Hook design and leader knots-which with what?

[fredaevans]

Great Thread going on in the UK 'Mother Board' on up/down/ring eye hooks and what knot(s) to use with each for best effect.

First time I've ever seen/read a discussion on this topic. Fascinating to say the least, as in 'who knew???'

You're log in info here is the same as 'over there' if you want to join in the discussion.

up eye and down eye hooks - Fly Fishing Forums

[Hardyreels]

Hi Fred,

We can talk about this here if you like also. I have found that for me the knot that I have come to know as the Orvis knot is the best all around connection. I vary the number of tag end passes through the loop from three (on fine tippets) to two on heavy lines like 25 lb. I have been using it since the early 90's for everything from #20 dries, - Salmon hooks. The slip knot effect allows for streamers to swim better and I just plain have faith in the knot.

[fredaevans]

Indeed we can Ard, indeed we can. What has been your findings (experience) with one hook eye style over another. Given a choice, I have the greatest 'confidence' in a ring eye style hook as the 'pull' is straight ahead.

All be it years back I can remember experimenting with up/down eye hooks stuck into a bit of wood, with an attached bit of leader, just to see what happened next.

I didn't like what I saw ... even worse if the bend of the hook was around a bit of line so it could really (for a lack of better term) 'swivel.' Exaggerated what was happening in a fishes mouth? Since, I've always suspected that most of the fish 'I've hooked' may really have hooked themselves.

[Hardyreels]

For streamers I came to use the ball or ring eye because of the perfect swiveling action the flies have when attached with the knot I use. For dry flies I started using Tiemco hooks # 100 I think and I have not went to see what the eye configuration is on those. Salmon hooks are the break from the norm eye wise. I tie on up eye and ring eye depending on the style of fly. I attribute the fish that come lose from the hook to my hurrying them to shore more so than the choice of hook.

[Frank Whiton]

Thanks for sharing the UK link Fred.

I have always preferred the ring eyed hook for all applications. I always thought the up eye or down eye should be tied to the shank of the hook instead of the eye. I have never done any testing or have never read anything about what is best. It just seemed logical to me. The problem is with a fly you don't have access to the shank for a knot. With very small wet flies the down eye may reduce the gap but I am not sure of that either.

With a stinger hook an up or down eye with the line tied to the shank may be a good choice. A snelled tie to the shank would be my choice instead of tying to the ring eye of a stinger. In most cases I would use an up eye hook for a stinger with the tie on the shank.

This is an interesting thread. Thanks again Fred.

Frank

[fredaevans]

Originally Posted by Frank Whiton

Thanks for sharing the UK link Fred.

I have always preferred the ring eyed hook for all applications. I always thought the up eye or down eye should be tied to the shank of the hook instead of the eye. I have never done any testing or have never read anything about what is best. It just seemed logical to me. The problem is with a fly you don't have access to the shank for a knot. With very small wet flies the down eye may reduce the gap but I am not sure of that either.

With a stinger hook an up or down eye with the line tied to the shank may be a good choice. A snelled tie to the shank would be my choice instead of tying to the ring eye of a stinger. In most cases I would use an up eye hook for a stinger with the tie on the shank.

This is an interesting thread. Thanks again Fred.

Frank

Great points all Frank, especially the 'highlighted' one above. In the occasion I tie something up with a 'stinger' I'll usually do a loop coming off the 'real fly' and tuck the end of the loop through the eye of the trailer. Effect is a ring eye straight pull and (the odd time) you want to replace same pretty easy to do.

But back to the link, my point was to get 'thoughts juiced' on the subject.

Fred

[Diver Dan]

I use a lot of Clousers and have used both straight eye and down turned eye hooks. In the case of flies like Clousers the down turned eye is far better than a straight eyed hook. It helps keep the fly riding upright. It will ride upright with less weight making the fall slower. I fish a spot pretty often that is really rocky and has a lot of old junk tossed in the river from the 1910 fire that burned the town down. Even though Clousers ride hook point up, I still hung up fairly often, so I came up with the idea of using Eagle Claw Gold Aberdeen hooks for them. They are a straight eye hook, but I put them in my vice and bend the eye down. These are a softer less brittle wire so I can do it with these. Some hooks it just snaps the eye off. The reason I like these is that if I snag the bottom I can straighten the hook out enough to pull free and not loose the fly.

