Editor’s Note

This is the first in what could be a number of line testing articles by Barry. In this first one Barry has used an assortment of lines, including lots of old and obscure ones. He has also provided an exceptional amount of data so that the tables had to be split because they wouldn’t fit across the page. In future only essential data about modern monos and braids will be included, making the whole thing easier to follow. We decided to publish this first, rather complex, set of tables more as an indication of what Barry is capable of. He will be pleased to receive your feedback and suggestions on the forum – Graham.

I have had a paranoia about the reliability of nylon monofilament lines since the early 1950’s when I was given a spool of the, then revolutionary new fishing line, Luron2, from ICI. After only a few weeks the stuff started to degrade, a white, powdery substance forming on the surface. Whenever I saw this powder I washed the line in fresh water and all seemed well with the world again.

After a couple of months I hooked into the biggest fish I had ever had on my line, a tench of about a pound or so. Not having a landing net I played the fish carefully and tried to lift it out. Despite having a (weaker) gut hook link the infamous Luron2 parted just below my hand and I had to watch as the tench slowly righted itself and swam back into the deeps trailing hook to gut and about a foot of the now hated mono.


Line testing machine
By this time a few more mono’s had made an appearance and were all much better than the Luron. They still had a tendency to degrade and whenever I saw the white powder I replaced it with another 25yds.

Early tests with cables ties and a spring balance

Some years after this I became the proud possessor of a cheap spring balance – I never caught anything big enough to weigh but it was useful for checking the strength of the lines. This state of affairs continued until the 1970’s when I felt that something a bit more sophisticated was required.

After much tearing of hair I had a brainwave. Nylon cable ties were then coming into general use, so I fixed a cable tie to the hook on the spring balance, ran the tie through another tie and tied the line to be tested to the end of the first cable tie. With the second tie fixed firmly to the shed door, the line was pulled to breaking point and the spring balance was prevented from retracting by the locking action of the cable ties. Brilliant thought I.

But there was a drawback, every time you tested a line you needed two new ties. I got over this by using the pawl and spring from an old, broken cable tie gun that I recovered from the scrap bin at work. This system worked admirably for about 20 years but as time went on I felt that more improvements (giving better repeatability) were needed.

Then spring movement was measured

A couple of years ago I started toying with the idea of retaining the spring balance but instead of reading the break point straight from the scale I could measure the actual movement of the spring.

I did this by removing the pointer from the scale and fixing a piece of angle alloy to the barrel of the spring balance, at the top by using the tapped hole vacated by the pointer and at the bottom via a fabricated clamp. To the alloy I fixed a miniature toothed belt scavenged from an old printer. As the barrel descends, the toothed belt turns a pulley connected to an electronic pulser scavenged from an old flow meter. The pulser output is connected to some electronics trickery with the final output going directly to an LCD display showing the exact (to 2 decimal places) breaking point in kilos. This figure is held until a reset button is pressed. Repeatability, on a good sample, is usually to within a couple of hundredths of a kilo. This is a vast improvement over the old system where repeatability was never better than about 0.2 of a kilo. Accuracy is equal to the accuracy of the spring balance, a good quality Salter tubular balance of 10lb range x 0.1 lb resolution.


The readout
The line is tensioned by using a small, geared electric motor driving a small diameter spindle. The line is fixed to the spindle by a friction device and to the hook on the balance by another friction device. This has proved to be satisfactory way of comparing any line to the makers spec (or to other lines) but I feel that the lines should be tested knotted (and preferably wet) to reflect actual fishing conditions.

The electronics were adjusted by using known weights (1kg bags of Sugar) and calibrating accordingly. I don’t know the accuracy of the whole system (when in use) but would be very surprised if it is not better than plus or minus 1/2 %. I am an Instrument Technician by trade and am used to calibrating other measuring devices to within + or – 0.1%.

Data is for information only

This is how the system remains today and how I obtained the following data. This data is for information only and I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions. This data is not of very much general use due to the hodgepodge of lines that I had available to test. It served its purpose for me at the time. The most useful thing (to me) is the ‘index of strength’ figure which allows you to compare different lines of different BS’s and arrive at a comparison. If you look at the control data you’ll see that the ‘index of strength’ seems to reduce as the line gets thicker, I can’t explain this. If I can get some more manufacturer’s data it would be interesting to see if this trend is repeated. If so it may be due to some error in my maths, (feel free to check it yourself) if it proves to be a peculiarity of the material it may be worth including a correction figure into the equation to compensate for this.


Line is over the spindle on the left
As mentioned in my original posting on the forum, I felt that some lines were identical to others from different makers/suppliers. These conclusions were based on the colour and ‘feel’ of the line. As I didn’t make any notes of this at the time of testing it is now impossible to tell which was which without re-testing the whole lot. I don’t think it would prove anything though as too much time has passed since the original tests and it will have deteriorated even further. Also much of the line which was acceptable has now been used up. What would be useful would be to set up another series of tests using a range of BS’s from different suppliers. If some one were to supply ranges of lines (4 or 5 metres of each would be enough) from several different suppliers I think that I could come up with some surprising conclusions.

