Thought on Knot Wars

[Ron Fogelson]

Anyone know if they do a shock test or are all of the test done on a steady pull?

I ask because I don't know of anyone they sets the hook on a steady controlled pull and thought that maybe the results of the wars could be much different if tested with a hook set.  Maybe simulate a hook set followed by a steady pull to more closely match the use of the line & knot in the field.   

[DBrooke]

Every time I have seen it on TV it's been a steady pull. C'mon Ron, when you get a bite don't you slowly pull the boat backwards till the hook is set? 

[Ron Fogelson]

Nope maybe that's what I'm doing wrong 

[skeeter90]

Just out of thought what knot do you guys use for fluro?

[-Shawn-]

I use the No knot. Absolutely the best knot I have ever tried for flouro. 

[bass1cpr]

   IT's done on a steady pull Ron but it's pretty quick. There's no slack when they hit the switch it's on.
   There's slack line to be taken up on the hook set. I think the real shock comes when the fish starts fighting back and we have the the line tight already and they wrap us up in cover and try to pull loose. They're pulling on a short piece of line once it's wrapped up and that's the hardest stress there is on a line. JMHO.

[Ron Fogelson]

I use the No knot. Absolutely the best knot I have ever tried for flouro. 

Agree 100% this is the only knot I use other than a surgeons knot to join two lines.


Bass1cpr while I agree with your thought on a bass pulling on a short piece of line once they get hung up I have found over the years that most times when my line has broke has been on or right after a hook set.  Haven't had that issue now with the no-knot but with other knots that dig or cut in on it's self to hold together I was thinking that a better test would be to add some type of hook set to the test.

[bass1cpr]

   I understand your thinking and agree that knot failure is the cause of most break off's after the hook set, but as Guido Hibdon once told me and I believe him, you can't set the hook on a fish with more than four pounds of pressure no matter how big you are. Now I know there can be differances in thought here on the subject and part of mine is that the fish are in a liquid medium and they are gonna move a little before they can respond and offer resistance. I know that setting on a big fish feels a lot differant than setting on your average two or three pounder. But then again I've launched a lot of smaller fish across the boat like being shot out of a sling shot and that makes me think more that Guido was wright. Force moves weight. If we were setting with 20 pounds of force we'd be launching two and three pound fish. Does that make sense to you. Just sort of my thinking.

[-Shawn-]

I think it makes sense with mono and some Flouro, But with braid I think you can apply as much force as the fish can deflect.  Another words, it lakes less force to move a 12" fish than it does to move a 5lb fish so the force could be multiplied when you go to zero stretch of braid.  So I think this would also be true with different flouro's and Mono's The less force that is lost to line stretch , the more force that is tranfered through the knot to the fish. 

[Lee Smith]

I know you can roll a 7# bass with 65 # braid and turn her belly up from 8' of water!  Can't do that with mono or fluro! 

[coldfront]

are you sure the knots are breaking at the hook?  or is it possible that there's a 'weakness' up the line?

seems to me that flouro might act a 'bit more crystalline' in that a quick hard shock might cause 'shattering' versus 'cutting'...

[JMGullo]

X2 what Lsmith said

[bass1cpr]

   Shawn you've explained part of the theory on why you can't generate more than four pounds of pressure with mono or Fluorocarbon strech. I agree that most braids have zero strech but I don't think there's a multilplier anywhere. The fish is still in a liquid medium and will have some give before giving resistance. The turning of a large fish is proof of the zero strech allowing you to move the fish quicker but it did not multiply the force.
   I guess one of the only ways to test the theory is with a spring scale attached to a one or two pound weight on a hard bottom or slick surface trying so simulate a fish's natural resistance. I think it would still have to be done in a liquid medium maybe a swimming pool. That way your putting all of the factors into the test just like the natural setting. I have one of the old spring scales that has a sliding indicator on it to show the weight where the spring stopped but I don't have a swimming pool and most of them are frozen over here anyway. Maybe someone in the warmer climate could give it a try and post the results of their test's. I'm open for more input if anyone else cares to join in.

[Ron Fogelson]

Not sure I buy a max of a 4lbs hook set, broke to many fish with 12lbs/15lbs line over this years on a hook set and have had 2 & 3lbs fish learn to fly while in shallow water LOL

[bass1cpr]

   Coldfront I wasn't questioning what was causing the breaks just stating the amount of force we can generate on a hook set. Not all breaks happen at the knot some happen above the knot from nicks and abrasion and one of the reasons for retying often. On a knot testing machine your using a steady pull on a measured piece of new line thus removing a variable.
   I think your example of shattering would fall under impact resistance. But I'm open to listening. So far none of us have given any scientific proof just our thoughts and experience.

[Ron Fogelson]

I need to fnd me one of those scales and do some testing here, at some point I would think the depth will have a bigger impact on the force of the hook set.

