What's the actual benefit of 'hollow' over solid pole elastic or are we being misled?

nico12

Grebe Grabber
Joined
Jul 9, 2002
Messages
2,033
I used to use Daiwa Hydro for all my pole fishing - Blue right through to Black / Red. I bought a new pole ( 2nd hand) and the previous owner had them newly elasticated with a variety of solids. After checking the knots & trimming a couple, I fished a few pleasure sessions for both silver and on commercials and to be honest the difference was zero to me......I was already choking on £14 for the hydro and this confirmed it wasn't ( imo) worth it for that alleged silicone effect when playing fish.
I've since bought Maver / Middy and others for a fraction of the price and haven't lost fish / felt it inferior at all !!
 

G0zzer2

Regular member
Site Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
4,268
I have little idea what benefits one has over the other, except that hollow tends to stretch farther and it's sometimes not as easy to hold the fish at the exact distance you need to net it as it is with a solid. But it has the advantage of allowing the fish to expend energy on a long first run.

I often change the rig over from one elastic to another during a match if it doesn't feel right. I honestly think there is nothing to beat trial and error - we all handle our tackle differently, and the fish we catch also differ, while they also fight differently on some days to others. Bottom line is I use whatever feels best on the day.

It also makes a difference how far away the nearest angler is, of course.
 

Mork

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
32
Thanks all - my phone camera lens has been cracked and I've just got it fixed. I will put some pictures and a video together that proves that hollow stretches out the SAME as solid (actual measured data) but hollow has a poor return (hysteresis). This leaves lots of elastic left out after playing a fish on hollow and the need to pull more elastic through the puller or leave an extra section on to get the fish in (compared to solid).

I will publish real objective test data - nothing subjective or opinion.
 

RMNDIL

Regular member
Joined
Mar 2, 2007
Messages
475
Thanks all - my phone camera lens has been cracked and I've just got it fixed. I will put some pictures and a video together that proves that hollow stretches out the SAME as solid (actual measured data) but hollow has a poor return (hysteresis). This leaves lots of elastic left out after playing a fish on hollow and the need to pull more elastic through the puller or leave an extra section on to get the fish in (compared to solid).

I will publish real objective test data - nothing subjective or opinion.
Be interesting. But in any test I have conducted hollows have NEVER stretched the same as DIRECT equivalent solids. ALWAYS further (I know it seems weird). Differences in results must be due to different elastics having different compounds so never being able to compare an exact like for like. When I compared elastic using g/m or volume of material the hollows ALWAYS stretched much further than solids and solids ALWAYS bottomed out sooner, would 'bite' much sooner and needed greater force to stretch them to any given point (2m - 4m, 2m - 6m, 2m-8m etc etc). Unfortunately Latex isn't always Latex.

Hybrids are a totally different kettle of fish.

So, as the saying goes 'practice makes perfect' and nothing beats our own trial and error as G0zzer 2 says above
 

dave brittain 1

Regular member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,870
Thanks all - my phone camera lens has been cracked and I've just got it fixed. I will put some pictures and a video together that proves that hollow stretches out the SAME as solid (actual measured data) but hollow has a poor return (hysteresis). This leaves lots of elastic left out after playing a fish on hollow and the need to pull more elastic through the puller or leave an extra section on to get the fish in (compared to solid).

I will publish real objective test data - nothing subjective or opinion.
Mork when hollows first came out anglers were very dubious of manufacturers claims stating that hollows offer a significant advantage over solid elastics including a claimed 8 times stretch factor compared to a 5 times stretch factor for solids. Also if hollow offered no advantage over solid, who in their right minds would put an elastic in a top kit that weighed 3 times as much and often unbalanced the pole due to the additional weight?

Speaking from a lot of experience catching big weights and big fish I can categorically state that hollows stretch significantly further than solids which supports the claimed manufacturers claims. However the important part is how they bottom out gradually and then give a little more preventing the dreaded hook pull which was prevalent with heavy solids as they locked up, long before a hollow would bottom out.

Playing fish hollows are bound to retract more slowly as there is more material and more friction so this is inevitable however what you've failed to account for is the flattening of hollow as the angle of the tip is changed while playing the fish and not an unimportant consideration in lubrication whether through water or as an added medium.

Add the fact the the majority of the elastic will be underwater during the fight not to mention the water effect as elastic retracts into the top kit and there are multiple factors that need to be considered.