Data on this page is taken from the Bayer web site www.bayerfaser.com and is only intended as a control table to test the validity of my ‘index of strength’ figure.

Bayer type X170 (hi tec) Bayer type X120 (standard mono)
B.S. dia i.o.s. csa B.S. dia i.o.s. csa
Kilos (mm) (kilos/mm2) ( mm2) Kilos (mm) (kilos/mm2) (mm2)
0.9 0.1 114.59 0.008 0.7 0.1 89.13 0.008
1.3 0.12 114.95 0.011 0.85 0.12 75.16 0.011
1.8 0.14 116.93 0.015 1.2 0.14 77.95 0.015
2.3 0.16 114.39 0.02 1.55 0.16 77.09 0.02
2.9 0.18 113.96 0.025 1.9 0.18 74.67 0.025
3.6 0.2 114.59 0.031 2.4 0.2 76.39 0.031
4.3 0.22 113.12 0.038 2.9 0.22 76.29 0.038
5.5 0.25 112.05 0.049 3.9 0.25 79.45 0.049
6.6 0.275 111.12 0.059 4.3 0.275 72.4 0.059
7.7 0.3 108.93 0.071 4.9 0.3 69.32 0.071
8.5 0.325 102.46 0.083 5.6 0.325 67.5 0.083
10 0.35 103.94 0.096 6.7 0.35 69.64 0.096
12 0.375 108.65 0.11 7.5 0.375 67.91 0.11
14 0.4 111.41 0.126 8.4 0.4 66.85 0.126
17 0.45 106.89 0.159 9.5 0.425 66.97 0.142
19 0.5 96.77 0.196 11 0.45 69.16 0.159


poundage applied

cross sectional area (csa) = Pi*((Dia/2)*(Dia/2))
index of strength (i.o.s.) = B.S in kilos/csa

Example 1Example 2
Dia (mm)0.10mm0.10mm
Breaking Strain (kg)0.90kg 0.70
Cross Sectional Area 0.01mm2
0.01mm2
Index of Strength (ios)114.59kg per mm2 89.13kg per mm2

Data on this page was obtained from lines that I considered too old to be reliable OR had proved to be un-reliable.

Maker/ supplier Maker’s spec.
line type approx. age B.S. (kilos) dia. (mm)
Ultima Pro match >1 year 0.8 0.08
Smart > 1yr 1.8 0.12
Ultima Pro match > 1 year 0.9 0.09
Dam Tectan >5 yrs 0.8 0.08
Dam Tectan >5 yrs 0.9 0.09
Silstar Match Team > 1 year 0.8 0.08
Daiwa Super Shinobi > 2years 1.361 0.128
Daiwa Team Daiwa >3 years 1.134 0.15
Dam Tectan >5 yrs 0.48 0.06
Ignesti Special > 5years 0.9 0.08
Dam Tectan >5 yrs 0.6 0.07
Dam Tectan >5years 1.2 0.108
Bayer Bayer perlon 10 yrs 1.18 0.16
Drennan Super Specialist < 1 yr 1.8 0.2
Dam Tectan >5 yrs 1.4 0.12
Ultima Pro match > 1 year 1.5 0.12
Dam Tectan >5 yrs 1.4 0.12
Fly Barbetta > 3 years 1.3 0.12
Aiken Bayer perlon >10 years 0.77 0.125
Map Carptec 3 months 1.4 0.12
Daiwa Super Shinobi > 2years 1.361 0.128
Daiwa Super Shinobi > 2 years 0.907 0.104
Ignesti Special >5yrs 0.68 0.06
Sundridge Sylcast >6years 1.134 0.16
Ultima Pro match > 1 year 1.6 0.16
Ultima Pro match >1 year 2.041 0.16
Kamasan Feeder Line > 1 year 1.8 0.2
Kamasan Strong > 1 year 1.36 0.14