[DBrooke]

Yeah  I imagine pulling a 1/2 ounce jig in 6' versus 25' will have a different pressure to it.

[coldfront]

I need to fnd me one of those scales and do some testing here, at some point I would think the depth will have a bigger impact on the force of the hook set.

technically it shouldn't on braided line if it's indeed zero stretch...

mono/flouro would be different...and based on work done looking at 'stretch' the degree of stretch would also seem to be somewhat determined by how long the line was in the water...


CPR, I'd think we'd have to be able to really look closely at the lines to insure that
a.  they hadn't been 'pre-stretched' and
b.  there was not any 'imperfection' or 'knick' in the line prior to testing.

I'm thinking these are/will be most difficult to determine...if possible at all for 'us'...


on another side of the event...thinking through this using my high school physics where
Force = mass x acceleration

In this instance, the rod will stay the same (it's the mass) until it 'loads' up...and this will stay relatively constant 'until' the rod loads completely and the angler than moves it a further distance...(did I say this right?)

Acceleration would be the primary variable...and I'm betting that's going to be a lot 'closer' in terms of variance.


Now, would a 6-7 foot angler who has the ability to 'move the rod in a larger/longer' arc have the ability to generate more force?  I would say 'yes'...only because the 'length of the rod arc/set' would have a greater percentage of 'it' where the rod would be fully loaded...

Which, if the theory is correct...would also suggest that a taller angler, with longer rods wouldn't need as long of a set 'stroke' to generate plenty of hook setting power..and might also suggest that anglers that are built like Paul Bunyan, if they are breaking off on the hook sets...could set up strategies to compensate...and not compromise their hook set percentages...while 'upping' their 'landing' percentages...


Just thinking all 'nerd=like' out loud...      

[-Shawn-]

   Shawn you've explained part of the theory on why you can't generate more than four pounds of pressure with mono or Fluorocarbon strech. I agree that most braids have zero strech but I don't think there's a multilplier anywhere. The fish is still in a liquid medium and will have some give before giving resistance. The turning of a large fish is proof of the zero strech allowing you to move the fish quicker but it did not multiply the force.
   I guess one of the only ways to test the theory is with a spring scale attached to a one or two pound weight on a hard bottom or slick surface trying so simulate a fish's natural resistance. I think it would still have to be done in a liquid medium maybe a swimming pool. That way your putting all of the factors into the test just like the natural setting. I have one of the old spring scales that has a sliding indicator on it to show the weight where the spring stopped but I don't have a swimming pool and most of them are frozen over here anyway. Maybe someone in the warmer climate could give it a try and post the results of their test's. I'm open for more input if anyone else cares to join in.

Tom, the Multiplier I am talking about would have to do with the weight and mass of the fish.

It would take more force to move a 5lb fish than it would to move a 1lb fish, So effectively you would have more resistance to movement and could apply more force to the hook point before there was any give.

I know how much my rod bows when I am swinging in a 5lb fish and it can bow much farther on the intial hookset.  So it would stand to reason that it has more force being applied to it. 

[coldfront]

So it would stand to reason that it has more force being applied to it. 

yes. 

[bass1cpr]

   Ok I'm not taking it to quantum level.    I'll settle for good ole field testing. I didn't have high school physics if I did I missed that day.
I've been in the boat with guys who broke Gloomis rods on the hook set but it wasn't a fish. It was a stump or log firmly anchored. It was Loud though. Scartet me.
   I've seen and had lots of broken line hook sets but I'll attribute that to angler errror and not checking line or retying often enough. Some have been knot failure Little curly que at end of line when you reel it in.

   I will agree that depth will have an affect because we sweep the rod when using a carolina rig a standard hook set motion just doesn't work to good. Same for a deep jig bite but your still not generating more than four pounds of pull during the hook set.

   Soak times and all the technical stuff is great for testing line strech but just not applicable to a fishing situation in the field. That's lab stuff.

  Someone prove Guido wrong. That's what I'm standing on. I've caught a lot of fish and he's caught more than me and his wiskers or longer than mine.
   Another thought the rod loads after the hook set.
   

[-Shawn-]

That's what I am saying, WHEN did Guido say this?  Because there is definately a big difference in the amount of hookforce on mono and Braid.  Also with the weight of the fish.  I am disagreeing with Guido on the fact that with the equipment we are using today compared to 15 years ago there is a Big diffference in the amount of force that can be applied to the hook. 

[bass1cpr]

   This was a conversation about two years ago.

[coldfront]

   Soak times and all the technical stuff is great for testing line strech but just not applicable to a fishing situation in the field. That's lab stuff

agreed that it's not 'quantifiable' easily 'in the field'...but it does have applications...and might go a ways toward explaining why Ron breaks off one day...or multiple times in one day...and not so much the other days.

Well, that and whether or not he had one/two bowls of wheaties...

[-Shawn-]

If you ever saw Ron set a Hook it would be self explanatory.