Price of Fluorocarbon tippet-- A Rant

FAOL Community Fly Anglers Online
1

I have always wondered why fluorocarbon tippet is so expensive, but up until now I have been willing to buy it. However, today I saw that Scientific Anglers is now charging $17.50 for a spool! No doubt other tippet sellers will follow suit and raise their prices, too. It is my understanding that there are only 3 manufacturers of fluorocarbon line/tippet in the world, so all of the branded tippet that is sold is made by just a handful of companies that each use a single formula and process to produce tippet that is then sold under various brand names at various (high) prices. (Why isn’t there a generic fluorocarbon like there are generic medicines?)

The cynic in me sees this as purely an attempt to charge whatever the market will bear, rather than a reflection of how much it costs to produce. I guess that is the nature of capitalism, but I must admit that I have reached my breaking point. I will not pay $17.50 for a product that I believe probably costs a dollar to produce. Why do I think that it costs so little to produce? Well, if you look at the cost of fluorocarbon fishing line, you will see that the cost is dramatically lower per yard than the cost of fluorocarbon tippet. That implies that the cost of materials and manufacturing is not high. And the quality of fluorocarbon fly line must be pretty good or spin fishermen wouldn’t be buying it and using it successfully.

In fact, that leads me to my proposed solution. I’m going to switch to using fluorocarbon line as my tippet rather than buying fluorocarbon that is labeled as “tippet” and priced at exorbitantly high prices. Unless there is a dramatic difference in diameter per pound test, or in stiffness, I can’t see why this wouldn’t work. At least for leader butts (e.g., 1x, 2x, 3x) this should work.

Other strategies include buying tippet on eBay or at discount sites, such as Sierra Trading Post. But I will no longer be duped into spending inordinate sums of money on tippet.

Comments, please. If anyone sees a flaw in my logic I would love to be enlightened.

2

I tried fluoro tippet material for a while and it didn’t do anything that mono wouldn’t, for the fishing I do for trout on freestone streams and rivers in the Intermountain West and Northern Rockies. So I stopped using it. That took care of the price issue for me.

Tom Travis, who is one of the most knowledgeable contributors to FAOL, recently commented along the same lines in an article on the Home page. And he fishes primarily for trout on spring creeks.

John

3

The following are just my opinions based on my experiences with tippet verus “regular” fluorocarbon and I do not want to upset anyone. These are just my opinions and observations only:

I feel there is a differences between tippet and “regular” fluorocarbon. I feel tippet material is more limp than “regular” fluorocarbon and if you do a lot of dry fly or midge fishing, then you need to use limp/softer tippet material. It’s limpness allows the dry fly or midge more “natural” movement in river currents where “regular” fluorocarbon may “pull” on the dry fly or midge due to being stiffer. That is just my opinion.

I hardly ever use dry flies or midges but I do “swing” wet flies and softhackles and with these, I use “regular” fluorocarbon usually in the 4 pound test. I mainly use weighted nymphs, streamers or flymphs and much prefer “regular” fluorocarbon because the stiffness of this material telegraphs the “take” up the fly line to the rod and then to my hand better. My feelings are that a limp tippet acts more to dampen or “kill” the signal whereas the “regular” does not.

I have found a mono that I have since switched too because I am a “tight wad” and do not want to pay the price that “regular” fluorocarbon is bringing. My fish do not seem to be having any problems with this mono and my “catch”/“strike” ratio is still very good. This mono starts at 2 pound test and goes up from there. I use the 6 pound test for my nymphs, streamers or flymphs and if I want to “swing” wet/soft hackles, I just add about 2 foot of 4 pound test to the end of the 6 pound test and it works great. Understand that I make and use a Vanish Transition furled leader for all my fishing and it sinks rather fast and I hardly ever add less than 6 feet of my tippet to the end of it. This mono has a very slick surface to it and you do have to make sure you tie good knots and do a test “tug” to make sure that they are “seated” properly. The diameter of this mono is very small and it has a slight color to it that I feel gives it a “camo” appearance under water. I have had great success with it and the best part is that I can get it here at one local store for $4.49 per 350 yard spool! I just fill a smaller spool with it and carry it with me. I always have one small spool of it in 2#, one in 4# and one in 6#.

