Give us a try!
Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!
Tippet Material of Choice?
- Thread starter dcabarle
- Start date
Trouser Trout
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
How do u tie the extra length of tippet on to the 9' 5x leader? what type of knot are u using?
The best knot to add tippit is a double (or triple) surgeon's knot. You really should learn it if you haven't already.
Surgeons Knot
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Surgeons Knot
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
bkill
Quest for the Two Headed Trout
I like to use a double surgeons knot for 4X or larger and triple surgeons for 5X or smaller...Whenever tying with flouro, check your knots..Flouro is stiffer than mono and sometimes the knots will loosen...Fortunately the newer flouro is more flexible and unfortunately more expensive...But dont cheap out on leader material..It is the weakest link (besides knots) in the entire system....
leakywaders
I like anything with rubber legs!
And don't forget the blood knot takes a little practice but I think it's a stronger knot than the surgeons
I have to agree with most of this Dan, except that in my case I'm clearly the weakest link in the system, not the tippet....
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
bkill
Quest for the Two Headed Trout
I hear what your saying Gary...Last week I was happy to see Corndog back on the Forum, only to be disappointed with a 2 year old thread....
eddavidson9
how's that for a slice of fried gold
try testing it...i think you'll be surprised. in my experience the benefits to a blood knot include a slightly smaller knot diamter (depending on line diameter), tags at 90 degrees from the line (for droppers) and a straight (rather than angled, as with surgeons) connection, but decidedly not strength.
leakywaders
I like anything with rubber legs!
I have tested it although not scientifically but side by side and the bloodknot always held up better. It would be good to see some more controled data on this. I do know several guides that agree the bloodknot is their go to knot for leader to tippet and that is why I started learning to tie it. But if you have trouble getting it down the surgeons knot is fine.
If I had to tie blood knots on the stream, I'd never have time to actually catch fish. I just started using blood knots to tie my own leaders, but I'll stick with the surgeon's while stream side.
For the folks just learning the surgeon's knot, the knot's strength completely depends on seating it correctly when you tighten it. I've found the best method is to pull all four ends until the knot is just about seated, then pull only on the two long ends. And as with any knot, test it before you fish it.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
For the folks just learning the surgeon's knot, the knot's strength completely depends on seating it correctly when you tighten it. I've found the best method is to pull all four ends until the knot is just about seated, then pull only on the two long ends. And as with any knot, test it before you fish it.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
redietz
Bob Dietz
I seem to be the odd one here, I find a blood knot to much easier to tie than a surgeon's knot. I'll grant that the latter is stronger, but I can't seem to tie one in tippet material without resorting to a tool of some sort. (It's conceptually an easier knot, my fingers just don't seem to want to tie it, though)
Plus, I can re-tie a blood knot without cutting off the fly first.
papabearoutdoors
papabearoutdoors
i agree -- the surgeons is the most practical way to go if youre mid stream. do you do twice around and one through? or once and twice through?
redietz -- if your fingers give you trouble i think the twice around method is the easiest way to go.
if you test it and take care to pull all the end thoroughly with the long strands as the last stop before nipperville...... it works just fine.
I make one loop, then wrap the ends through the loop twice. I wasn't aware there was another method. Are you saying that you can make a doubled loop and then wrap the ends through once?
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
chromefinder
Fishizzle, I use worms but I'm looking to upgrade!
Dry Fly Fishing = Orvis Super Strong Nylon
Nymphing = Orvis Super Strong Nylon and if necessary Seaguar Fluorocarbon
Streamers and Big Uglies = Maxima
Nymphing = Orvis Super Strong Nylon and if necessary Seaguar Fluorocarbon
Streamers and Big Uglies = Maxima
CatskillKid
Either you're dirty, or you're not.
For flat out Mono leaders the Cabela's, the Rio and the Frog Hair are all good commercially available options, the best is without doubt the Frog Hair because of it's dull finish it possesses a better refraction index than the others. The most affordable is the Cabela's, it seems to be exactly the same as the Orvis for half the price.
I personally tie my own leaders though and I STRONGLY prefer and reccomend Maxima Chameleon butt sections and mid sections and front sections made of the mono of your choice, take Frog Hair if you can pay the bucks, otherwise just go with Cabela's and you'll love the darn stuff.
I personally tie my own leaders though and I STRONGLY prefer and reccomend Maxima Chameleon butt sections and mid sections and front sections made of the mono of your choice, take Frog Hair if you can pay the bucks, otherwise just go with Cabela's and you'll love the darn stuff.
CatskillKid
Either you're dirty, or you're not.
Actually, Climax is made by Cortland.
Furthermore, Climax, Orvis Super Strong and Cabela's Prestige Material are all very much the same thing. Maybe not from a marketing perspective. Maybe not from a copyright perspective. Maybe not from a cost perspective (Orvis is grossly overpriced at $7.95, Climax is reasonable at $3.75 and Cabela's is unbelievably $2.95) But rather, from a scientific -or- FACTUAL perspective as I like to call it.
You see...Water has a refraction index of 1.33. Climax is 1.73, Orvis is 1.71 and Cabelas is 1.70. Making all three within .02 of each other and equally prone to reflecting the sun's glare. Water has a specific gravity of 1.0, Climax is 1.13, Orvis is 1.14 and Cabelas is 1.13, making each of these materials within .01 the same in terms of how high they float in the water column.
In terms of Knot Strength and Breaking Characteristics, THAT is WAY more complicated. But Orvis Super Strong material is quite literally only MIDDLE OF THE ROAD AT BEST PEOPLE! Here's why:
All that can be determined from the labels is the advertised dry break strength (usually overstated) and the specified diameter that often isn't matched by the material on the spool. Knowing the "Break Strength" doesn't help select the best material because we won't know how much energy will be required to reach the breaking strain. As an example: if there were two frames, one holding a sheet of glass and the other a sheet of rubber, each with the same "breaking strength", dropping a weight sufficient to break the glass, on both sheets, would not break the rubber sheet because the energy required to stretch the rubber to the breaking point is much greater than for the glass. So, Choosing from the sport shop rack, based upon the labels, is something like playing Russian Roulette.
To make a valid selection, we need to know the energy per foot required to break the material, the effect on strength caused by a wind knot ("knot strength") and the relative effect of abrasion. Further, these must be the characteristics exhibited after the material has been soaked in water.
Few of us have the lab equipment to make these measurements. So we end up depending upon the advice and recommendations from sport shops, guides and fishing partners. Unfortunately, most of them don't know either and base their advice on experience and/or hearsay, which, although helpful, probably won't produce the most desirable assembly.
