Crimping Heavy Monofilament with Nicopress (Initial Results)

Mar 10, 2020
59
69
San Diego
Name
John
Boat
Not Yet
There are a few threads here on BD that discuss crimping, but none I was able to find that discusses the ideal crimp force for a given line size. Reaching out to a few individuals that appeared to have done similar studies yielded no response, so I decided to do my own and share the results.

The threads I found suggest "overcrimping" (too much compression on the sleeve) results in fracture/damage to the line and "undercrimping" (too little compression on the sleeve) results in line slippage. Very reasonable possibilities, and both are non desirable. Further, there wasn't much information on the pros/cons of the various tools to address these key concerns.

My journey started with researching the various crimping hand tools on the market. Prices aside, the most important requirement was the ability to have confidence in a repeatable crimp (force) for a given line size. The whole "firm handshake" amount of force is too nebulous and doubts about "was it firm enough?" is the last thing one wants to think about when hooked up with that big fish testing your crimp.

For me personally, I determined the Nicopress 33V-CGB4 was ideal for my intended application. This tool was developed for the heavy wire cable rope use cases but thanks to Basil at BHP, he was one of the individuals who brought attention of it's adaptability to our world. First, it is designed in such a manner that it is not possible to exceed a fixed amount of force based upon how the tool is "adjusted" when fully closed. Similarly, the tool has a positive "break" point when compressing, and when fully closed, will guarantee it would not be "under-forced". This part is a bit difficult to articulate, but it's somewhat analogous to a torque wrench that "breaks" when the desired setting is reached. Second, the tool is adjustable via a set screw and a lock screw to "lock in place", so the adjustability, and repeatability meets my desired features.

Capture.JPG


Materials
  • 250lb Berkley Trilene Big Game. 1.60mm. advertised diameter. 100m coil pack.
berkley 250lb monofilament.JPG

Measurement summary of 20 different diameters across the entire length.

MIN1.51mm-5.625% deviation from spec.
MAX1.54mm-3.750% deviation from spec.
Average1.5245mm-4.719% deviation from spec.
Median1.52mm-5.000% deviation from spec.
Std Dev0.0082557794750.005159862172


  • Nicopress Oval Zinc Plated Copper "C" Sleeve. 100 pack.
nicopress_C_ZnCu_Sleeve.JPG


Measurement summary of 20 random sleeves across the red bars above.

MIN6.37mm
MAX6.38mm
Average6.372mm
Median6.37mm
Std Dev0.004103913408

For all intents and purposes with some uncertainty in the measurement and variability in the manufacturing process of the raw materials, it's reasonable to say the materials used for the study are uniform and their variability should not impact the results. In fact, I'm pleasantly surprised at Berkley's manufacturing process control with this 100 meter sample. The Nicopress Copper Sleeves has a much tighter distribution and tolerance as expected.

Experimentation with the Tool and Crimping

As previously mentioned, the tool is pretty fool proof from over or under crimping forces. So there really is no such thing as "I had a bad day and my crimps weren't very good" or "your friend using the tool is going to over/under crimp". Easy to use and repeatable are the key factors here. The main variable is how much or less you dial in the tool via the adjusting screw. Which in turn creates a more difficult problem of measuring crimp forces as a function of the adjustment screw. Instead, due to equipment and resource limitations, I had to go about this a little differently and attempted to determine the ideal diameter of a crimp based upon how much the line would slip or break. This would be a trial and error approach where the main idea is a larger force across the jaws will result in a smaller diameter crimped sleeve.

To do this, I determined the tool and the crimps being used has a compressed crimp diameter range between 4.38mm and 4.67mm with the monofilament line depending upon how loose or tight the adjustment screw were set. This range represents the the maximum and minimum force the tool can exert on the sleeve, and it is my hope that the "ideal force" is somewhere between these diameters.

Proceeded to make three 6" leaders per varying crimped diameters:
  • 4.40mm
  • 4.46mm
  • 4.52mm
  • 4.57mm
  • 4.67mm
20210804_114352.jpg


The tag ends were purposely left long to measure for slippage. The blue "labels' simply have the measured tag lengths, the diameter of the crimped sleeve, and a serial number.

Leaders were tested on a Mark-10, a lab/industrial grade tensile strength tester, thanks to the generosity of Matt of 30 Fathoms aka @Tautog_17.
The particular configuration has a maximum capacity of 200lbs, so if one of these diameters happens to be ideal, we would not see the line break. If it held to 200lbs with no slippage, I'd consider doing another round of testing with another heavier test setup.

