How well does braided line cast on a baitcaster?

[Dalleinf]

Look at 20lb Power Pro
http://www.paulusjustfishing.com/4linetesting.htm
- it tests at >30lb. Has a stated diameter of 0.22mm and measured diameter of about 0.30mm. Go to another continent and the stated lb may differ (does for many companies, see the H. Gilbey post above).

Take another line and the whole thing may differ in the opposite direction with stated lb/mm less (edit: more :-)) than what is measured.

Words cannot describe how little I care for stated lb for fishing lines.

[Mike and Pike]

The confusion is not that hard to wade through.
I buy lines I like and test the breaking strength myself. Then I know exactly what I am working with.
Every line and every bait I use also. Because there is as much discrepancy with bait weights as line tests.
Now. With that said, I can not arugue a point of personal style usage over actual breaking strengths and diameters .
What I can aruge is that true breaking strength 10 lb braid will cast farther than 10lb mono.
I do not know if the same diameter mono will cast as long as same diameter braid because nobody I know wishes to swap out 4 lb braid with 20lb mono, for any, any reason.
I know there are a number of situations where braid is not " better" , but attempting to get as close in apples to apples as we can, , in my opinion and experience , braid casts farther than mono.

[Dalleinf]

I agree with you in that 10lb braid will cast further than 10lb mono.

You used an exaggarated example - in a similar vein I could argue that some use 50-80lb braid for frog fishing and nobody in their right mind would use 50-80lb mono for bass fishing. Some use 30lb braid for topwater but nobody uses 30lb mono - perhaps they use 15lb mono.

Again, I agree that for braid and mono of similar stated lb (!) braid will improve the casting distance. However, I just do not see the real world relevance.

[Prancing Pony]

I agree with you in that 10lb braid will cast further than 10lb mono.

You used an exaggarated example - in a similar vein I could argue that some use 50-80lb braid for frog fishing and nobody in their right mind would use 50-80lb mono for bass fishing. Some use 30lb braid for topwater but nobody uses 30lb mono - perhaps they use 15lb mono.

Again, I agree that for braid and mono of similar stated lb (!) braid will improve the casting distance. However, I just do not see the real world relevance.

You're right. Usually it's something like 10lb braid for 6lb mono, 30lb braid for 12lb mono, 50lb braid for 20lb mono... and so on.

[Mike and Pike]

I agree with you in that 10lb braid will cast further than 10lb mono.

You used an exaggarated example - in a similar vein I could argue that some use 50-80lb braid for frog fishing and nobody in their right mind would use 50-80lb mono for bass fishing. Some use 30lb braid for topwater but nobody uses 30lb mono - perhaps they use 15lb mono.

Again, I agree that for braid and mono of similar stated lb (!) braid will improve the casting distance. However, I just do not see the real world relevance.

The real world relevance for wanting the thinnest farthest casting line possible while retaining strength may be useful in a shallow spool situation. It may be relevant in a medium spool situation where you need deep spool capicity. It is less stress on body and equipment to be able to cast with less effort and yet reach same distances. I can keep going on relevance, but I simply want to cast as far as possible and nothing else works as well as braid.

Mono and braid float, flouro does not.
Mono and flouro stretch, braid does not.
Mono and braid will cast a shadow from the sursface, flouro will not.
Flouro is invisible under the water while braid and mono are not.
Braid has extremely thin diameter while flouro and mono do not.
Braid has zero memory. Mono and floro have memory .
Braid will survive on a spool set aside for 30 years( or 300 for that matter) where mono and flouro will not. And this is not 100% memeory related.
Nobody is using 15lb mono on frog rigs. At least I hope nobody reading this is.

It is simple to see that there is no one type of line that does it all and trumps each other line in each purpose or need. But;
How well does braided line cast on a baitcaster?
Very well indeed .

[LowRange]

Flurocarbon line is not invisible under water.

[Mike and Pike]

Flurocarbon line is not invisible under water.

Much more so than braid or flouro, to the fish , was my point. I do understand that being a physical object that I can hold in my hand , it's not actually invisible , like say...Wonder Woman's plane .

[mark poulson]

Flurocarbon line is not invisible under water.

