Printable View
Mikey
You're absolutely oversimplifying this fly fishing stuff. You MUST adhere to the "rules'. It is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY t you lose sleep over tippet size , refractive index etc. in order to fill your creel . ANY fish you may fool into eating your "interpretation" of the"rules" do NOT count regardless your GRIN.
Mark
I really have no idea if fluoro is less (or more) visible than mono in the water. I use fluoro tippets because I floss the rocks when nymphing, and fluoro is a lot more abrasion resistant than regular mono. With fluoro, I do less retying and have less break-offs.
I don't know if all the information about fluoro's invisibility is true.
But, I decided a few years ago to try it. I mean, if it's less visible, you can use a heavier tippet size and still catch lots of fish. I fish mainly in a very clear lake, that holds lots of big fish. Less visible and heavier are things that would help me in my fishing.
So, that's what I did. I went to heavier fluorocarbon (from 4# mono to 8# fluoro). Since I switched to fluorocarbon tippet I've caught more fish, had fewer breakoffs, and landed the larger fish faster with less stress on the fish (still killed the biggest one, though, but I'm hoping she was near her end anyway) .
Now, maybe all the hype about fluorocarbon being less visible is untrue. Maybe I could have just used heavier mono and still caught the same fish. That would mean that the concept of tippet visibility is less important than I've (and many others have) always believed.
I like my results, which admittedly are anecdotal, so I'll keep using it.
Buddy
Mark,Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Yeah, that's me.....Mr Simple! :roll:
Mikey
I would too, if I were getting better results. There are serveral things about flouro that are different than nylon beside whether or not it's less "visible". It sinks, it's abrasion resistant, it's not as stretchy (could be either good or bad), etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy Sanders
I personally didn't notice enough difference to justify the cost, but I wouldn't try convince others not to use it.
In the above Yellowstone angler tippet shootout i have a comment a bout the davy knot. it is a well known fact that this knot does not seat correctly on large hooks. In their testing they used cup hooks which are larger that most hook eyes. While i don't use this knot I have friends who swear by it. It is a tiny knot designed for for small flies and light tippet and most claim it is near 100% knot strength. The fact that it is often used used in competition fly fishing should speak volumes.
The refractive index of fluorocarbon is lower than monofilament. This is a fact. Is it enough to make it invisible in water? Of course not.
Should you use it? Completely up to you, but those who pay a premium for those dinky spools of tippet are throwing money away, in my opinion (price of Maxima Fluorocarbon in 180m spools is about same as Rio tippet in 27m spools). I use Fluorocarbon for tippet and like the results for subsurface applications, but the material I use amounts to standard fishing line, which is priced reasonably.
There is a volume of information out there on this debate if one were only to consult google. Here's an interesting somewhat systematic take from a fluorocarbon naysayer: http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_in...orocarbon.html
How does that popular quote go? There's more BS in fly fishing than in a Kansas feedlot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
As for Ohiotuber being "Mr. Simple", fly fishing is so simple that even one of Betty's toads can do it.
The size and refractive index of my tippets, the UV reflectivity of my flies, and the percentage of my gear made in England don't disturb my sleep. The fish do.
More grins back to you.
Regards,
Ed
Why are people so hesitant to get a mask and snorkel, get their a$$ wet, and see for themselves? a lake or stream is not a glass of water. Looking at a piece of line through the surface glare and reflections while it is in the water is not accurate either. I've never witnessed a fish jump out of the water to have a look at a leader from a fisherman's point of view. Taking into account the INFINITE number of variables involved with the visibility of something underwater, fluorocarbon is not any more or less visually detectable than many, or any, of the kinds of nylon mono to which I've compared it underwater from the fishes' point of view. We can almost universally accept that if I can see it, so can the fish.
The "abrasion resistance" of flouro vs nylon is also largely BS, and certainly is not an accurate blanket-statement.
The different characteristics of flouro compared to nylon may make it the right material for you, but the "refractive index" marketing crap is quite literally, smoke and mirrors.
For trout I use a mono leader with a floro tippet. For pan fish and bass, mono to mono (or straight mono). Works good for me and I see no reason to go the more expensive route.