Results
  • 4.40mm diameter leader
    • Serial Number #15. Tester maxed out at approximately 170lbs. No slippage on tag ends.
    • Serial Number #14. Tester maxed out at approximately 170lbs. No slippage on tag ends.
  • 4.47mm diameter leader
    • Serial Number #10. Tester maxed out at approximately 170lbs. No slippage on tag ends.
  • 4.52mm diameter leader
    • Serial Number #08. Tester maxed out at approximately 150lbs. No slippage on tag ends. BUT, Matt noticed movement of the label on one end as he increased tension.
  • 4.57mm diameter leader
    • Serial Number #06. Tester maxed out at approximately 140lbs. No slippage on tag ends. BUT, we both noticed movement of the label on one end as he increased tension.
  • Went BACK to 4.40mm diameter leader
    • Serial Number #13. Tester maxed out at approximately 170lbs. No slippage on tag ends. BUT, we both noticed movement of the label as he increased tension.
Hence, I choose to stop testing since we observed and concluded the tester would max out (would not register to an increase in force) when it detected slip. So what was slipping?

It was not the tag end, but instead, the opposite (main) line through the sleeve. A closer look at all 6 tested leaders, shows a distinct opaque color difference in the monofilament along with a smaller diameter loop than originally created, giving strong evidence that the "main" line is in fact slipping.

20210804_115020.jpg


The left circled area has a distinct opaqueness that isn't well captured with my limited photo skills, but is easily seen in the actual leader. Each leader had approximately a 1.5" loop length, and for sure the loop is much smaller post testing giving further evidence of main line slippage. The right area shows a definite flattening of the originally round monofilament line as forces increased and is a reasonable representation of what would happen when tied to the eye of a hook as an example under "high loads". At some point, the monofilament will reach well into the plastic zone resulting in permanent deformation and will no longer have the somewhat elastic characteristics of monofilament. Unknown at what point (force) we reached flattening/permanent deformation.


Conclusion and a Little Speculation

Given the results did not quite match up to expectations, what can be said is that maxing out the tool to yield a 4.40mm crimp diameter with a Nicopress C Sleeve along with Berkley Trilene 250lb monofilament has less than 70% join strength as there is slippage.

It's up to the user to determine if this is acceptable for the intended application, as typically we would not set drag levels anywhere near the slip point, yet still have the advantage of 1.50mm worth of abrasion resistance.

It is complete speculation, but quite possible that the 1.50mm line diameter used for this experiment was too thin and the root cause of the sleeve's join capability, and a larger diameter line would yield much more favorable results. The Nicopress C- sleeve (1/16"), per factory spec, accommodates line diameters from 1.50mm-2.0mm, which puts the diameter at the bottom end of the sleeve's capability. To get to the upper end would translate to the Berkley Trilene 400lb monofilament, which is spec-d at 2.00mm diameter.

The other option is to size one step down to a B4 (3/64") sleeve, which Nicopress states accommodates line diameters from 1.00mm to 1.20mm, which translates to monofilament around the 130lb rating. Further speculation is that since Nicopress notes are intended for wire, which is much more rigid than the application here, there may be more tolerance for a given sleeve size to accommodate a larger diameter monofilament.

So, I'll try both ways, within reason. Sourcing 400lb Monofilament may be difficult as it's getting to a very niche market. Further, I don't want to purchase an entire coil until I have numbers that help me feel warm and fuzzy. Also, I'll search for some B4 sized sleeves to validate if my existing 250lb line can in fact fit. Depending upon which option pans out, I'll repeat this exercise with some slight modifications and see if I can convince Matt to help do another round of testing, and share the results here if there is continued interest from the community.

If by chance, you've already done a lot of this work before and willing to share notes or offer other thoughts/suggestions, please feel free to participate in this thread or PM me.
 

