• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Combi rig components

Chris Belcher said:
Mmm . . .guys I think you all struggle with visualisation and seem to be editing your own minds before actually applying them.

Lets do some basic algebra . . .

Longer hooklink (2-5') = A
Shorter hooklink (3-10") = B
Assumed random Break above mainline (2') = C
Assumed random Break above mainline (7") = D
Lead drops every time = E
Hook is initially still stuck in fishes gob = F
Breaking strain negligible = G

E x F(A+C+E)-G = 4-7' Trailing line (V V Unsafe)
E x F(B+C+E)-G = 10"-1'3" Trailing line (Manageable - Unsafe)

Therefore by unswerving mathematical genius and a proven model when E is the constant multiplied by the risk factor of F then in the event of a mainline break between two of the most common variables irrespective of G a shorter hooklink is always safer . . . . . . . . .you savvy? 🤪

PS> Terry you still haven't answered my question . . resorting to 'average' banter does not count . . ;):p
Click to expand...
it’s getting silly now. We don’t need silly equations to work out that if a main line is broken 6-7 feet away from the hook that fish is trailing 6-7 feet of material.
it’s not any different or safer on the fish if the first 10 inches or the first 3feet is hook length. It’s still trailing 6-7 feet of material. Comprende??
the safest scenario is if it’s able to drop the 6-7 feet of material. I’ll say it for a 3rd time. Barbless hooks and free running leads = fish untethered from rig altogether 👍🏻👍🏻
I don’t even drink but I think I might need one 🤦‍♂️
 
"The inherent dangers in having longer hooklinks are/is another (albeit somewhat interrelated) matter"

Don't worry if you need assistance my clear as mud algebra should help - cheers
 
I hate to bring more bad news to the table but the hook in the photo i put on is a talon tip barbed hook not barbless must be the angle the hook is lying in the photo , i never use barbless hooks , albiet they are v small barbs.
 
Chris Belcher said:
"The inherent dangers in having longer hooklinks are/is another (albeit somewhat interrelated) matter"

Don't worry if you need assistance my clear as mud algebra should help - cheers
Click to expand...
So what is your question? (I'm thinking ... has JC re-joined under a pseudonym?)
 
Richard Isaacs said:
it’s getting silly now. We don’t need silly equations to work out that if a main line is broken 6-7 feet away from the hook that fish is trailing 6-7 feet of material.
it’s not any different or safer on the fish if the first 10 inches or the first 3feet is hook length. It’s still trailing 6-7 feet of material. Comprende??
the safest scenario is if it’s able to drop the 6-7 feet of material. I’ll say it for a 3rd time. Barbless hooks and free running leads = fish untethered from rig altogether 👍🏻👍🏻
I don’t even drink but I think I might need one 🤦‍♂️
Click to expand...
Richard it was getting silly on page 2 ffs . . .the maths expression was just for amusement value (admittedly maybe too subtle for this forum) but to express the point in a different written form.

You guys need to READ the words written . . .we are talking about hookLINK lengths and distance from the hookLINK not hook itself as I assumed we'd agreed that with a lead or feeder (the most likely form of initial obstruction when under tension) this was where an above the hooklink break was most likely to occur. . .admittedly there are lots of other variables (hence my semi comedic maths) but either way trailing any reasonable length of line (and it will be a length if the current assumed hookLINK norm is 2-5') is dangerous in itself EVEN WITH the lead dropped as it has more chance of wrapping around something as the fish runs free. . . . . . . . .a shorter hookLINK mitigates this a little bit better.

. . You are making a BIG assumption that a snagged fish can magically remove a hook and untether itself . . . .perhaps especially so for a barbel who when snagged also has to cope with water flow and natural predators . . .

PS> Don't even go there on barbless - they were invented for match anglers to speed up hook removal . . .for a fish with a hard rubbery mouth like a barbel they are not any easier to eject once embedded . . . .they don't have human hands or forceps . . . .
 
Last edited:
Come on fellas, this is fishing, not rocket science, lighten up a bit, we imo dont need such technobolookas , after all , the aim , at least my aim is to use my time sitting or wandering the bank, looking to catch a Barb, or Chub or whatever, I admit I tend to laugh at todays super advanced rods and reels lines and rigs , the main reason is that they are NOT needed to achieve my aims. I will however use my carbon and baitrunners whenever they are needed due to conditions, even then the end rigs are the most basic.

Nor I think anybody elses aims if the truth be known . Maybe to leave such stuff and actually use more basic tackle would actually enhance your pastime because as so many seem to say these days ........less is more . The thing is, have you the backbone and confidence in yourself and your skills to do this and leave the techno behind ?

However my views are not widely held , I blame the worlds obsession to the latest gadget etc, if a gadget or item is there, then it MUST be used and if I use it I must justify its use , even to the detriment of my results .