Maker/ supplier Actual specification.
line type B.S. (kilos) deviation from claimed bs dia. (mm) deviation from claimed dia Index of strength (kilos/mm2) line area (square mm)
Ultima Pro match 0.8 0 0.099 0.019 103.93 0.008
Smart 1.11 -0.69 0.124 0.004 91.92 0.012
Ultima Pro match 0.79 -0.11 0.105 0.015 91.23 0.009
Dam Tectan 0.64 -0.16 0.096 0.016 88.42 0.007
Dam Tectan 0.87 -0.03 0.113 0.023 86.75 0.01
Silstar Match Team 0.58 -0.22 0.093 0.013 85.38 0.007
Daiwa Super Shinobi 1.134 -0.227 0.132 0.004 82.87 0.014
Daiwa Team Daiwa 1.438 0.304 0.15 0 81.37 0.018
Dam Tectan 0.33 -0.15 0.073 0.013 78.85 0.004
Ignesti Special 0.54 -0.36 0.094 0.014 77.81 0.007
Dam Tectan 0.44 -0.16 0.086 0.016 75.75 0.006
Dam Tectan 0.9 -0.3 0.124 0.016 74.53 0.012
Bayer Bayer perlon 1.38 0.2 0.16 0 68.64 0.02
Drennan Super Specialist 2.15 0.35 0.2 0 68.44 0.031
Dam Tectan 1.02 -0.38 0.138 0.018 68.19 0.015
Ultima Pro match 1.19 -0.31 0.15 0.03 67.34 0.018
Dam Tectan 1.06 -0.34 0.142 0.022 66.93 0.016
Fly Barbetta 0.83 -0.47 0.126 0.006 66.57 0.012
Aiken Bayer perlon 0.86 0.09 0.129 0.004 65.8 0.013
Map Carptec 0.77 -0.63 0.124 0.004 63.76 0.012
Daiwa Super Shinobi 0.821 -0.54 0.131 0.003 60.91 0.013
Daiwa Super Shinobi 0.544 -0.363 0.109 0.005 58.3 0.009
Ignesti Special 0.27 -0.41 0.077 0.017 57.98 0.005
Sundridge Sylcast 1.361 0.227 0.175 0.015 56.58 0.024
Ultima Pro match 1.6 0 0.19 0.03 56.43 0.028
Ultima Pro match 1.587 -0.454 0.19 0.03 55.97 0.028
Kamasan Feeder Line 1.82 0.02 0.21 0.01 52.55 0.035
Kamasan Strong 0.92 -0.44 0.151 0.011 51.37 0.018

Data on this page was arrived at by testing new or nearly new lines OR lines that I had previously tested crudely and that I was happy to continue to use.

Makers claimed spec.
Maker/ supplier line type approx. age breaking strain dia. (mm)
Kilos lbs
Drennan feeder braid new 2.72 6 0.15
Colmic Xilo 1 year 1.48 3.26 0.1
Map Carptec 3 months 1.4 3.09 0.12
Map Carptec 3 months 1.07 2.36 0.1
Preston power line 3 months 2.68 5.91 0.15
Daiwa Super Shinobi new 1.81 4 0.15
Reflo Direct mono new 1.15 2.5 0.14
Reflo Direct mono new 1.36 3 0.16
Reflo Direct mono new 1.15 2.5 0.14
Drennan Super Specialist new 1.54 3.4 0.18
Drennan Super Specialist new 1.8 4 0.2
Reflo Direct mono new 1.8 4 0.18
Maxima Chameleon new 0.91 2 0.12
Aiken Bayer perlon new * * *
Maxima Chameleon new 1.13 2.5 0.14

Actual specification
Maker/ supplier line type B.S. deviation from claimed B.S. Dia. (mm) deviation from claimed dia. Index of strength (kilos/mm2) Actual line area (mm2) line type
Kilos lbs
Drennan feeder braid 3.18 7 0.46 0.2 0.05 101.22 0.03 braid
Colmic Xilo 0.98 2.16 -0.5 0.11 0 111.05 0.01 Hi tec
Map Carptec 0.77 1.7 -0.63 0.12 0 63.76 0.01 Hi tec
Map Carptec 0.51 1.12 -0.56 0.11 0.01 56.72 0.01 Hi tec
Preston power line 2.5 5.51 -0.18 0.18 0.03 103.94 0.02 Hi tec
Daiwa Super Shinobi 1.77 3.9 -0.04 0.15 0.01 95.03 0.02 Medium
Reflo Direct mono 2.16 4.76 1.01 0.18 0.04 89.8 0.02 Medium
Reflo Direct mono 2.28 5.03 0.92 0.19 0.03 84.82 0.03 Medium
Reflo Direct mono 1.98 4.37 0.83 0.19 0.05 73.66 0.03 Medium
Drennan Super Specialist 2.16 4.76 0.62 0.19 0.01 80.36 0.03 Normal
Drennan Super Specialist 2.72 5.99 0.92 0.21 0.01 79.28 0.03 Normal
Reflo Direct mono 2.89 6.37 1.09 0.22 0.04 73.99 0.04 Normal
Maxima Chameleon 1.08 2.38 0.17 0.15 0.03 64.51 0.02 Normal
Aiken Bayer perlon 2.69 5.93 * 0.23 * 63.63 0.04 Normal
Maxima Chameleon 1.44 3.17 0.31 0.18 0.04 59.87 0.02 Normal

* this spool of line was a freebie and when the sellotape was remove it also removed most of the info on the label