Chub on the pellet

Interesting Mark that Fluorocarbon hooklengths made the difference and I am convinced that they are far better than mono in clear conditions. I have used the same stuff that you used for three or four years now and I'm sure it makes a difference.

I have used Krystonite 6lb as a waggler line as well but I think it will work equally as well with an avon set up like you used. When and if they bring out the 4lb version it will be even better and though I havn't tried using it as a floater I don't think it presents a problem at all. It is excellent line and an advantage worth thinking about in clear conditions that you experienced Mark.

Good article too mate.

I enjoyed your article Mark.

I was out fishing for Chub and Barbel using pellets last night using and missed far too many bites from the Chub because of the hair rig setup.

What sort of pellets have been using as hookers and as feed?

I keep meaning to try jelly pellets made using CSL, Salmon oil and plain gelatine but I've not got round to it yet.

Mark, nice article; very informative.

Something puzzles me about fluorocarbon: I accept the fact that it has a refractive index close to that of water, but what about about reflection? But it still reflects light, surely? Perhaps someone who knows more about such things than I do can tell me if I've got the wrong end of the proverbial.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm not a fan of fluorocarbon and no longer use it - but am I handicapping myself as a consequence of this self-imposed restriction?

Matt,

I used Xpander, 6mm, in Scopex.

Jim,

Though I did well with Fluorocarbon I shall only use it when I think that it will give me an advantage. But it did work in these circumstances. I don't like the stiffness or knot strength but accept these if it gets me bites when regular lne doesn't. Against that I need to know that I still have a very good chance of landing the fish.

Mark

A "view from the armchair", I'm afraid, but, for what it's worth - I've seen what happens when a solid is immersed in a liquid of exactly the same refractive index. Microscope slides in xylene - they just vanish. No reeflection.No visible edges or corners. Numbers scratched onto the slides vanish, too. Only the stained sections remain visible, mysteriously suspended.
Every time I buy some "invisible" line, I put the end into a glass of water. I can see it. I've been sold another lie. I use it, because it may be better than a line wth a more mis-matched RI, but they haven't got it right, yet.

Thank you Alan; that's helpful.

My misgivings Re. fluorocarbon are primarily concerned with its knot strength (something to which Mark referred). I confess to being somewhat anal about such things, but when I bench-tested fluorocarbon's knot-strength I was horrified. I tried several different brands, too. The best of a bad lot was Riverge something-or-other (sold under various different labels) - but it was still very disappointing.

I'm talking here of fluorocarbon, incidentally, not fluorocarbon coated polymer such as Krystonite. The latter is excellent.

I believe it's friction when the knot is formed that causes most problems with fluoro (of which I'm a big fan).

You might think that the usual wetted with spit method works, but it isn't enough.

Buy a small bottle of knot lube (they sell it mainly for fly fishing). Use this and draw the knot tight VERY, VERY slowly.

Then repeat any previous tests and you'll find a big difference in the results.

Thanks for the suggestion, Graham.

I've used oil to lubricate knots in fluorocarbon, and I can confirm that it gives improved knot-strength (as it does with ordinary mono, incidentally). Lip-salve, which is greasy, does the job, too (and is more convenient to carry than is a small bottle of oil). The improvement, while significant, still resulted in an unacceptable degree of strength loss.

Not sure if Knot-Lube (or knot-lube) works any differently to corn oil, rapeseed oil, olive oil etc. Or if, indeed, it is any different... I used corn oil.

I was so appalled at the results I obtained with fluorocarbon that I threw all mine in the bin (about ?50 worth!).

By the way, it's worth checking unknotted tensile strength of fluorocarbon - that can produce some surprises, too (I'm talking here of relatively fine versions, say up to about nominal 6lb BS). If those who have faith in fluorocarbon undertook such a test, I suspect their faith would be shaken somewhat. A friend of mine, Rob Ness, assumed he'd inadvertently bought a duff spool, so he went back to the tackle shop where he bought it and, with the dealer, tested loads of other spools, some different brands, too. Results were the same as mine.

