Does Fluorocarbon Fishing Line Stretch LESS than Monofilament? | Mono vs Fluorocarbon vs Copolymer

[@jasonlopez4855]

I've used Zebco monofilament line for 20+ years now on most of my reels for 90% of all fishing. Is cheep enough to replace the line every fishing trip. Just me- A lot of good information thank you

[@fantasticleese]

Appreciate your efforts in testing these lines

[@kvonzwild8979]

Great test. Surprised me some. I feel I have the best of all with th copolymer in terms of stretch, strength, and visibility. I also find flouro easier to break with a quick jerk than either.

[@sungkang8444]

I used to use the improved clinch all the time but I was losing fish. So I switched to the uni knot and it stopped happening. Now I only use that knot for everything.

[@matthewotis3594]

Me too. Lost too many lures and fish trying to flip them onto the bank. No problems with the uni or trilene.

[@zachweber5623]

Confirming what I’ve been thinking.

[@clearwaterfishing]

It makes sense when you think about it. It got me at first.

[@ThriftALife]

Great video man, bravo.

[@clearwaterfishing]

Much appreciated!

[@azurf843]

It would be good if you recorded the stretch at every pound of pressure. This would show you which line has a higher resistance to stretching through a range of pressure instead of a total stretch at a single poundage. Those could be plotted and more than likely, they would be quadratic curves. Also have heard people say flouro resists stretching when fast pressure is applied (like a hookset) instead of a slow pull done in your test. I have an idea for how that could be tested but it would take a long time to explain

[@clearwaterfishing]

That is an interesting thought. It probably isn't a linear relationship. If it is, it is because it is over a short distance. The hookset idea is also a good one. I would need some peak weight recording device to make it work.

[@azurf843]

My thought was a weight to both ends. One pound each for an example but that can be optimized. Have one weight on a table at a 0 inch mark. Drop the other weight from a designated height on slack line to replicate a slack like hookset. By dropping from a specific height will yield the same potential and kinetic energy for each drop. Less energy lost to stretch equals more energy transfered to the other weight and more linear movement of the second weight. I would include braid in the test as well to see the difference with a true zero stretch line. It isn't perfect but it is a starting point for a test method.

[@texasfishingguy4076]

These are surprising results.

[@clearwaterfishing]

They surprised me too!

[@bxcloud104]

Fluorocarbon is more dense, hence it sinks faster. I'm not sure if that makes it a bit more sensitive. For myself no, sensitivity is subjective anyways. But when I feel need more depth, that's the only time I'll use it. For the other check boxes like stretch, visibility, abrasion resistance it's either won by mono or a tied per tests other videos and forum post testing that I've seen. Of course maybe wet tests can different? But mono has been my main clear line, since my real world experience found fluorocarbon to be highly overated.

[@clearwaterfishing]

After doing this test myself, I am defineitly on your side with this one. The only question I really have remaining, is fluorocarbon less visible in the water?

[@aldeureaux5184]

The stretch difference appears to be negligible. I would be interested to see how less visible fluorocarbon is compared to mono in clear water.

[@clearwaterfishing]

Me too. Kinda hard to measure that though.

[@caniaccharlie]

I wonder how a different knot would do on the breaking strength? I've always used the IC know. It's outside the scope of this test, I know lol.

[@fishingwithaaron314]

Do you think P line CXX Crystal Clear is a good line? Super low price. What do you think about it?

[@clearwaterfishing]

It is mono line. I don't find much difference in name brand mono lines. Just stay away from the off brand stuff.

[@Jon-nz3dm]

Fluorocarbon has some of the biggest lies around it in the industry. The amount of stretch isn't _technically_ untrue, simply due to the fact that mono/copolymer(most mono lines are actually copolymers) stretch significantly more after they are soaked while fluoro only stretches a very small amount more. This has been tested a bunch on various forums and mono ends up stretching quite a bit more. The worst lies in my opinion are big companies trying to say fluoro has more abrasion resistance and invisibility in water. Ironically AbrazX has been tested to be one of the worst when it comes to abrasion resistance.

[@clearwaterfishing]

I think what happens is there isn't a much of a standard (that I know of) to measure and compare lines in aspects other than strength.

[@clearwaterfishing]

Did these results surprise you?

[@eFishin]

Nope. This is the second video that I have seen on this. The first one was several years ago and had similar results. They also did an abrasion test and fluorocarbon came out near the bottom on that one as well. I've also had too many negative experiences with fluorocarbon to not use it. Mainly broken line on hooksets and if it gets a kink in it, it breaks way too easily. I do like copolymer line.

[@clearwaterfishing]

@@eFishin That's pretty interesting. Didn't know that it also had poor abrasion resistance. I will probably be sticking to my copolymer for now.

[@eFishin]

@@clearwaterfishing that's my experience with it. Everyone's mileage might vary. I don't know if there is a best anything (line, rod, reel, etc.). What works for you might not work for me. Everyone has to figure out what works for themselves. But KZbin channels certainly help folks figure that out. Nice video.

[@clearwaterfishing]

@@eFishin Thank you!