Annual Line Stretch Test (Updated 2016)

The last couple of years I have conducted a stretch test of a variety of fishing lines. I have now tested 20 lines – mono, co-polymer and fluorocarbon. My initial hope was to go beyond line manufacturer’s claims of “low stretch” because I found it varied greatly, and find out for myself.

I’m just an amateur and not affiliated or sponsored by anyone, but this was an interesting exercise for me. It will influence what products I buy going forward.

Like anything in fishing, I don’t think any single product will work all the time. I mostly use braid as a main line but usually tie on a leader for low visibility and abrasion resistance. In these situations I may actually opt for a leader material with more stretch to offset some of the no-stretch characteristics of braid. Other times, like when casting crank baits, I want a line with some give so I don’t tear the trebles out of the fish’s mouth. But then again, I don’t want a long hook set with a line that stretches like a rubber band either…

I hope you find the results as interesting as I did, it was kind of a fun way to kill some cabin fever the past couple years… -Fry

Here are the results, biggest change this year was testing select lines wet vs. dry ~

LINE STRETCH TEST

I used a 12 foot piece of each line and hung an 8 pound weight to see how much each line stretched in inches. All lines were 8 lb test. Below are the results – least stretch to most stretch.

All Lines Tested
Trilene XT (Mono) 21-1/4 inches of stretch
Yo-Zuri Hybrid (Co-polymer) 22-1/8
Sufix Seige (Mono) 22-5/8
P-Line CX Premium (Co-polymer) 23-1/2
Maxima Treazure (Co-polymer) 24-1/2
Trilene XL (Mono) 24-3/4
Tectan Superior (Mono) 25-7/8
Berkley Sensation (Mono) 26-1/8
Sunline Sniper (Fluorocarbon) 26-1/2
Gamma Touch (Fluorocarbon) 29-1/4
Original Blue Stren (Mono) 29-3/4
Gamma Edge (Fluorocarbon) 31-0**
Bass Pro XPS (Fluorocarbon) 31-3/4*
Stren 100% (Fluorocast) 31-3/4*
Seaguar Tatsu (Fluorocarbon) 32-3/4
P-Line 100% (Fluorocarbon) 33-0*
Seaguar Invizx (Fluorocarbon) 36-0**
Berkley 100% (Fluorocarbon) 38-3/8

Line snapped once and was re-tested
** Line snapped twice – length estimated

Broken Down By Line Type
3 Co-polymer lines average stretch: 23.4 inches
6 Monofilament lines average stretch: 25.1 inches
9 fluorocarbon lines average stretch: 32.2 inches

Line Diameter
Line diameter can have an effect on stretch, but 9 of these lines all had the same diameter (.009 inches). Those lines are broken out below. The overall results are similar for the 3 different line types.

P-Line CX Premium (Co-polymer) 23-1/2
Maxima Treazure (Co-polymer) 24-1/2
Tectan Superior (Mono) 25-7/8
Berkley Sensation (Mono) 26-1/8
Sunline Sniper (Fluorocarbon) 26-1/2
Gamma Touch (Fluorocarbon) 29-1/4
Bass Pro XPS (Fluorocarbon) 31-3/4*
Seaguar Tatsu (Fluorocarbon) 32-3/4
Seaguar Invizx (Fluorocarbon) 36-0**

”Wet vs. Dry”
The above line stretch test was conducted with dry lines, which raises the question of whether mono, co-polymer and fluorocarbon lines stretch differently when wet? Two lines in each category were soaked for 24 hours and re-tested. Results were as follows:

Fluorocarbon lines
Sunline Sniper: dry 26 1/2 inches vs. wet at 27 1/8.
Berkley 100% fluorocarbon: dry 38 3/8 inches vs. wet at 39 inches.

Co-Polymer lines
Yo-Zuri Hybrid: dry 22 1/8 vs. wet at 25 1/4
P-Line CX Premium: 23 1/2 vs. wet at 35 1/8

Mono
Trilene XT: dry 21 1/4 vs. wet at 28 7/8
Trilene XL: dry 24 3/4 vs. wet at 36 1/2

OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
*Newer Co-polymer lines being marketed specifically as “low stretch” for the most part seem to be accurate (when tested dry).

*Fluorocarbon tends to be the line with most stretch.

*Monofilament tends to be somewhere in the middle, although those with a thicker diameter (i.e. Trilene XT .011 and Sufix Seige .010) did stretch less.

*Line diameter may have an effect on the stretch of certain lines, but overall, lines of the same diameter seem to reflect that Co-polymer and Monofilament lines still stretch less than Fluorocarbon (when tested dry).