You can purchase it through the Web Site or you may find it in one of your smaller convience stores that also sell some spinner fishing tackle. It is made and sold by Leland Lures who also market the Trout Magnet for spinner fishermen. I purchased a spool to try out as a furled leader and it works great for furled leaders but will not sink as quickly as the Vanish Transition but works great, for me, as my tippet. Leland Lures calls it, “SOS” mono.

So, in my opinion, I do feel there is an advantage to using fluorocarbon tippet material over “regular” fluorocarbon material if you mainly fish dry flies or midges.

The above are just my opinions and observations and nothing more. You may want to try some “SOS” mono and see how it works for you. If it does not do what you are wanting, you are only out a five dollar bill. I do not work for or represent Leland Lures. I am just a satisfied customer of their “SOS” mono for my tippet material.

4

I have fluorocarbon tippet and I use it – sometimes bought as tippet and sometimes bought as fishing line (which is cheaper to buy).

The dollar cost isn’t so much a problem for me, what bothers me is the other “cost” in that the stuff never breaks down and although I am not an environmentalist per se, I don’t like the idea that I am leaving that stuff in the river or on the river bank somewhere when I snag up on something and have to break my tippet/leader. So, for that reason, I am transitioning back to regular tippet materials. At least, it will break down over time. And, I absolutely hate it when I stumble upon yards and yards of any kind of clear fluoro or monofilament line or leader left on the beach/bank or I pull it up from the bottom attached to my nymphs - Still, if it is mono. it is supposed to break down over time.

5

http://www.cabelas.com/product/Fishing/Fishing-Line/Fluorocarbon%7C/pc/104793480/c/104719680/sc/104338080/Cabelas-No-Vis8482-Fluorocarbon-Line-200-Yards/702377.uts?destination=%2Fcatalog%2Fbrowse%2Ffishing-fishing-line-fluorocarbon%2F_%2FN-1100385%2FNs-CATEGORY_SEQ_104338080%3FWTz_l%3DSBC%253Bcat104793480%253Bcat104719680&WTz_l=SBC%3Bcat104793480%3Bcat104719680%3Bcat104338080

6

I buy my fluorocarbon from Tacklediscounts in England. I use Airflo G3 (sightfree). I also buy the 100 meter spools.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Airflo-Sightfree-G3-Fluorocarbon-Tippet-Leader-BOGOF-Choose-Size-/330735228377?pt=UK_SportingGoods_FishingAcces_RL&var=&hash=item4d015b15d9

7

All of my knowledge is from ocean fishing. I will attest that the fluorocarbon (FC) fishing line I use is strictly for LEADERS, but there are people converting to complete FC lines. I am not that big of a fan of this. We mostly use Mono (mainly braded) for line - 50 lb offshore and 15-30 lb inshore (depending what you are focused on). We generally double the FC size - so, 50 lb mono/100 lb FC leader. People always ask why do this? Saltwater fish have teeth - Almost all sharp and some bigger than average. The salt water fish also fight and tug more than any freshwater fish I have ever caught. Some fish cut through mono like it’s butter, but you can have a good tug of war with it on a FC leader. Also, I have noticed inshore that fish strike the FC much more than the mono line. Supposedly, FC is more “transparent” in the water. I don’t know what the case it, but they hit the fluoro much more than mono. I have thoroughly tested this theory.

Mono is much easier to put knots in, and braided is better. Braided is SUPER STRONG for it’s size, and it is flexible…but, it is VERY visible to fish, and it doesn’t last long in the saltwater arena. Fluoro is STIFF, and it needs a spongy (cushion knot). If you put a clinch in fluoro, it will more than likely pop on you. It took many years for the off-shore to adapt to fluoro for that reason alone.

