LINES:Part 4:ABRASION-RESISTANCE:Some Facts

[The Diamond Geezer]

LINES:Part 4: ABRASION~RESISTANCE: Some Facts

 

There’s no getting-away from it ….. no matter which polymer (e.g. nylon, nylon co-polymer, fluorocarbon, polyester, aramid or HPPE etc.) your monofil (or braid) is made from, when it comes to true, wet brasion-resistance, I reckon that there’s no substitute for cross-sectional area (C-S A), which is a function of the diameter of your line, squared i.e. C-S A= Diam x Diam / 0.78. The C-S A multiplied by the length is the measure of the amount of the mass of the polymer available to resist any abrasion. It’s the same with engines … there’s no substitute for cubic capacity & torque.

 

............

 

FACT: - as far as true wet abrasion-resistance (wAR) is concerned, the thicker the line the better, so the time to start smelling a rat, is when you see or hear claims for a line of “ultra-thin diameter & ultimate abrasion resistance” ….. it’s just got to be a big lie. And who do they think they’re kidding? You and me, that’s who!

 

Of course, wAR is important for both your main-line and your hook-length lines. With the advent of specimen fishing in gravel-pits and the like, there seems to be a greater need for lines with improved wAR.

 

The thing with hook-lengths though, is that you only need short lengths and therefore, pro rata, you can afford to pay a much higher price per metre/yd than you would for your main-line. Kryston braided hook-lengths, for example, are good meaty braids with plenty of combined C-S A, and I know for a fact that they are properly tested and tried before any label claims are printed or they are sold to the angling public.

 

Personally, because without exception, each and every knot is a potential weak link, I prefer whenever I can, to use a line that I can run right through to the hook and to use a Knotless Knot for that!

 

Although I am also a big user of braids, with them I do tend, for various reasons, to use a hook-length braid.

 

With monos though, for me this usually means choosing a nylon co-polymer main-line that has good wAR.

 

However, there’s usually a trade-off and a price to pay for good wAR, in that often the line can’t be as supple or as easily cast as you would otherwise like. So I guess, as usual, it’s horses-for-courses … except that I don’t want to get taken for a ride when I’m buying some allegedly High-wAR line.

 

For this reason, and with the help of many anglers, magazines, retailers, companies and laboratories, I’ve been collecting raw test data on as many lines as I can, and paying special attention to keeping the data up-to-date. Call me cynical if you like, but my basic starting-point through bitter experience, is to ignore fishing-tackle marketing companies’ claims. Please note that I deliberately didn’t say manufacturers because I am sure that they, the manufacturers, can or do supply trustworthy data to marketing companies …it’s just that, in many cases, the latter get carried-away with their competing claims and ignore the data and the facts. Under EU law, though, it is incumbent on the retailer to ensure that the claims of the products sold are true. In turn, the retailers have recourse against their suppliers where products are faulty or carry false claims.

 

Some marketing companies carry-out tests that are a complete joke, in order to back-up their claims for High-AR, and just to save a few quid, rather than having proper tests carried-out. Whether it’s apocryphal or nor, I heard that one company tests the lines by rubbing them over a dry rust nail or the edge of a table.

 

So you can see that the poor hard-done-by retailers reliant upon their customers and suppliers, are between a rock and a hard place, when it comes to tackle, especially lines. They also have the problem of stock-levels and the finite shelf-life on lines in stock.

 

Now when it comes to some more hard facts about AR, you can’t beat Dave Barham’s ace tests although they were done dry .. HERE ..... and I have to say that the additional data I have acquired completely bears-out his findings, although I also have plenty of other comparative data between them and other more modern lines.

 

I think it’s also fair to say that the lines in Dave’s tests are primarily designed for the rough and tumble of the sea-fishing scene, although the results do of course apply equally to good old fresh-water fishing too.

 

So … which line to choose for some good wAR ? Bear in-mind also, that a high-wAR line is likely to be a tad stiff and wiry …….. Well, dear old Maxima Chameleon has taken a bit of a bashing on most of the other important parameters, including cost/metre, but as far as wAR is concerned, it’s fairly high up the list, but below a couple of lines from Sufix, Drennan’s ESP, Fox’s Soft Steel, Insight GR60, and Nash’s Bullet ….. it’s better than Daiwa Sensor though .. not by a lot … but better nevertheless … and so it should be at ca. 4-times the cost.

 

Not surprisingly, some supple lines such as Stren Easy-cast perform poorly in the wAR stakes compared with Maxima.

 

So, folks, how do you go-about choosing your high, wet-abrasion-resistance lines? Which ones do you use? Do you believe the label claims (dry abrasion resistance)? How applicable are these to fishing? Are we being conned & ripped-off? So now, Guys & gals, it’s over to you …………

 

DG

 

P.S. Folks, I forgot to ask .... can we please try not to confuse lill ole me, and keep this thread an AR one, not BS, not suppleness etc etc Fanks

 

P.P.S. Please don't even think about mentioning braids (e.g. PowerPro and its AR claims ) .. because of the significance of C-S A, B.S.-for-B.S, low diamter Spectra or Dyneema braids, no matter what their coating, have virtually no wAR compared with monos, which are of course much thicker.

 

<small>[ 26. February 2004, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: The Diamond Geezer ]</small>