Braid to Flouro...

[Eric J 147]

Why Braid to Flouro rather than straight Flouro? Mainly for lighter lures or finesse fishing.

Doesn't the knot create another weak spot? And if we go by the old adage that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link doesn't that just make the braid irrelevant?

 

Eric J

[QUAKEnSHAKE 1,313]

Oh some pro said to do it so the minions followed suit.

Id like to see actual testing that it gets more distance on regular low profile reels. 

 

[Team9nine 5,193]

For spinning:

• Better handling
• better strength to diameter ratio
• Longer casting
• Better sensitivity
• Greater hooksetting power

...and the "weak spot" argument is way overblown if you have/use any sense of reasonable drag settings and good knots

[NHBull 3,001]

I have a few braid to leader set-up and don't think I had 1 failure there.  I change leaders often, but I really don't see it as a weak spot.  My question, is why not all braid if abrasion isn't  a concern.  I think the right rod and reel can compensate for lack of stretch

[WRB 10,715]

Very popular to use a leader with braid on spinning reels because it reduces line twist.

The debate between FC and mono takes on another dimension of confusion.

Todays braid is very small diameter per pound test and that is an advantage verses larger diameter line. 

Knot strength is an issue with FC verses every other type of line. Apparently 2 knots doesn't bother most anglers and random knot failures are not an issue, both are with me. I always set my drag at 1/3rd the line strength using a digital scale most of the time.

Tom

[Eric J 147]

4 minutes ago, NHBull said:

I have a few braid to leader set-up and don't think I had 1 failure there.  I change leaders often, but I really don't see it as a weak spot.  My question, is why not all braid if abrasion isn't  a concern.  I think the right rod and reel can compensate for lack of stretch

I use straight 30lb braid on my Med Hvy caster for the heavy stuff and punching. I have a Med Lt that I have only fished with straight 8lb mono and have done well with.

 

2019 will see me in my first Kayak tournie series and I want to broaden my arsenal.

[dgkasper58 66]

6 minutes ago, NHBull said:

I have a few braid to leader set-up and don't think I had 1 failure there.  I change leaders often, but I really don't see it as a weak spot.  My question, is why not all braid if abrasion isn't  a concern.  I think the right rod and reel can compensate for lack of stretch

visibility is an issue in clear water.  I like the benefits of the braid while still getting the invisible factor

2 minutes ago, WRB said:

I always set my drag at 1/3rd the line strength using a digital scale most of the time.

I never knew that was how people knew what pound drag they were at!!!

[NHBull 3,001]

1 minute ago, dgkasper58 said:

visibility is an issue in clear water.  I like the benefits of the braid while still getting the invisible factor

And you know that how 🤔

I think giving a fish our ability and to see, think  and decide may be a bridge to far

[J.Vincent 272]

31 minutes ago, Team9nine said:

..and the "weak spot" argument is way overblown

I agree with this 100% ; but 10 years ago I was convinced all leader knots created a serious compromise in line strength...so I quit using leaders and eventually quit using braid altogether. Last year I changed my tune after discovering the Alberto Knot. 

[Bluebasser86 22,671]

2 hours ago, QUAKEnSHAKE said:

Oh some pro said to do it so the minions followed suit.

Id like to see actual testing that it gets more distance on regular low profile reels. 

 

Do you mean straight braid not getting more distance than straight flouro on a casting reel? 

 

2 hours ago, Team9nine said:

For spinning:

• Better handling
• better strength to diameter ratio
• Longer casting
• Better sensitivity
• Greater hooksetting power

...and the "weak spot" argument is way overblown if you have/use any sense of reasonable drag settings and good knots

I'd add sink rate and visual bite detection to that list as well. Braid floats so it will slow the fall of a bait. It's also more visible so line movement is easier to see, allowing to detect bites before even feeling them at times.

 

 

This really only applies to me with spinning gear as I never use braid to a leader with casting gear under any circumstances. 

