Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro 
Screamin Steel
Avid Angler
- Total Posts : 246
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2007/10/21 21:29:26
- Status: offline
Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
I had a buddy give me a partial spool of Pline Flouroclear, a copolymer. I was gonna consider using it for leaders. What's your experience been with the flouro coated or copolymer lines compared to straight flouro? I typically use various brands of 100% flouro, but curious to try this for steelhead. I HAVE used copolymers for general trout and bass fishing before, but I'm not convinced that the coated lines are as transparent to the fish as the straight flouro. The line seems good quality and low memory, from what I can tell. What's your take(s)?
|
bigbear2010
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 859
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/12/14 10:03:19
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/09/30 11:21:12
(permalink)
the p-line can be great
or really a problem
seems to depend on the batch
my experience
has been that its about a 50/50 split
some spools are just fine
others are very brittle
or stiff
or seem to have very low knot strength
|
hookedonsteels
Avid Angler
- Total Posts : 183
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2007/12/15 21:50:10
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/09/30 11:24:40
(permalink)
Not real sure of the transparancies, but the one coated line (P-Line) I used got very brittle once the line/coating got "scored". Either by fish teeth, sinkers, floats. Still seemed to work very good as far as hook-up rate.
post edited by hookedonsteels - 2010/09/30 11:26:00
No working during fishing hours TTTTTTODAY JJUNYA
|
Cold
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 7358
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/09/30 12:53:22
(permalink)
What my mind had never really understood about the coated lines is how the coating benefits you at all. Maybe there's more science to it, but to me it's like mending a torn photograph with masking tape, then putting clear tape over top of that because 'clear tape is invisible'. For what it's worth, a buddy of mine tried the P-Line with similar results: great at first, but wore out very quickly once it started to go. There's a reason your buddy is giving it away. 
|
Screamin Steel
Avid Angler
- Total Posts : 246
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2007/10/21 21:29:26
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/09/30 12:59:59
(permalink)
....As in mebbe he ain't a true friend. Or he just thinks it's #$%^ing hilarious to watch me curse when every time I break off a good fish. 
|
SwimFishieSwim
Avid Angler
- Total Posts : 133
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2007/03/19 10:10:02
- Location: SW PA
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/09/30 13:15:40
(permalink)
I use the P-Line Fluroclear (Copolymer) as my all around line for Trout, Bass, Wallaye, Catfish etc, and think it is the best bang for your buck since it has the best of both worlds (Fluoro and Mono)! However, for steehead I would recommend Seaguar Invizx, it is more costly but has worked for years better than anything else. I use 4lb or 6lb on the streams and sometimes 8lb on the shore, depending on the water. I have not had a bad batch of either, so I cannot attest to the posts from earlier.
|
Cold
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 7358
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/09/30 14:52:49
(permalink)
think it is the best bang for your buck since it has the best of both worlds (Fluoro and Mono)! Again...I don't see how a fluoro coating on a mono line gets you any of the visibility advantages of the fluoro. If that works, why not coat a spectra superline in fluoro and have the best of both of those worlds?
|
ubertracker
Avid Angler
- Total Posts : 120
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/02/05 15:50:41
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/09/30 15:10:14
(permalink)
never felt the need to make the switch from regular mono. Been using mono for years and have friends that use fireline and flouro leaders. never really noticed a huge difference in what he landed vs break offs compared to me. If i were to make a guess I would say he had more break offs then I ever have and I use a lighter line. As far as visibility is concerned.. I figure If i can see it, the fish can see it and no line to date has become invisible to me, so I go with the old adage.. "if it ain't broken, don't fix it"
|
akitadog
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 977
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2007/01/23 08:14:53
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/09/30 16:09:41
(permalink)
i use 4# 100% Pline floro for maine line. you dont need anything bigger than that. when the water is gin clear i tie on ( with a tiny swivel) 3.7# seagar grand max. and very rarely loose a fish unless i dont retie after a couple. guys say they have no problem with mono for steel or 6# or8# floro. those are the guys saying the fish arent biting. you got to go lighter and smaller. nothing over 4# and you will be amazed at the bites you get. i horse them with 4# Pline.
