Steve Schullery

fluorocarbon versus nylon leader abrasion test

55 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, bonefishdick said:

If that is true then I think i would be good with that if it had a good abrasion factor.

I'm not sure it does have good resistance to abrasion when it's wet. When it absorbs water, nylon also gets softer, which should mean it has less resistance than when dry. I still need to find references for that though.

 

It's why my first comment in this thread was "please repeat the test under water." Doing the test with both materials dry does not replicate how we fish.

 

Cheers,

Graeme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hirdy said:

I'm not sure it does have good resistance to abrasion when it's wet. When it absorbs water, nylon also gets softer, which should mean it has less resistance than when dry. I still need to find references for that though.

 

It's why my first comment in this thread was "please repeat the test under water." Doing the test with both materials dry does not replicate how we fish.

 

Cheers,

Graeme

Graeme,

 

I agree somewhat with your opinion....

 

Lot's of people read articles and some read posts on the internet then come to some kind of conclusion that what they have read is the truth with out ever having any kind of practical experience on those particular subjects. I have lots of experience with leader abrasion where I fish for a month every summer fighting sailfish-Marlin and even Dorado with their little hack saw type teeth grinding on my leader....I use "blue label" Seaguar in 80 pound test, I have tried just about every kind of bite leader on the planet. Seaguar is head and shoulders above anything else as far as I have tested in real life on my own fish. I would say Seaguar is at least 3 times better then any kind of mono for my uses.  and remember My tests are in real life, not hear-say My 2 cents

 

Carl Blackledge

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 mins ago, Carl Blackledge said:

My tests are in real life, not hear-say My 2 cents

Likewise: I also agree with your opinion. My own experience has shown that in real-world situations, FC monofilaments outperform nylon monofilaments for abrasion resistance.

 

However, we are only two people sharing our experiences. I would like to find some published scientific literature to support our experiences before claiming that is the case in general.

 

Cheers,

Graeme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, Hirdy said:

Likewise: I also agree with your opinion. My own experience has shown that in real-world situations, FC monofilaments outperform nylon monofilaments for abrasion resistance.

 

However, we are only two people sharing our experiences. I would like to find some published scientific literature to support our experiences before claiming that is the case in general.

 

Cheers,

Graeme

Graeme,

 

I always listen to everybody's opinion, However it's about real live experiences that carry the most weight with me.

 

Carl Blackledge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I found what I was looking for.

 

In 2002, the Journal of Material Science published a paper by J. John Rajesh, J. Bijwe, B. Venkataraman and U. S. Tewari on the "Effect of water absorption on erosive wear behaviour of polyamides".

 

To summarise, they found the nylon used in most nylon monofilament fishing line (Nylon 6, also known as PA6) loses both tensile strength and erosion resistance as it absorbs water.

 

Their abstract is as follows:

Quote

Two polyamides (PAs) viz. PA 6 and PA 12 were selected for investigating the influence of water absorption on some physical, mechanical and tribological properties. Erosive wear studies on water treated and untreated samples were carried out at two impact angles viz. 30° and 90°. Tests on tensile strength of untreated and treated polyamides revealed that the water treatment resulted in enhancement for PA12 and reduction for PA 6. Exactly similar trends were reflected in their erosive wear performance also. The water absorption deteriorated the wear performance of PA 6 at both the angles, whereas the erosion wear behaviour of PA 12 improved at both the angles due to water absorption. The improvement was more significant at the angle of 30° rather than 90°. Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) investigations were done to study the topography of worn surfaces and to understand the wear mechanisms.

 

So while the video shown in the original post in this thread looks "scientific", it needs to be repeated with well-wetted materials before we apply his finding to our fishing experiences. Nylon may or may not be better at resisting abrasion than FC, but we simply don't know yet.

 

The internet is great for sharing opinions, but most opinions are not supported by science. They are just what people think happens. Scientific publications require review by other scientists before they will publish a theory. That helps prevent unsupported ideas from becoming the accepted explanation for "how things work".

 

The moral is "don't believe everything you see on the internet", including my opinions. :D

 

Cheers,

Graeme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hirdy said:

Okay, I found what I was looking for.

 

In 2002, the Journal of Material Science published a paper by J. John Rajesh, J. Bijwe, B. Venkataraman and U. S. Tewari on the "Effect of water absorption on erosive wear behaviour of polyamides".

 

To summarise, they found the nylon used in most nylon monofilament fishing line (Nylon 6, also known as PA6) loses both tensile strength and erosion resistance as it absorbs water.

 

Their abstract is as follows:

 

So while the video shown in the original post in this thread looks "scientific", it needs to be repeated with well-wetted materials before we apply his finding to our fishing experiences. Nylon may or may not be better at resisting abrasion than FC, but we simply don't know yet.

 

The internet is great for sharing opinions, but most opinions are not supported by science. They are just what people think happens. Scientific publications require review by other scientists before they will publish a theory. That helps prevent unsupported ideas from becoming the accepted explanation for "how things work".

