Seems like there's this idea that people have got onboard with and are parroting it as if it's gospel. I question that train of thought.
I don't think that relying on the diameter of line instead of breaking strain is as reliable as is suggested. If you take a good look at rated diameter from one manufacturer to another, there can be quite a bit of difference in what they actually break at given the same diameter.
I'm not suggesting that the Tackle Box tests are sacrosanct, just a guide really,. Could the Tackle Box tests be the best their is, maybe you've a better set of tests and data?
Thoughts?
I don't think that relying on the diameter of line instead of breaking strain is as reliable as is suggested. If you take a good look at rated diameter from one manufacturer to another, there can be quite a bit of difference in what they actually break at given the same diameter.
I'm not suggesting that the Tackle Box tests are sacrosanct, just a guide really,. Could the Tackle Box tests be the best their is, maybe you've a better set of tests and data?
Thoughts?
What I can't understand is if a line breaks at 20lb while being tested why market it at 15lb
I don't think there's a right or wrong way when buying,personally I buy via the diameter
I don't think there's a right or wrong way when buying,personally I buy via the diameter
In reply to Post #2
Margin of error possibly?
Margin of error possibly?
In reply to Post #1
I go by diameter, its a more accurate guide to what your buying than breaking strain. When you look through that tackle box guide, the difference between various .35 mono isn't much.
I know I can away with .33 clear mono when I need more distance, but I'm generally buying .38-40 for abrasion resistance. The fact I can buy either diameters labeled as 15lb line makes BS complete bs
I go by diameter, its a more accurate guide to what your buying than breaking strain. When you look through that tackle box guide, the difference between various .35 mono isn't much.
I know I can away with .33 clear mono when I need more distance, but I'm generally buying .38-40 for abrasion resistance. The fact I can buy either diameters labeled as 15lb line makes BS complete bs
All lines have certain knots that they perform better with. The TB chart is flawed in that respect, a good rough guide to refer to but not an entirely fair representation of the materials listed.
Diameter is equally important for different spool diameter/depth, required abrasion resistance, casting load and distance required. Because if we're realistic about it you're not going to pull 10lb of pressure with a carp rod, let alone 18+
Diameter is equally important for different spool diameter/depth, required abrasion resistance, casting load and distance required. Because if we're realistic about it you're not going to pull 10lb of pressure with a carp rod, let alone 18+
In reply to Post #4
From what I see of that Tackle Box chart, neither two are accurate in terms of what they'll break at. You can choose lb breaking strain between different manufacturers and there's quite a bit of variation,same goes for diameter too.
I've been using it as a guide to combine the thickest line and highest breaking strain from say X company to give me an idea of what to go for. I know, sounds obvious right? Lol.
I know this really only relates to a straight pull what I'm outlining here, not abrasion resistance which is quite a bit different to lb breaking strain.
From what I see of that Tackle Box chart, neither two are accurate in terms of what they'll break at. You can choose lb breaking strain between different manufacturers and there's quite a bit of variation,same goes for diameter too.
I've been using it as a guide to combine the thickest line and highest breaking strain from say X company to give me an idea of what to go for. I know, sounds obvious right? Lol.
I know this really only relates to a straight pull what I'm outlining here, not abrasion resistance which is quite a bit different to lb breaking strain.
In reply to Post #6
Tbh I don't really care what the line breaks at in a straight pull, as noj said your going to struggle to break 10lb line with a carp rod (distance casting or heavy loads are a different consideration). I do have a look at the tb chart when I consider switching to make sure the line I'm considering is in the range I expect, ie .35 breaking at 16-18lb, but I'm more interested in abrasion resistance, memory, suppleness, sinking and colour.
The tb chart is useful for filtering out the lemons, but doesn't tell me much about the characteristics
Tbh I don't really care what the line breaks at in a straight pull, as noj said your going to struggle to break 10lb line with a carp rod (distance casting or heavy loads are a different consideration). I do have a look at the tb chart when I consider switching to make sure the line I'm considering is in the range I expect, ie .35 breaking at 16-18lb, but I'm more interested in abrasion resistance, memory, suppleness, sinking and colour.
The tb chart is useful for filtering out the lemons, but doesn't tell me much about the characteristics
In reply to Post #1
I buy based on diameter 0.38 to 0.4. Thicker nylong has better abrasion resistance. Something that is much needed on canals and rivers.