[QUAKEnSHAKE 1,313]

58 minutes ago, Bluebasser86 said:

Do you mean straight braid not getting more distance than straight flouro on a casting reel? 

 

I'd add sink rate and visual bite detection to that list as well. Braid floats so it will slow the fall of a bait. It's also more visible so line movement is easier to see, allowing to detect bites before even feeling them at times.

 

 

This really only applies to me with spinning gear as I never use braid to a leader with casting gear under any circumstances. 

I interpreted OP as using braid backing with 100' or so of FC on top not like a 5' leader piece.

 

I go straight FC or straight Braid no leaders even in very clear waters dont notice difference in catch/bite rate ever.

[LionHeart 362]

I use braid for main line to avoid the stretch and line memory of flouro and mono.  Pure and simple.

 

I use a leader for ease of break of if I get truly snagged, abrasion resistance, and because I'm afraid bass are line shy.

 

I have been using the FG knot on every setup I own for nearly 2 years and I'm here to tell you it does not add a weak link to my gear.

 

My lure connecting knots and even my leader line itself will fail many times before my line to leader knot fails.

[dgkasper58 66]

17 hours ago, NHBull said:

And you know that how 🤔

I think giving a fish our ability and to see, think  and decide may be a bridge to far

No real personal experience being in the water looking at it.  But I can tell you that I have fished with braid and not caught a fish- then took the time to retie  with flouro leader and caught fish right after. Same spot, same weight and same bait (slightly different time of day) and it yielded results.  

 

From the internet, "Fluorocarbon line is touted by line companies as the most invisible line on the market. It is said to have the same light refraction properties as water, making it virtually invisible or as invisible as fishing line can get. Fluorocarbon line offers many advantages to anglers, with the invisibility being among the best properties of this type of line."

 

 

 

[Choporoz 3,288]

@dgkasper58, I think what @NHBull was suggesting was that EVEN IF, you had access to good scientific data that told you exactly what a bass' eye's can interpret from its visible spectrum...even if you had that info....you still couldn't possibly know how a bass' brain interprets that light data.  The interwebs are full of specious claims about what animals see, think, feel, etc.  But, even a well executed experiment with line and light is only going to tell you how humans interpret the light/info.

[BaitFinesse 446]

1 hour ago, dgkasper58 said:

No real personal experience being in the water looking at it.  But I can tell you that I have fished with braid and not caught a fish- then took the time to retie  with flouro leader and caught fish right after. Same spot, same weight and same bait (slightly different time of day) and it yielded results.  

 

From the internet, "Fluorocarbon line is touted by line companies as the most invisible line on the market. It is said to have the same light refraction properties as water, making it virtually invisible or as invisible as fishing line can get. Fluorocarbon line offers many advantages to anglers, with the invisibility being among the best properties of this type of line."

 

 

 

The line on the right is in front of a lighter background due to the positioning of the light source.  When the line on the right is moved into the darker background it also disappears.  This is either a poorly done video or it is intentionally misleading.  The claimed difference in refractive index between flourocarbon and monofilament lines is so small that it close to statistical equality.  We're talking 10% closer to the refractive index of water.  A line that is 10% closer to the refractive index of water is like saying that it is 10% harder to see underwater.  A difference that small should not be observable to the human eye in even the best conditions.  

 

[Heartland 68]

10% is not much is it.  So you won't mind if the Gov. goes ahead and takes an additional 10% in taxes out of your paycheck each week,  probably wont even be noticeable under the best of conditions.  Just messing with you man, has to be some stated benefit or who would be interested. Makes for a hard sale if you just say that, "This line is 90% same as every other."

 

[MN Fisher 207]

Just now, Heartland said:

10% is not much is it.  So you won't mind if the Gov. goes ahead and takes an additional 10% in taxes out of your paycheck each week,  probably wont even be noticeable under the best of conditions.  Just messing with you man, has to be some stated benefit or who would be interested.

