Braided Dyneema for Strings

[Torsten]

I hope I do not interfere with tradtional string material concept now:

Has anybody of you ever tried the latest braided dyneema fishing lines as string material. Or am I totally outdated on that.

I have a few fishing lines made of braided fibres and they are awfully strong and narrow. My 8125 does not look to be similar.

Please let me know your opinions.

[DAS]

Torsten,
Braided dyneema is used for serving material but not for string material. This is just a guess but I would think that braiding would give the strand more abrasion resistance but actually decrease its strength because of the angles that the fibers are making going around the braid. In fishing line that abrasion resistance is needed so the sacrifice in strength is a good trade off. In bow strings abrasion resistance is not really an issue but ultimate strength is. I like 8125 too.

[Torsten]

Hello DAS,

I thought the same.

I am no expert on fiber technology, although very interested.
I learned that the tensional strength of a steel wire is much lower than of a steel 'rope' of the same weight and material because the internal friction allows to exceed the tensile strength of the steel.

I think the same happens to dyneema, thus treated polyethene.

Let's see what our string experts say.

[Papabull]

Braided fibers have been marketed as string material from time to time, but they never became popular because braided material isn't as suitable ans straight fibers for this application. Stretch, size, weight and shape are all better for string material with straight fibers.

8125 is getting quite popular but that's another one of the great mysteries of human nature, to me. It's new. It's more expensive. It's the same thing as Dynaflight97 except that you use a 4:5 ratio for strands with D97 and 8125. Doing that, these materials are completely interechangeable because they're the exact same stuff. 8125 got a reputation for being "faster" because BCY tested it on cam bows and found it could be stated it's faster for the same weight and diameter on a cam driven compound. What wasn't stated was that it was such a small difference that you'll never see the comparison in print and BCY, itself, attributes that to the slight advantage the thinner fibers probably have in flexibility around the sharp 120 degree angle of the cams.

BCY is a little surprised at it's growing popularity among traditional shooters. It shows the effectiveness of product differentiation in marketing. It's the new stuff. It's more expensive. It's "faster" (in a manner of speaking), and there are a lot of people using it as their first HMPE string material and in that case, it will definitely be the best stuff they ever used.

Anyone who wants it can get it from the TradMall store at the best price on the Internet. I don't think it's a bit better than Dynfalight97 but I carry it for those who do and sell it at a great price.

[Torsten]

PapaBull,

You speak directly out of my heart.

When I entered this very creative forum I mentioned that there might come some 'wake-up' items from me. This is one of them, supposed for discussions on long and cold winter evenings/mornings.

We speak here about 'science and figures out science'. Actually no science at all unless we would discuss about objective and reproducable measurements.

It is good to hear that I do not have to empty my fishing reels because of this space age material.

So long, I will not take fishing line to replace my 8125, 16 strand string and wait for evenings when our four legged neighbours will come out and find some of my baltic herrings waiting.

[Floxter]

Robert, I've only used Dyneema '02 because I exclusively spin endless strings and was told that the lighter waxing of the '02 would facilitate spinning endless. How much difference would I find in using the older Dyna 97?
I also use 62 braid for my center serving because BCY said I would encounter less slippage. For a novice stringmaker would the Halo be more difficult to work with?

[DAS]

It is true that 8125 is the same fiber as D97, but I prefer it because I am trying dial in a specific string for a specific bow. The thinner strand means that it takes more strands to make the same string. In that case you get a finer adjustment. I also like the lower wax content that Floxter mentioned. It makes an equal diameter string a little lighter. How much difference does it all make?? Don't know, but it is there so why not use it?

[Papabull]

8125 would actually have a higher ratio of wax to fiber based on weight.

Dyneema02 was offered because some stringspinners liked a no-wax or super-lightly waxed string material. It slides easily over the armatures. It also leaves no wax residue on the armatures. Otherwise, it's another one of those things where guys have been using it for flemish twists and swearing up and down it's the greeatest thing since sliced bread when it's no different than D97 except that it's harder for them to twist up because of the minimal wax content.

Floxster, aside from what I just mentioned, you'll notice no difference. As for Halo, it's ideal for center serving, but not so good for end loop servings. Use #2S for that. #62 center braid grips the string better but it also grips the glove and tab better. Served well, nothing beats Halo and it would have to be served quite badly to create a "slippage" problem. Serve it with good tension like you would serve anything else and make sure you get your ends nice and tight and you won't have any problems with it at all.