Hook Test. How To

[Green Giant]

Given the steep pricing of the new trokar hooks and the huge popularity of gamas, I think a semi-scientific test (read: no lab equipment but still fair and relevant) of different hooks would be in place.

What properties do you think should be tested and (the hard part): How to perform the test of that specific property?

Edited March 30, 2011 by Green Giant

[atijigs]

Given the steep pricing of the new trokar hooks and the huge popularity of gamas, I think a semi-scientific test (read: no lab equipment but still fair and relevant) of different hooks would be in place.

What properties do you think should be tested and (the hard part): How to perform the test of that specific property?

Drag it lightly across your fingernail. If it scratches you should be good to go.

[steve187]

Drag it lightly across your fingernail. If it scratches you should be good to go.

Yes I agree with that. Most Gammys and Mustads will pass that test I think. I think Trokar has been saying that the Trokar penetrates with less pounds of force. Probably does. I'm not going to appreciate that difference enough to switch. To me it's sort of like drinking Folgers French roast or Starbucks French roast. I have to drink Folgers most of the time and Starbucks once in a blue moon even though I like the flavor of a Starbucks much better I just can't justify the coin.

[atijigs]

Yes I agree with that. Most Gammys and Mustads will pass that test I think. I think Trokar has been saying that the Trokar penetrates with less pounds of force. Probably does. I'm not going to appreciate that difference enough to switch. To me it's sort of like drinking Folgers French roast or Starbucks French roast. I have to drink Folgers most of the time and Starbucks once in a blue moon even though I like the flavor of a Starbucks much better I just can't justify the coin.

I agree. I could see that the Trokar may have a purpose fishing solid body plastics where you want the hook buried. With the surgically sharpend point it should cut vs puncture through the plastic. I can't see the extra dollars but for some it may make the difference in a tourney.

[bassrecord]

Given the steep pricing of the new trokar hooks and the huge popularity of gamas, I think a semi-scientific test (read: no lab equipment but still fair and relevant) of different hooks would be in place.

What properties do you think should be tested and (the hard part): How to perform the test of that specific property?

I am really big time turned off by all the hook manufacturer’s marketing blabber, B. S., smoke and mirrors, who is using their hook, and all allegations that I cannot personally see, test, replicate, observe and measure. I could care less about how they sharpen it, how they apply the finish, how they make it, or what it cost them. I just want a hook that fits my lure, fishes the way I want to fish and catches the Big Bass I want to catch, is reliable, is consistent and lasts for decades. You can bet I do not want their hook to ever fail when I have a bass of a lifetime hooked up.

It seems you want to test hooks that are on the market today. I compare hooks on the market today with discontinued hooks from yesteryear. My needs may vary from your needs, so you should design a test that fits your needs. Some thoughts about a such simple test are:

Working backwards, what test can anybody run? Only two tests come to mind – destructive (using equipment to break a hook) and non-destructive tests that would keep the hook usable. If you decide to go the non-destructive route, you could set up an experiment that would fit your conditions and your hook properties. For example you could examine under your hand held magnifying glass four packages of 100 hooks you use – trokar size A, trokar size B, gama size A and gama size B. I saw an instance where a vendor had a problem with one size but other sizes were OK. Then before starting, to reduce any bias, you write down and describe two types of hook defects you’ve seen before; a serious type (open eye, missing point, bent hook, missing treble hook, etc.) and a minor defect type (paint or coating broken, missing forge, bent shank, etc. but still usable). Then before you start testing, you decide on possible test outcomes and what you’ll accept - something like,

A. If the trokar, size A and B combined, has one or fewer serious defects, or three or fewer minor defects, and the gamma size A and B has more of either type defect, the trokar is the best hook.

B. If the gamma size A and B combined, has one or fewer serious defects or three or fewer minor defects, and the trokar size A and B has more of either type defect, the gamma is the best hook.

C. If both trokar size A and B combined, and gamma size A and B combined, each have less than one serious defect or three or less minor defects, the hooks are equal so go with the cheapest.