Methods were devised to make the required measurements using materials and devices commonly found at home or easily obtained at a hardware store - nothing fancy.
THE MEASUREMENTS
Prior to the measurements the leader material is soaked in water for one hour and then kept in zip bags with a wet sponge until used. The characteristics that must be measured and/or calculated are:
1. a) Break Strength: ................................................... <SMALL>(B) =<SMALL> (Strain required to break the material).</SMALL></SMALL>
b) Cross Sectional Area: ......................................... <SMALL>(A) = (</SMALL><BIG>p</BIG><SMALL>D²/4) <SMALL> (Where D is the leader diameter).</SMALL></SMALL>
c) Tensile Strength: ................................................. <SMALL>(T) = (B/A)<SMALL> (Calculated as: pounds per square inch).</SMALL></SMALL>
2. Elongation (prior to breaking): .............................. <SMALL>(E) = (L2 - L1)x(12/L1)<SMALL> (inches per foot).</SMALL></SMALL>
3. Knot Strength: ........................................................ <SMALL>(K) = <SMALL>(strain required to break material with a wind knot).</SMALL></SMALL>
4. Abrasion Resistance: ............................................. <SMALL>(R) =<SMALL> (Inches of 600 grit with </SMALL>(B/2)<SMALL> as a load and </SMALL>(B/16) <SMALL>as a deflection force).</SMALL></SMALL> 5. Energy to break: .................................................... <SMALL>(W) @<SMALL> </SMALL>(B/2)x(E) <SMALL>(Calculated as: inch pounds per foot).</SMALL></SMALL>
BREAK STRENGTH (B)
The method for measuring the break strength requires a piece of 1/2", or larger, dowel, a one or two gallon bucket and a spring or digital weight scale. To make the measurement, wrap one end of the tippet around the bucket handle and wrap the other end of the tippet around the piece of dowel. Five over overlapping wraps is usually enough to secure the tippet (put a layer of masking tape around the handle and dowel as a cushion). With the dowel clamped to a table or counter top and the bucket hanging below, pour water into the bucket, to increase the strain, until the tippet breaks. Be prepared to stop pouring the water when the line breaks (place a stand under the bucket to catch it). The break strength (B) is determined by weighing the bucket of water (It's a good idea to start with enough water in the bucket to bring the weight to at least 75% of the expected break strain).
CROSS SECTIONAL AREA (A)
Since tippet material has a circular cross section the diameter is measured, using micrometer calipers, and the area (A) is calculated from (A) = (<BIG><BIG>p</BIG></BIG>D²/4).
TENSILE STRENGTH (T)
This is determined from the cross sectional area (A) and break strength (B) of the material and is given by ( T = B/A ).
ELONGATION (E)
This is the amount the tippet stretches before breaking. This can be measured using the same apparatus as that for Break Strength (B). After the tippet breaks, for the Break Strength measurement, attach another piece of tippet between the dowel and Bucket. Any length is OK but 10" will give elongation directly as a percentage (each inch of Elongation becomes 10% ). Remove 10% of the weight from the bucket, by removing some water (use the weight scale to determine the reduction) and release the weight slowly to avoid snapping the tippet from the added force of kinetic energy. If plastic flow occurs replace the tippet, reduce the weight a bit more and try again. Measuring the change in length gives the Elongation (the change in length divided by the initial length times 100 will give the % Elongation ).
KNOT STRENGTH (K)
This is measured by tying a knot in the tippet material (an overhand knot - wind knot - is used when the "knot strength" of the material is to be defined) and then determining the strain to break the line. Use the same procedure as for break strength (B). The Knot Strength is given as a percentage of the break strength without the knot, as determined from the measurement of (B) - knot break strength divided by no knot break strength times 100 = Knot Strength %.
ABRASION RESISTANCE (R)
This is a somewhat arbitrary measurement because the conditions "in stream" vary so widely but any technique that provides a relative break point will be a useful indicator of this characteristic. The tippet should be under tension and the abrading surface should apply a representative force to the surface of the tippet. All line materials must be the same diameter for valid comparisons.
The tension is provided using the Break Strength apparatus with the weight of the bucket and water set to 50% of the average break strength for the class of the tippet material (weight should be the same for all materials of the same diameter). For the abrading surface, glue a 6" by 3/4" strip of 600 grit wet or dry sand paper along a 1/2" dia. dowel, 12" in length. Mark a measuring scale along the length of the dowel. The dowel is positioned so that it can slide, at a right angle to the tippet, on a track made by fastening a strip of 1"X 1/4" slat 1/4" below the edge of the work bench, positioned such that the sand paper comes in contact with the tippet about 6" below the tippet support and offset from the support enough to form an angle of 7 degrees between the tippet and the horizontal plane at the point of contact with the dowel. The 7 degree angle was chosen to provide a force of about 1/8 of the applied tension between the tippet and the sand paper. Directly below the track and in line with the tippet material a guide pin is installed just touching the tippet to prevent it from being horizontally displaced by the friction of the abrading surface as it is moved along the track, also, the bucket must be restrained from rotating. The dowel is put into place after the load has been applied to the tippet by pulling the tippet away from the track, inserting the sand-papered dowel and carefully releasing the tippet to contact the sandpaper without any initial abrasion. The dowel is then moved along the track, at a right angle to the tippet, until the tippet breaks. The distance that the dowel moves is recorded and used as a relative indicator of abrasion resistance. The abrasion resistance (R) is given in inches of 600 grit sandpaper at a force of 1/8 the tension.
ENERGY TO BREAK (W)
This can be approximated from Break Strength (B) and Elongation (E). Since the force of Elongation was not integrated as a function of stretch (stretch is a nonlinear function of strain) the mid point force (B/2) is used to obtain a relative measure of (W). Giving: (Wrel) = (B/2)x(E). This value is then converted into energy per foot of tippet (inch pounds/ft ) by multiplying by 12/L1, where L1 is the initial length of the test piece when (E) was measured.
Energy to break along with abrasion resistance are the best indicators of the relative worth of these tippet materials.
These tests and calculations were applied to five samples each of the several brands of tippet material shown on the cover page and the results averaged. The various brands were ranked by Tensile Strength, Energy to Break, and Abrasion Resistance. Knot Strength was included to determine the effect of wind knots and whether or not the standard knots will be as strong as expected [(K) must be at least 65% for knots to perform to specifications]. It will be instructive to compare the data with the claims on the labels.