H20buffalo112

El Bombero
Feb 17, 2013
354
309
San Pedro ca USA
Name
Sergio
Boat
SANCHA Bonita
Holy shit I thought I was a fucking nerd , you guys are overthinking this shit when it comes to crimping you have the basic tools the line the sleeves you crimp and then if you (test it )and it fails then you go on to something else but to go through all this elaborate bullshit it’s just unbelievable , you crimp ,you test it and if it fails it’s no good , do it again and if it passes it’s a good one. it’s that fucking simple it’s not rocket science holy moly you guys are way out there.
from the above photo,does it look like I haven’t tried this shit,

image.jpg


8799B8C4-D7C6-4D16-A4AE-052BB5EBAD09.jpeg


F8E8E1C0-B0B8-445B-9FD3-026EA6D6CA45.jpeg


84CC0418-9103-4B49-A1A9-70EB0CBB1E20.jpeg
 

hucklongfin

Deep release specialist
Jul 3, 2003
9,507
7,910
Mission Viejo
Name
MarkT
Boat
Blazer Bay 1860
Looks to me like the crimp was fine, it was the line that was failing. OTHO, I've never used more than 50# of drag so having issues only > 150# is called an epic win!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocket Dog
Upvote 0

ShadowX

I Should Upgrade My Account
Oct 10, 2010
2,491
2,891
Los Angeles
Name
Alex
Boat
None
Nice write up! Did you make any adjustments to your crimp tool before or after you made crimps? I have a stock Nicopress 33V-CGB4 that I didn't change anything (yet). I was wondering what adjustments you made and how you verified the changes (pin gauges, etc).

I haven't gotten around to getting a test stand to do my own crimp and knot tests. What type of fittings did you use on the end of the ES30 test stand, just the standard hook? I loved to make an automated test setup, but realized the price was way more than I wanted to spend to test a few knots.

Did you do a couple of tests with same settings to determine the average or standard deviation?

Good job!
 
Upvote 0
Mar 10, 2020
59
69
San Diego
Name
John
Boat
Not Yet
Nice write up! Did you make any adjustments to your crimp tool before or after you made crimps? I have a stock Nicopress 33V-CGB4 that I didn't change anything (yet). I was wondering what adjustments you made and how you verified the changes (pin gauges, etc).

I haven't gotten around to getting a test stand to do my own crimp and knot tests. What type of fittings did you use on the end of the ES30 test stand, just the standard hook? I loved to make an automated test setup, but realized the price was way more than I wanted to spend to test a few knots.

Did you do a couple of tests with same settings to determine the average or standard deviation?

Good job!

Initially, to get familiar with the tool, I made a few crimps to understand the min and max crimp diameters that could be accomplished with the adjustment screw literally pulled completely out, then dialed in as much as possible while getting the tool to close. This is what I determined to be the MIN/MAX of 4.38mm and 4.67mm.

Keep in mind this is with line in the sleeve and the C size in CuZn. The "Go Gauge" that comes with the tool is not really applicable here (IMO) since it's intended to be used for wire applications.

So, once I had some setting on the adjustment screw and locked it down with the lock screw, the tool doesn't deviate. It will repeatably crimp at that setting which will yield some crimped sleeve diameter. Of course, if you release the lock screw and then make adjustments, and then re-lock, then the crimped diameter would change.

For my experiments, I started completely loose (least amount of compression), which yielded 4.67mm diameter. Made 3 leaders, then tightened down "about a quarter turn" locked it in, then repeated until I had all 15 leaders done with the last one being about 2.5 turns clockwise until I could still close the tool with a lot of force. That yielded a 4.38mm diameter.

To verify, I measured repeatedly with calipers and was getting very repeatable measurements at the middle of the crimped barrel. That's about the best as I could do for verification. I wrote the values down, and then re-measured with Matt's Mitutoyo calipers, which I pre-calibrated by measuring his standards. Dead nuts on the calibration and same measurements as my caliper. That's the best I could do without more lab grade equipment and tools.

For the ES30, Matt would be able to answer more details as I'm not as familiar on this setup. For sure, we used a hook, which was "screwed in" to the base of the stand and the opposite end was a round bar connected to the force gauge. I should have taken a photo of the test setup. Sorry, I forgot. I'll remember to do that for my next round of testing assuming I can still bribe Matt to do another round of testing in the future.

As far as "couple of tests" for avg/mean/std dev, if you meant to validate the repeatabilty of the tool's ability to crimp the same diameter once a setting is made and locked in, yes I did, but did not include that detail in the writeup. In summary, I've done no less than 10 crimps at maybe 8 different settings, and it's very repeatable. I have a lot of confidence in the tool. I had a 100pack of crimps and burned through a majority just for experimentation, and only have a few pieces left after making my 15 leaders.