As far as fluoro fishing line versus tippet. The fishing line is extremely stiff compared to tippet. You may have to adapt other knots than the accepted AANSI (Arbor, Albright, Nail, Surgeons, Improved Clinch) or even the new ways of rigging. I still think just the leader in FC is more than enough. I personally don’t see a difference in fishing line versus tippet for that matter other than rigging it so you don’t have failure. I will honestly say that I would not want anything stiff going to a #22-24 hook. The biggest thing I would say is what is discussed above as “pull”. I have seen fish look hard a a nymph or an emerger, and as soon as they see the “pull” (we call it DRAG), the fish discounts and eye movement moves to the next thing. It only takes a half a second of drag, and they notice.

As far as cost, I could see a FC leader being expensive due to the taper, but the tippet should not be that different than the fishing line unless the anti stiff process is that expensive.

8

Just a beginner to fly fishing, but over 40 years a saltwater fisherman and have been on many boats and caught fish of various size, I do not think it matters. All the great catchers (NOT ME), kill more fish than then can eat, just use mono and tells me that fluorocarbon catch more fisherman than fish. JYMO! nothing more.

9

I have been using the Hook and Hackle fluro for about 4 years. Personally, I like it. I have only used 5x, 6x, and 7x. It tends to be a bit stiffer than other brands, but it has worked well for me. It comes in 50 yard spools and sells for about $9. I also believe they are a sponsor on FAOL.

10

A lot of people I know simply buy a 100 yard spool of 4 lb. test Vanish which is fluorocarbon. A large spool sells for around $12.

I don’t use fluro for dry flies as it is denser than water and will sink the fly.

Dave

11

Thanks Dave I did not know that. I love learning from others.

12

There are also “house brand” fluorocarbon spools available from some shops which are considerably less expensive. These run about $10 for a 50 yard spool. I’ve been using these the last couple of years and have noticed any difference in quality compared to the name brands.

13

Most all “Tippet” FC is much more limp than standard spinning gear FC. Leading me to believe that at least some of the cost could result from an additional step in manufacturing. It’s all priced higher than mono though across the board.

For years I did all of my streamer and nymph fishing with Maxima Chameleon mono, which was very similar in attributes.

It’s all about what you want, and if it’s worth the money to you.

I fish both wet and dry with FC exclusively now, with no intention of going back to mono, regardless of price.

I use FC almost exclusively for both wet & dry fishing now. And no intention to go back to mono regardless of price.

14

I like Fluorocarbon tippet for midge fishing on lakes and it does seem I get bit more with fluoro than mono tippet. But I am tried of buying 3 or 4 spools of fluror tippet and spending 50 + dollars for it. So this summer I went back the the Maxima mono green tippet in 5x and 6x. It seems that I am getting bit on regular basis, so I am not going to use fluoro anymore and stick with the Maxima tippet material. There are several lakes I fish that have asked angerls not use fluoro due to it’s 100 year half life.

                                                                     Lanny
15

On three separate occasions I was one of two lake anglers fishing the same nymphs at the same depth in the same area. I was catching fish regularly and my partners were going blank. I was using 4X F/C and they were using nylon. When they finally switched over, they matched me fish for fish. While I am therefore a firm believer in F/C in lakes with static flies & indicators, I don’t think it holds any advantage at all in rivers or with streamers, buggers, etc. I also like it in saltwater, but for different reasons and not in a fly tippet material.
I buy the 100 M Guide Spools of 4X Rio FF+, about $35 apiece. One spool lasts me well over a year, and, as someone said, it doesn’t go bad on you. I think everything sold to the fly angler is overpriced (heck, the fly shops get 100% markup on almost everything they stock), but to me, FC is worth the cost. My little truck gets pretty good mileage, but when I fill it after a trip, it runs about $45. I could take fewer trips, but I think my gas money is well spent. Same with F/C.
Guess each of us has to evaluate for ourselves.

16

Fluorocarbon vs nylon fallacies:

  1. Spinning fluorocarbon is the equivalent of tippet fluorocarbon. As many have already said, it is not. For equal diameters, not only is the tippet material stronger, it is limper.