|
Cold
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 7358
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/10/01 07:09:07
(permalink)
guys say they have no problem with mono for steel or 6# or8# floro. those are the guys saying the fish arent biting. Uh...Yeah... o_0 Had one of my best days fishing 6# InvizX. 
|
bigbear2010
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 859
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/12/14 10:03:19
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/10/01 08:52:49
(permalink)
optics in plain terms
have you ever seen a lake in the road on a hot day?
it is an optical illusion caused by different densities of air refracting it at different angles
because normal mono is a hydro carbon mix there is a density difference and it bends the light differently giving a distortion that the fish see
fluoro, because fluorine has a much closer set of properties to carbon than hydrogen, does not cause as much of a difference in refraction
so, to give you the easy answer on why fluoro coated lines are better than mono
the coating on the outside is all that is really refracting the light, so pure fluoro or coated co-polymer, have almost the same refraction index, and therefor "look" the same to the fish
i hope this helps
|
ready2fish
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 787
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/10/01 09:37:36
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Cold
think it is the best bang for your buck since it has the best of both worlds (Fluoro and Mono)!
Again...I don't see how a fluoro coating on a mono line gets you any of the visibility advantages of the fluoro. If that works, why not coat a spectra superline in fluoro and have the best of both of those worlds?
I'm with you . Same for you're example above about clear masking tape over a torn pic. I've used Fluoroclear and 100% fluoro extensively from 4lb to 25 lb tests. I've honestly never seen a vast difference in fish seeing vs. not seeing the two lines. What I have noticed, Fluoroclear is not as abraison resistant, it streches more than 100% fluoro, it absorbs water (it's mono) once it gets knicked, and once that happens it looses it's strength. 100% fluoro line is more abraison resistant and won't absorb water. Each style of line has it's place IMHO depending on the technique. If you want your line to float, use the P-Line, if you want it to sink, use the straight fluoro. If abraison is an issue (like on the streams), use straight fluoro. The P-line is a really good topwater and crankbait line (bassin'). Personally I'd use the P-line for main line and 100% fluoro for leader.
Kistler Custom Rods Pro Staff GAMMA Fishing Lines Pro Staff
|
ShutUpNFish 
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3834
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2007/03/16 10:31:34
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/10/01 10:27:25
(permalink)
I admit, that I have socome to the gimmicks of the fishing world over the years too. IMHO, one of them certainly is flourocarbon monofilament. The fish see lots of things floating by in the water column I know....glares from the sun, debris, lures, other fish, etc etc etc. Is it less visible to our eye underwater? Yes...as proven in Seaguar's little tank of water comparisons; Are we fish though? Nope...Whos to say those various lines in the water are so offensive to the fish as to scare them or prevent them from hitting our baits? I have mentioned this before and I use this guy in many of my references simply because he is a Hell of a fisherman and he keeps his presentations pretty simple. All he uses is Trilene clear mono....no leaders, no flouro, nothing but the mainline. And the dude hammers fish...I think its safe to say, there are not many fishing those tribs that can match him. My guess is the diameter is more key than anything as far as a more natural drift and visibility. With that said, I DO use flouro leader as a just in case deal....does it make THAT much a difference in my success rate? Not really....Could I do without it? Absolutely. Just my .02
|
Cold
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 7358
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/10/01 10:52:02
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: bigbear2010
optics in plain terms
have you ever seen a lake in the road on a hot day?