Hope I answered your questions.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Mar 10, 2020
59
69
San Diego
Name
John
Boat
Not Yet
Holy shit I thought I was a fucking nerd , you guys are overthinking this shit when it comes to crimping you have the basic tools the line the sleeves you crimp and then if you (test it )and it fails then you go on to something else but to go through all this elaborate bullshit it’s just unbelievable , you crimp ,you test it and if it fails it’s no good , do it again and if it passes it’s a good one. it’s that fucking simple it’s not rocket science holy moly you guys are way out there.
from the above photo,does it look like I haven’t tried this shit

Sorry you think my work was "elaborate bullshit".

Since you obviously took time to participate in this thread, care to share your method of "testing"?
 

ShadowX

I Should Upgrade My Account
Oct 10, 2010
2,491
2,891
Los Angeles
Name
Alex
Boat
None
Initially, to get familiar with the tool, I made a few crimps to understand the min and max crimp diameters that could be accomplished with the adjustment screw literally pulled completely out, then dialed in as much as possible while getting the tool to close. This is what I determined to be the MIN/MAX of 4.38mm and 4.67mm.

Keep in mind this is with line in the sleeve and the C size in CuZn. The "Go Gauge" that comes with the tool is not really applicable here (IMO) since it's intended to be used for wire applications.

So, once I had some setting on the adjustment screw and locked it down with the lock screw, the tool doesn't deviate. It will repeatably crimp at that setting which will yield some crimped sleeve diameter. Of course, if you release the lock screw and then make adjustments, and then re-lock, then the crimped diameter would change.

For my experiments, I started completely loose (least amount of compression), which yielded 4.67mm diameter. Made 3 leaders, then tightened down "about a quarter turn" locked it in, then repeated until I had all 15 leaders done with the last one being about 2.5 turns clockwise until I could still close the tool with a lot of force. That yielded a 4.38mm diameter.

To verify, I measured repeatedly with calipers and was getting very repeatable measurements at the middle of the crimped barrel. That's about the best as I could do for verification. I wrote the values down, and then re-measured with Matt's Mitutoyo calipers, which I pre-calibrated by measuring his standards. Dead nuts on the calibration and same measurements as my caliper. That's the best I could do without more lab grade equipment and tools.

For the ES30, Matt would be able to answer more details as I'm not as familiar on this setup. For sure, we used a hook, which was "screwed in" to the base of the stand and the opposite end was a round bar connected to the force gauge. I should have taken a photo of the test setup. Sorry, I forgot. I'll remember to do that for my next round of testing assuming I can still bribe Matt to do another round of testing in the future.

Hope I answered your questions.

Thanks. It clarifies some of my questions. I thought you were using gauge pins to measure the crimped diameter, but you were measuring directly on the crimped connection itself. I have a similar force gauge although it doesn't go as high as Matt's setup. I mainly use the threaded hook attachment. I think that is fine with a crimped loop. However, I'm trying to find a setup to handle testing knots. I think I will just end up tying the knot to the loop or hook on the force gauge and on the opposite end, make a tube so I can wrap the line around it a few times so it won't slip.

That is definitely a nice setup. I was looking at getting a cheaper manual Chinese clone tensile testing setup. The motorized versions such as Chatillon TCM units are not cheap. I still haven't decided to spend that type of money yet. Maybe I can find a used system on eBay at a more affordable price. I even thought of making my own with ball screws, a NEMA stepper motor and stepper motor drivers for Arduino. Maybe when I have more time, I might take that plunge.

Thanks for your help!
 
Upvote 0

ShadowX

I Should Upgrade My Account
Oct 10, 2010
2,491
2,891
Los Angeles
Name
Alex
Boat
None
At first it seems odd that its slipping at the main line instead of the tag end. After thinking about it for a while, it makes perfect sense. When you have the axial tensile load on the main line as you pull the two loop ends, most of the stress would be on the main line. Given the elasticity and modulus of the mono filament line, the axial load would cause the diameter to shrink slightly and cause slippage when its less than the crimped inner diameter. The opposite loop would not have a pure axial loading since the open tag end is not connected to an axial load. The diameter would be less affected by the axial loading.

Elastic Deformation of an Axially Loaded Member w/ a constant load & cross-sectional area:

1628139418564.png


One way you can measure whether the elongation is due to the stretching of the mono is to mark either end of the mono as it enters the crimp area with a sharpie pen. If the elongation is due to stretching on one side vs the opposite side of the crimp, you can see how much that mark moved. Obviously this is not scientific, but at least it would give you an indication of the stretching of the line vs slipping through the crimped connection. I'm sure it is a combination of both. It would be interesting for you to test similar cases with and without a chafe guard around the loop. Perhaps that chafe guard provides additional protection against this type of slippage.

