Is Fluorocarbon Leader Really Tougher than Monofilament?

Above: This 25-pound fluorocarbon bite tippet was scraped and compromised when a striped bass dragged it against a barnacle-encrusted bridge abutment.

Fluorocarbon became popular because it had unique qualities that set it apart from traditional nylon monofilament.  Those qualities include less visibility, a faster sink rate, significantly less stretch, resistance to UV sunlight, stiffness, and a harder surface than monofilament that better resisted abrasion when scraped across rugged structure or a fish’s rough mouth. Like nylon monofilament, fluorocarbon is a “mono” line with just one strand of material, but that material is known as polyvinylidene fluoride (or PVDF for short), with characteristics much different than nylon mono. It was first manufactured in 1971 by a company that eventually became known as Seaguar.

In particular, Fluorocarbon’s resistance to abrasion was a great marketing strategy and many flyrodders used it for bite tippets. It was advertised as a tough line that laughed at raspy-mouthed critters like striped bass trying to chew through it. It was also a good choice when casting flies to areas with unfriendly rocks, oyster bars, and barnacle-covered bridge and dock pilings.

Here’s an offshore anecdote that made me a believer. While not a fly-fishing experience, it made an impression that influenced all my fishing, from offshore to inshore, big game to fly, and spin fishing.  A ballyhoo rig I had tied with 200-pound-test fluorocarbon leader caught several yellowfin tuna on a trolling trip at the Hudson Canyon. While replacing a chewed-up bait, I noticed the fluoro’s severely scraped surface and a lengthwise split in the leader about 18 inches long. Geez, this was pretty tough stuff!  I soon switched to fluorocarbon for all leaders: surf, inshore, spin, trolling, fluke fishing and, of course, fly fishing.

That was back in the 1980s, and since then, I had never questioned the claim that fluorocarbon line was superior to traditional monofilament for abrasion resistance until about a year ago, after watching an interesting YouTube video. Both materials, nylon monofilament and fluorocarbon from several manufacturers, were evaluated in two sets of side-by-side comparisons. One test compared the abrasion resistance of same-strength 20-pound-test samples regardless of the line’s diameter. The other tested same-diameter .017” and .018” line samples regardless of the pound test.

The second test was more important because several fluoro materials are touted as having a smaller diameter than mono for the same pound-test strength.  The results were startling because in each abrasion comparison, the monofilament beat out the fluorocarbon. After some head scratching, I decided to try some tests of my own and headed to the workbench.

Sign up for Weekly Fishing Reports from On The Water!

Like its name implies, a bite tippet’s primary job is to withstand sharp and abrasive rubbing from the mouth of a gamefish, like a striped bass or a largemouth bass.  I can be certain that the material used to create the bite tippet will stand up to intense rubbing against a rough surface like a rock or concrete piling, or by a fish munching on the line while being played during the battle is essential. It’s also a huge confidence builder.

The YouTube comparison wrapped sandpaper around a large dowel and tied equal weights to the ends of fluoro and mono samples. The lines were rubbed against the sandpaper by pushing and pulling the dowel back and forth, right and left, over the rough surface. In every test, the fluoro broke before the mono. That’s what got my attention.

My own tests used equal lengths of both materials with a 16-ounce bank sinker tied to the end of each. A patch of 80-grit 3M sticky-back sandpaper—the kind boatyards use when sanding varnished teak—was pressed securely to the top surface of the workbench and folded over the edge to simulate the jaw of a fish. The fluoro and mono sample materials were dragged back and forth over the edge with repeated 6-inch hand pulls. The results were similar to what I’d seen online.

I used five samples of 20- and 25-pound mono and fluoro from Ande, Berkley, Cortland, Seaguar, and Stren.  While individual results varied, the overall results were similar between all the brands. For instance, let’s look at the average of three sets of pulls using Ande materials: 20-pound fluoro broke after an average of 74 pulls; the mono broke at 82 pulls.  With Cortland samples, the 20-pound fluoro broke after 61 pulls; the mono at 71 pulls. This same pattern occurred with all the other brands.

Keep in mind this was a very casual, unscientific test and its significance was important only in comparing one bite tippet material to another. The results would be different if a heavier weight were used, with longer pulls, using sandpaper with more grit, or even with various line diameters.

That leads us into the second part of the test comparison using same-diameter line samples. When comparing similar line diameters, fluoro and mono samples all broke at nearly equal levels.  Cortland’s .018-inch diameter 25-pound-test fluoro broke at 83 pulls, about the same as the 82 pulls it took to abrade through Ande’s .018-inch 20-pound-test monofilament.