Just my take in things .

By all means go ahead and spend your time , money and resources on measuring your rigs to the nth degree, test lines to the nearest gramm bs , critically assess the knot strength below which you will not risk using the same, have all the must have‘s , sit and feel comfortable with the best you can afford and be satisfied with your results, but dont try to convince us all that it is the way forward, after all , when the electricity fails, the power vanishes and all your expensive gear is no more , the people who can use what is left will be the ones who catch the fish...... with a basic rod etc, or even a handline ..... they will not miss the gadgets as the need was never there in the first place ... but they may ( or may not ) have had a better understanding of what works .

I dare any and all to go back to basics , catch a fish and not feel an inner satisfaction that you did it without all the technocrap.


David .

P.S Chris , I am just an ageing baby boomer Council estate lad who never saw the need for algebra, we have perfectly good numbers and a perfectly good alphabet , I never saw the need for either to be mixed up and in my 68 years as a civil servant etc have never seen anybody except yourself use it, even then I did not understand the results , dim ? Maybe, but I have managed to survive very well so far . But... 10/10 for your explanation, even though it was Martian to me.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Chris Belcher said:
Richard it was getting silly on page 2 ffs . . .the maths expression was just for amusement value (admittedly maybe too subtle for this forum) but to express the point in a different written form.

You guys need to READ the words written . . .we are talking about hookLINK lengths and distance from the hookLINK not hook itself as I assumed we'd agreed that with a lead or feeder (the most likely form of initial obstruction when under tension) this was where an above the hooklink break was most likely to occur. . .admittedly there are lots of other variables (hence my semi comedic maths) but either way trailing any reasonable length of line (and it will be a length if the current assumed hookLINK norm is 2-5') is dangerous in itself EVEN WITH the lead dropped as it has more chance of wrapping around something as the fish runs free. . . . . . . . .a shorter hookLINK mitigates this a little bit better.

. . You are making a BIG assumption that a snagged fish can magically remove a hook and untether itself . . . .perhaps especially so for a barbel who when snagged also has to cope with water flow and natural predators . . .

PS> Don't even go there on barbless - they were invented for match anglers to speed up hook removal . . .for a fish with a hard rubbery mouth like a barbel they are not any easier to eject once embedded . . . .they don't have human hands or forceps . . . .
Click to expand...
Ok I think it’s you that is struggling to read my posts and it’s boring trying to make them clearer. Your just writing total nonsense now and it’s taking the thread off what was quite a good topic. I’ve nothing to add because the replies are getting that ridiculous
 
Chris Belcher said:
PS> Don't even go there on barbless - they were invented for match anglers to speed up hook removal . . .for a fish with a hard rubbery mouth like a barbel they are not any easier to eject once embedded . . . .they don't have human hands or forceps . . . .
Click to expand...
there’s nothing wrong with being quite new to barbel fishing but the last part of your quote...
That’s total b........ks
Sorry but it really is. They drop straight out of their mouths nearly every time. I reckon I’ve only had to unhook about 3 this year myself. If your not a fan of barbless hooks that’s great. Lots of people are with you on that for reasons that have been discussed over and over but to claim the hard mouth of a barbel keeps them lodged in as well as a barbed hook is nothing less than a mile from the truth.
you like to try things so I suggest you try it. Let the line go slack for a couple of seconds then tighten back up and see if she’s still there.
 
Hi, and with posts like Davids you wonder why some people on here are hesitant to post anything on here slightly technical other than landing net handles ! My original post was asking for people who use combi rigs what their preferred materials to make the rig was and sure enough it didnt take long before i ended up having to justify some some here on whether or not my rig was safe or not ! Even after going into detail of how careful i am in making sure that anything i use i have tested to destruction and am 100% confident that it wont compromise barbel safety still the doubters keep on and finally Davids post about having " the backbone" to leave the technical stuff behind and fish with just hook and line just goes to show how superior some on here think they are ffs ! I dont feel i have to justify to anyone on here the rigs i use on here that wasnt my original post , if your happy to fish simple tactics because a) you dont feel you need to or b) your holier than thou attitude wont let you fish any other way thats fine so please dont interrupt a thread thats obviously too technical for you to understand and try and infer that anyone who does try and push the accepted way of fishing for barbel in a different direction is jeopardising their safety by using more than one knot or different materials. Some of us are more technically minded and enjoy as much as catching barbel but catching them using something that goes against the norm and experimenting with baits and rigs that the masses dont normally use . I feel this thread has gone as far as it can discussing the merits of using combi rigs and has now ,due to some , degenerated into something else , perhaps we need another section on BFW called the " technical side of things" where like minded souls can discuss things like this thread started with without it being hijacked by patronising postsers who decry progress or technical aspects of this branch of angling and are standing so high up their on moral high ground they need oxygen to help them breathe
 
As this thread has strayed from the OP, can I chuck this in?