With this understood, here are test results to PROVE MY POINT FOLKS:
<TABLE cellPadding=2 align=center border=2><CAPTION>*RANKING BY TENSILE STRENGTH </CAPTION><TBODY><TR vAlign=baseline><TD vAlign=top> Brand</TD><TD> Tensile Strength
</TD><TD> Measured Diameter
</TD><TD>Break Strength
</TD><TD>Strength Adjusted to Spec. (0.006" )
</TD><TD>Knot Strength
</TD></TR><TR><TD>1. RIO®</TD><TD> 168,000 psi </TD><TD> 0.0061"</TD><TD> 4.9 lb</TD><TD> 4.75lb</TD><TD> 90%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Dai-Riki®</TD><TD> 165,955 psi</TD><TD> 0.0061"</TD><TD> 4.85 lb</TD><TD> 4.69 lb</TD><TD> 90%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Fenwick®</TD><TD> 159,112 psi</TD><TD> 0.0061"</TD><TD> 4.80 lb</TD><TD> 4.50 lb</TD><TD> 69%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Orvis®</TD><TD> 142,427 psi</TD><TD> 0.0062"</TD><TD> 4.3 lb</TD><TD> 4.03 lb</TD><TD> 87%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Umpqua®</TD><TD> 137,942 psi</TD><TD> 0.0063"</TD><TD> 4.5 l</TD><TD> 3.90 lb</TD><TD> 90%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Climax®</TD><TD> 133,449 psi</TD><TD> 0.0061"</TD><TD> 3.9 lb</TD><TD> 3.77 lb</TD><TD> 88%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Advantage®</TD><TD> 110,142 psi</TD><TD> 0.0068"</TD><TD> 4.0 lb</TD><TD> 3.11 lb</TD><TD> 68%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Maxima®</TD><TD> 95,330 psi</TD><TD> 0.0074" #</TD><TD> 4.1 lb</TD><TD> 2.70 lb</TD><TD> 66%</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE align=center border=1><CAPTION>RANKING BY ELONGATION (Adjusted to Specified Diameter - 0.006") </CAPTION><TBODY><TR><TD> Brand</TD><TD> Elongation % </TD><TD> </TD><TD> Brand </TD><TD> I nches of 600 Grit (see method)
</TD></TR><TR><TD> 1. Climax®</TD><TD> 34</TD><TD></TD><TD> 1. RIO®</TD><TD> 1.47</TD></TR><TR><TD> 2. Umpqua®</TD><TD> 33</TD><TD></TD><TD> 2. Umpqua®</TD><TD> 1.34</TD></TR><TR><TD> 3. Maxima® #</TD><TD># 33 </TD><TD></TD><TD> 3. Fenwick®</TD><TD> 1.30</TD></TR><TR><TD> 4. Orvis®</TD><TD> 27</TD><TD></TD><TD> 4. Orvis®</TD><TD> 1.25</TD></TR><TR><TD> 5. Fenwick®</TD><TD> 24.9</TD><TD></TD><TD> 5. Climax®</TD><TD> 0.81</TD></TR><TR><TD> 6. RIO®</TD><TD> 23.1</TD><TD></TD><TD> 6. Dai-Riki®</TD><TD> 0.75</TD></TR><TR><TD> 7. Dai-Riki®</TD><TD> 22</TD><TD></TD><TD> 7. Advantage®</TD><TD> 0.33 </TD></TR><TR><TD> 8. Advantage® </TD><TD> 18</TD><TD></TD><TD> 8. Maxima®</TD><TD># 0.31 </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<CENTER><TABLE align=center border=1><CAPTION> RANKING BY ENERGY
RANKING BY ENERGY TO BREAK KNOT STRENGTH PRODUCT </CAPTION><TBODY><TR><TD> Brand </TD><TD> Inch pounds/ft </TD><TD> </TD><TD> Brand </TD><TD> Inch pounds/ft </TD></TR><TR><TD> 1. Umpqua®</TD><TD> 7.72 </TD><TD></TD><TD> 1. Umpqua®</TD><TD> 6.95 </TD></TR><TR><TD> 2. Climax®</TD><TD> 7.69</TD><TD></TD><TD> 2. Climax®</TD><TD> 6.77</TD></TR><TR><TD> 3. Fenwick®</TD><TD> 6.7</TD><TD></TD><TD> 3. RIO®</TD><TD> 5.92</TD></TR><TR><TD> 4. RIO®</TD><TD> 6.58</TD><TD></TD><TD> 4. Orvis®</TD><TD> 5.64</TD></TR><TR><TD> 5. Orvis®</TD><TD> 6.48</TD><TD></TD><TD> 5. Dai-Riki®</TD><TD> 5.57</TD></TR><TR><TD> 6. Dai- Riki®</TD><TD> 6.19</TD><TD></TD><TD> 6. Fenwick®</TD><TD> 4.62</TD></TR><TR><TD> 7. Maxima ®</TD><TD># 5.4</TD><TD></TD><TD> 7. Maxima®</TD><TD># 3.6</TD></TR><TR><TD> 8. Advantage®</TD><TD> 3.36</TD><TD></TD><TD> 8. Advantage®</TD><TD> 2.28</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>
<SMALL>* The scales used in making the measurement of strength were calibrated against Super Market digital scales by measuring the weights of several containers of water on both systems. While I make no claim as to the absolute accuracy of the measurements, the actual values should be within ± 5% of those recorded. </SMALL>
<SMALL>Regardless of the accuracy of the measurements the relative standings of the various brands would not change, since all were measured in the same manner, the same time frame and using the same equipment.</SMALL>
<SMALL># Maxima material, sampled from several 5X spools, measured 0.0074" or more, so, all tests, except tensile strength, were made on 0.006" material obtained from a spool marked 0.005" (6X). This is usually the case for Maxima material, it is typically 0.001" to 0.002" over the size printed on the label.</SMALL> <SMALL>When selecting material for the tests, the diameters were found to be from one size under, that marked on the label, to two sizes over, so, if the specified size is desired, take Micrometer Calipers to the shop and check before you buy.</SMALL>
LEADER TESTING, EVALUATION & CONCLUSIONS
The test data should be examined with the following principles in mind.