D. If both trokar size A and B combined and gamma size A and B combined, have two or more serious defects or four or more minor defects, the tests are inconclusive and you cannot tell which the best hook is. If you get outcome C (hooks are equal) or outcome D (both hooks are bad), you cannot expand the test and change an outcome. This is as far as you can go without getting scientific.

Among the Pros of this simple hook testing approach are semi-scientific (no lab equipment or statistics or math needed), inexpensive to conduct, you will know your hooks better after testing; no hooks destroyed in testing, and so on. Using this type of testing means you are using hook visual defects to approximate hook metallurgy.

Cons of this simple hook testing approach includes; hook prices (400x$3.33/hook = $1333 tokar costs), test sharpness; hook strength, effort (simple statistics would reduce sample sizes from 400 to about 124), hook visual defects may not equal hook metallurgy, samples may not be random, test does not handle outliers, and so on. If a buddy ran the same identical hook tests, his results, even if identical, would not substantiate your results or say trokar or gamma was a better or worse hook.

Hope this is helpful without hijacking your thread. But you hit one of my tackle hot buttons. If you want, to go deeper into hook testing but without getting into the high priced materials testing lab, we can discuss it. However since your fish hooks are so darned pricey, and my fish hooks are so hard to come by, any definitive destructive testing may not be practical.

John

[Green Giant]

Hijacking the thread? Quite the contrary John.

I should say that the reason for the test would not be to convince me what hook I prefer. I'm quite happy with most hooks and a small file. No - the thing is that I'm getting into the world og blogging and thought this would be a good and intresting subject to write about, if carried out right.

I say a destructive test is requred for but for a very limited number of hooks. Both for expenses and the huge amount of time it would take to test too many hooks one by one.

Now as a method I'm thinking of a swing arm slamming down on the hook point as a way of simulate wear. Then testing the hooks by hanging them weighted on a surface and measure the time it takes for the hook to completely penetrate that surface all the way past the barb. The test should probably be performed with the barbs completely removed also(only?).

Well. I'll keep on thinking about it some. It's a future project anyway. Ice is almost gone here and there's ton of things to take care about. New models to perfect and retailers convince. This could be a good project for next winter.

Anyway John, please continue.

And yes. It's all hooks on the market today I would be testing.

[bassrecord]

Hijacking the thread? Quite the contrary John.

I should say that the reason for the test would not be to convince me what hook I prefer. I'm quite happy with most hooks and a small file. No - the thing is that I'm getting into the world og blogging and thought this would be a good and intresting subject to write about, if carried out right.

I say a destructive test is requred for but for a very limited number of hooks. Both for expenses and the huge amount of time it would take to test too many hooks one by one.

Now as a method I'm thinking of a swing arm slamming down on the hook point as a way of simulate wear. Then testing the hooks by hanging them weighted on a surface and measure the time it takes for the hook to completely penetrate that surface all the way past the barb. The test should probably be performed with the barbs completely removed also(only?).

Well. I'll keep on thinking about it some. It's a future project anyway. Ice is almost gone here and there's ton of things to take care about. New models to perfect and retailers convince. This could be a good project for next winter.

Anyway John, please continue.

And yes. It's all hooks on the market today I would be testing.

Before you start hook testing to feed your blog, in order to minimize effort, costs, etc. why not first select the "best" bend? With the best bend already determined for a particlar type of angling, the "best" hook could be selected faster, cheaper, etc.because all inferior bended hooks would be eliminated in advance.

What is your "best" bend and why?

John

[RayburnGuy]

Another test you might consider is the amount of force it takes to flatten or curl the hook point. This could be done in the same manner as the penetration test. Just hang the hook with the point resting on a piece of metal and add increasing amounts of weight.

Ben

[bassrecord]

Another test you might consider is the amount of force it takes to flatten or curl the hook point. This could be done in the same manner as the penetration test. Just hang the hook with the point resting on a piece of metal and add increasing amounts of weight.

Ben

Yep I'm interested in the weak link after the "best" bend has been determined - eye, shank, bend or point - whatever shears, breaks, bends, or fatigues first and lets my Big bass get away.

John