*Mono and Co-polymer lines tend to stretch more when wet vs. dry. Most “catch up” to fluorocarbon in terms of overall stretch, however one co-polymer (Yo-zuri Hybrid) tested lower than any fluorocarbon either wet or dry.

*Fluorocarbon lines tend to break easier when stretched to their maximum breaking strength.

Never got to try the Yozuri you were telling me about, but the CXX in 4# so far this open water season has impressed me quite a bit.

With two main rods that have 6# Sensation and #4 CXX I hope I can find the ultimate cold water line this spring.

Excellent data! Berkley did a study years ago confirming your test results. Fluorocarbon does NOT have less stretch than most monos/copoly line. Nice observation showing just how mono changes after soaking in water.

What makes Fluoro more sensitive is that it is much denser than mono, allowing vibration/bites to transmit back to the user.

Braid is a hole different can of worms!

Awesome work frydog. I love your tests and have used it in consideration when buying lines.

Thanks for doing this!

What lb test was used. Was the stretch elastic, plastic or both. What I mean did the line return to it’s orginal length at the end of test (elastic)?

gizmoguy wrote:

What lb test was used. Was the stretch elastic, plastic or both. What I mean did the line return to it’s orginal length at the end of test (elastic)?

I used 8 pound test for each line. Interesting that most of the mono and co-polymer lines returned somewhat to their original shape and length. However it was very clear that the fluorocarbon was unusable after the stretch…a number of those lines snapped but all were coiled up like a slinky.

How long did you let the weight hang before measuring?

very cool data, I always assumed Flouro stretched less.

mplspug wrote:

How long did you let the weight hang before measuring?

I lowered the weight gradually (because many of the fluorocarbons snapped if I didn’t) over about 15-20 seconds and let it hang until 30 seconds and took the measurement. I’m sure if I let the weight hang longer it would have stretched even further but most lines “plateaued” at approx 20-30 seconds.

What you are doing is basically a poor man’s tensile test. The best way to test the stretch of these lines, by your method may be using 1/4 of the rated lb test or so. That way it would be actual stretch or the elastic properties. By your response some of them were exhibiting elastic deformation and others plastic deformation. When you tensile test something it all goes through the same set of properties. Be it fishing line or a steel bar. First is elastic. The point when the load is released it will return to its original length. Second is plastic. It hasn’t broke but is deformed or stretched and will not return to its original length. The point between the elastic and plastic is called the yield point. It goes on from there until it breaks or UTS the Ultimate tensile strength. So not all your materials are equal. And what you are looking for is what is seen in an actual fishing scenario. Those lines wouldn’t come close to what you subject them to. Just a thought.

Evan Pheneger wrote:

very cool data, I always assumed Flouro stretched less.

Me too, that’s why I originally bought fluorocarbon 7-8 years ago. But my on-water experienced suggested different. I think the line manufacturers market FC as low stretch pretty hard. In some cases it might be but not most of the time in my experience. They market FC pretty hard maybe in part because its 2-3 times more expensive. Don’t get me wrong, I think it has its place but it’s not a true low-stretch option despite what the manufacturers and pros (who are sponsored by them) might tell you. At least in my opinion —

The stretch you see in the flouros may be less. It is less elastic. Your test showed that. You just pushed them into plastic deformation.

gizmoguy wrote:

The stretch you see in the flouros may be less. It is less elastic. Your test showed that. You just pushed them into plastic deformation.

Yes, using an 8 pound weight on 8 pound test line really pushes the lines to their outer limits and exaggerates the differences between lines … But that’s what I wanted to do. Using a lighter weight might be more realistic of the fish we typically catch but I think the stretch results would have ran together more. So yes in reality your line might stretch less in the real world (especially if you’re good at catching smaller fish like me

Great analysis frydog…I couldn’t agree more with your conclusion that Flourocarbon lines stretch the most over other lines.

I always laugh when I hear some pro staff representing his line talking up fluorocarbon as “low stretch”. Flourocarbon lines are great in certain situations but “low stretch” they are not. At least you backed up your claim with data.

I remember the first time I tried a fluorocarbon line on P2. When I got hung up on a wingdam I could walk the entire length of my 16′ boat trying to pull the snag out only to have the line stretch the entire time. Like your observations, it seems to permanently deform once it reaches a certain stretch point too.

I am wondering though with the characteristics of the lines, is there less stretch when setting the hook? I am talking about a rapid weight load on a line. Obviously that wouldn’t be a DIY test or at least I can’t think of a way to test that.

I guess its been a while since I have even used mono, but to me it “feels” like less stretch. But that could be a number of characteristics leading to that perception.

kwp wrote:

I always laugh when I hear some pro staff representing his line talking up fluorocarbon as “low stretch”. Flourocarbon lines are great in certain situations but “low stretch” they are not. At least you backed up your claim with data.