 

I'm not that worried about the visibility difference. I'm more of the 'mono floats, flouro sinks' concern for my spinning reels. Surface or shallow running lures I use mono, my deep divers or bottom lures (drop rigs, etc) I use flouro.

[BaitFinesse 446]

Just now, Heartland said:

10% is not much is it.  So you won't mind if the Gov. goes ahead and takes an additional 10% in taxes out of your paycheck each week,  probably wont even be noticeable under the best of conditions.  Just messing with you man, has to be some stated benefit or who would be interested.

 

There is a difference between percentages in numbers or data and real world observed effects.  A 10% pay cut is easily quantifiable but a 10% improvement in performance is not.  Flourocarbon is great line and I use it regularly.  I like that it sinks and use it almost exclusively for weightless plastics and jerkbaits.  I use a mix of BG mono and various Flourocarbons for leader material with braid.  I am very much in the pro flouro camp but I do not believe that it is invisible or nearly invisible under water.  

[Heartland 68]

19 hours ago, BaitFinesse said:

There is a difference between percentages in numbers or data and real world observed effects.  A 10% pay cut is easily quantifiable but a 10% improvement in performance is not.  Flourocarbon is great line and I use it regularly.  I like that it sinks and use it almost exclusively for weightless plastics and jerkbaits.  I use a mix of BG mono and various Flourocarbons for leader material with braid.  I am very much in the pro flouro camp but I do not believe that it is invisible or nearly invisible under water.  

Kind of off the topic a little, but I'll mention it since I am a production manager by trade.    So I am clear,  are you saying by comparison that if you owned a company and someone come in and made a change that yielded a 10% increase in production that it would virtually go un-noticed?    I am like you, I like FC for some of its properties more than others, but then again I have never stuck my head in a bucket of pond water to see if I could observe any real difference in visibility without the benefit of the full spectrum of light.   

 

[BaitFinesse 446]

19 hours ago, Heartland said:

Kind of off the topic a little, but I'll mention it since I am a production manager by trade.    So I am clear,  are you saying by comparison that if you owned a company and someone come in and made a change that yielded a 10% increase in production that it would virtually go un-noticed?    I am like you, I like FC for some of its properties more than others, but then again I have never stuck my head in a bucket of pond water to see if I could observe any real difference in visibility without the benefit of the full spectrum of light.   

 

A 10% increase in production would have to be backed up with production data and this would be easily quantifiable.  A claim that you could get 10% closer to an unknow increase in production would be very hard to quantify.  10% closer to what exactly?  

 

Flourocarbon line may be 10% closer to the refractive index of water but what does that mean?  How do you measure this 10% difference?  It is not like you have data coming in from optical recording equipment that can measure the refraction of light with both lines types submerged in water.  Can this 10% in the refractive index on the materials be observed in is some way in the real world or does it only exist on paper?  The best we can do is drop some line of equal diameter, color and clarity  in clear water under various lighting conditions and look with our eyeballs and attempt to observe any change in the appearance of the lines.  If this difference in refractive index is not observable then it is no observable. 

[Heartland 68]

20 minutes ago, BaitFinesse said:

A 10% increase in production would have to be backed up with production data and this would be easily quantifiable.  A claim that you could get 10% closer to an unknow increase in production would be very hard to quantify.  10% closer to what exactly?  

 

Flourocarbon line may be 10% closer to the refractive index of water but what does that mean?  How do you measure this 10% difference?  It is not like you have data coming in from optical recording equipment that can measure the refraction of light with both lines types submerged in water.  Can this 10% in the refractive index on the materials be observed in is some way in the real world or does it only exist on paper?  The best we can do is drop some line of equal diameter, color and clarity  in clear water under various lighting conditions and look with our eyeballs and attempt to observe any change in the appearance of the lines.  If this difference in refractive index is not observable then it is no observable. 

Brother the fly crap and pepper are starting to look a lot alike.   I'll kindly bow out now.