Also take into account Middy's solid and hollow elastics will stretch at different rates to Preston which stretches differently to Vespe which stretches differently to Drennan not to mention the diameters and power ratings which differ according to manufacturer and you have a right conundrum.

In summary prior to the event of hybrid elastic 85% of commercial anglers use or used hollow elastics when targeting carp and mixed bags of carp and silvers because in their opinion it offers a significant advantage over solid elastic putting more fish in the net while adding that insurance factor that if you did hook a bonus fish you'd get it out due to the characteristics of the elastics.

For silvers nobody will argue that solid is not superior, however add bonus fish and most will opt for a light hollow with the added confidence that if they do hook a bonus fish, there's a very good fish they'll get it out.

Nobody will argue that in the cold generally below 10 degrees C, hollows fail to retract and recover to their original form. Solids cope much better in the cold however with the event of hybrid elastic, it will give the best of both worlds noting that although hybrid is a good compromise come bagging time and the warmer weather many including myself will switch back to hollow as hybrid doesn't seem to take the punishment or have the composure of hollow, something noted by a number of anglers and often discussed on the bank.
 

Mork

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
32
Mork when hollows first came out anglers were very dubious of manufacturers claims stating that hollows offer a significant advantage over solid elastics including a claimed 8 times stretch factor compared to a 5 times stretch factor for solids. Also if hollow offered no advantage over solid, who in their right minds would put an elastic in a top kit that weighed 3 times as much and often unbalanced the pole due to the additional weight?

Speaking from a lot of experience catching big weights and big fish I can categorically state that hollows stretch significantly further than solids which supports the claimed manufacturers claims. However the important part is how they bottom out gradually and then give a little more preventing the dreaded hook pull which was prevalent with heavy solids as they locked up, long before a hollow would bottom out.

Playing fish hollows are bound to retract more slowly as there is more material and more friction so this is inevitable however what you've failed to account for is the flattening of hollow as the angle of the tip is changed while playing the fish and not an unimportant consideration in lubrication whether through water or as an added medium.

Add the fact the the majority of the elastic will be underwater during the fight not to mention the water effect as elastic retracts into the top kit and there are multiple factors that need to be considered.

Also take into account Middy's solid and hollow elastics will stretch at different rates to Preston which stretches differently to Vespe which stretches differently to Drennan not to mention the diameters and power ratings which differ according to manufacturer and you have a right conundrum.

In summary prior to the event of hybrid elastic 85% of commercial anglers use or used hollow elastics when targeting carp and mixed bags of carp and silvers because in their opinion it offers a significant advantage over solid elastic putting more fish in the net while adding that insurance factor that if you did hook a bonus fish you'd get it out due to the characteristics of the elastics.

For silvers nobody will argue that solid is not superior, however add bonus fish and most will opt for a light hollow with the added confidence that if they do hook a bonus fish, there's a very good fish they'll get it out.

Nobody will argue that in the cold generally below 10 degrees C, hollows fail to retract and recover to their original form. Solids cope much better in the cold however with the event of hybrid elastic, it will give the best of both worlds noting that although hybrid is a good compromise come bagging time and the warmer weather many including myself will switch back to hollow as hybrid doesn't seem to take the punishment or have the composure of hollow, something noted by a number of anglers and often discussed on the bank.
I'm not convinced - where's your data?
I'm not sure that I've failed to consider the things you've claimed I had - read my post 32 in this thread and I've done many more tests including proving that hollow goes in/out the tip of an angled tip with more friction judder.
Hollow isn't heavier for the same material spec & cross-sectional area.
I'd be surprised if anyone will produce test data evidence to contradict my results....
 

RMNDIL

Regular member
Joined
Mar 2, 2007
Messages
475
Hollow isn't heavier for the same material spec & cross-sectional area.
When comparing volume/weight of material it won't. BUT when comparing 'power' it will. Hollow is softer - needs less force to stretch it any given length - and stretches further. So to get the same power you need a thick hollow which then weighs more and affects the action of the pole.
 