The line and rod system must absorb the energy of the runs, jumps and thrashing of a fish such that the break strength of the tippet and knots isn't reached. To do this the shocks must be absorbed by the spring action of the rod and the stretch action of the various line segments. Each line segment and the rod are somewhat decoupled from each other by the relative masses and the amount of drag caused by the water in which they may be immersed. Thus, there is a delay in the transfer of shock from one to the other such that the leader must be able to absorb the initial energy of any quick motion (thrashing, jumping, head shaking) by the fish. The fly line mass and water drag on it prevents the rod from buffering these actions, particularly when there is a lot of line in the water. So, for very fine tippets, the amount of ENERGY required to break it is very important (tippet should be quite elastic).
As the break strength of the leader and tippet increases there will be more time, before the break point is reached, for the fly line and rod to take part in the energy absorption and then tensile strength begins to play a more important role. The cross over between these requirements (for trout leaders) occurs at about 4X diameter (0.007") or 6# to 7# test.
Other factors to consider are knot strength and abrasion resistance, since sensitivity to wind knots and abrasion are both undesirable.
Looking at the test data on the basis of Energy to Break places Umpqua, Climax, Fenwick and RIO in the top half of the ratings. When the knot strength factor (Energy Knot Strength Product) is included Umpqua, Climax, RIO and Orvis occupy the top half. When abrasion resistance is considered Climax (#5) should be eliminated from the top ratings and when knot strength is considered Fenwick (@ only 69%) should be eliminated. Leaving Umpqua, RIO and Orvis as the top three with Umpqua and RIO clearly the best.
Among the eight materials tested, Umpqua, with the highest energy to break and energy knot strength product is THE material to use for the 5X to 8X tippets.
RIO with the highest tensile strength, knot strength and abrasion resistance is the clear winner for 4X and larger diameters.
Considering Maxima's reputation, as a great leader material, it is surprising to find it at or near the bottom in all the important characteristics.
By using this data base as a reference, it makes evaluating the performance of other materials easier. Whenever there is a change in the label appearance of a product it should be tested again and compared against the available data base to establish its ranking. A factor, not included in this test data, is the strength of the knots used to interconnect the line segments. Testing shows that there are knots that are best (100%) for each application and, if the knots are properly chosen, the entire system, from arbor to fly can be 100%. Without the best material AND the best knots there will be too many of those sickening break offs.
Furthermore, Climax, Orvis Super Strong and Cabela's Prestige Material are all very much the same thing. Maybe not from a marketing perspective. Maybe not from a copyright perspective. Maybe not from a cost perspective (Orvis is grossly overpriced at $7.95, Climax is reasonable at $3.75 and Cabela's is unbelievably $2.95) But rather, from a scientific -or- FACTUAL perspective as I like to call it.
You see...Water has a refraction index of 1.33. Climax is 1.73, Orvis is 1.71 and Cabelas is 1.70. Making all three within .02 of each other and equally prone to reflecting the sun's glare. Water has a specific gravity of 1.0, Climax is 1.13, Orvis is 1.14 and Cabelas is 1.13, making each of these materials within .01 the same in terms of how high they float in the water column.
In terms of Knot Strength and Breaking Characteristics, THAT is WAY more complicated. But Orvis Super Strong material is quite literally only MIDDLE OF THE ROAD AT BEST PEOPLE! Here's why:
All that can be determined from the labels is the advertised dry break strength (usually overstated) and the specified diameter that often isn't matched by the material on the spool. Knowing the "Break Strength" doesn't help select the best material because we won't know how much energy will be required to reach the breaking strain. As an example: if there were two frames, one holding a sheet of glass and the other a sheet of rubber, each with the same "breaking strength", dropping a weight sufficient to break the glass, on both sheets, would not break the rubber sheet because the energy required to stretch the rubber to the breaking point is much greater than for the glass. So, Choosing from the sport shop rack, based upon the labels, is something like playing Russian Roulette.
To make a valid selection, we need to know the energy per foot required to break the material, the effect on strength caused by a wind knot ("knot strength") and the relative effect of abrasion. Further, these must be the characteristics exhibited after the material has been soaked in water.
Few of us have the lab equipment to make these measurements. So we end up depending upon the advice and recommendations from sport shops, guides and fishing partners. Unfortunately, most of them don't know either and base their advice on experience and/or hearsay, which, although helpful, probably won't produce the most desirable assembly.
Methods were devised to make the required measurements using materials and devices commonly found at home or easily obtained at a hardware store - nothing fancy.
THE MEASUREMENTS
Prior to the measurements the leader material is soaked in water for one hour and then kept in zip bags with a wet sponge until used. The characteristics that must be measured and/or calculated are:
1. a) Break Strength: ................................................... <SMALL>(B) =<SMALL> (Strain required to break the material).</SMALL></SMALL>
b) Cross Sectional Area: ......................................... <SMALL>(A) = (</SMALL><BIG>p</BIG><SMALL>D²/4) <SMALL> (Where D is the leader diameter).</SMALL></SMALL>
c) Tensile Strength: ................................................. <SMALL>(T) = (B/A)<SMALL> (Calculated as: pounds per square inch).</SMALL></SMALL>
2. Elongation (prior to breaking): .............................. <SMALL>(E) = (L2 - L1)x(12/L1)<SMALL> (inches per foot).</SMALL></SMALL>
3. Knot Strength: ........................................................ <SMALL>(K) = <SMALL>(strain required to break material with a wind knot).</SMALL></SMALL>
4. Abrasion Resistance: ............................................. <SMALL>(R) =<SMALL> (Inches of 600 grit with </SMALL>(B/2)<SMALL> as a load and </SMALL>(B/16) <SMALL>as a deflection force).</SMALL></SMALL> 5. Energy to break: .................................................... <SMALL>(W) @<SMALL> </SMALL>(B/2)x(E) <SMALL>(Calculated as: inch pounds per foot).</SMALL></SMALL>
BREAK STRENGTH (B)
The method for measuring the break strength requires a piece of 1/2", or larger, dowel, a one or two gallon bucket and a spring or digital weight scale. To make the measurement, wrap one end of the tippet around the bucket handle and wrap the other end of the tippet around the piece of dowel. Five over overlapping wraps is usually enough to secure the tippet (put a layer of masking tape around the handle and dowel as a cushion). With the dowel clamped to a table or counter top and the bucket hanging below, pour water into the bucket, to increase the strain, until the tippet breaks. Be prepared to stop pouring the water when the line breaks (place a stand under the bucket to catch it). The break strength (B) is determined by weighing the bucket of water (It's a good idea to start with enough water in the bucket to bring the weight to at least 75% of the expected break strain).
CROSS SECTIONAL AREA (A)
Since tippet material has a circular cross section the diameter is measured, using micrometer calipers, and the area (A) is calculated from (A) = (<BIG><BIG>p</BIG></BIG>D²/4).