I so wanted to believe in the stuff, but following my bench-test experience, nothing would induce me to use it.

Jim, I'm not claiming that fluoro is in the same knot strength league as ordinary mono, just that I don?t believe it?s a great deal different if great care is taken when tying the knots.

Another point is that fluoro doesn't seem to be as underrated as mono. A fluoro line rated at 10lb breaks at around 10lb, while most monos with the same rating break at 12lb and a hell of a lot more in some instances. With this in mind I use fluoro at least a pound heavier than I would use mono in the same situation. So I guess in that respect I?m agreeing with you.

I like fluoro for its extra stiffness, its smoothness and its density. I reckon the ?invisibility? factor is a negligible advantage.

Graham and Jim, how much of the above applies to Krystonite, it being a coated fluoro (I'm thinking hooklengths here). I'm a fan of fluoro but never having gone into it as deep as you Jim perhaps I,m under an illusion, whilst it won't stop me using it I think I might be advised to think a bit more about the knotting.

Fluoro was originally developed for big game angling (100lb-plus breaking strains) I think. It was then taken up by our fluff-chucking friends for nymph and buzzer fishing on reservoirs.
Jim, Riverge is a French brand that has been popular in trout fishing for years. And you're right, in my experience it's easily the best. I've been using it for tench fishing for the past few seasons and have had some good catches and few problems in the way of breakages.
However, the stuff is a bugger to tie. The friction created by tightening the barrel of a grinner knot makes it pigtail horrendously.
I personally use fuorocarbon for a fair bit of my fishing. 10lb Berkley Vanish is what I use most of for pop-up rigs and for standard barbel bolt/running rigs. It's stiffness makes it ideal for use with the knotless knot as it creates the bent hook affect without the need for bending the hook or including shrink tubing. It is however, nowhere near as reliable as a good mono such as Sensor or Maxima. I find the stuff tends to shred as opposed to get rough abrasions as mono does. I'm convinced it's not as tough so I use it in higher than normal breaking strains if applicable. If not, I fall back on mono.
I'm certain I get more bites when using it. But it isn't invisible. It creates obvious shadows in my experience. A useful weapon in the armoury though.

I've started using 'Maver Genisis Smart' mono line as a hooklength since being advised to try it by Dennis White. It is not stated as a fluorocarbon line, but it is extremley thin, clear and knots well, the only problem being that it is rated dead accurate for its ultimate breaking strain.
As we are all aware normal mono is rated well under strength which makes it thicker than you really require. Using normal mono (with its elasticity)as a reel line will also cushion the shock loadings protecting the knots and hooklength.

Jim,

I have somewhat belatedly tested the Vanish line that I've been using for hooklinks.

Vanish - 4lb stated. I tested with a hook tied with a spade-end knot, wetted plus a loop at the other end. I got 3-10 actual breaking strain. I measured the diameter as 0.19mm.

For comparison, the co-polymers that I have been using in 0.14, Silstar(W B Clarke), Ignesti Special, and Preston (meant to be 0.13 but actually 0.14mm), all test to the same BS ie 3-10, and are all also rated to about 4lbs.

I think my test with a loop at one end, a tied hook at the other is representative of actual fishing though I might get different results if the links were soaked for an hour?

So I am sacrificing 0.05mm, and the corresponding extra stiffness, in using Vanish.

So far, I have had two hook knots fail whilst playing big chub in heavy weed but landed about 20. This is about as good as I would expect with the other lines in the same circumstances. It is possible my hook tying was not good enough ie I didn't wet the knot well enough before tightening.

Regards,
Mark

I'm with you ojn the Vanish mark, rate it highly for barbel fishing (10lb bs). Have found its abrasion resistance poor though. I'm convinced it shreds on sharp rocks, so I change hooklink as soon as I feel any marks on it.