Is the Mitutoyo digital caliper attached to the Mark-10 connected to a computer to graph the value in relation to the force gauge measurements? If it is, you dump all that data into Excel and plot a graph of the stress/strain relationship to determine when the plastic region of the stress/strain curve has been reached. Since you have the diameter, you can calculate an equivalent cross sectional area.

Its becoming a science experiment. You need to get a hold of an Instron tester next. LOL.

I actually created my own Mitutoyo interface to capture data from the digital calipers and save it to excel or directly import it via the USB port as a keyboard entry. If you ever want to go that far, I can send you the code and schematics. You need at least a Leonardo or Pro-Micro microcontroller since it uses libraries to simulate a USB keyboard. Standard Arduino interface does not have the memory or firmware to simulate the keyboard enter. There are other ways to capture via a Micro-SD interface via SPI, but that is a whole different story.
 
Last edited:
Tautog_17
Tautog_17
It has aMitutoyo, but it is not connected to a PC so you'd have to record stress and expansion manually.
Upvote 0

swami 805

I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
Mar 9, 2016
3,992
5,465
66
805
Name
Bill
Boat
sunk it
Nice bit of work you put in to this, appreciate the effort. One bit of what I hope you take as constructive criticism is to start with your results and follow with how you got there. The results are what is important, let the reader decide if the methodology is important to them, if so they can keep reading.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 10, 2020
59
69
San Diego
Name
John
Boat
Not Yet
At first it seems odd that its slipping at the main line instead of the tag end. After thinking about it for a while, it makes perfect sense. When you have the axial tensile load on the main line as you pull the two loop ends, most of the stress would be on the main line. Given the elasticity and modulus of the mono filament line, the axial load would cause the diameter to shrink slightly and cause slippage when its less than the crimped inner diameter. The opposite loop would not have a pure axial loading since the open tag end is not connected to an axial load. The diameter would be less affected by the axial loading.

This is what Matt and I discussed. We believe this is what is happening resulting in the main line slipping.

Elastic Deformation of an Axially Loaded Member w/ a constant load & cross-sectional area:

View attachment 1306103

One way you can measure whether the elongation is due to the stretching of the mono is to mark either end of the mono as it enters the crimp area with a sharpie pen.

LOL. This is one the small "tweaks" I'll likely do on my next iteration.

If the elongation is due to stretching on one side vs the opposite side of the crimp, you can see how much that mark moved. Obviously this is not scientific, but at least it would give you an indication of the stretching of the line vs slipping through the crimped connection. I'm sure it is a combination of both. It would be interesting for you to test similar cases with and without a chafe guard around the loop. Perhaps that chafe guard provides additional protection against this type of slippage.

I do have chafe guards, and I didn't want to introduce them initially to keep the experiment as "pure" and "simple" as possible with minimal variables. At some point in the future, I may add them in for further testing.

Is the Mitutoyo digital caliper attached to the Mark-10 connected to a computer to graph the value in relation to the force gauge measurements? If it is, you dump all that data into Excel and plot a graph of the stress/strain relationship to determine when the plastic region of the stress/strain curve has been reached. Since you have the diameter, you can calculate an equivalent cross sectional area.

Its becoming a science experiment. You need to get a hold of an Instron tester next. LOL.

Matt's Mitutoyo caliper is just a standalone hand caliper. Since I made my leaders and measurements (barrel diameters and tag lengths) at my home with my not-as-nice (aka not as expensive) calipers, when I met up with him, he broke out his, and I validated my measurements using his Mitutoyo after calibrating against two calibration standards. Hence, our measurements were within 0.01-0.02mm, and I attribute that to more user error than instrument uncertainty. Further, I didn't need that type of precision. I was looking for tag slip that would be in the 0.5-1.0+mm range to say yes or no on the slip. Reliably measuring tag ends with calipers from the end of the crimp flare is pretty difficult.

His setup was not automated. Automation with data capture leads to all kinds of possibilities like stress testing and ability to better characterize the monofilament properties and .... almost endless. Unfortunately, my budget doesn't allow for that, but if people bought more of Matt's Knot Pullers, he might be more inclined to invest in more toys for me to play with.

Never heard of Instron. Guess I'll put that on my list for a rainy day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: woodfish330
Upvote 0

ShadowX

I Should Upgrade My Account
Oct 10, 2010
2,491
2,891
Los Angeles
Name
Alex
Boat
None
Never heard of Instron. Guess I'll put that on my list for a rainy day.