TENSILE STRENGTH (T)
This is determined from the cross sectional area (A) and break strength (B) of the material and is given by ( T = B/A ).
ELONGATION (E)
This is the amount the tippet stretches before breaking. This can be measured using the same apparatus as that for Break Strength (B). After the tippet breaks, for the Break Strength measurement, attach another piece of tippet between the dowel and Bucket. Any length is OK but 10" will give elongation directly as a percentage (each inch of Elongation becomes 10% ). Remove 10% of the weight from the bucket, by removing some water (use the weight scale to determine the reduction) and release the weight slowly to avoid snapping the tippet from the added force of kinetic energy. If plastic flow occurs replace the tippet, reduce the weight a bit more and try again. Measuring the change in length gives the Elongation (the change in length divided by the initial length times 100 will give the % Elongation ).
KNOT STRENGTH (K)
This is measured by tying a knot in the tippet material (an overhand knot - wind knot - is used when the "knot strength" of the material is to be defined) and then determining the strain to break the line. Use the same procedure as for break strength (B). The Knot Strength is given as a percentage of the break strength without the knot, as determined from the measurement of (B) - knot break strength divided by no knot break strength times 100 = Knot Strength %.
ABRASION RESISTANCE (R)
This is a somewhat arbitrary measurement because the conditions "in stream" vary so widely but any technique that provides a relative break point will be a useful indicator of this characteristic. The tippet should be under tension and the abrading surface should apply a representative force to the surface of the tippet. All line materials must be the same diameter for valid comparisons.
The tension is provided using the Break Strength apparatus with the weight of the bucket and water set to 50% of the average break strength for the class of the tippet material (weight should be the same for all materials of the same diameter). For the abrading surface, glue a 6" by 3/4" strip of 600 grit wet or dry sand paper along a 1/2" dia. dowel, 12" in length. Mark a measuring scale along the length of the dowel. The dowel is positioned so that it can slide, at a right angle to the tippet, on a track made by fastening a strip of 1"X 1/4" slat 1/4" below the edge of the work bench, positioned such that the sand paper comes in contact with the tippet about 6" below the tippet support and offset from the support enough to form an angle of 7 degrees between the tippet and the horizontal plane at the point of contact with the dowel. The 7 degree angle was chosen to provide a force of about 1/8 of the applied tension between the tippet and the sand paper. Directly below the track and in line with the tippet material a guide pin is installed just touching the tippet to prevent it from being horizontally displaced by the friction of the abrading surface as it is moved along the track, also, the bucket must be restrained from rotating. The dowel is put into place after the load has been applied to the tippet by pulling the tippet away from the track, inserting the sand-papered dowel and carefully releasing the tippet to contact the sandpaper without any initial abrasion. The dowel is then moved along the track, at a right angle to the tippet, until the tippet breaks. The distance that the dowel moves is recorded and used as a relative indicator of abrasion resistance. The abrasion resistance (R) is given in inches of 600 grit sandpaper at a force of 1/8 the tension.
ENERGY TO BREAK (W)
This can be approximated from Break Strength (B) and Elongation (E). Since the force of Elongation was not integrated as a function of stretch (stretch is a nonlinear function of strain) the mid point force (B/2) is used to obtain a relative measure of (W). Giving: (Wrel) = (B/2)x(E). This value is then converted into energy per foot of tippet (inch pounds/ft ) by multiplying by 12/L1, where L1 is the initial length of the test piece when (E) was measured.
Energy to break along with abrasion resistance are the best indicators of the relative worth of these tippet materials.
These tests and calculations were applied to five samples each of the several brands of tippet material shown on the cover page and the results averaged. The various brands were ranked by Tensile Strength, Energy to Break, and Abrasion Resistance. Knot Strength was included to determine the effect of wind knots and whether or not the standard knots will be as strong as expected [(K) must be at least 65% for knots to perform to specifications]. It will be instructive to compare the data with the claims on the labels.
With this understood, here are test results to PROVE MY POINT FOLKS:
<TABLE cellPadding=2 align=center border=2><CAPTION>*RANKING BY TENSILE STRENGTH </CAPTION><TBODY><TR vAlign=baseline><TD vAlign=top> Brand</TD><TD> Tensile Strength
</TD><TD> Measured Diameter
</TD><TD>Break Strength
</TD><TD>Strength Adjusted to Spec. (0.006" )
</TD><TD>Knot Strength
</TD></TR><TR><TD>1. RIO®</TD><TD> 168,000 psi </TD><TD> 0.0061"</TD><TD> 4.9 lb</TD><TD> 4.75lb</TD><TD> 90%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Dai-Riki®</TD><TD> 165,955 psi</TD><TD> 0.0061"</TD><TD> 4.85 lb</TD><TD> 4.69 lb</TD><TD> 90%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Fenwick®</TD><TD> 159,112 psi</TD><TD> 0.0061"</TD><TD> 4.80 lb</TD><TD> 4.50 lb</TD><TD> 69%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Orvis®</TD><TD> 142,427 psi</TD><TD> 0.0062"</TD><TD> 4.3 lb</TD><TD> 4.03 lb</TD><TD> 87%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Umpqua®</TD><TD> 137,942 psi</TD><TD> 0.0063"</TD><TD> 4.5 l</TD><TD> 3.90 lb</TD><TD> 90%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Climax®</TD><TD> 133,449 psi</TD><TD> 0.0061"</TD><TD> 3.9 lb</TD><TD> 3.77 lb</TD><TD> 88%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Advantage®</TD><TD> 110,142 psi</TD><TD> 0.0068"</TD><TD> 4.0 lb</TD><TD> 3.11 lb</TD><TD> 68%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Maxima®</TD><TD> 95,330 psi</TD><TD> 0.0074" #</TD><TD> 4.1 lb</TD><TD> 2.70 lb</TD><TD> 66%</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE align=center border=1><CAPTION>RANKING BY ELONGATION (Adjusted to Specified Diameter - 0.006") </CAPTION><TBODY><TR><TD> Brand</TD><TD> Elongation % </TD><TD> </TD><TD> Brand </TD><TD> I nches of 600 Grit (see method)