Close enough.

[LowRange]

Flurocarbon line is not invisible under water.

Close enough.

It's no less visible under water than a mono of the same diameter and clarity. If you apply refractive index to fishing lines in that one will be less visible under water than the other then you will quickly discover that it does not apply to fishing lines. Large clear panels perhaps but not tiny, translucent cylinders.

[Mike and Pike]

Flurocarbon line is not invisible under water.

Close enough.

It's no less visible under water than a mono of the same diameter and clarity. If you apply refractive index to fishing lines in that one will be less visible under water than the other then you will quickly discover that it does not apply to fishing lines. Large clear panels perhaps but not tiny, translucent cylinders.

Please cite this and clarity of flouro vs mono.
Have you ever fished a mono leader vs a flouro leader and noticed one casted a shadow and the other does not to the same degree?

[LowRange]

Flurocarbon line is not invisible under water.

Close enough.

It's no less visible under water than a mono of the same diameter and clarity. If you apply refractive index to fishing lines in that one will be less visible under water than the other then you will quickly discover that it does not apply to fishing lines. Large clear panels perhaps but not tiny, translucent cylinders.

Please cite this and clarity of flouro vs mono.
Have you ever fished a mono leader vs a flouro leader and noticed one casted a shadow and the other does not?

The statement offered by line companies is that flouro is less visble... because refractive index. No actual explaintion of the mechanics is offered. Working with 'visibility under water' and 'refractive index' and 'fishing line' then we have to determine that the assumption here is that the line will be less likely to be noticed by the fish because there will be less optical distortion in the flourocarbon line. Refractive index is the speed at which light moves through objects. The higher the number the slower the light passing through it is moving. When looking at a clear object of a low refractive index adjacent to another clear object of a higher refractive index and viewing an image, you will observe a large optical distortion in the portion of the image present in the object with the higher refractive index. Stick the tip of your fishing rod into the water and it will appear as if the portion of the rod immersed in the water is bent. This optical illusion is due to the higher refractive index of water vs air distorting the light.

Now, for this to apply to fishing line would mean that objects viewed through the a line that has the same refractive index as water would appear less distorted than objects viewed through a line that is not. Here is why it does not apply to fishing lines.

Fishing line is not clear, it is translucent

Fishing line is very small and hard to see through

Fishing line is cylindrical. Cylinders have enormous optical distortion. Even glass, which has a very similar refractive index of air when formed into a cylinder will heavily distory any object view through it.

The difference between mono and flouro is only a few percent above statistical equallity.

I'm not aware of flouro not casting a shadow. I saw Bill Dance do an add with staged lighting that it appear as if the fluro line was invisible when comparing mono and fluro. He acidently side stepped in the frame and moved the mono into the same lighting as the fluro and it was no longer visible as well. Pretty funny. He also has an add on his show with clear fluro and purple mono. Obviously the colored line is more visible but we are to belive it is because refractive index.

[Mike and Pike]

I asked for citation/ proof that refraction indexes do not apply to fishing line, and clarity differences between mono and flouro. That would be appreciated. Please and thanks. Otherwise I have to trust your theories over the rest of the fishing industry.
If pretty much every single line manufacturer out there has been spinning tales in a very definitive manner all these years, you could have just cracked the biggest successful lie perpetrated in all of fishing.
Why is pink flouro used/made and still considered " invisable" in the water. Because of still other factors we have yet to touch on...

[LowRange]

Unfortunately we are not offered an explanation on how flurocarbon line is nearly invisible underwater. We are basically told "because science" and expected to swallow it.

[Mike and Pike]

Unfortunately we are not offered an explanation on how flurocarbon line is nearly invisible underwater. We are basically told "because science" and expected to swallow it.

Maybe it's a proprietary secret.
I don't suppose you really think that every single scientist working for every single line company out there is lying to us?
I have a feeling there is in fact more to the formula than simple refraction. Just as with the pink flouro. But flouro being less visiable to fish under water is not a hoax.

[LowRange]

If you would like proof that fluro is not invisible under watet then fill up a glass water and stick #20 fluro in it. Does it dissapear or does it not?