Line Testing Data

Comments and suggestions please for Barry's next article about line testing.

Hi Barry, excellent piece of research, I did some monofilament tests many years ago while I was at the Shirley textile Institute in Manchester, mainly on maxima and bayer, you are probably aware monofilament has a half life which acceleration under conditions of high radiation through ionic reaction, was the monofilament new from the manufacturers or the tackle dealers? Other materials, I suspect also have a half-life capacity. In my experiments I also found that by putting sections of material under the microscope, the diameter changed through its length, while flats occurred in the underlying spool layers, thus causing weaknesses at certain points? The spools with indicated diameter information was based off average diameter and not gross diameter; the process in which they now manufacture monofilament may now however have changed?

I had intended to have a longer look at the stats before commenting, but things got a bit hectic at work (bloody viruses!). Here's my initial thoughts.

The fact that the lower breaking strain lines have a higher 'index of strength' is due to the surface of the nylon being harder and hence stronger than the inside. The ratio of surface to volume is greater for these lower diameters and so the strength of the surface layer has a greater influence.

I susspect the using bags of sugar to calibrate your rig will tend to make it understate breaking strains. This is because the sugar has, by law, to weigh at least what it shows on the packet. In general the bags will weigh about 2% heavy.

On the low breaking strains of the high tech lines. I've found that they deteriorate much faster than low tech lines and often I get less than a season out of them before needing to buy more. I can only put this down to the fact that the line can't hold as much uv inhibitor as normal lines. This also means that the product doesn't have a long shelf life so you have to be careful when you buy it.

It would be interesting to hear where the high tech line broke. was it always at the knot? I remember an article in Trout and Salmon a few years ago reporting the results of similar tests and it showed that knots in high tech mono were a lot less reliable than knots in the low tech stuff.

Interestingly the high tech line that I now use, Preston Power Line, is the one that I now tend to use. I even use it for a main line for trotting for Barbel and Chub.

I would like to see some indication of the knots used, where the break occurred and how much the line stretched before it broke.

Looking at the above its probably a good job that I didn't have time to think too much about my reply!

Thanks Monk, the mono used was unused, mostly stuff that I had been using for match hook lengths - a veritable hodge podge of old & recent. My main aim with the first lot of tests was just to see if some of the old stuff was still reliable enough for use. It surprised me to find that some of the really old stuff hadn't deteriorated anywhere near as much as I had expected. Then when I went on to testing new stuff soon after purchase I was surprised to see the variations in the strength/diameter ratio from different brands. This goes a long way to explaining why some lines are thought of as being exceptionally tough when actually they are much stronger than the makers claim. Conversely, with some of the hi tech lines the makers/suppliers claims tend to be over rated. The only way to really illustrate this is to get a range of new lines of 2 or 3 different brand names & directly compare them under the same conditions. The new tester I am building at the moment will be capable of testing lines of up to about 40lbs BS, obviously I won't get quite the same precision with the lower strains but the main thing is that the repeatability of the tests should not be reduced (does that make sense?)Also will be able to test swivels, knots, trace wire, etc. If you can pull it & it'll eventually break up to 44lbs, I can test it.

Sean, thanks for the comments, I'll have to come back to this one later. Already 1/2 hour late leaving for work.

I've just calculated what a 2% overstatement of a 1 kg weight would be and its less than a ounce so bgs of sugar are probably OK for calibration purposes.

Yes it does make sense Barry!

I've just read the garbage I wrote about Power Line! What I meant to say was that the high tech line that performed best was the one that I now use as a main line for trotting for Barbel. I find it really reliable providing I take care with the knots.

I think the most important thing is that the tests, whether it's based on a bag of sugar or a certified weight, are the same for each line. It's the comparison of lines of supposedly the same diameter and bs that interests me most.

Because we all know that they label 12 or 15 lb carp line as 10lb and claim amazing abrasion reistence.

Stretch, shockability (quick pull to max as opposed to gradual) and abrasion qualities are more useful for in the field.