</TD></TR><TR><TD> 1. Climax®</TD><TD> 34</TD><TD></TD><TD> 1. RIO®</TD><TD> 1.47</TD></TR><TR><TD> 2. Umpqua®</TD><TD> 33</TD><TD></TD><TD> 2. Umpqua®</TD><TD> 1.34</TD></TR><TR><TD> 3. Maxima® #</TD><TD># 33 </TD><TD></TD><TD> 3. Fenwick®</TD><TD> 1.30</TD></TR><TR><TD> 4. Orvis®</TD><TD> 27</TD><TD></TD><TD> 4. Orvis®</TD><TD> 1.25</TD></TR><TR><TD> 5. Fenwick®</TD><TD> 24.9</TD><TD></TD><TD> 5. Climax®</TD><TD> 0.81</TD></TR><TR><TD> 6. RIO®</TD><TD> 23.1</TD><TD></TD><TD> 6. Dai-Riki®</TD><TD> 0.75</TD></TR><TR><TD> 7. Dai-Riki®</TD><TD> 22</TD><TD></TD><TD> 7. Advantage®</TD><TD> 0.33 </TD></TR><TR><TD> 8. Advantage® </TD><TD> 18</TD><TD></TD><TD> 8. Maxima®</TD><TD># 0.31 </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<CENTER><TABLE align=center border=1><CAPTION> RANKING BY ENERGY
RANKING BY ENERGY TO BREAK KNOT STRENGTH PRODUCT </CAPTION><TBODY><TR><TD> Brand </TD><TD> Inch pounds/ft </TD><TD> </TD><TD> Brand </TD><TD> Inch pounds/ft </TD></TR><TR><TD> 1. Umpqua®</TD><TD> 7.72 </TD><TD></TD><TD> 1. Umpqua®</TD><TD> 6.95 </TD></TR><TR><TD> 2. Climax®</TD><TD> 7.69</TD><TD></TD><TD> 2. Climax®</TD><TD> 6.77</TD></TR><TR><TD> 3. Fenwick®</TD><TD> 6.7</TD><TD></TD><TD> 3. RIO®</TD><TD> 5.92</TD></TR><TR><TD> 4. RIO®</TD><TD> 6.58</TD><TD></TD><TD> 4. Orvis®</TD><TD> 5.64</TD></TR><TR><TD> 5. Orvis®</TD><TD> 6.48</TD><TD></TD><TD> 5. Dai-Riki®</TD><TD> 5.57</TD></TR><TR><TD> 6. Dai- Riki®</TD><TD> 6.19</TD><TD></TD><TD> 6. Fenwick®</TD><TD> 4.62</TD></TR><TR><TD> 7. Maxima ®</TD><TD># 5.4</TD><TD></TD><TD> 7. Maxima®</TD><TD># 3.6</TD></TR><TR><TD> 8. Advantage®</TD><TD> 3.36</TD><TD></TD><TD> 8. Advantage®</TD><TD> 2.28</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>
<SMALL>* The scales used in making the measurement of strength were calibrated against Super Market digital scales by measuring the weights of several containers of water on both systems. While I make no claim as to the absolute accuracy of the measurements, the actual values should be within ± 5% of those recorded. </SMALL>
<SMALL>Regardless of the accuracy of the measurements the relative standings of the various brands would not change, since all were measured in the same manner, the same time frame and using the same equipment.</SMALL>
<SMALL># Maxima material, sampled from several 5X spools, measured 0.0074" or more, so, all tests, except tensile strength, were made on 0.006" material obtained from a spool marked 0.005" (6X). This is usually the case for Maxima material, it is typically 0.001" to 0.002" over the size printed on the label.</SMALL> <SMALL>When selecting material for the tests, the diameters were found to be from one size under, that marked on the label, to two sizes over, so, if the specified size is desired, take Micrometer Calipers to the shop and check before you buy.</SMALL>
LEADER TESTING, EVALUATION & CONCLUSIONS
The test data should be examined with the following principles in mind.
The line and rod system must absorb the energy of the runs, jumps and thrashing of a fish such that the break strength of the tippet and knots isn't reached. To do this the shocks must be absorbed by the spring action of the rod and the stretch action of the various line segments. Each line segment and the rod are somewhat decoupled from each other by the relative masses and the amount of drag caused by the water in which they may be immersed. Thus, there is a delay in the transfer of shock from one to the other such that the leader must be able to absorb the initial energy of any quick motion (thrashing, jumping, head shaking) by the fish. The fly line mass and water drag on it prevents the rod from buffering these actions, particularly when there is a lot of line in the water. So, for very fine tippets, the amount of ENERGY required to break it is very important (tippet should be quite elastic).
As the break strength of the leader and tippet increases there will be more time, before the break point is reached, for the fly line and rod to take part in the energy absorption and then tensile strength begins to play a more important role. The cross over between these requirements (for trout leaders) occurs at about 4X diameter (0.007") or 6# to 7# test.
Other factors to consider are knot strength and abrasion resistance, since sensitivity to wind knots and abrasion are both undesirable.
Looking at the test data on the basis of Energy to Break places Umpqua, Climax, Fenwick and RIO in the top half of the ratings. When the knot strength factor (Energy Knot Strength Product) is included Umpqua, Climax, RIO and Orvis occupy the top half. When abrasion resistance is considered Climax (#5) should be eliminated from the top ratings and when knot strength is considered Fenwick (@ only 69%) should be eliminated. Leaving Umpqua, RIO and Orvis as the top three with Umpqua and RIO clearly the best.
Among the eight materials tested, Umpqua, with the highest energy to break and energy knot strength product is THE material to use for the 5X to 8X tippets.
RIO with the highest tensile strength, knot strength and abrasion resistance is the clear winner for 4X and larger diameters.
Considering Maxima's reputation, as a great leader material, it is surprising to find it at or near the bottom in all the important characteristics.
By using this data base as a reference, it makes evaluating the performance of other materials easier. Whenever there is a change in the label appearance of a product it should be tested again and compared against the available data base to establish its ranking. A factor, not included in this test data, is the strength of the knots used to interconnect the line segments. Testing shows that there are knots that are best (100%) for each application and, if the knots are properly chosen, the entire system, from arbor to fly can be 100%. Without the best material AND the best knots there will be too many of those sickening break offs.
CatskillKid
Either you're dirty, or you're not.
research by Mr.Bill Nash (Italics) and Catskill Kid (plain text).
Hmmm. It appears that no reply has been sanctioned by Orvis.
Last edited:
Joe D
Registered User
Hmmm, are you Bill Nash? I hope so because I don't think he would be too happy to know you plagiarized his copyrighted material.
Leader Testing
Leader Testing
CatskillKid
Either you're dirty, or you're not.
An attack is always the best way to explain why an Orvis product isn't the best isn't it! Bravo! Well done.