it is an optical illusion caused by different densities of air refracting it at different angles
because normal mono is a hydro carbon mix there is a density difference and it bends the light differently giving a distortion that the fish see
fluoro, because fluorine has a much closer set of properties to carbon than hydrogen, does not cause as much of a difference in refraction
so, to give you the easy answer on why fluoro coated lines are better than mono
the coating on the outside is all that is really refracting the light, so pure fluoro or coated co-polymer, have almost the same refraction index, and therefor "look" the same to the fish
i hope this helps
Thanks for trying, but I'm as unconvinced as ever. Here's why: Density has nothing to do with light refraction properties in the scope of this matter. While you're on the right track that Fluoro has a refractive index closer to that of water than mono (this is why it appears to be (invisible), this RI has little or nothing to do with fluorine or carbon being similar to hydrogen. If that's the case, lenses made of silicon glass would be useless because of how radically different silicon is form hydrogen. As far as your final analysis, you're very much incorrect. Since both mono and fluoro are transparent, light passes through the entire line, not just the outer surface. If light behaved as you suggest, I still want to know why they dont coat PowerPro with fluoro and make it invisible (or for that matter, weave fine fluoro into a fabric that would be the ultimate in camouflage, making you invisible!)
|
bigbear2010
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 859
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/12/14 10:03:19
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/10/01 11:19:53
(permalink)
well then we disagree
i'm ok with that
|
Cold
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 7358
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/10/01 11:25:50
(permalink)
Yep, fair enough. I mean, obviously there is probably some kind of benefit, otherwise they wouldn't do it. It just seems gimmicky to me. Thanks for not being a tool.
|
ubertracker
Avid Angler
- Total Posts : 120
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/02/05 15:50:41
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/10/01 11:33:39
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Cold
It just seems gimmicky to me.
Like you said, it probably does have some benifits, but gimmick is a perfect word choice. I think our fishing line and lures are promoted to catch the fishermen rather then the fish
post edited by ubertracker - 2010/10/01 11:35:19
|
bigbear2010
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 859
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/12/14 10:03:19
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/10/01 11:42:09
(permalink)
lol
:)
i am a tool from time to time, usually not intentional
i too think there are alot of gimmicks out there and i don't think the trade offs are worth it so i no longer fish fluoro
|
Cold
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 7358
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/10/01 11:49:21
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: ubertracker
I think our fishing line and lures are promoted to catch the fishermen rather then the fish
No doubt. Also, shutupnfish makes a good point too. Sure, scientifically fluoro is less visible to the human eye (and, in all likelihood, to the fishes' eyes as well, considering they function on the same principles), but two main questions are then posed: 1. Does it reduce visibility enough to escape a fish's notice? Not likely. Also, fish can see farther into the UV end of the spectrum than we can. and 2. Does the fish really even care? For all the talk of invisible lines, we still use metal hooks that are, in most cases, fairly visible. Someone needs to make a hook coated in fluoro that fish can't see. At the end of the day, though, no fluoro in the world is going to give you a good drift, which is the only thing you really need to catch a steelhead.
|
ShutUpNFish
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3834
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2007/03/16 10:31:34
- Status: offline
RE: Copolymers (coated) vs. 100% flouro
2010/10/01 12:05:21
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Cold
ORIGINAL: ubertracker
I think our fishing line and lures are promoted to catch the fishermen rather then the fish
No doubt.
Also, shutupnfish makes a good point too. Sure, scientifically fluoro is less visible to the human eye (and, in all likelihood, to the fishes' eyes as well, considering they function on the same principles), but two main questions are then posed:
1. Does it reduce visibility enough to escape a fish's notice? Not likely. Also, fish can see farther into the UV end of the spectrum than we can.
and
2. Does the fish really even care? For all the talk of invisible lines, we still use metal hooks that are, in most cases, fairly visible. Someone needs to make a hook coated in fluoro that fish can't see.
At the end of the day, though, no fluoro in the world is going to give you a good drift, which is the only thing you really need to catch a steelhead.
Exactly....I am a victim of the gimmicks, I admit. Whether fishing or archery hunting, we always seem to be attracted to that extra edge we may have over our quarry as well as peers. And the dam suppliers are so good at advertising it!! The keys is not not let those gimmicks overtake us to the point where we believe we cannot do without them. Because as Cold alluded to, its our tactics, techniques and methods which are most important in our success. Yes, quality tackle is nice and aids in a better quality experience. However, I'm confident that I could do pretty well using a Zebco 308, spooled up with 10lb Trilene, Float and egg sack. Properly drifted and rigged, this set up WILL catch steelhead.
post edited by ShutUpNFish - 2010/10/01 12:07:09
|
|
|