Stroft FC2 | Fluorocarbon Tippet 50m

The fishing line with similarly high linear breaking strain, but slightly lower knot strength than STROFT FC 1

STROFT FC 2 is an economical choice for traces and is suitable as a mainline when abrasion resistance, high
density, sensitivity, high feed-back, castability (tippet), durability, and low visibility are required.

An excellent choice for Yellowfish in slightly off-colour water where the extreme breaking strain to diameter is not as important when compared to Stroft FC1.

• REMEMBER: making use of the UNI KNOT results in FC2 retaining 80% of its overall strength. FC1 retains over 85% of its strength. 
• 50m per spool

Further reading, on Stroft Fluorocarbon.

General Fluorocarbon is the name of the second basic material that has been used in the manufacture of monofilament fishing lines since 1972. The chemical name is Polyvinylidenfluorid (abbreviation: PVDF). Other trade names are “Kynar“, “Dyneon“ and “So lef”. The euphoria that heralded the use of these products for fishing lines was quickly followed by the sobering facts that although this material does have advantages the disadvantages are indeed great. One simply had not weighed the advantages against the disadvantages. The knot strength was found to be very critical.

So initially the field of application was pretty much limited, nevertheless the line had its advantages in certain fishing situations. And in recent years it has been possible to improve the knot strength remarkably! The STROFT lines that are made of 100% Fluorocarbon are called STROFT FC 1 and STROFT FC 2, and are featuring outstanding breaking strain. At the same time the breaking strain of STROFT FC 2 is only slightly less in comparison to STROFT FC1. And in global comparing the knot breaking strain of Fluorocarbon lines, STROFT FC1 is ahead by a large margin.

To achieve this the STROFT FC 1 has to undergo a very costly additional tuning-process – and this makes the actual difference between FC 1 and FC 2, which of course is somewhat reflected in the price. For this reason STROFT FC 1 is excellent for traces and STROFT FC 2 can also be used as a main line. We paid particular attention to the sensitivity and feed-back as well as the resistance to abrasion of both lines.

Peak performance can be expected in both these properties; even though the lines cannot be classed as particularly hard, they have low elasticity and are best described as being supple and tough. These new lines have a comparatively low memory, certainly in comparison to other fluorocarbon lines, and the thinner lines also cast well from a fixed spool reel.

What are the pros and negatives of Polyamide, Fluorocarbon and UHMWPE.

The following excerpts point out the main features and differences bet ween STROFT FC lines compared to STROFT lines made of Polyamide alloy:- Abrasion-resistance Very high resistance to abrasion with low rate of absorption (water absorption 0.01%); this value stays constant even after being immersed for several hours, which makes this the ideal material for use on rocky ground or mussel beds.

Density Fluorocarbon is heavier (1.78 g/cm3 as opposed to Polyamid 1.14 g/cm3), so it tends to sink. That makes it ideal, if one requires a strong line that sinks quickly.

Sensitivity Extreme sensitivity as a result of the minimal load-elongation makes the line particularly useful whenever lure feedback and bite detection are paramount (spinners, spoons). The relatively high specific weight of the line results in the line straightening quickly after casting and improves bait contact.

Casting (fly fishing) The higher specific weight also helps the leader ”role out“ nicely on the cast when the tip is made of Fluorocarbon as well as helping both nymph and streamer presentation.

Durability Very high durability as UV-light, salt water and other aggressive substances have practically no effect. Ideal for sea fishing and wherever high levels of solar radiation are expected.

Visibility The refractive index of fluorocarbon is 1.42 as opposed to 1.58 for Polyamide; as a result, it’s closer to that of water, which is 1.33. For this reason, it is less visible to the human eye when immersed in clear water.