by Questor » Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:14 am
I'm going to try a spool of Seaguar Invisx spooled on my new saltwater baitcaster outfit. We'll see how it works. This reminds me of the early days of braid when there was a focus on one or two aspects of the line that didn't consider it's total set of properties.
The things that intrigue me about fluoro as a system are the abrasion resistance, reduced visibility, resistance to sunscreen and bug spray and UV light. My spidey senses tell me that the newer formulations may have solved a lot of the earlier problems and the stuff is "ready for prime time", i.e., suitable to fill a reel with.
One thing I'll focus on here is visibility. The difference between refractive index of fluoro and mono isn't that many percent, so I was skeptical about it. I also saw pictures from various articles, like one from Florida Sportsman, that showed different kinds of line in water. Fluoro was clearly visible, so I figured it was just hype. One of the fly fishing magazines has studied fluoro a lot and concluded that the can't see much difference between fluoro and mono.
So I tried it for myself: I clipped a few inches of Trilene XL, Trilene XT, Vanish, and InvisX, and Seaguar leader material all in 10 or 12# test, with the fluoros being the heavier lines. I put the pieces in a clear glass bowl without any labels on the pieces of line, dunked them so they would sink, and then looked at the lines in different light conditions and with different background colors.
Bottom line is that the fluoro really is drastically less visible. Some factors magazine photos can't convey well are things like movement. The mono looks like shiny tinsel when it's being rotated in the water, while the flouro is a lot less visible. There were several cases where I thought I had lost a couple of strands of the fluoro because I couldn't see it anymore. The objective of the test was just to play "myth buster" for my own knowledge, and I came away convinced that the visibility claims for fluoro are true to the extent that visibility is significantly reduced. It is not invisible in all light and motion cases, however.
By the way, there is a significant difference between Vanish, a low cost fluoro, and Seaguar premium fluoros. Vanish is much more visible, but not as visible as the mono.
Another thing is knot strength, with a lot of people complaining about weak knots with fluoro. This seems to have been solved by using different knots. A doubled-line clinch knot and the Trilene knot are observed to be good knots for fluoro. Personally, I've never had knot problems with Seaguar leader material, and I usually use an improved clinch or no-slip loop with it to attach hooks, and uni-to-uni when attaching to braid.
Anyway, if you've got some mono and flouro around the house, try my little experiment. It's a fun diversion and quite illuminating.
About the InvisX, they market it for use on spinning reels, but the 12# gave me the first impression that it would be too springy for a spinning reel. I haven't tried this, but I've usually been right when I got this kind of impression.
When will I use it? Initially just for my clear water application. I think braid with fluoro or mono leader continues to make sense for my murky lake and river applications. If I had any applications where I tended to lose lots of line, I'd prefer mono.
For fly fishing, I quit buying tapered leaders, and have been making them from Seaguar leader material for a couple of years.
For fresh water, I've been using Vanish from small spools as leader for my braid for a few years. I like it. Cost is quite low too. I also tie my lightest fly tippets with it. Good stuff.
It seems like the more I use fluoro, the more I trust it. And the more I prefer it to nylon.