Mork

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
32
When comparing volume/weight of material it won't. BUT when comparing 'power' it will. Hollow is softer - needs less force to stretch it any given length - and stretches further. So to get the same power you need a thick hollow which then weighs more and affects the action of the pole.
Sorry but that's simply not right. Example to make sure we are on the same page...
Preston green solid 12, labelled 1.6mm but measures 1.7mm & ozone/connekt/Reactacore etc yellow hollow 14-16 that's labelled 2.5mm and measures 2.4mm with a hole in the middle, has the same cross-sectional area of latex, weighs the same and stretches with the same tensile force to elongation curve (in or out of water).
I have not tested any other makes, but If the material is the same and the cross-section area is the same, it has the same tensile properties.
Please show me any properties of materials table that implies that the tensile properties of material change with cross-sectional shape?
They all quote a unit/mm2 or unit/inch2 etc for any shape.
 

dave brittain 1

Regular member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,870
I'm not convinced - where's your data?
I'm not sure that I've failed to consider the things you've claimed I had - read my post 32 in this thread and I've done many more tests including proving that hollow goes in/out the tip of an angled tip with more friction judder.
Hollow isn't heavier for the same material spec & cross-sectional area.
I'd be surprised if anyone will produce test data evidence to contradict my results....
Mork when you state hollow isn't heavier for the same material spec & cross-sectional area how have you done your tests, have you used 0.25 dia hollow and 0.25 dia solid? Or have you used a solid 14-16 elastic with a typical diameter of around 1.85mm and compared that with a comparable 14-16 hollow that will have a diameter of around 2.6mm. If you look at various manufacturers web site they all state that their hollow elastics stretch much further than their comparable solid equivalents. Please feel free to argue the case with Drennan, Preston etc.

When hollow came out it was claimed that it had an 8 times stretch factor however most manufacturers are claiming at least 700% and that includes Browning and Frenzee who state it on their web sites and in video's. Drennan haven't given any figures and simply state their hollow has excellent stretch, recovery and fish-playing characteristics, stretching out much further and longer than solid latex elastic.

Have I experienced judder when playing fish as you suggest, not in the slightest that is what lubricant is for however even with water the only time I've experienced judder is when a fish is hooked in the tail or I've hooked an eel :ROFLMAO:

How do you know the compounds used by differing manufacturers is the same and identical to a solid elastic and how does this relate when using bi-core/dual compound which is common in hollows? You've simply assumed that the compounds are the same which is a bit like saying two tyres are the same when they they have totally different compounds and characteristics.

If you have fished with hollow and solid elastics you would know they behave differently which is supported by your data however you would also know that hollow does stretch significantly further hence why some anglers still use solid when near snags.

For your benefit I have just tried a length of middy 4-6 solid which is one of the stretchiest elastics I've used and it has 5 times stretch factor which is the same as other solids I've tried, noting this was pulled by hand to ensure I do not pass the limit of elasticity. If you continue to apply pressure you will get close to 6 times stretch factor but the elastic has passed its point of elasticity and becomes weakened, thinner and deformed which defeats the object of any experiment. The hollows I have measured all consistently bottom out at 7 times stretch but can go to 8 times if sufficient pressure is applied but like solid elastic it also becomes deformed if too much pressure is applied.

The effect when fishing, is that you end up with a swing tip hanging out of the pole. It's a common occurrence and happens frequently. Most anglers simply trim it off and carry on fishing in the knowledge that the elastic has stretched but will still retain sufficient elasticity to remain perfectly functional until it becomes worn and degrades to the point where it needs to be replaced.

To put the above into perspective a 2.5m length of solid elastic which is probably the most common length used in most power kits will stretch to 41ft whereas the same length of hollow will stretch to 57.4ft. In fish playing terms this gives the angler more time to turn the fish and because the power is applied gradually by a hollow due to it's characteristics the fish doesn't tear off as quickly, panic or fight as hard and as a result is much easier to lead back to the net because you are guiding it rather than dragging it in the case of a solid which applies more force making the fish pull back all the harder.

Hopefully the coin is now dropping as to why anglers prefer hollows for big fish and why when it comes to big fish hollow offers a distinct advantage in the majority of circumstances. Like most things in fishing it's not black and white, there's an awful lot of grey.
 

Total

Regular member
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 25, 2016
Messages
15,866
@dave brittain 1 .......After reading your last couple of posts I would seriously get our Dave to change your forum name to 'Dr B'.....:oops:

.....Actually scrub that, it makes you sound like a rapper!;):ROFLMAO:
 

Mork

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
32
Dave - you initial question shows that you don't understand. I can't imagine 0.25mm hollow - does it actually exist?

The comparisons I've already given are what I tested, that do not match the sizes that you quoted, they match the size that I quoted of the products that I quoted & tested. They were both claimed to be latex. Clearly the hollow will have a larger diameter for the same cross-sectional area as a solid (there's a hole in the middle of hollow) that is not part of the cross-sectional area of the latex material.