I was just kidding about the Instron. The Instron machines are industry standards for larger companies to do compression and tensile strength tests on metal samples. The machines go from $15K to $40K or more. Its a fully automated test system with stress/strain gauges and plots the data of the sample. Its way overkill for this project. However, what you are doing is probably way more than most people would do at a consumer level. Swami has a point that the repeatability and validation of the calibration levels of the results is what is important also. I've seen some tests where they under and over crimped a connection and you can obviously see a different in the test results.

I suggest you crimp at least 3-5 samples of each if you can, and run it on the same machine. This way, you have an average and can get a standard deviation. It would be nowhere near a 3 sigma level validation of the results because you don't have enough samples, but it would also help you confirm that the results are not a one-off situation. As you collect more results, it would give you more confidence in the results if the data both accurate and precise. You can have accurate data, but not it may not be precise or vice versa. The calibration of the instruments (which you did with another measurement device) at least give you some confidence of the precision. The multiple samples would help validate the precision of your results. Calibrating the load cell would also be important to establishing higher accuracy.

The chart below shows the difference between the two situations.

1628167089420.png
 
Upvote 0

ShadowX

I Should Upgrade My Account
Oct 10, 2010
2,491
2,891
Los Angeles
Name
Alex
Boat
None
One of the key thing you can do is establish a baseline for the mono filament you are using. You need to know the approximate breaking point of the line without any knots or crimps on it. To do that, you need to figure out some way to hold the mono line such that it does not introduce a weak element. If you use a hook, that requires a knot or crimp and that has several unknown variables introduced into your experiment.

What I seen on some of the automated electrical crimp testers I use is some sort of round drum. The electrical wires are fixed on one end and it is wrapped around the drum a few times. When the wire is stretched, instead of having a weak point such as a loop or gripper teeth mark, the stress is evenly distribute around the drum due to friction. The main weak point would be the line itself in this setup.

The Black Max machine and other similar line testers use a similar setup to hold the line wrapped around the drum.
1628168779581.png


You should run at least 10-20 tests on the mono that you are using for your experiment to get a large sample size.

Once you can establish the line breaking strength, the results of the crimp tests would have a baseline comparison. Instead of crimping both sides for you tests, you can crimp one side and use the drum on the opposite end. This way, you have less variables in your experiment. You only have one crimp and one loop instead of two. Its also helpful to use approximately the same length of line on both the mono-only test and your experiment with the crimps. If the lengths are very different, it affects the strain results because the overall length is different. Another variable you may want to introduce is determine whether the failure mechanism is due to slip or stretching of the line and break.

What you can also do later on is add a small amount of superglue on the crimp itself. The glue would increase your frictional constant and reduce the likelihood for it to slip under the load conditions. With the marks on the line, you can observe the stretch patterns on the line too. You can also measure the distance between two marks before and after the experiment to determine if the plastic deformation is permanent or only during the load conditions. We measure plastic creep on some materials, but that has to occur over a prolonged period of time. The stretch caused by creep is permanent but has to occur gradually even under accelerated life testing.

It would be interesting to see the results of the experiments. Personally, I don't have the time to do these types of experiments even though they are interesting. Its hard enough to balance the time between work, family and fishing. You definitely have a fun experiment to test your theories.

If you are not an engineer, I highly suggest you get into that field. It pays well and you get to play with a lot of fun experiments as part of a new design. You definitely have the knack and drive for that type of job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: woodfish330
Upvote 0

woodfish330

I Should Upgrade My Account
  • Aug 14, 2012
    1,628
    3,575
    San Fransisco,CA USA
    Name
    John
    Boat
    Fishead
    Brothers...I have been watching this thread with great interest. ALL Data here is relevant if your like me...as I value / desire consistancy. Though maybe more in depth than many can comprehend.... your results are pretty impressive. Your though process and scientific reasoning is pretty sound. Between the 2 of you.... I think you hit the nail on the head.

    The elongation of the mainline.... use the "anti chaffing springs".... or even better.... the brass chaff ring with welded ring. Just a suggestion. Second.... be vigilant as the chemical effect of "sharpie" on the mono. Also.... that mark will stretch as the mono does.. Tape... not a problem.

    Personally I thank you for your steadfast scientific approach. I thank you for doing the "dirty work" with todays current and recognizable brands...good or bad. My hats off to both of you.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: jiggermyster

    Crowman

    Almost A Member
    Mar 3, 2017
    184
    203
    20
    Northern California
    Name
    Crowman
    Boat
    YES
    Sorry you think my work was "elaborate bullshit".