PRomano
Fishizzle, I never use worms!
I believe Bill Nash passed away a few years ago. Unless he came back from the dead it can't be him.
CatskillKid
Either you're dirty, or you're not.
Unfortunately, Bill did pass away in Feb. of 2008. I have spent a great deal of time studying his tests and I'm a big fan of his. The part of my post that is in italics is relevant to this post (and his work) in that it tests all popular leader materials for some pretty important things. Of course, I look at other criteria as well in determining which tippet material is the best. I'm concerned with refraction index, specific gravity, memory, suppleness and value as well.
To the Orvis fellow who scoffed at some of the cheaper materials not being the same as Orvis Super Strong (yet offered zero reasons), I'm obviously not Mr. Nash. I'm curious as to why you'd think he would be upset that someone quoted his work, since he's dead and all and the piece is appropriately italicized (indicating I quoted it). Certainly, it seems like a frontal assault if I've ever seen one. You probably think Orvis Hy-Float is the top fly floatant too, don't you! And let me guess, the Orvis Helios is the best fly rod there is, right!? Oh, and anyone who dares to compare an Orvis product to a competitors product has no credibility in your eyes too, right!! Oh yea, I almost forgot--and anyone who quotes a piece from a readily available piece of research, puts it italics complete with an appropriate citation, then makes tons of other completely unrelated scientific points, complete with original numbers, is going to offend someone who's unfortunately (for the fishing community out west)...dead. You are really funny and kind of disturbing because you never did man up and tell us about Super Strong.
Ever heard the names Pip Winslow, Tom Keer or John Shaner? Pip invented the E-Log program, then Orvis fired him. He was one of Orvis' absolute best technical guys. The other two fella's were involved in E-Log and Dealer Supprt as well and were outstanding technical reps in their own rights. All three certified guides with high degrees of respect for others. They went through pain staking effort to find the absolute best possible guides. I would like to think that the company still tries to attract quality guides who follow the principles Pip invented. But I'm beginning to wonder about you.
I know it's your duty to stand up for Orvis products and all that and I know you have to use them when you do an Orvis trip. I also know you spent a lot of money to be endorsed and for this expenditure, Orvis has evaluated you and found you to be a suitable embassador of Fly-Fishing to the paying general public. Those are their rules after all. This could explain your attitude, but if you're going to hop on into a post and start blasting like you're a know it all, I'm going to ask you for some facts. An opinion stated in a condescending way is imature and unconvincing. Not to mention, I'm not paying you to be a part of this post or hear your opinion. It is you who voluntered to step in and make a critical point with no facts to back it up.
So why don't we burry the hatchet and let me ask you to go back to your original thought as to why you got defensive when I claimed that Orvis Super Strong is similar to products made by Cortland. You obviously feel it's very different. How so?
We've established that it's inferior to other brands (thanks to Mr. Nash and the points I've already posted, based on my own shop's tests) and I've found it is, from a proprietary perspective, very similar to other brands. You're a guide and all, so what's different about Super Strong?
I've answered your request. Now you answer mine.
To the Orvis fellow who scoffed at some of the cheaper materials not being the same as Orvis Super Strong (yet offered zero reasons), I'm obviously not Mr. Nash. I'm curious as to why you'd think he would be upset that someone quoted his work, since he's dead and all and the piece is appropriately italicized (indicating I quoted it). Certainly, it seems like a frontal assault if I've ever seen one. You probably think Orvis Hy-Float is the top fly floatant too, don't you! And let me guess, the Orvis Helios is the best fly rod there is, right!? Oh, and anyone who dares to compare an Orvis product to a competitors product has no credibility in your eyes too, right!! Oh yea, I almost forgot--and anyone who quotes a piece from a readily available piece of research, puts it italics complete with an appropriate citation, then makes tons of other completely unrelated scientific points, complete with original numbers, is going to offend someone who's unfortunately (for the fishing community out west)...dead. You are really funny and kind of disturbing because you never did man up and tell us about Super Strong.
Ever heard the names Pip Winslow, Tom Keer or John Shaner? Pip invented the E-Log program, then Orvis fired him. He was one of Orvis' absolute best technical guys. The other two fella's were involved in E-Log and Dealer Supprt as well and were outstanding technical reps in their own rights. All three certified guides with high degrees of respect for others. They went through pain staking effort to find the absolute best possible guides. I would like to think that the company still tries to attract quality guides who follow the principles Pip invented. But I'm beginning to wonder about you.
I know it's your duty to stand up for Orvis products and all that and I know you have to use them when you do an Orvis trip. I also know you spent a lot of money to be endorsed and for this expenditure, Orvis has evaluated you and found you to be a suitable embassador of Fly-Fishing to the paying general public. Those are their rules after all. This could explain your attitude, but if you're going to hop on into a post and start blasting like you're a know it all, I'm going to ask you for some facts. An opinion stated in a condescending way is imature and unconvincing. Not to mention, I'm not paying you to be a part of this post or hear your opinion. It is you who voluntered to step in and make a critical point with no facts to back it up.
So why don't we burry the hatchet and let me ask you to go back to your original thought as to why you got defensive when I claimed that Orvis Super Strong is similar to products made by Cortland. You obviously feel it's very different. How so?
We've established that it's inferior to other brands (thanks to Mr. Nash and the points I've already posted, based on my own shop's tests) and I've found it is, from a proprietary perspective, very similar to other brands. You're a guide and all, so what's different about Super Strong?
I've answered your request. Now you answer mine.
Last edited:
Joe D
Registered User
You did not give credit to the original author until you were called on it. It is copyrighted materiel that you plagiarized. Anyone would be upset if his work was plaguarized and reproduced without their permission, and their heirs who now own the work would be also. You did not quote Mr. Nash, you plagiarized him.
It has nothing to do with Orvis products or Rio or Corltland or any other company. Mr Nash's family still offers his copyrighted book for sale and you used his material as your own without giving him credit until now and then only after you were called on it.
Now you become very defensive and launch an attack.
But like you say, why don't we bury the hatchet and let me ask you to go back to my original thought as to why you plagiarized Bill Nash and only decided to say that you were just quoting him when you where caught. You plagiarize other peoples work and claim it as your own as you also did in the "How Do You Rate a Rod " thread.
It has nothing to do with Orvis products or Rio or Corltland or any other company. Mr Nash's family still offers his copyrighted book for sale and you used his material as your own without giving him credit until now and then only after you were called on it.
Now you become very defensive and launch an attack.