[FlyFlinger2421]

Guess I'm just old fashioned, but I like a turle knot and either a down eye or up eye hook for most of my flies. Easy to tie and the line comes out perfectly straight. Yeah, the break strength is only 80% but hey, just use a slightly heavier leader.
For dry parachutes, I MUST use an up eye and here is why: The parachute sits flat on the water and a down eye makes a small dimple in the surface film which is totally unnatural. I have been using a clinch knot for my dries and smaller flies, but after reading some threads on here I am going to try a Davy knot next summer. Higher breaking strength is important when using 6X tippets!

[silver creek]

I don't think that the direction of the eye has any effect on the hooking ability of the fly, ie, the so called "hooking or penetration angle". Take a look at pg. 178 of Designing Trout Flies by Gary A. Borger. The angle of a hook eye has no effect on the angle of pull on the hook.

It was once thought that down eyed hooks had a better "hooking angle" because the down eye was thought to create a downward pull on the hook, and that this downward pull would "bury" the hook. Apparently this belief still continues and it is untrue. Mustad has an example of a hook penetrating a foam block that presumes to show the importance of the angle of the eye but this is wrong for reasons discussed below.

The first point is that the angle of pull is actually determined by the position of the hook in relationship to the tip of the rod and not the angle of the hook eye. Also the strike occurs when the fishes mouth is closed on the fly which places the hook in direct contact with the mouth of the fish.

Secondly, once the point of the hook enters the flesh of the fish, all angles of pull will bury the hook because the bend of the hook causes the point hook to rotate down into the fish, which then buries the hook until it the bend of the hook causes the hook point to rotate out of the flesh.

I also once believed that penetration angle was important, but as I read more, I've changed my view. Therefore, I have some disagreement with what Mustad has written about how important the eye position is in hooking. I think any effect is very very minor. The reason is that hooking angle does not stay constant as the hook on foam block illustration would suggest. A foam block is not flesh. Flesh is dynamic and deforms in response to penetration. A foam block does not.

Once the hook point penetrates flesh, the hook pulls on the flesh deforming it and simultaneously the hook rotates in line with the angle of pull of the line. The eye of the hook no longer rests nicely at a 90 degree angle to the flesh as it does on the foam block.

The angle of pull on the shank and the hook point are pretty much equal when the hook eye does not rest on the block. I believe that this angle of pull drives the hook point further into the flesh at pretty much the same angle which is determined by the angle of pull on the eye rather than the angle of the eye of the hook.

So the slight offset of the up or down eye from the straight eye really makes no difference on hookability. What does make a difference is the sharpness of the hook point and whether the hook gap is limited and the whether the hook point is offset.

If the hook point is sharp, I don't think eye position matters much. The hook point will enter the flesh regardless of the difference in hook eye position. Hooking gap and offset have a greater effect in my view because they affect the probability that any fish flesh comes to lie against the hook point.

I think hook eye postion is more about the aesthetics of the fly and the ease of tying the fly than any effectiveness in hooking.

For the same reasons, the type of knot makes no difference on how the well the hook will impale the fish. It does make a difference on manipulation of the fly such as the making a surface fly skate but as to hooking fish, all knots are equal. Once the point enters the flesh, all knots will rotate the hook into the fish.

Some fishers also think that a down eye hook somehow "narrows" the hooking gap and negatively affects the hooking ability of the pattern. That is not true either. The gap is the distance between the hook shank and the point and is not determined by the direction of the eye. What narrows the hooking gap is the material that is tied onto the hook at the location of the gap.

So the direction of the eye is not a significant factor in hookability of the pattern.

For the best hooking ability in midge patterns, a 2X short hook with a relatively wide gap for hook length and an offset point (gap) will improving hooking compared to a standard hook with no offset.

[gt05254]

I like turned up, return eye hooks for my salmon flies, and turned down eye, return eye hooks for my streamers. Why? Because I like the way they look, and I like tying on return eye hooks better than on ring eye hooks. I'm a victim of tradition and my own taste, lol. Trout flies I don't much care.

Oh, and turle knot on the up eyes, clinch on the down. Same victimology as above.
Gary