  2. Fluorocarbon will NOT sink your flies. This has been tested and proven to be false. Fluorocarbon when treated with floatant will NOT sink. In fact, nylon’s specific gravity is also higher than water. It floats because of surface tension and NOT because it is lighter than water. Drop fluorocarbon tippet onto a sink full of water. It will float.

Most nylon mono has a specific gravity between 1.1 and 1.2 compared to fluorocarbon at about 1.8. So fluorocarbon is 50% denser than nylon mono. One might think that this would cause the fluoro to sink but what it does is that it causes the fluorocarbon to indent the meniscus more.

Since the depression of the meniscus increases the visibility of the floating line and it increases the refraction of light onto the river bottom, it makes the line more visible. As we know, when sunken, fluorocarbon is less visible that nylon.

Fluorocarbon vs. Nylon | Fly Fish America

[i]"Being slightly heavier than water does not mean that nylon monofilament is going to sink, at least not quickly or very well. Surface tension?where the water?s surface behaves like an elastic film?must be broken before an object will sink. A object?s density and contact angle with the water?s surface are the two most significant variables in its ability to break surface tension and sink, and the ?just slightly heavier than water? specific gravity and zero contact angle (i.e., laid out flat) of a nylon monofilament leader or tippet are not sufficient to do it most of the time. If pushed or pulled under the surface by a weighted fly or roiling current, nylon monofilament will sink . . . but very, very slowly.

Fluorocarbon has a specific gravity in the range of 1.75 to 1.90. Tungsten it ain?t, but it is significantly more dense than nylon. But is it sufficiently dense to quickly and reliable break surface tension and sink all by itself, even at zero contact angles, and even in the smallest diameters? No, it?s not. Our testing reveals that most brands of fluorocarbon tippet material in 0X to 8X diameters are no better than nylon at breaking surface tension and sinking on their own. Larger diameter fluorocarbon materials do demonstrate a slightly better ability to break surface tension without the assistance of current or other external influences, but for practical fishing purposes fluorocarbon has little benefit over nylon on this measure."[/i]

The truth is that fluorocarbon will not make dry flies sink NOR is it measurably better than nylon in getting nymphs to sink. Both statements are wrong. Surface tension is what floats both flies and leaders that are heavier than water and lead or tungsten is what makes nymphs sink. Over the average cast and drift, whether the tippet is nylon or fluorocarbon has no effect on making a dry fly float or making a nymph sink.

  1. Nylon monofilament gets weaker as it absorbs water. It actually swells. Fluorocarbon does not absorb water. It maintains its strength and that is the second reason to use it for nymphing.

  2. Fluorocarbon does not degrade with UV light. There no need to replace it each year.

  3. Fluorocarbon is more abrasion resistant than nylon.

So the advantages of fluorocarbon are less visibility under water, maintains wet strength, abrasion resistance, and does not degrade. Is it worth it - that is your decision. You can make it float by treating it but it’s advantage is when it is sunken over picky trout.

17

Wow, I love learning thur other life experiences and not have to learn it on my own, it just takes too much time. This is a great read, Thanks!

18

The only thing that troubles me about flouro is that people discard it on the stream and it doesn’t degrade.

19

…

Unfortunately you cannot control that, however I will prove myself wrong by making a broad sweeping statement and say, most fly fishermen do not discard any more fishing line on stream than they can help. When I discard a piece of line it is 2" long and fell in the stream when I clipped it or is connected to an underwater structure or a tree limb, both which happen with too much regularity. Things discard along streams and lake cranks up a entirely new rant however.

20

There are Fluorocarbon lines and Fluorocarbon coated lines ( Mono ), which also have a reason for existing. Not all makers of Fluorocarbon coated lines make that distinction clear in their product literature and I think it’s helpful to know what you’re shopping for and purchasing.

[u]http://flyanglersonline.com/about/seaguar/[/u]

For starters, here’s a link to a Q & A section provided by Seaguar about the production, properties and characteristics of Fluorocarbon, that might help fill in some of the gaps.

http://seaguar.com/seaguar-community/fishing-line-q-and-a.htm

Enjoy, Dave