But like you say, why don't we bury the hatchet and let me ask you to go back to my original thought as to why you plagiarized Bill Nash and only decided to say that you were just quoting him when you where caught. You plagiarize other peoples work and claim it as your own as you also did in the "How Do You Rate a Rod " thread.
CatskillKid
Either you're dirty, or you're not.
The material I used was placed in italics for a reason. This clearly indicates, to any reader, that I did not pen the information. If you take it as otherwise, you are clearly focusing on the fact that I did not actually follow the proper MLA format for using a reference and on that I will admit not to plageurism but rather literary oversight. In no way did I intend this to be fraudulent (the reason I placed the text in italics in the first place. The information I take full credit for in the post (as I've already pointed out) is not in italics.
To satisfy any doubt or misunderstanding placing his entire article in italics may have caused you, I have added clarification to the post specifically mentioning Mr. Nash and myself (the two sources used for the post). Hopefully, you are now able to move forward and discuss your reasons for stating that Orvis SS is not the same as other materials mentioned.
In no way am I attacking you. Remember, you felt it necessary to tell us all that Orvis SS and other materials are not the same, when they actually are so similar that it is uncanny.
Should you feel I am mistaken or perhaps that I have failed to consider any single factual point what so ever in my assesment, I would be truly honored if you would share with me the reasons for your view. Hopefully, you don't feel that I showed you up in any way. I simply found your comment to be unfortunately without a single reason, which leaves me thinking you are a typical guide trying to force an opinion without so much as a shard of factual perspective. Again, this is not an attack. You must have some reason for making your comment. What was it?
Last edited:
Joe D
Registered User
No doubt or misunderstanding. I understand it quite well, but Wikipedia states it much clearer: Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as "the wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one's own original work."
Italics are used for emphasis or for denoting of titles or foreign words. Quotation marks, with credit given to the author, are used for quotes.
I will give you a tiny bit of praise for admitting you're a plagiarist and for giving Mr. Nash credit for his work after being caught. However, Mr. Nash's study didn't highlight any single company, he meant it to be an objective test. He also doesn't have the large, bold, italicized print in his study, where you claim the reason you used italics was to show the words weren't yours.
You also stated in the beginning that Climax tippet costs $3.75 a spool, Cabela's Prestige $2.95 a spool and Orvis Super Strong $7.95 a spool. When in reality a 30 meter spool Climax cost $3.95, a Cabela's Prestige 30 meter spool cost $3.49 and Orvis Super Strong costs $3.95 for a 40 meter spool. Do the math and let us know which costs more.
I force no opinion. It's tippet. I stated "Cabela's leader and tippet material are made by Climax. They are not the same as Orvis Super Strong." That's not opinion.
All in all, I must admit, I do find your posts entertaining.
CatskillKid
Either you're dirty, or you're not.
Fair enough. I am clearly not an English Major! As for the prices, I drew them off the web sites for each company. I appreciate that you have shared your reasoning. You show promise for your attitude lad. I was expecting a snooty, yuppy response and you've hit me in my wallet. A viscious move. From now on, I'll promise to figure out how you guys like to receive factual information, as I clearly don't intend to pass certain things I've read off as my own. Converesely, do me one favor ok. Give some reasons when you chime in with an opinion. Also, chime in more often. You seem to have some merit.
---------- Post added at 01:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 AM ----------
We have been taking a very close look lately at all available tippet materials. We're wondering which is best for what situations and is one clearly the best overall (meaning all around). Frog Hair Mono (very interesting substance), Stroft (very supple substance and available in more appropriate 4X 4 1/2X, 5X and 5 1/2X..etc), Umpqua (very strong substance) and to a lesser degree, Rio and Orvis (decent with regard to abrasion resistance). Our tests are underway on them all. Here's a thought I'd like to throw out there. Since Fluorocarbon doesn't ever bio-degrade, should it even be used in trout situations? Is it ok to use it for nymphing and not for dries?
Then, where do we draw the line. Is it really ok to use it in Salt because the body of water is bigger? Keeping in mind, we are ALL fly fishermen, what do you dudes think? Also, a nymph guy is going to like a different tippet/leader than a dry guy and a steelhead/salmon guy will have his own preferences. But at the core of this thought is a concept that hooking a fish in gin clear water could be a justification for the use of Fluoro, meaning that catching a trout is more important than being a steward of the stream (or ocean). Using it in salt due to the inately higher abrasion resistance makes it ok?
Joe D
Registered User
Catskillkid,
I pulled the prices from the same websites. However, I put the real prices in, not the prices I made up to try and advance some arcane agenda. I also use my real identity when I post threads or replies to threads on this forum. I would appreciate if you would do the same. It's nice to know who I'm conversing with and also brings credibility to you. Without knowing who you really are, you could be construed as nothing more than just another internet troll, which I'm sure isn't your intention. I do find it so boorish when people expound their expertise, yet hide behind the cloak of anonymity. Fakes and frauds, that what they are. I'm sure a man of your position would have to agree.
I do appreciate the brief and concise reply to my last post. I also appreciate all the reading you're been doing and sharing the information via "cut & paste". Even though you claim it as your own, some of this information you've taken from others is useful. A bit of credit has to go to you for the selection of topics too. To give the data more creditibility it would be very helpful if you were to let me know who were the original authors of these studies and articles. The dates and place of publication also would give them validity.
When you see AK Skim, please let him know that I miss his humorous posts that he would often post here. To a degree, you are filling his vacancy on this board.
Cheers!
I pulled the prices from the same websites. However, I put the real prices in, not the prices I made up to try and advance some arcane agenda. I also use my real identity when I post threads or replies to threads on this forum. I would appreciate if you would do the same. It's nice to know who I'm conversing with and also brings credibility to you. Without knowing who you really are, you could be construed as nothing more than just another internet troll, which I'm sure isn't your intention. I do find it so boorish when people expound their expertise, yet hide behind the cloak of anonymity. Fakes and frauds, that what they are. I'm sure a man of your position would have to agree.
I do appreciate the brief and concise reply to my last post. I also appreciate all the reading you're been doing and sharing the information via "cut & paste". Even though you claim it as your own, some of this information you've taken from others is useful. A bit of credit has to go to you for the selection of topics too. To give the data more creditibility it would be very helpful if you were to let me know who were the original authors of these studies and articles. The dates and place of publication also would give them validity.
When you see AK Skim, please let him know that I miss his humorous posts that he would often post here. To a degree, you are filling his vacancy on this board.
Cheers!
