TroutHunter Fluorocarbon Tippet???

[Pghtrouthunter]

I got turned on to this in Livingston by Sweetwaters Fly Shop. I really liked it and it comes in a 6.5x which I think is perfect.

Anyone else using it?

 

[tennjed]

I don't use flouro, but I've been using their nylon for a few weeks now. Great stuff.

 

[SBecker]

I have used their tippet for two years now. I really like it. I like when someone asks me what tippet size I am using, and my response is 5.5x. A half? Yea a half lol

 

[pcray1231]

never tried it. Might have to look into giving the regular mono a chance. I generally favor supple tippet materials, does it fit the bill? Anything to compare it against?

I see the half size thing as a gimmick, probably small enough difference that it gets lost in the tolerances. Not that it's harmful in any way either, though.

 

[govtmule]

For what it's worth, Fly Fisherman mag did a "tippet shootout" and compared flouros and mono...trouthunter flouro did well, I never thought fouro was good for dries because it supposedly sinks faster (thats what ive read) but the shootout claims the sink rate was "negligible" in flouros and monos with that thin (6x) line...

http://www.flyfisherman.com/2012/05/07/2012-tippet-shootout/#axzz25dpck8RC

 

[SBecker]

pcray1231 wrote:
never tried it. Might have to look into giving the regular mono a chance. I generally favor supple tippet materials, does it fit the bill? Anything to compare it against?

I see the half size thing as a gimmick, probably small enough difference that it gets lost in the tolerances. Not that it's harmful in any way either, though.

I find it to be pretty supple.

 

[jdaddy]

pcray1231 wrote:
never tried it. Might have to look into giving the regular mono a chance. I generally favor supple tippet materials, does it fit the bill? Anything to compare it against?

I see the half size thing as a gimmick, probably small enough difference that it gets lost in the tolerances. Not that it's harmful in any way either, though.

Given the test results given in the fly fisherman magazine I can't see how Stroft @ $2-3 a 27m spool is not a killer deal.

http://www.sierratradingpost.com/fishing-line~d~132/

Code KUZ9996M for 25-35% off.

Pcray, this stuff is incredibly limp with little memory coils. Strong and Soft = Stroft.

 

[pcray1231]

Well, the above linked study called it one of the stiffer brands. And I have used stroft and didn't like it, for that reason.

For me, I consider suppleness the #1 factor for tippet material. #2 is probably stretch, with more being better; acts as a shock absorber. So yeah, I'm pretty much the opposite of what that study finds as "good".

My favorite that I've used is Rio Suppleflex. But it's pretty hard to find. I often use powerflex because it's decent and found just about everywhere. Always hated Climax and Frog Hair, which are also easy to find; too stiff. Dai Riki is ok, just hate the spools, lol. Orvis Superstrong always seemed somewhat stiff to me, stiffer than powerflex, though maybe not as stiff as Climax and Frog Hair. I often use it as an intermediate between stiff leader and soft tippet.

I will have to give trout hunter a try, looks good from the results of that study. Thanks to govtmule for posting it.

 

[jdaddy]

pcray1231 wrote:
Well, the above linked study called it one of the stiffer brands. And I have used stroft and didn't like it, for that reason.

Ya, I was quite shocked to see that as I find it to be incredibly limp and have little memory. Having said that, I have/use 100m spools that are much larger diameter than the small 27m spools, thus likely reducing memory coil, etc. Which Stroft product were you using? ABR is bit stiffer than GTM.

Based upon what I am reading it states that Trouthunter is stiff as well, so you may want to rethink those $22 spools.

 

[tennjed]

TH nylon $6.95 for 50 meters on their website. I think I paid around 6 bucks from the shop I got it from. Either way, not too bad for 50 meters.

 

[pcray1231]

I think it was the GTM. I did find it stiff for my liking. Stiffness is different from memory, but probably correlated.

No, they're calling the trouthunter supple, at least the nylon (page 2), I didn't even look at the flouro results (page 1). And for the ones I've tried, their stiffness ratings are reasonable. I did my own testing by gathering a few common ones in equal diameters, cut them to equal lengths, put one end in a vice, and played around with it. See how low it hangs, bend it, etc. You can get a decent view that way.

From most supple to stiffest, my rankings (followed by this study's description)

Rio Suppleflex (not rated)
Rio Powerflex (medium)
Dai Riki GTS (medium)
Umpqua (medium)
Orvis Superstrong (medium)
Stroft (stiff)
Climax (stiff)
Frog Hair (stiff)
Maxima (stiff)

So if they're calling Trout Hunter "supple", being that their data largely agrees with mine, it's something that gets my attention.

 

[pcray1231]

I've also done the same test they have with the visibility thing. Seaguar and Flouroflex vs. Powerflex and SuperStrong in a fish tank. Didn't see a dang bit of difference, all of the above clearly visible. Doesn't matter what direction the light is coming from. Same result as they got. Been meaning to try a swimming pool, maybe it makes a difference if not looking through glass? But never got around to it. Until proven otherwise, I'm calling the whole invisibility thing a load of marketing crap.

Flouro does have a longevity, and an abrasion resistance advantage. It doesn't soak up water so it holds its strength and diameter better too. But it's stiffer, and again, for most of my fishing that's my first priority. And it doesn't stretch, also a bad thing in my book. Streamers, steelhead, saltwater, bass, etc. I can certainly respect a different viewpoint, there are merits there. But those situations are the exception rather than the rule for me. I'm mostly throwin dries and high stickin nymphs.