I remember the first time I tried a fluorocarbon line on P2. When I got hung up on a wingdam I could walk the entire length of my 16′ boat trying to pull the snag out only to have the line stretch the entire time. Like your observations, it seems to permanently deform once it reaches a certain stretch point too.

gizmoguy wrote:

The stretch you see in the flouros may be less. It is less elastic. Your test showed that. You just pushed them into plastic deformation.

I like you’re test frydog but agree with gizmo and your test does prove it. I think a large number of fishermen still don’t fully understand what gizmo is saying about elastic deformation and plastic deformation.

Despite that, the one thing everyone should be able to understand is that a large number of pro’s use fluoro carbon line, (mostly as leaders) and they’re not moving away from it despite test like frydogs.
That should say something!

“Despite that, the one thing everyone should be able to understand is that a large number of pro’s use fluoro carbon line, (mostly as leaders) and they’re not moving away from it despite test like frydogs.
That should say something!”

I’m a big fan of using fluorocarbon as a leader tied to braid myself and I know a lot of pros do to.

But as a main line I think the answer is mixed. Some pros really might prefer it, but part of me thinks they use it because of their sponsorship… its the most expensive and probably the most profitable line most manufacturers sell, so there could be some pressure/influence to use/highlight it more too.

I use it strictly as a leader myself. Have for years and see no good reason for ever going back to mono as a leader material.

SSSSH Frydog,
Don’t tell Van Dam it stretches more. Yes flouro is best left to leaders and changed frequently. It stretches out and does not go back then it breaks. Part of the reasons for odd breakages with it. In gin cllear water I think it makes a difference. My cabin is on a lake with 25 ft seeci disk reading and it does there. Anywhere else not so much.

Mwal

mwal wrote:

SSSSH Frydog,
Don’t tell Van Dam it stretches more. Yes flouro is best left to leaders and changed frequently. It stretches out and does not go back then it breaks. Part of the reasons for odd breakages with it. In gin cllear water I think it makes a difference. My cabin is on a lake with 25 ft seeci disk reading and it does there. Anywhere else not so much.

Mwal

Being a smallmouth guy, KVD and Al Lindner might be the two best smallie fishermen alive IMO … yet I’ve heard both of them say fluorocarbon stretches less on TV shows this year. Could argue they both know a lot more than I do… but they are both sponsored too and that could have some influence.

Mwal, you and I did discuss that clear lake of yours before and I’m trying to figure out a way to get up there some time this season, long shot but maybe. If I get there you can bet all of my rods will be braid tipped with low-viz fluorocarbon. Save a couple 6 pounders for me !!

Very interesting test. I’ve noticed that while flourocarbon seems to be quite popular among professionals, the Lindners continue to be use mono quite often.

I think if you are testing the line’s test to break, what you are doing is fine, however if you are talking stretch as it relates to sensitivity and hook setting transmission, I agree with gizmoguy, you should use less weight.

Good idea and great effort, though, thanks for sharing!

Never have heard a sponsored pro tell the truth about stretch and flouro, but this test confirms what those in the industry know – and keep quiet.

I believe that the reason folks have bought into the ‘low stretch’ misconception is because flouro is elastic and does not snap back like mono, so the stretch is not as obvious as with the elastic property of mono. Plus, being a more dense material means flouro begins to elongate less quickly than mono, which also reduces shock absorption characteristics.

Here is a great explanation
href=”http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/the-truth-about-fluorocarbon.html”>

not sure the add link worked right
http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/the-truth-about-fluorocarbon.html

copy paste this

I couldn’t resist…I just had to put the data in a bar graph to make it more clear. I graphed the %stretch over 144 inches.

Remember, this isn’t the overall stretch just what it is under a load of 8 lbs. Some lines even broke before 8 lbs of load. I can’t wait to show this data to a Pro Staffer the next time he says “this low stretch fluorocarbon”. Flourocarbon still has a great application but it isn’t low stretch.

Great work Frydog. The data never lies.

Attachments:

1. 

   line.jpg
   

Why do some people seemingly hate fluoro with a passion?

My only complaints are the knot strength and the line sinking is not conducive to bobber fishing or still fishing.

For knots, sometimes it takes several tries because it wasn’t lubricated enough or cinched carefully. Once I get a knot to take though, I am confident in its strength.

The data never lies….but does it apply to any fishing situations on the water. If it doesn’t, then what did it prove concerning functionality.

Question: How many times while fishing, do you think that you actually apply 8lbs of pressure with your fishing rod?

My best guess, is not only never, but not ever even close.

gizmoguy wrote:

not sure the add link worked right
http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/the-truth-about-fluorocarbon.html

copy paste this

Great article, it was fun to read it and tape into my inner nerd.