Lines and Leader: The Scoop on Flourocarbon When fluorocarbon materials came upon the angling world, they were touted as the next significant evolution in lines and leaders. Let’s start by comparing fluorocarbon and traditional nylon monofilament materials. Both materials are manufactured via an extrusion process, (to achieve the desired diameter and resulting strength) monofilament from nylon and, fluorocarbon from polyvinylidene fluoride. Chemically the materials are quite different and, thus the differences in performance. Nylon monofilament line and leaders are by far the most popular products on the market. Mono is best known for its excellent casting performance (low memory and suppleness) excellent knot strength, inherent stretch (more forgiving under tension), reasonable abrasion resistance and relatively low price. Today, many manufacturers offer a wide a variety of monofilament lines and leaders of varying characteristics too accommodate a wide range of applications. So what are the problems with mono? Well its refractive index (the way light bends as it passes through a substance) is considerably greater than that of water (1.3 for water and 1.52 for mono), it is not invisible and, some say (dependant on species and water clarity conditions) this may reduce strikes. It also absorbs water thus reducing its breaking strength by as much as 15%. The stretchy characteristics can reduce sensitivity and hook setting capability (especially when a great deal of line is between you and the fish). Mono is also subject to ultra violet degradation over time when exposed to sunlight. Fluorocarbon’s most significant advantage is its refractive index. It more closely matches water, 1.42, thereby becoming much less visible in the water. The fluorocarbon polymer is considerably denser and non-porous than nylon and therefore will not swell. Its strength is greater than mono at equivalent diameters; it has little stretch and will provide more sensitivity and hook setting capability. Lastly, the material is less sensitive to ultra violet radiation and is more abrasion resistant than mono. So what are the problems with fluorocarbon? Well it’s mainly a few things; cost (as much as 2-3 x that of mono), stiffness and memory (good for leader material), not the best for casting especially with spinning reels (due to line twist) when spooled with12# test or higher, but less of a problem on conventional reels. Knots need to be tied properly since a loss in tension strength could result. Most of the major brands offer fluorocarbon lines from as low as 2# up to 20# test. Leader materials exceed 100# test. Manufacturers are bringing to market new fluorocarbon formulations that produce lines that are less stiff and supple for improved casting performance. All in all, fluorocarbon lines and leaders have some advantages over mono in some angling applications, such as; clear water and wary prey and where a tougher line is required in heavy structure. Their improved sensitivity, small diameter relative to strength and low stretch will also be of benefit for the deep sea anglers. The so-called hybrid lines and leaders are fast becoming the middle ground between mono and fluorocarbon. The hybrid materials are manufactured from a combination of both polymer materials. In one case the two materials are co-extruded with the core material being nylon. The exterior is fluorocarbon. In the other case, a manufacturer has developed a method that combines the two materials into a single extruded formulation. The marriage of these materials has produced a fishing line that embodies most of the desired characteristics of the individual materials; low visibility, highly abrasion resistant, sensitivity, non-porous, less stiff & low memory and durable. They maintain good straight line and knot strength and can be manufactured in a much wider range of diameter and strength as compared to 100% fluorocarbon, 4- 100(+) lb test. Captain Skip Montello Captain Dave Beshara’s evaluation/opinion of Fluorocarbon Lines and Leaders For the past 13 years I have been fishing with fluorocarbon as a butt section, a leader and as a tippet material exclusively. I have recently had conversations with several anglers who I respect, and who are considered by many, as some of the best anglers out there. Several believe that fluorocarbon materials do not make a significant difference in any fishing condition, while others believe that the benefits don’t outweigh the substantial cost differential. I could go on and on with all the opinions, but I won’t, because they’re all “simply opinions”. My opinion, for what it is worth goes like this: Any angler who has confidence in any product he/she fishes, rod, reel, line, lure, leader, fly pattern, or whatever, will fish better and more likely than not catch more fish. “If you believe in fluorocarbon, then by all means fish it”. I’m not a chemist or a physicist so I yield to the experts. If the manufacturers indicate that the refractive index of water is equal to 1.33 and the refractive index of fluorocarbon materials is 1.42 and monofilament comes in at 1.53 -1.62, then I have to believe that fluorocarbon must indeed be more difficult for fish to see in water than monofilament. Again, the differences are not that significant, but an edge is an edge!! With the high cost of quality fishing gear today and taking trips to out of the way fishing destinations that can cost several thousands of dollars, the small incremental cost difference of quality fluorocarbon vs. monofilament is a drop in the bucket! If you like it FISH it!