Sean, You could be right about the surface area being harder & the line therefore stronger - interestingly enough, the original control data came from an American manufacturer - I think it was 'Ande' or something similar and showed almost exactly the same tendency. When I came to update the tables I coudn't find the web site again so used the Bayer data. Should have updated the article to show this but forgot.

The bags of sugar were used only initially to calculate the average number of pulses per kilo. They worked out within 1% of the indicated reading on the tubular scales & were adjusted accordingly.

The line was attached at both ends by friction devices, actually wrapped around a few times(without any overlapping of the line), then a rubber sleeve pushed on, not very elegant maybe, but worked just fine. If there was any tendency to slip I just put a few more turns on. The line whether hi tec or normal always broke approx in the middle of the stressed length.

I only had the one spool of Preston Power line and was very impressed with it, both when tested & in use. I bought it at the same time as the 2 spools of 'Carptec'.I only purchased the Preston 'cos they didn't have the dia of 'Carptec' that I wanted. going on the info on the spool the Carptec appeared to be the better line, if you look at my data you'll see that the Preston is head & shoulders better.

I had a lot of problems with knots when I first started using the hi tech stuff (Dam Tectan) but I started using an electrical lubricant (for lubing insulating sleeves etc) before tying the knot - this was mainly to stop the curly bit you sometimes get when using a spade end knot tyer. I found that the lubricant (which is the only oil that will dry out completely) apparently had a slight adhesive effect. Subsequently I don't think I ever had a hook link fail again at either the hook or the loop - if it broke it was always about halfway between knot & loop. It's one of the many things I want to include in future tests. I've since run out of the original stuff & started to use RS electrical lubricant but feel that it's not as good as the original. If anyone can put me on to a supply of the original I'd be grateful. PM me off list & I'll give you the makers name etc. Also if anyone wants the original data on spreadsheets email me off list. The originals are a lot easier to follow, Graham & I had to cut them about a bit to get them into a suitable format to display. on FM. BTW I'm using the RS stuff on my braids for lure fishing & it seems to make the uni knots I use a lot more reliable. (That'll be another future test)

Rik, couldn't agree more about Stretch & shockability - very important but difficult to test. Anyway I don't see any relationship between such tests as the
controlled rubbing of the line on a brick and a situation where you have a
tight line pulling down onto a sharp flint, or when a well anchored mussel
has closed on your line when you strike. I think that the question of shockability is directly linked to the amount of stretch in the line, the reason why most of us that use braids choose two or three times the BS.

This reply seems to have turned into an article in its own right - have to finish there as 'er downstairs is shouting " Dinner - now"

oops - left a sentence out. The bit baout 'controlled rubbing on a brick' etc is to do with abrasion resistance, which, surprisingly no-one has yet mentioned.

Sorry about that!

PS. Dinner was great!

errrrrr......
I mentioned it in the post immediately before yours.

knew I'd seen it somewhere!!

lol

The repackaging of 15lb line and selling it as 10lb with brilliant abrasion resistence is one of my pet hates, will you be showing the massive inconsistencies in carp line diameter?

Depends on what I can get hold of to test - I think Graham may be able to help there. The point about re-packaging is one of the things that prompted me to start this project. I think that there are only about 6 or 7 line manufacturers in the world so a hell of a lot of what we buy is sold under many different labels (& with differing information on the spools)

There used to be 6 or 7, I think there's only 3 or 4 now.

We've had some very good discussions on here previously about line and manufacturers.
A search through the archives produces some good reading.

I'd be interested to see how braid and monos of similar dia - ie 15lb mono/30lb Fireline - measure up with regard to abrasion resistance.

I can send you some new 30lb Fireline left over on a spool.

Chris, I'd have devise another rig for abrasion testing & I'm not too sure whether the tests would have any validity anyway - see previous comments. The 'rub the line on a brick' test might work if you're fishing somewhere like Abberton where there are some submerged buildings but you'd have to be pretty unlucky to get your line around one. Also at Abberton there are mussel beds in one particular spot. The mussels often close over the line and cut you off. How could you test for that? I suppose the most common problem would be gravel bars with lumps of sharp flint sticking up but I don't know how you could realistically simulate that.