Of course different material compounds will have different properties and I have not tested any other compounds from any other suppliers. I have not assumed that all elastics are the same material - that's very presumptuous of you!

From start to finish - my query has ALWAYS consistently been about the difference between hollow & solid for the same material specification and cross-sectional area.

I don't dispute that different material specifications have different tensile properties and I have never disputed it. I would expect different materials to have different properties.

Hopefully the coin has dropped for you!
 
Last edited:

Maesknoll

Chris
Staff member
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
8,557
When I switched to hybrid elastics, I weighed them and the hollows I was replacing them with, whilst they might have been different makes and material, for a given length were lighter, when fishing at 16m or longer then any weight reduction in elastic is noticeable.
 

Mork

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
32
When I switched to hybrid elastics, I weighed them and the hollows I was replacing them with, whilst they might have been different makes and material, for a given length were lighter, when fishing at 16m or longer then any weight reduction in elastic is noticeable.
I would expect this if material is less dense or the cross-sectional area was smaller (less material) for your desired performance.
 

Mork

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
32
When comparing volume/weight of material it won't. BUT when comparing 'power' it will. Hollow is softer - needs less force to stretch it any given length - and stretches further. So to get the same power you need a thick hollow which then weighs more and affects the action of the pole.
If you are comparing the number rating (that there are no universal standards for), then I would agree in general that you require a higher number hollow to achieve similar performance as a solid for the same material spec. However, many hollows have a dual core that adds to the weight and diameter.
Surely the extra weight of hollow is a disadvantage but I'm not sure if the abrasion properties may be different?
 

dave brittain 1

Regular member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,870
Dave - you initial question shows that you don't understand. I can't imagine 0.25mm hollow - does it actually exist?

The comparisons I've already given are what I tested, that do not match the sizes that you quoted, they match the size that I quoted of the products that I quoted & tested. They were both claimed to be latex. Clearly the hollow will have a larger diameter for the same cross-sectional area as a solid (there's a hole in the middle of hollow) that is not part of the cross-sectional area of the latex material.

Of course different material compounds will have different properties and I have not tested any other compounds from any other suppliers. I have not assumed that all elastics are the same material - that's very presumptuous of you!

From start to finish - my query has ALWAYS consistently been about the difference between hollow & solid for the same material specification and cross-sectional area.

I don't dispute that different material specifications have different tensile properties and I have never disputed it. I would expect different materials to have different properties.

Hopefully the coin has dropped for you!
Mork 0.25 is a typo and most people would have picked that up but for clarification it should have read 2.5mm which is typical of 14-16 hollow.

If you'd been one of my graduates or apprentices at work, I would have told you to go back to the drawing board and find out why your stated 6.5 X stretch factor for both hollows and solids differs to that stated by the main manufacturers who test their products before they market them. If they print something that is factually incorrect they not only lose their credibility they also leave themselves open to criticism on forums like and FB which can create a lot of publicity they don't want.

I would have also asked you to confirm with one of the main manufacturers if their compounds for solid and hollow elastics are the same because without confirmation of this data you are working on assumptions which defeats the object of providing factual evidence to support your findings.
 

Mork

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
32
Mork 0.25 is a typo and most people would have picked that up but for clarification it should have read 2.5mm which is typical of 14-16 hollow.

If you'd been one of my graduates or apprentices at work, I would have told you to go back to the drawing board and find out why your stated 6.5 X stretch factor for both hollows and solids differs to that stated by the main manufacturers who test their products before they market them. If they print something that is factually incorrect they not only lose their credibility they also leave themselves open to criticism on forums like and FB which can create a lot of publicity they don't want.

I would have also asked you to confirm with one of the main manufacturers if their compounds for solid and hollow elastics are the same because without confirmation of this data you are working on assumptions which defeats the object of providing factual evidence to support your findings.
So where is the manufacturers data that you believe my data to be different to?
I 'expect' that the brands selling the elastic are not the manufacturers at all and give info that is factually incorrect.
What do you think of this endorsed matrix video at 1:25? If it stretches to 600% more than latex stretches (commonly quoted as 6), it would stretch to 36 x it's original length.

This would make your 2.5m example on your previous post stretch to 295 feet! Do you believe this because it official from matrix?
 
Last edited:
Top