    Since you obviously took time to participate in this thread, care to share your method of "testing"?
    When I read your testing results I thought man that guy has some time on his hands. Don't be too insulted as you went on the lunatic fringe testing as it was interesting but the average guys here puts more thoughts on how to get more beer in their ice chests than crimping pressures. You must be an engineer.
     
    Upvote 0
    Mar 10, 2020
    59
    69
    San Diego
    Name
    John
    Boat
    Not Yet
    One of the key thing you can do is establish a baseline for the mono filament you are using. You need to know the approximate breaking point of the line without any knots or crimps on it. To do that, you need to figure out some way to hold the mono line such that it does not introduce a weak element. If you use a hook, that requires a knot or crimp and that has several unknown variables introduced into your experiment.

    Again, limited by equipment. I did the best I could with what was available.

    Instead of crimping both sides for you tests, you can crimp one side and use the drum on the opposite end. This way, you have less variables in your experiment. You only have one crimp and one loop instead of two. Its also helpful to use approximately the same length of line on both the mono-only test and your experiment with the crimps.

    In an ideal world with more time and more materials. The choices of what tests to be performed were made based upon what materials I had available, and the amount of time I'd have to impose on others for testing, which is an important consideration when they is no incentive involved.

    If the lengths are very different, it affects the strain results because the overall length is different.

    This is a possibility, but one I had an assumption the length would not materially impact the results. Further the equipment available has 13" max travel.

    Finally, I appreciate the thoughts, but I hope you can understand there were constraints that are more applicable to a whitepaper, which this was not intended to be. Instead, it was targeted for a broader audience that could conclude themselves based upon my initial results and limitations whether it's helpful for their applications. Or, they could go off and do their own variants of tests and (hopefully) share their results for the community.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: woodfish330
    Upvote 0
    Mar 10, 2020
    59
    69
    San Diego
    Name
    John
    Boat
    Not Yet
    I suggest you crimp at least 3-5 samples of each if you can, and run it on the same machine. This way, you have an average and can get a standard deviation.

    Proceeded to make three 6" leaders per varying crimped diameters:
    • 4.40mm
    • 4.46mm
    • 4.52mm
    • 4.57mm
    • 4.67mm

    I reported the raw results but did not post statistics because I don't think 3 samples are statistically significant.

    The objective was to zero in on the right diameter which yielded maximum join with zero slip. Had I been able to see that repeatably on 3 samples, I would have known I was on the right track, and would have invested more time and money and ordered another 100 pack of sleeves. At which point, I'd likely make enough samples at a fixed diameter to be statistically significant and only then report statistics with an update to the "Initial" post title.

    The approach due to various limitations was a "course" adjustment to find the "sweet spot" value between the extremes. Once identified, it would be a "fine" adjustment for repeatability.

    Based upon the results, there is a bit of a fork in the road, and I'm pursuing both options and asking the community for a little help via the Classified Ads before I invest more money and have a lot of wasted material into something that may not work out.

    Hope that helps.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: woodfish330
    Upvote 0

    AWilliams

    I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
    May 18, 2009
    3,381
    2,090
    Ramona, Ca.
    Name
    Alin Williams
    Boat
    none
    Great write up and you guys are super smart but in all honesty this is another reason why I don't really chase bluefin. I'm already OCD enough. I don't want another reason to have to overthink everything or question every little thing. Just give me a jig stick a newell 332 and a handful of jigs and let me go.... It already takes me too much time to decide what sticks to bring LOL
     
    Upvote 0

    RideHPD

    Enthusiastic Idiot Rookie
    Aug 14, 2016
    1,542
    1,213
    29
    Del Mar/Marina Del Rey, CA
    Name
    Eric Marin
    Boat
    10' Model T
    I could run them in my lab on our 10kN frame but as mentioned, the fixturing is the issue, amongst many other fine details that additionally complicate it.

    The reality is that when you start getting to this level of detail to be this precise you end up ignoring a lot of variables that you don't realize exist, mostly in the geometry around the crimped connection and the manner and location stress concentrations arise. Try finding an ASTM standard for this, that will go a long way, and test lighter line to start to validate your methods. You're way to close to max on that machine.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: woodfish330
    Upvote 0
    Mar 10, 2020
    59
    69
    San Diego
    Name
    John
    Boat
    Not Yet
    Great write up and you guys are super smart but in all honesty this is another reason why I don't really chase bluefin. I'm already OCD enough. I don't want another reason to have to overthink everything or question every little thing. Just give me a jig stick a newell 332 and a handful of jigs and let me go.... It already takes me too much time to decide what sticks to bring LOL

    Those bluefins certainly have a way to give us the blues. I'm hoping you'll re-consider chasing them and use the data to reduce the anxiety and have higher confidence in its capabilities with the knowledge of it's limitations.