 

The moral is "don't believe everything you see on the internet", including my opinions. :D

 

Cheers,

Graeme

 

I just wanted to be the guy that did reply #50.

 

Seriously, this was a great post and it provoked a lot of very interesting comments and insight. I really like the last paragraph Graeme and it sort of brought me full circle.

 

I think in the beginning I seriously thought about changing how I make my setup on Snook, and giving up my 30 lb Fluoro bite tippet connected to my 20 lb Mono and just going with a longer 20 lb Mono tippet based on the test comparing those two specific things against each other.

 

I think in the end however I am thinking why change what has worked very well for me and mu conclusion makes me think I will continue to use the same setups I have been using for Snook and Stripers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bonefishdick said:

 

I just wanted to be the guy that did reply #50.

 

Seriously, this was a great post and it provoked a lot of very interesting comments and insight. I really like the last paragraph Graeme and it sort of brought me full circle.

 

I think in the beginning I seriously thought about changing how I make my setup on Snook, and giving up my 30 lb Fluoro bite tippet connected to my 20 lb Mono and just going with a longer 20 lb Mono tippet based on the test comparing those two specific things against each other.

 

I think in the end however I am thinking why change what has worked very well for me and mu conclusion makes me think I will continue to use the same setups I have been using for Snook and Stripers.

 

 

It is always a good idea to do things in a manner in which you have confidence in. A 20# mono tippet with a 30# flouro bite tippet will certainly work (that setup worked for me for several years of snook fishing with only a few fray offs). Lighter tippets (and bite tippets) will usually result in more hits. Unfortunately they often also result in more fray offs, especially from larger snook. How you fight the fish will also determine how much fraying will occur when fighting snook. It is however a double edged sword. If you fight the snook aggressively the bite tippet will wear sooner. If you fight it with kid gloves, the fish has more time to fray thru the bite tippet. Most of the time when I flyfished for snook, I used a tippet/bite tippet as you describe - a 20# mono tippet tied to a 30# flouro bite tippet. After a while I used a 40# bite tippet. My largest fly caught snook was caught with a 40# bite tippet. It was worn almost completely through when I finally landed the 20 lber. 

I lost many large snook to fray throughs when targeting FW bass. Many times I had frays in my 20# line when they struck in front of the lure. They destroyed many spinnerbaits meant for bass.

I don't think you have to worry much about bite tippets for stripers since I don't recall ever losing one due to a fray through.

 

Sometimes scientists tend to over think questions. How much water does your mono absorb when you are casting and retrieving? I never noticed that my leader frayed any easier after hours of jigging in the Canal than it did when I started.  

 

Tuna fishermen used to religiously wipe their flour leaders with alcohol. Evidently they found that this resulted in more hookups. Anyone try doing this for snook or stripers?

 

My son and I fished together on many occasions. He used flouro leaders and I used mono. I don't ever remember him doing much better than me except when he used bait and I stuck with lures. But that's another topic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link, Graeme.

 

For what it's worth, I'll mention the variability in diameter of fluorocarbon with price. For many years I was puzzled why my buddy using cheap 30 lb fluoro had about the same bite off frequency as I did with premium 40 lb fluoro bite tippets. Finally, I got around to comparing diameters with my micrometer--they were the same, which explained everything! I had settled on my preference because of knot tying. I like the 3 1/2 turn clinch knot for tying on my saltwater flies, and found that the more-flexible 40 lb. 0.021" diameter premium fluoro was about at my comfort limit. Our bite-off concern in those days was Florida stuff: Spanish mackerel, ladyfish, occasional snook, little bluefish, ... I was fascinated by how you could tell by the fray what you had lost. Spanish gave a clean slice; ladyfish looked like a rasp had been taken to the line; bluefish reminded me of a cheese grater; sharks often left the head of whatever fish you thought you were catching.

 

Also, in case anyone is interested, that number in a nylon's name (e.g, nylon 6, nylon 12) indicates the number of carbons in the monomer used to make the polymer. The higher the number, the closer the material would be to polyethylene, which has an all-carbon chain, accounting for its relatively lower water absorption. Chemically, nylons are related to nature's polyamides, proteins, such as hair and silk. Using the nylon numbering system, proteins would be numbered 2, which explains the extra attention required by silk fly lines and gut leaders, and why humidity causes bad hair days,. 

 

Edited by Steve Schullery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"why humidity causes bad hair days"

 

Gee Steve, as the snow builds up and the sun disappears for 6 months......surely you have some time to set up some comparative abrasion tests with SOAKED nylon vers fluoro....and maybe between brands.

 

If not now.....when?  If not you.....who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, snookster said:

Sometimes scientists tend to over think questions. How much water does your mono absorb when you are casting and retrieving?

Unless you're doing some very precise fishing (i.e. ONLY casting your line at seen fish), your tippet will be in the water nearly all the time. It almost never dries completely while you're fishing. It takes several hours at room temperature to drive the absorbed water out of nylon.

 

So to answer your question, between 3% and 9% of its weight.

 

Cheers,

Graeme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.