Fluoro vs Mono stretch

[Freddie]

I see 3 advantages of Fluoro over mono…1) less visible(uncertain of the validity and importance of this) 2) heavier, more dense=sinks more quickly 3) less stretch(again, uncertain of the validity)

Anything I missed or further insights on Flouro vs Mono? The thing is…the list of advantages of mono vs Flouro is just as long.

[Finnz922]

check out fluoro showdowns.

[hoohoorjoo]

Outdoor Life magazine had a cover story about 8 years ago that tested flouro in the lab against mono. They reported stretch between the 2 as virtually identical. One interesting thing they noted was that the flouro resisted returning to its original diameter. Instead it deformed, making the stretch permanent. They also noted that the fc actually significantly weakened along the entire tested length after 8-10 long steady tension pulls placed on the line. They also said that the visibility claims are false, that fc is just as visible underwater as a good clear mono. The industry has sold fishermen a bill of goods regarding fc. The only advantage it has is that it sinks, and even that is a disadvantage in some instances.
This is why I use a good copolymer such as p-line cxx. I honestly think it would survive a nuclear detonation. It behaves much the same as flouro with none of the drawbacks.

[Hogsticker2]

Outdoor Life magazine had a cover story about 8 years ago that tested flouro in the lab against mono. They reported stretch between the 2 as virtually identical. One interesting thing they noted was that the flouro resisted returning to its original diameter. Instead it deformed, making the stretch permanent. They also noted that the fc actually significantly weakened along the entire tested length after 8-10 long steady tension pulls placed on the line. They also said that the visibility claims are false, that fc is just as visible underwater as a good clear mono. The industry has sold fishermen a bill of goods regarding fc. The only advantage it has is that it sinks, and even that is a disadvantage in some instances.
This is why I use a good copolymer such as p-line cxx. I honestly think it would survive a nuclear detonation. It behaves much the same as flouro with none of the drawbacks.

I'm going to disagree on the stretch aspect. I don't know what fluoro they used in their tests (hopefully not Invizx), but every moderately hard fluoro I've used has less stretch than any true mono I've used. I'll let my personal experience be the deciding factor here. I use fluoro for everything except top water. I don't like the fact that braid is practically zero stretch, and I really don't like using it in the wind, which is more often than not.
I've tested my two fluoro choices against a handful of different monos while fishing on the bottom. Same power/taper rods, and the same weight/bait. Fluoro easily surpasses mono in terms of feedback transmission. Yes, it does deform, though it's minimal unless you give it a reason to deform substantially more.
I also fish a lot of light weight stuff, including weightless plastics. Fluoro is king here imo.

[hoohoorjoo]

Outdoor Life magazine had a cover story about 8 years ago that tested flouro in the lab against mono. They reported stretch between the 2 as virtually identical. One interesting thing they noted was that the flouro resisted returning to its original diameter. Instead it deformed, making the stretch permanent. They also noted that the fc actually significantly weakened along the entire tested length after 8-10 long steady tension pulls placed on the line. They also said that the visibility claims are false, that fc is just as visible underwater as a good clear mono. The industry has sold fishermen a bill of goods regarding fc. The only advantage it has is that it sinks, and even that is a disadvantage in some instances.
This is why I use a good copolymer such as p-line cxx. I honestly think it would survive a nuclear detonation. It behaves much the same as flouro with none of the drawbacks.

I'm going to disagree on the stretch aspect. I don't know what fluoro they used in their tests (hopefully not Invizx), but every moderately hard fluoro I've used has less stretch than any true mono I've used. I'll let my personal experience be the deciding factor here. I use fluoro for everything except top water. I don't like the fact that braid is practically zero stretch, and I really don't like using it in the wind, which is more often than not.
I've tested my two fluoro choices against a handful of different monos while fishing on the bottom. Same power/taper rods, and the same weight/bait. Fluoro easily surpasses mono in terms of feedback transmission. Yes, it does deform, though it's minimal unless you give it a reason to deform substantially more.
I also fish a lot of light weight stuff, including weightless plastics. Fluoro is king here imo.

I think it was seaguar carbon pro, which was discontinued several years back. Fwiw, Tatsu cost me a bunch of cash the last tourney I fished. Broke off on a short line on 2 big bed fish, both times at the tip. It was 20# iirc. Would have won by 5#, but didn't even place in the money.

[Hogsticker2]

Outdoor Life magazine had a cover story about 8 years ago that tested flouro in the lab against mono. They reported stretch between the 2 as virtually identical. One interesting thing they noted was that the flouro resisted returning to its original diameter. Instead it deformed, making the stretch permanent. They also noted that the fc actually significantly weakened along the entire tested length after 8-10 long steady tension pulls placed on the line. They also said that the visibility claims are false, that fc is just as visible underwater as a good clear mono. The industry has sold fishermen a bill of goods regarding fc. The only advantage it has is that it sinks, and even that is a disadvantage in some instances.
This is why I use a good copolymer such as p-line cxx. I honestly think it would survive a nuclear detonation. It behaves much the same as flouro with none of the drawbacks.

I'm going to disagree on the stretch aspect. I don't know what fluoro they used in their tests (hopefully not Invizx), but every moderately hard fluoro I've used has less stretch than any true mono I've used. I'll let my personal experience be the deciding factor here. I use fluoro for everything except top water. I don't like the fact that braid is practically zero stretch, and I really don't like using it in the wind, which is more often than not.
I've tested my two fluoro choices against a handful of different monos while fishing on the bottom. Same power/taper rods, and the same weight/bait. Fluoro easily surpasses mono in terms of feedback transmission. Yes, it does deform, though it's minimal unless you give it a reason to deform substantially more.
I also fish a lot of light weight stuff, including weightless plastics. Fluoro is king here imo.

I think it was seaguar carbon pro, which was discontinued several years back. Fwiw, Tatsu cost me a bunch of cash the last tourney I fished. Broke off on a short line on 2 big bed fish, both times at the tip. It was 20# iirc. Would have won by 5#, but didn't even place in the money.

That's unfortunate. I think that when we find one that we really, really like, whatever line type it may be, just stick with it.

[Cal]

check out fluoro showdowns.

Thank you Finnz ... for those who are not familiar:

TackleTour Fluorocarbon Showdown Pt 1

TackleTour Fluorocarbon Showdown Pt 2

[Drakestar]

Did you ever do a stretch test of wet line? That's where I expect Mono to do worse than Fluoro, but the proof is in the pudding.

Edit: Never mind, it's in the 2nd article!

[JS8588]

Fluoro has 1 major advantage over mono and one minor one (for me).

The major advantage is sensitivity. I absolutely feel bites on fluorocarbon I'd miss with mono.

The minor advantage is it holds up better to UV rays etc. Mono should be changed at least once every 6 months. Maybe even once every 3.