Tadpole beads - anyone else use these?

I use tadpole beads in conjunction with big eyed swivels. There is a ridge just behind the bead head that the swivel fits perfectly to achieve a bolt rig, though I leave my swivel free running on the tapered section of the bead.

Advantages of this setup include that instant choice of bolt or running rig. Whichever choice is made, should the leader or mainline break, a fish can pull that line through the bead - at least the weight and bead will not tether a fish.

Two days ago I got this rig snagged near the end of a long retrieve - a new major snag has appeared after the floods! So I pulled from all directions and eventually my 10lb fluoro trace broke - it took a LOT of pressure!

On retrieve I found the weight, wide eye swivel, bead and hook were missing, the trace and mainline swivel were still there. Clearly the weight had been snagged and as I pulled the tadpole bead slid over the size 8 mainline swivel. Then the whole lot stuck behind the hook until the trace broke.

Seems to me the tadpole bead solves a lot of issues, some solutions probably by accident!

The setup I use for lines now, 20lb - 30lb braid mainline, 8' of 15lb - 20lb Seaguar fluoro leader, 10lb - 15 lb fluoro trace. Always keeping the line strengths stepped down towards the hook.

I use the Albright knot to join braid to fluoro - that has never failed me yet. Tied properly and cinched tight it will not break on the pull. If I do this knot at home I add the tiniest drip of superglue to lock just one turn, ensures 100% reliability.

Back to the OP, that combi-rig has always intrigued me! I have made these up a few time but cannot get a fish on them. I tried just braid traces as well - again no bites!

I will probably have another go with them - but when straight fluoro traces work it will just be as I like to experiment.

Just seen the post by Chris, made whilst I constructed my post. Quite right Chris! But it can be amusing how far off-course these threads can go! 😅
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chris Thomson said:
Hi, and with posts like Davids you wonder why some people on here are hesitant to post anything on here slightly technical other than landing net handles ! My original post was asking for people who use combi rigs what their preferred materials to make the rig was and sure enough it didnt take long before i ended up having to justify some some here on whether or not my rig was safe or not ! Even after going into detail of how careful i am in making sure that anything i use i have tested to destruction and am 100% confident that it wont compromise barbel safety still the doubters keep on and finally Davids post about having " the backbone" to leave the technical stuff behind and fish with just hook and line just goes to show how superior some on here think they are ffs ! I dont feel i have to justify to anyone on here the rigs i use on here that wasnt my original post , if your happy to fish simple tactics because a) you dont feel you need to or b) your holier than thou attitude wont let you fish any other way thats fine so please dont interrupt a thread thats obviously too technical for you to understand and try and infer that anyone who does try and push the accepted way of fishing for barbel in a different direction is jeopardising their safety by using more than one knot or different materials. Some of us are more technically minded and enjoy as much as catching barbel but catching them using something that goes against the norm and experimenting with baits and rigs that the masses dont normally use . I feel this thread has gone as far as it can discussing the merits of using combi rigs and has now ,due to some , degenerated into something else , perhaps we need another section on BFW called the " technical side of things" where like minded souls can discuss things like this thread started with without it being hijacked by patronising postsers who decry progress or technical aspects of this branch of angling and are standing so high up their on moral high ground they need oxygen to help them breathe
Click to expand...
Para para, paragraphs!
 
Quite a lot of discussion on this post. Whatever rig you use there are some essential things you must ensure it does if you get snagged so that a fish is not left dragging a lead or long length of line around with a hook in it's mouth. If the lead gets snagged you can pull to release the lead by either using a short length of weak line to attach the lead to the running link (rotten bottom in sea angling terms) or use one of the snag safe lead clips. I find most times I get snagged it is the hook that gets caught up especially when using hair rigs so I always use a weaker line for the hooklink. When pulling for a break most times the line breaks at the knot however and not in the trace itself so you must ensure if it breaks at the swivel knot below the lead that the lead is free to slip off which is why I never use a fixed lead. With regards to barbed or barbless this comes down to personal choice, a barbless hook will slip out of a fishes mouth very easily once slack but if you give a fish a slack line when playing it you risk losing the fish so if a fish goes into a snag and you try to get it out by the usual method of giving it a slack line you will probably lose it. I use a micro barbed hook personally.
 
