If you haven't bought Fluorocarbon leader, don't buy it yet.

[ComeOnFish]

I think what manufacturers claimed was misleading or not applicable for fishing.

Visivility test: so far I haven't seen no evidence that Fluoro is less visible for underwater

Stretch test - I think all tests was done (by Manufacturers) were flawed because the lines were dry. I am doing wet line testing right now. The Fluorocarbon stretches as much as mono when it is wet. 20-30%. I need to do more testing to come up with actual percentage of stretch

As a byproduct, I found that when both lines were soaked in the water over night, the knot strength of both lines decreased significantly. I need more testing on this

Sinking Rate - Obviously, Fluorocarbon leader sinks fast. I tested 200 times with one-inch peices. The fluorocarbon leader sink fast by 50-90% wet or not. If you want your fly sink fast while fly-fishing, you may use a long Fluorocarbon leader for FLY-fising
If you want your small lure sink faster, then add a small split sinker on the mono line. But short leader and heavy lure combo may not make any differences

Cut test - I am designing a simple test. Both lines will be soaked over 5 hours before the test

Joe

[bgriff]

Thanks for putting the time in on this. I've never used a fluorocarbon leader, my thoughts being that the fewer connecting knots in my line, the better. Plus it's expensive. Most of the fishing I do using two knots, one on the reel and one to the lure.

[ronaultmtd]

I bought a spool of 12lb. test flouro for fishing the super clear waters in Florida- that and abrasion resistance- down there the guides all swear by flouro-

[On the fly]

Wet tests have been done by tackle tour back in 2007. They also tested Fluor for stretch, strain, deformity, knot strenght etc. go to: http://www.tackletour.com/reviewfluorocarbon2.html

[ComeOnFish]

Thank you very much, "On the Fly"

I've been a low information fisherman. I always learned stuff later than others. I suspected and suspected for 5 years, and I wanted to verify that my suspicions are valid for last 2 weeks.

I will continue my own tests for a couple of months. I will be concentrating on the CUT test (such as Spanish Mackerel, Bluefish, and Barnacles on the pilings). It is hard to simulate the cut by razor sharp teeth and Barnacles.
But anyway, according to the test on the link, this may explain why I felt I lost more fish on Fluorocarbon.


I will do knot testing - At least, I want to compare the knot strengths between wet Mono VS wet Fluorocarbon for few different brands. This may explain why I felt I lost more fish on Fluorocarbon.

I will not consider "sandpaper-rubbing-abrasion" test - because I don't think I can simulate the in fishing in real water with the sandpaper-rubbing scenarios.


To All - who haven't bought Fluorocarbon leader,

Please, please take time and go through the link "on the fly" provided. Anyway the conclusion of the tests was below:

Conclusion: Have we burst the fluorocarbon bubble? Perhaps so, perhaps not. What we have shown for certain is that fluorocarbon isn't perfect, but then again, what fishing line, or product is? More importantly, we've shown not all fluorocarbon lines are created equal. Some, like the Seaguar Invisx actually have very good knot strength, but this same line has terrible stretch performance. Others, like Sunline Shooter FC is great against stretch, but faired poorly in our knot strength test. Our invisibility tests were inconclusive and the strain results were troubling. We say enough with the lab. It's time to take these tests to the next level and experience both the good and the bad of fluorocarbon on the water to see what the true redeeming qualities of these individual products might be. Certainly, not all fluorocarbons are created equal, but we're now prepared to go out and discover which versions, if any, are worth the expense.


I think they did, in my opinion.

BTW, I have such a hard time to take video of my experiments. I need the better lab environment and cameras. Here is a simple visibility test - which will be replaced soon. Visibility is all about reflection and refraction of light for both human and fish. So you know what I've been doing:

Thanks,

Joe

[On the fly]

Good luck on your test. Since I fly fish I usually use Fluor when I salt water fish near rocks and things that damage my leader. The Fluor seems to hold up better for abrasive abuse. I did not start using it for its invisibility (since it is not). A lot has certainly changed in line since the test and new items come out every year. But is the cost difference and line differences worth it to you. If it benefits your needs and fishing style then go for it. For me mono everywhere except when throwing flies around the rocks for Rocks. There is no "perfect" line no matter what is written on the packaging.

[ComeOnFish]

"On the Fly",

Regarding the Sinking Rate, My test showed that Fluorocarbon leader sinks faster than Mono by 30-100%, visibly. I let go or flicked one-inch lines, two at a time under the surface of water after soaking in the water at least 1 minutes for tests.

I thought, perhaps the diameters got to do with sinking rates between Mono and Fluorocarbon. I tested with 20# test Fluoro and 30# test fluoro about 50 times.
The 20 and 30# test fluoro sinked about at the same rate. So it wasn't the diameters of the lines if the diameters are similar within a certain range.

Joe