I buy based on diameter 0.38 to 0.4. Thicker nylong has better abrasion resistance. Something that is much needed on canals and rivers.
Something that always troubles me is heavy lines where boats aren't allowed to free snagged fish. Fortunately I can't remember when it last happened to me but I'm going to fish a water with all sorts on the bottom and it's a difficult balancing act.
In reply to Post #9
Thats an argument for returning to lighter hooklinks. Over the years they have got stronger
Thats an argument for returning to lighter hooklinks. Over the years they have got stronger
In reply to Post #10
Indeed very good point. I remember a time when a heavier hooklink was frowned upon and considered bad angling but 20-30lb hooklinks have almost become the norm.
I've exclusively used helicopter rigs for a very long time but with lighter main lines and use of a boat.
You've just solved my current predicament. No Heli rigs and lightish hooklinks
Indeed very good point. I remember a time when a heavier hooklink was frowned upon and considered bad angling but 20-30lb hooklinks have almost become the norm.
I've exclusively used helicopter rigs for a very long time but with lighter main lines and use of a boat.
You've just solved my current predicament. No Heli rigs and lightish hooklinks
In reply to Post #11
If you can get lighter in your favoured hooklink
If you can get lighter in your favoured hooklink
In reply to Post #12
Yep a lot don't come below 15lb but I'll go lighter and swap to something else for peace of mind.
Should also go long on the hooklink as extra insurance.
Yep a lot don't come below 15lb but I'll go lighter and swap to something else for peace of mind.
Should also go long on the hooklink as extra insurance.
In reply to Post #6
Lines that have a low diameter vs breaking strain are pre-stretched and therefore retain their linear strength, but are thinned during the stretching process.
For that reason a pre-stretched .35 mono will generally break at a higher weight than a non pre-stretched line of the same thickness.
Generally speaking the diameter of the line is more a guide for abrasion resistance, not linear strength.
Lines that have a low diameter vs breaking strain are pre-stretched and therefore retain their linear strength, but are thinned during the stretching process.
For that reason a pre-stretched .35 mono will generally break at a higher weight than a non pre-stretched line of the same thickness.
Generally speaking the diameter of the line is more a guide for abrasion resistance, not linear strength.
In reply to Post #14
Exactly that Phil.
Pre-stretched lines may have a great BS but the abrasion resistance is generally poor.
Exactly that Phil.
Pre-stretched lines may have a great BS but the abrasion resistance is generally poor.
In reply to Post #14
Only problems with pre stretched lines are less abrasion resistance and much reduced ability to resist sudden shock loading. Too many nasty surprises. Cheap way to produce low diameter lines. Stay away.
Only problems with pre stretched lines are less abrasion resistance and much reduced ability to resist sudden shock loading. Too many nasty surprises. Cheap way to produce low diameter lines. Stay away.
In reply to Post #14
Also pre stretched lines may have a good breaking strain when tested on machines but if you factor in some knot strangulation or the shock of chucking a large pva bag and they will fail well before their expected breaking strain.
Also pre stretched lines may have a good breaking strain when tested on machines but if you factor in some knot strangulation or the shock of chucking a large pva bag and they will fail well before their expected breaking strain.
In reply to Post #10
You're right, all these 25lb hooklinks, the hooklink should be the weakest point but all these professional anglers show using rope for it rather than being sensible. The rules on my syndicate are 15lb max mainline and hooklink.
You're right, all these 25lb hooklinks, the hooklink should be the weakest point but all these professional anglers show using rope for it rather than being sensible. The rules on my syndicate are 15lb max mainline and hooklink.
In reply to Post #16
Pre stretched low diameter lines have there place mate and can be an advantage. They do suffer from the drawbacks you mention. You just need the correct rod
Pre stretched low diameter lines have there place mate and can be an advantage. They do suffer from the drawbacks you mention. You just need the correct rod
In reply to Post #19
If you have a reason to use them, use them. 👍
If you have a reason to use them, use them. 👍
In reply to Post #10
If everyone used Mono hooklinks to Mono mainline, I'd agree.
If everyone used Mono hooklinks to Mono mainline, I'd agree.
Reading ALL pages