Not to disagree, but wouldn't the misnaming of tensile strength be applicable to flyfishing tippet as well? I have taken identical pound test from a spinning spool and compared it to Rio fluoroflex and the diameter difference was very noticable.
I do not disagree with the premise, but I would think that it would apply to both manufacturers, regardless of diameter.
Fly fishing tippet and leader material is generally chosen and discussed in terms of its diameter, i.e. 0x, 4x, 7x so it makes the most marketing sense to label the highest value (dry breaking strength).Not to disagree, but wouldn't the misnaming of tensile strength be applicable to flyfishing tippet as well?
So you see, its the polar opposite to the pitch for spinning line: "The strongest by test" which in essense admits they are lying about the labeled strength.
Here is a direct link to the LeaderCalc program for Excel.
LeaderCalc [url=http://flyfisherman.com/skills/brleadercalc/:51fa1]http://flyfisherman.com/skills/brleadercalc/[/url:51fa1]
------------------
?The good? in Islam is something to be compelled, on others as well as on yourself. Whereas, in Christianity, ?the good? is something received through Grace.
Conventional wisdom is not to use florocarbon with dries because it sinks. I'm not much on conventional wisdom, so I tried it anyway, and didn't have a problem with sinking flies.
It seems to me that it's better if the tippit sinks anyway, instead of making a long funny looking shadow leading to the fly. What do you think?
------------------
Live long and die with your (wading) boots on.
I understand that the tippet is picked by diameter. But wouldn't Rio call 3x tippet 6 lb when in reality it is 4.9 lb or something (I am guessing here). I understand that it is .oo8, and that is what a flyfisher looks at, but would they not also benefit from boasting a higher test than say, Umpqua?
So I think that overstating test is a given, though I have never tested them. The point I was making is that the comparable tests are vastly different diameters. If you take the labels at their word, and I contend that tippets have just as much reason to lie to be considered stronger than the others (think Frog Hair), so X value is the comparable based on test strength based on the those labels.
This really interests me...so a few observations and questions.
How about Seagar?....it would seem they come out best... diameter to # test...haven't seen Varigas's specs???
My understanding is that companies don't use the same testing methods so comparing maybe isn't accurate.
Years ago Maxima was known for under estimating the strength so folks would say...wow that 10# Maxima is better than 15# brand x.....that cost me some steelhead till I tumbled...
Except for cost I don't see why one would not use fluoro all the time for wet fly fishing and though I haven't used it for dry it seems IMHO that if it does away with the surface film reflection that is a good thing.
I agree that the testing strength is probably different for each company. The fluoro that I looked at was Seaguar, and the comparable tests (the only basis for valid diameter comparison I believe) and the seaguar was noticably thicker in diameter than the tippet material. IMHO, since tippet diameter is directly correlated by the size of the fly, I will use fluoro for all my small dries (18 and smaller) since the weight of the fluoro seems to have no effect on the floatability, but I like that it sometimes breaks the surface tension which does away with those "awful" shadows caused by the surface tension around my floating leader. As a last thought, there is no reason why an individual could not buy seaguar 4 lb and use it as 2x (again estimating as I have none in my hands) and still save money, but a flyfisher would have to mic the seaguar to get a good idea of where it fits into ther tippet arsenal.
I have used maxima chameleon for a long long time and love it.
streamcaddis
------------------
I was fly fishing and fly tying
before it got trendy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