 

[afishinado]

pcray1231 wrote:
I've also done the same test they have with the visibility thing. Seaguar and Flouroflex vs. Powerflex and SuperStrong in a fish tank. Didn't see a dang bit of difference, all of the above clearly visible. Doesn't matter what direction the light is coming from. Same result as they got. Been meaning to try a swimming pool, maybe it makes a difference if not looking through glass? But never got around to it. Until proven otherwise, I'm calling the whole invisibility thing a load of marketing crap.

Flouro does have a longevity, and an abrasion resistance advantage. It doesn't soak up water so it holds its strength and diameter better too. But it's stiffer, and again, for most of my fishing that's my first priority. And it doesn't stretch, also a bad thing in my book. Streamers, steelhead, saltwater, bass, etc. I can certainly respect a different viewpoint, there are merits there. But those situations are the exception rather than the rule for me. I'm mostly throwin dries and high stickin nymphs.

Dang scientists tell us the "refractive index" is very close to water so it should be less visible...lol. Actually the visibility factor is also up in the air for me, at least from my observations.

Fluorocarbon line, from my experience, sinks a little better and is a lot more abrasion resistant than mono lines. I've found those attributes to fall in line with what are good attributes for nymphing. I'm constantly flossing the rocks and want a line to be abrasion resistant and sink.

The stiffness of line is not really a big deal when using weighted flies and/or splitshot. This weight overcomes any small amount stiffness in the line.

As far as stretch, heavy diameter line can have a some stretch to it, but thin diameter tippet stretches very little anyway, and is not a big factor.

For dries, quite the opposite. You need the tippet to float, and being abrasion resistant really isn't much of a factor. Also a line that is more supple will tend to cause less drag on the fly.

So, factoring in all the +'s & -'s above, I use fluoro tippet for nymphing and regular mono for dries.

 

[Chaz]

I've been using Mirage and seagar, but the seagar is hard to find. Never heardof the brand you mention.
I like flouro for a couple of reasons, even though it costs more than your standard tippet, I use less because it's less likely to get abrasion, and it's stronger, so I can go a size smaller and not worry about it breaking.

 

[RLeeP]

I've never used the TroutHunter fluoro, mostly because I don't believe in fluorocarbon, especially at the price difference.

But I have been using the TroutHunter nylon for the last couple years and like it better than anything else I've ever used.

So far as where it falls on the stiff/supple continuum, I think the current TroutHunter nylon I own is almost identical to Rio Powerflex. I say "current" because I'm not convinced that any of the major brands are uniformly reliable from spool to spool in this regard. I've bought two spools of 5X Frog Hair in the same purchase and had one be noticeably more stiff than the other. Same goes for SS (which I used to like, but think has gone downhill of late) and for Umpqua (which I like almost as well as Powerflex but not as well as TroutHunter).

I think it would be an interesting exercise to do a Coke/Pepsi type test with un-dyed identical, unlabeled spools of any of the top tier of tippet brands and see how many guys could correctly ID half or more of the stuff (with the exception of specific formulations like Suppleflex). I think there would be a lot of low percentage of correct ID scores from such a test. I tend to think there is more than a bit of religion to tippet preferences when you're talking the difference between the big 5 or 6 brands.

Anyway, until I have a contradictory spiritual experience (which I probably will eventually) I like TroutHunter nylon best.

But ask me again next year...

 

[FrequentTyer]

afishinado wrote:

pcray1231 wrote:
I've also done the same test they have with the visibility thing. Seaguar and Flouroflex vs. Powerflex and SuperStrong in a fish tank. Didn't see a dang bit of difference, all of the above clearly visible. Doesn't matter what direction the light is coming from. Same result as they got. Been meaning to try a swimming pool, maybe it makes a difference if not looking through glass? But never got around to it. Until proven otherwise, I'm calling the whole invisibility thing a load of marketing crap.

Dang scientists tell us the "refractive index" is very close to water so it should be less visible...lol. Actually the visibility factor is also up in the air for me, at least from my observations.

The refractive index is close to water, but not equal to water, so there is some lensing of light passing through. From what I have read, that effect in a cylinder leads to total internal reflection, so you wind up with a very sharp band of light in the center of a darker core, a highly visible structure. Add to this the fact that the fluorocarbon picks up less camouflage particles (dirt), and you have a load of marketing BS.

 

[pcray1231]

Scientists don't tell you that. Marketers tell you that.

The physics is complicated. Frequent Tyer alluded to the problem of internal reflection, which is valid. That depends a lot on angle of incidence on whether it reflects or passes through. But in most settings, light is coming from everywhere, so some will be reflected up and down the line like a fiber optic cable, making all lines more visible.

Another question revolves around transparancy. If light, either refracted or being internally reflected, gets absorbed before exiting the line, it doesn't matter in the slightest how much it is bent at interfaces. Perhaps this even results in less visibility for all lines, camo (think brown maxima) working better than attempted transparancy.

But aside from all that, lets assume the light does pass through it. There's two interfaces, not one. Light bends at both. So the angles of bending are bigger through mono than flouro. So what? It might even hurt. Light entering the line is coming in at every angle. Any difference in refractive index has the effect of dispersing that light. A higher difference in refractive index means it's dispersed more. Hence, less refracted light meets your eye. The mono then would appear slightly darker colored than the flouro. Not more or less visible, but darker vs. brighter, and if there's any difference it's the mono that would be darker.

Do the fish even care about visibility? I'm not convinced of that either. Their underwater vision is very good at close range. I'm guessing they all look like freakin ropes anyways.

 

[Chaz]

It's probably all an optical contusion that only affects humans, the fish probably see both types of lines.