out.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Waverly / Glenwood
    Thanked 38 Times in 30 Posts
    Here is the testing I did from the other thread. With the results that Dan shows here I'd say skip the Flouro's for now. I was very impressed with the Gamma co-polymer that I tested. I'm going to spool up some 8lb or 10lb Gamma and give it a try this year.


    I was able to do some quick tests at lunch today on 4 different monos. 1. 12 lb Gamma Competition. 2. 14 lb Berkley Transitions Vanish 3. 12 lb Seaguar Invizx 4. 12 lb Trilene XL

    I only tested the 14 lb transitions for knot strength to save time.

    The results were very close to those in the Tackletour report.


    My stretch/set testing was done in a single test which was run a bit differently than the other reports test. One thing the other test report didn't talk about was what happens with multiple cycles of loading and unloading. I ran cycles applying 3lbs of force and then removing it to allow the material to relax between cycles and then repeating 6 times. It gives what's called a hysteresis curve which shows how the material behaves with multiple loadings. Generally it would be expected that the amount of stretch should go down with each successive loading and eventually settle until the material behaves the same on each loading and unloading cycle. Thats exactly what happened with each mono I tested. I have a fairly nice hysteresis chart in pdf format which I'll try to include later. It gives a first cycle maximum stretch, overall maximum stretch, and percent set. Here are the results.

    Gamma Comp.12 lb - 1st cycle max = 9.9%, overall max = 10.6%, set = 1.8%
    Invisx Flouro 12 lb - 1st cycle max = 13.3%, overall max = 14.5%, set = 3.5%
    Trilene XL 12 lb - 1st cycle max = 10.4%, overall max = 10.8%, set = 1.7%

    The Invizx flouro does have a little more stretch but they all pretty much behave the same so not to much difference here.

    The knot strength test was done with Palomar and Trilene knots on a jig which was held in place and the line was pulled until it snapped during the tensile test. The % of rated line poundage was recorded. All the monos were 12 lb test except the Transitions which was 14 lb test. Here are the results.

    Gamma Competition - Trilene knot = 154%, Palomar knot = 116%
    Invizx - Trilene knot - 90%, Palomar knot = 81%
    Trilene XL - trilene knot = 121%, Palomar knot = 90%
    Berkley Transitions Vanish - Trilene knot = 69%, Palomar knot = 68%

    The big winner here was the Gamma, great strength for 12 lb line. In defense of the Invizx its diameter is only 0.011" vs 0.013" for the other 2 12 lb lines, but results are results.

    If Dan can do some visibility testing it will be interesting. Right now I'd buy Gamma.

    The guy previously known as "Pigslayer".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts