**Real Reviews by Real Anglers**
The advantages of fluorocarbon are well known. It is practically invisible in water due to the fact that it has the same refraction properties as water. In water that is low and clear the advantages are obvious, the invisibility of the line reduces fish spooking and prompts bites when one would struggle with standard mono. However, as with all good things there seems to be a downside as well.
With fluorocarbon this appears to be its unreliability and tendency to break. I recently purchased some made by one of the quality tackle manufacturers. I fished it on the River Dove and right at the end of the session struck into a nice barbel only for the hooklength to snap. Upon retrieval I noticed that the line had snapped between the swivel and the hook. I’m confident that there was no abrasion on the line and the knot was still intact on the swivel. There was no reason why the line should have snapped the way it did. 
I put out an enquiry mail on the FISHINGmagic Mailing List to check on the experiences of other anglers, and it generated a lot of discussion. As with all things, a lot is down to opinion. Some anglers swore by Brand A, others said ‘throw it in the bin’. Some said they would only fish with Brand B, others wouldn’t use it if it was free!
However, it did become very clear from the general consensus that although fluorocarbon is great in principle, there is a big difference in quality. I haven’t ‘named and shamed’ by the way because it would be totally unfair to pass judgment publicly on one session. In fact when I put out the e-mail concerning fluorocarbons, one angler said he had used it with no problems. I am, however, interested in getting some feedback about fluorocarbons in general. If you have any comments to make please e-mail me direct on sbloor@sicm.org.
That might seem a longwinded way to get round to talking about Sufix Invisiline but I hope that it will make the review more relevant, particularly if there is anyone that has never used fluorocarbon before and taken advantage of its benefits. Or possibly there is someone who tried it once, had a similar experience to me and has not used it since.
I have used Sufix Invisiline before. Last winter I used the 4lb breaking strain for chubbing on low clear rivers. I was well pleased with the results so testing the 10lb breaking strain meant that I did so with a pre-meditated confidence! For field testing the Invisiline I fished with two rods (where allowed), both identical in rig, set up and bait etc, the only difference being that the one hooklength was Invisiline, the other 10lb Drennan Micro braid, which I rate extremely highly. I fished 10 sessions mainly on the Teme and the Dove where the barbel would put any hooklength to the test, but also did a couple of sessions on the lower Severn, one on the Great Ouse and also a stillwater, for good measure. The testing took place in August.
The first test I applied to the Invisiline is the ability to catch more fish. Certainly the time of testing gave ideal conditions, the rivers were very low and clear. You could count the pebbles on the bottom of the Teme, Dove and Ouse if you wanted to!
Over the 10 sessions I caught 10 fish on Invisiline to the 8 on the Microbraid. However it has to be said that during the time of daylight, the Invisiline outfished its rival quite noticeably. While the Microbraid came into its own as darkness began to fall, the Invisiline caught while the sun was still bright. This is due to its previously referred to refractive properties. However, I already had this awareness of fluorocarbons in general, but it was good to put it to trial and see it pass with flying colours.
The second test I gave Invisiline was to try it for strength. This was brought on in no small way by my previous encounter with the fluorocarbon that had let me down. To me personally, this was the real test, I was already convinced by test one for catchability.
As previously mentioned, the main focus of the field test as far as venues were concerned was the Dove and the Teme, both rivers that contain strong fighting barbel that take route one to the many snags that litter the rivers. I knew that if it passed the test here, it would pass the test anywhere. And so it did. Several of the barbel were over 6 lb, with the biggest at 7.15. I checked the hook length after landing each fish and each time everything was still the same as when it was tied. (The Microbraid produced the biggest barbel at 9.9, but this was into darkness anyway.) A final confirmation, not that I needed it anyway, was the landing of a 12.12 common carp from the lower Severn. Again the Invisiline held up and proved its worth.
To summarise : Fluorocarbons are worth trying, the advantages are obvious and prove thus. However, they are only at an advantage when the water is low and clear. I don’t anticipate using fluorocarbon on the Teme when it’s ten foot up and the colour of strong tea!
Like other items of tackle, we use whatever is right at the time. In the maze of brands that abound, I can recommend Sufix Invisiline without any shadow of doubt. It has proved itself where it counts – in the water. Like most good things in life, Invisiline is not cheap, expect to pay £ 6.99 for 20 metres (if you can get it cheaper, let me know!). The previous brand I tried was half that price but it cost me a good fish. You get what you pay for.
Sufix Invisiline ‘hangs well’ for a fluorocarbon and is available in breaking strains of 4/6/10/13/15 and 20lb. Verdict – buy some now!
If anyone does use Invisiline I would be interested to see how you get on with it. Please feel free to e-mail me.