    Further, I'm hoping I'm doing some of the thinking for you and others, so you don't have to question every little thing. If you have confidence in the crimp (with the right technique and force), trust in the data, and accept the limitations, you should be fine... and although it can be frustrating, it is a lot of fun and satisfying when you land them, especially with the leader you made knowing it's capabilities and limitations.

    THAT's why I'm doing this. For my satisfaction and to share with others that want to partake. I'm hoping to update with more/better information with more research giving everyone (more) warm and fuzzies.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: woodfish330
    W
    woodfish330
    That says it all brother!! You did the work..... we benifit. I can't say enough that CONFIDENCE .... is as important in landing big fish... as quality gear.

    You learn where and what you can push to get the job done.... know your weaknesses... and your strengths. Thanks for your time and efforts.
    Upvote 0
    Upvote 0
    Mar 10, 2020
    59
    69
    San Diego
    Name
    John
    Boat
    Not Yet
    I could run them in my lab on our 10kN frame but as mentioned, the fixturing is the issue, amongst many other fine details that additionally complicate it.

    The reality is that when you start getting to this level of detail to be this precise you end up ignoring a lot of variables that you don't realize exist, mostly in the geometry around the crimped connection and the manner and location stress concentrations arise. Try finding an ASTM standard for this, that will go a long way, and test lighter line to start to validate your methods. You're way to close to max on that machine.

    Thank you. If it ever got more serious and there was more interest from the community, I may reach out to you in the future.

    In the meantime, I appreciate the gesture and support.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: woodfish330
    Upvote 0

    yessokk

    Luck favors the well prepared.
    Sep 18, 2006
    1,257
    1,919
    Costa Mesa, Cailf
    Name
    Walt
    Boat
    11 ft Sears W/Duel 5.2hp
    GREAT Thread ..... Have done some limited testing on crimped connections. Here are a few of the main points of information that can be passed on. .
    1. Highly accurate testing is not required here. The simple fact that mono/fluoro line extrusion has an extrusion tolerance of + or - .001 to . 0015 for lines 50lb and under, it can have wider variation in the higher pound tests . Would say that if a crimped connection is +80% of the ABS of the line being crimped you are good to go. It is essential that your crimping force is repeatable thus the necessity of a high quality crimping tool with the force adjustment that is locked into position. A must for consistent results.
    2. As mentioned above,, have found the main cause of slippage inside the crimp is a result of the stretching of the line at the very upper end of the pulling force which always results in a reduction of line diameter causing the slippage which occurs in the crimp at the main line that is being stretched and thinned not the tag end. Have tested crimps where the slippage through the standing end of the crimp extended to the tag end of the crimp literally pulling the line all the way through the crimp. This is the worst case of course and is one of the main reasons to do some sort of testing on your crimping technique. A bucket full of cement blocks will do the trick. While crude it is adequate enough to indicate at least an +80% ABS of your crimp.
    3. Once a satisfactory crimping protocol has been achieved do not start switching line manufactures just because you want to "give the latest and greatest" a try. Different lines use different resin formulas and most importantly the diameters will most likely be significantly different for the same lb. test between different mfgs. which will drastically alter the strength of your crimp. So developing a new set of crimping techniques for the new line will be required. There are absolutely no manufacturing standards in the fishing line industry. So pay particular attention to the line diameter you are purchasing not the pound test. It is usually on the spool in very small print. And if the spool only gives you the diameter in mm but you want Inches, just take your cell phone out and multiply
    the mm by .0394 that will convert the mm to inches.

    My .37 cents worth for your consideration.
    Walt
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0

    jiggyn

    Do you even fish?
    Jan 26, 2008
    6,370
    3,679
    Torrance
    Name
    Jerr
    Boat
    shit talking
    WTF
    I guess we do have Geniuses on board
    one hell of a thread there
    Now if I can only retain it
     
    W
    woodfish330
    "Bookmark" and review... when necessary.....lol. There's some good info here for sure 👍.
    • Like
    Reactions: jiggyn
    Upvote 0
    Upvote 0