I always test the fishinglines I buy, and I have the strong impression nobody else does! The results are realy impressing though. There is a tendency to mostly give up a diamter slightly less than the diameter I find by using a simple but reliable micrometer. So far so good. But when it comes to breakingstrain the results are devastating! Even when I don't count the breakings on the knot, there is in nylon lines at least an exagerration between 25 to 50%(!!) of what you will achieve on a simple testingdevice.
In Dyneema the figures on the blisters seem to have no fundation at all to reality. Marketingmanagers dream them up behind their pc's. You'r a lucky man when by testing you can get halve the figure on the spool.
Why in the world is there never a fishingmagzine (to my knowledge) that realy tests the claims a manufacturer makes??
And why in the world is there not an institute that gives on objective (DIN)
norm that is given on the spool?
Give us a tested maximum diameter and a tested minimum breakingstrain.
Can't be that difficult, can it???
In Dyneema the figures on the blisters seem to have no fundation at all to reality. Marketingmanagers dream them up behind their pc's. You'r a lucky man when by testing you can get halve the figure on the spool.
Why in the world is there never a fishingmagzine (to my knowledge) that realy tests the claims a manufacturer makes??
And why in the world is there not an institute that gives on objective (DIN)
norm that is given on the spool?
Give us a tested maximum diameter and a tested minimum breakingstrain.
Can't be that difficult, can it???