So, if you usually use a 20-pound mono bite tippet for schoolie stripers in gin-clear water but need a little added strength with minimal visibility, going up to a 25-pound fluoro tippet would be a good option. The diameters are just about the same, but the less visible fluoro would be a stealthier choice and the resistance to abrasion about the same. In murky water where visibility might not be so important, if you still needed more abrasion resistance, a 25-pound mono bite tippet would be a good option.

It’s not so much a question of which material is better. They are both good choices, depending on your fly-fishing requirements, and I’ve talked to manufacturers, guides, and captains with varying opinions on which is the tougher line. No matter who I talked to, the one constant was the importance of line diameter when maximum chafing protection is required.  A larger-diameter material is generally a better choice whenever line chafing is a paramount consideration.

When choosing a bite tippet, it’s a good idea to consider the material’s surface toughness. There are mono and fluoro lines with hard and soft surfaces. A line that feels stiff usually has a harder surface and is more scratchproof than a soft, limp line that may easily be compromised by a slight surface nick. Most line manufacturers describe their line’s qualities in their advertising or print it right on the spool label. A soft line is better suited as a spinning or baitcasting line on a reel, but it is not as a good choice for a bite tippet where a hard surface is top priority.

Taking a closer look at fluorocarbon’s abrasion qualities was interesting and led to a change in what I have been using to construct leaders and the bite tippet material I choose. It was a fun exercise with useful results, like clicking a reset button on a computer. I now rely more on monofilament for bite tippets, yet fluorocarbon still has many qualities that can’t be overlooked. A golfer doesn’t use just one club for every shot, and fly fishers shouldn’t use just one material for leaders. Monofilament and fluorocarbon each have their own advantages.

Fluoro is less visible in water and measured by its refractive index (RI), which is expressed as a number to describe how light passes through a medium such as air, water, glass, or a fishing line. Water’s RI is 1.33. Nylon monofilament has an RI of about 1.6 and fluorocarbon’s RI is about 1.4.  Because it’s so close to the refractive index of water, fluorocarbon leaders are less visible than mono.  How much less visible is often debated, but some flyrodders swear that fluoro gets more bites.  That’s probably true in a pristine trout stream or a coastal grass flat, but perhaps not so important in a murky bass pond or a back-bay salt marsh.

Fluoro sinks slightly faster than mono, but the difference is barely noticeable, especially if you’re using a weighted fly like a Clouser, Jiggy, or Woolly Bugger, where it doesn’t make any difference at all. Only in very shallow water might monofilament be a better choice when casting unweighted flies, such as shrimpy-looking patterns for weakfish on a grass flat, or a vacation trip to the Florida Keys for bonefish.

Nylon monofilament and copolymer monofilament lines absorb water and can lose 15 percent or more of their un-wetted breaking strength. A great advantage of fluorocarbon is that it repels water, so it loses no strength when wet.  That’s a big consideration when targeting large stripers or albies, though not so much for spike weakfish or a 2-pound largemouth bass.

Another big fluorocarbon advantage is that it doesn’t stretch much. Mono can stretch up to 20 percent, so an 8-foot leader will stretch to 10 feet with maximum pressure. Remember, too, that most fly lines also have considerable stretch, so the added stretch of the leader and tippet is like trying to set the hook with a rubber band. Fluoro has minimal stretch—about zero—so hooksets are greatly improved; however, fluoro has more memory than mono and coiling can be a problem. It can be hard to remove the coiling that occurs from storage even with firm stretching.

How the lines are stored is also important. On a visit to Berkley in Spirit Lake, Iowa, I was told that fluorocarbon had a lifespan of about 8 years while mono was good for about 3 years, though  those time frames were greatly shortened, or increased, depending on exposure to the sun. A rigged fly rod could have its leader severely comprised if it has been stored in direct sunlight. Line or leader spools stored in a tackle bag, deck hatch, or a workbench drawer that never see one ray of UV light could last far past the average lifespan. To be on the safe side, it’s a good idea to change mono leaders between each fishing trip.

Whichever material you choose, neither is biodegradable. When replacing a leader or even a bite tippet, hang on to the old leader until you get home and safely dispose of it.

Source: https://onthewater.com/is-fluorocarbon-leader-really-tougher-than-monofilament

$post[‘post_content’] .= ‘Source‘;