mark d

florocarbon, have we been duped ?

Rate this topic

73 posts in this topic

 

  when i first bought floro i was tying some leaders in my kitchen. i told my wife about this new (to me) miracle line that was invisible. she was dubious...women...so i said here i'll show you. i put a piece of mono and floro in a glass of water. she said she could see no difference...women...i looked closely and hmmm. no difference but hey just a glass of water. subsequently i tested in swimming pool and the ocean. no difference to me. youtube comparisons....same. ok but i kept using it because the "experts" said it had superior abrasion resistance. but the experts were wrong on visibility so i wanted to test this as well. i had an idea on how to do it but before i did i checked youtube and the salt strong guy had already done this and had a better idea then mine.

results ?   mono had better abrasion resistance.  jeeez

 

floro recap:

 

1. costs more

2. harder to tie

3. visibility not superior

4. abrasion resistance inferior to mono

 

 so at this point i feel like a fool. blindly followed the herd. shame on me

 

not trying to sell a point of view here. just one man's opinion

 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you no doubt know, many people still believe in the benefits of flourishing. For me, I agree with you and have been using 50 lb Berkeley Big Game for my leaders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I switch on and off. Right now I'm using floro for my shock leaders. Floro was a gift. I normally use 40# 50# and 60# BBG. all my mono, and that's all I use is BBG Mono. Tried braid 3 or 4 times. Didn't like it.  Reg mono has been catching fish for a long long time, It still will.

Share this post


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

 

  when i first bought floro i was tying some leaders in my kitchen. i told my wife about this new (to me) miracle line that was invisible. she was dubious...women...so i said here i'll show you. i put a piece of mono and floro in a glass of water. she said she could see no difference...women...i looked closely and hmmm. no difference but hey just a glass of water. subsequently i tested in swimming pool and the ocean. no difference to me. youtube comparisons....same. ok but i kept using it because the "experts" said it had superior abrasion resistance. but the experts were wrong on visibility so i wanted to test this as well. i had an idea on how to do it but before i did i checked youtube and the salt strong guy had already done this and had a better idea then mine.

results ?   mono had better abrasion resistance.  jeeez

 

floro recap:

 

1. costs more

2. harder to tie

3. visibility not superior

4. abrasion resistance inferior to mono

 

 so at this point i feel like a fool. blindly followed the herd. shame on me

 

not trying to sell a point of view here. just one man's opinion

 

  

 

 

FINALLY....... Thank you for this post!

 

They used the media to put a spell on many. But I'm glad to see people are overcoming the spell they were put under caused by deceptive men.

 

Fluoro is actually MORE visible than clear mono fishing line. I've done plenty of tests myself. Clear mono is less visible and better in many ways. The whole flouro line thing was just another lying gimmick. It was another faith driven product like mystery oil or "smell invisible" carbon impregnated hunting clothing. They should all be sued.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flouro is more dense, it sinks, and is more sensitive.  Real world experience makes more of a difference to me than some youtube videos, I find it to be more abrasion resistant.  For me it doesn't play as big of a role in saltwater, but for freshwater it makes a big difference for stuff like jigs and crankbaits depending on depths and conditions I'm fishing.  If you've never tried throwing a jig with straight flouro on a real windy day you should, the slackline sensitivity makes a difference.  As just a liter attached to braid I do use it most of the time but won't hesitate to use mono instead and still feel confident.

Share this post


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

4. abrasion resistance inferior to mono

How do you come to this conclusion. I would have definitely said the opposite!

It might also depend on what kind and what brand you use...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 mins ago, FishingEnthusiast said:

How do you come to this conclusion. I would have definitely said the opposite!

It might also depend on what kind and what brand you use...

Watched a video on YouTube 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 mins ago, nateD said:

Flouro is more dense, it sinks, and is more sensitive.  Real world experience makes more of a difference to me than some youtube videos, I find it to be more abrasion resistant.  For me it doesn't play as big of a role in saltwater, but for freshwater it makes a big difference for stuff like jigs and crankbaits depending on depths and conditions I'm fishing.  If you've never tried throwing a jig with straight flouro on a real windy day you should, the slackline sensitivity makes a difference.  As just a liter attached to braid I do use it most of the time but won't hesitate to use mono instead and still feel confident.

I agree, the difference is more noticeable in freshwater. Like when trout fishing on a sunny day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m gonna assume that you’ve been duped by a cheap fluoro. If your using a cheaper flouro, it’s basically monofilament interior with a fluorocarbon coating/wrap. Seaguar is the only flouro that I trust to be 100% fluorocarbon. Science doesn’t lie, it is less visible. But we don’t need it in saltwater In the northeast, and it doesn’t play as significant of a role as it does somewhere like Florida or the Caribbean. We have a ridiculous amount of suspended plankton, algae, and debris that doesn’t exist in other places, where the difference can be crucial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 mins ago, nateD said:

Watched a video on YouTube 

 

   point taken.... just re-created the salt strong guys experiment. 

 

  results:

 

floro= 24 strokes til break

mono= 26 strokes til break

 

seaguar blue vs trilene big game, both 80 lb

 

my set up was not near as nice as the salt strong guys but good enough for my purposes. like i said not selling anything here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMGA0030.JPG

IMGA0027.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been using floro for a number of years now, mostly in crystal clear water, with lots of rocks. I have been completely satisfied with the results.

I am fishing deep, and my line gets down. I a outfishing my partners. Using the same baits. I see curly cues along the line where its been scraped along the rocks and still holding up.

I've used the cheap stuff and the high priced stuff. The one difference I find is the higher end stuff casts a bit easier. Knots are just as easy to tie as with mono.

 I use it also in salt but only as leader stuff, though one year I spooled a reel with Vanish, and I did find my catch rates a little better, than fishing partners. I also run a double line leader of 60lb for those yellow eyed things. While not steel leaders, it still holds up pretty weel as long as I check for nicks after every fish.

 

This season I have used Seaguar as a leader with all my braids, and I have yet to lost a pikerel. The line takes a beating but holds up well. And I find it keeps baits nice and straight while casting.eliminating wind knots in my braid. ( Suffix 832 ).

Is it worth the extra $$...I'm not so sure but if I didn't spend it on florocarbon I'd only spend it on some other fishing item. That's part of the fun of this game

 

Final opinion.floro, just like all the other items in my tackle bags serves a purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 mins ago, HighEndHooker said:

I’m gonna assume that you’ve been duped by a cheap fluoro. If your using a cheaper flouro, it’s basically monofilament interior with a fluorocarbon coating/wrap. Seaguar is the only flouro that I trust to be 100% fluorocarbon. Science doesn’t lie, it is less visible. But we don’t need it in saltwater In the northeast, and it doesn’t play as significant of a role as it does somewhere like Florida or the Caribbean. We have a ridiculous amount of suspended plankton, algae, and debris that doesn’t exist in other places, where the difference can be crucial.

This.

 

Other factors to consider when you are using fluro include, species you are fishing for, what type of lure you are fishing (for ex poppers create a lot of commotion and the difference between mono and fluro won't matter), and if it is really worth it to retie your lure/fly every few fish because the chafed fluro gets shiny. Also, fluro is much worse for the environment in terms of pollution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the naysayers are correct, I switched to flouro thinking it’s supposed resistance to fraying would help me haul Snook and Jacks away from barnacle covered docks and all I got was more expensive cut- offs.

Edited by Bogey

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.