Just a tip, for a very free running lead attachment I have been using these pulley rig beads with a snap link attached for the last few years, I find they are great. If you want a weak link attachment just use a short weak length of line between snap link and lead.
pulley rig bead.jpg
 
Another thought came to mind in that most times when I get snagged is not when I have a fish attached but when retrieving to change baits and get caught in a snag so it is important to bear this in mind because if you pull for a break in these circumstances and the line snaps you are effectively leaving a baited trace behind attached to a snag in the water which is still fishing which could invariably subsequesntly be taken by a fish so again you must ensure as far as possible if this happens the lead will come free. Quite often when I do have a fish on they will at some point go into a snag and when this happens I never unless absolutely necessary pull for a break. In these circumstances I will try to get the fish to swim free by trying different angles to pull from and give the fish a slack line to encourage it to swim free which will very often work. If all these methods fail to get the fish out of the snag I will put the rod in the rest and leave it hoping it will either swim free or come off until such time as I can no longer feel the fish on the end in which case I will then pull for a break. Only as a very last resort will I pull for a break with a fish still attached and I cannot remember the last time I had to do this.
 
My first season on the nene I was smashed off under a tree
Hooked a bolting fish at close proximity and she went straight towards me under a tree and cut me off on the roots. Probably a good 10-12 feet up the main line which is 18lb fox Exocet. Like I said earlier it didn’t matter how long the actual hook length was or how strong or weak it was because she cut the main line on the snag with an abrasive tree root. So the position of knotts or swivels really weren’t going to help her out. I’m sure she would of dropped the hook but one never feels particularly great about leaving that out there.
I have learnt that I can actually avoid that now by fishing the next swim on the other side of the tree casting upstream and I can pull her the opposite way clear of the snag.
if I’m snagged by retrieving a bait in my case it’s the exposed hook that often gets caught. Pulling back always wrecks my hook and I get the lot back 9/10.
they are very good hooks but not as strong as the hardware which I quite like.
 
Steven Hodges said:
Quite a lot of discussion on this post. Whatever rig you use there are some essential things you must ensure it does if you get snagged so that a fish is not left dragging a lead or long length of line around with a hook in it's mouth. If the lead gets snagged you can pull to release the lead by either using a short length of weak line to attach the lead to the running link (rotten bottom in sea angling terms) or use one of the snag safe lead clips. I find most times I get snagged it is the hook that gets caught up especially when using hair rigs so I always use a weaker line for the hooklink. When pulling for a break most times the line breaks at the knot however and not in the trace itself so you must ensure if it breaks at the swivel knot below the lead that the lead is free to slip off which is why I never use a fixed lead. With regards to barbed or barbless this comes down to personal choice, a barbless hook will slip out of a fishes mouth very easily once slack but if you give a fish a slack line when playing it you risk losing the fish so if a fish goes into a snag and you try to get it out by the usual method of giving it a slack line you will probably lose it. I use a micro barbed hook personally.
Click to expand...
Excellent post, thanks Steven. My experience with snagged fish is different though : Barbless, I spent nearly all last season snag fishing, catching less fish, but of a better stamp. I 'failed' in failing to stop a running fish get into a snag 3 times, but on each occasion, giving the fish a little slack until I felt the slightest movement, then 'hauling', I managed to land all 3 fish. But, after 5mins resting in the net, ~80% of my barbel unhooked themselves. That said, if I'd have concentrated on the Lower last season, with an expectation of only 1 bite for every 24hrs on the bank, I might have gone microbarbed 😂
 
Terry Simner said:
Excellent post, thanks Steven. My experience with snagged fish is different though : Barbless, I spent nearly all last season snag fishing, catching less fish, but of a better stamp. I 'failed' in failing to stop a running fish get into a snag 3 times, but on each occasion, giving the fish a little slack until I felt the slightest movement, then 'hauling', I managed to land all 3 fish. But, after 5mins resting in the net, ~80% of my barbel unhooked themselves. That said, if I'd have concentrated on the Lower last season, with an expectation of only 1 bite for every 24hrs on the bank, I might have gone microbarbed 😂
Click to expand...
Thanks Terry, yes if you can keep a tightish line with a barbless hook even when in a snag and time it just right when to slacken off and when to put the pressure back on I agree you have a good chance of landing the fish. I think the areas you are referring to are more of a hook and hold on type of swims which are full of snags so you cannot afford to let them run far. On the lower I am often fishing at long range and in depths of up to 25+ feet in flood conditions with several dropoffs in front of me so do not have such direct contact initially with the bite which is why I use microbarbed.
 
Steven Hodges said:
Thanks Terry, yes if you can keep a tightish line with a barbless hook even when in a snag and time it just right when to slacken off and when to put the pressure back on I agree you have a good chance of landing the fish. I think the areas you are referring to are more of a hook and hold on type of swims which are full of snags so you cannot afford to let them run far. On the lower I am often fishing at long range and in depths of up to 25+ feet in flood conditions with several dropoffs in front of me so do not have such direct contact initially with the bite which is why I use microbarbed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, agree ...entirely different scenario 👍
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top