Rio Aqualux or Aqualux II Fly Line?

[FlyKastr]

Does anyone have an opinion/preference regarding Rio Aqualux versus Aqualux II Intermediate fly lines? I’d like to use this line for streamer fishing at higher altitude Sierra Lakes. I saw some Aqualux lines on clearance and assume that it is inventory from three years ago or longer. These are the differences that I could tell from inspection and reading info.

Aqualux: 40’ head length, shiny and clear head section, stiffer line (Could be due to age)
Aqualux II: 30’ head length, dull and opaque head section, supple line (Feels softer out of the box)

My limited understanding of fly lines is that the 40’ head provides line stability for distance casting and that a 30’ head loads rods quicker for shorter casts. If so, is the 40’ head better suited for High Sierra Lake fishing? Also, I’ve read that coiling issues associated with mono core intermediate lines tend to get worse with age. Is buying three year plus inventory a significant concern for this type of line?

I’d appreciate any opinion or advice that you could pass along. Thank you.

[flyster]

I was in your shoe many years ago. Never tried Aqualux. The line had a milky look to it. The line also seamed to be on the thick side. I went with Cortland Clear Camo. Matched with the right rod this line will get the job done even when casting long distances. I own 4 in different size weights. They do come up new on Ebay at good bargain price.

[BrownBear]

My only experience is with the original Aqualux, and that might steer you away from it for high, cold lakes. It REALLY didn't like cold weather and cold water, acting more like a Slinky than a fly line. I'm partial to 40' heads, but not spring coils of running line trying to get through the guides on a long shoot. Used it once in tropical waters, and it behaved fine. If the II version fixes all that and you like shorter heads, by all means take one fishing and report back.

[FlyKastr]

Thank you for the helpful replies; I really appreciate your advice. I’ll need to investigate this further, but it seems like the clearance RIO Aqualux is out.

I went with Cortland Clear Camo.

Is the Courtland Clear Camo Intermediate line the 444 or Precision?

[flyster]

http://reviews.cabelas.com/8815/314040/ ... ng&dir=asc

[briansII]

I hadn't bought one in years, but I recently purchased a clear intermediate line. It was a Rio Mainstream @ $39.95. I've fished it a little bit with a weighted Clouser, and seems to be a nice line. Not too stiff, but also not too limp. It did have a little bit of memory on the cold morning, but once I started casting/fishing, it worked the coils out. A little pre stretching would've helped, but I did not bother doing it. If I have one gripe, the line is only 80'. I may be out of touch, but I assumed most lines are 90'. Many I use are 100'+. Recently, this line, and a Sage Largemouth Bass line is only 80'.

briansII

[FlyKastr]

If I have one gripe, the line is only 80'.

Yes, even the SA Frequency lines have 82’–85’ lengths. Not sure why, perhaps its a cost cutting trend.

Thank you for the updates, it is very helpful to me.

[BrownBear]

If I have one gripe, the line is only 80'.

Yes, even the SA Frequency lines have 82’–85’ lengths. Not sure why, perhaps its a cost cutting trend.

I had a chance to spend time with a couple of SA line engineers a few years back, and I've done the same with a couple of the RIO folks.

The SA folks explained it that they tend to build their running lines a little thicker to help minimize tangles on long shoots, so they cut back on the length to avoid losing backing capacity on reels when folks switch to their lines. They pointed out also, that only about 5 anglers in 100 can cast so far that 15' or so less running line makes a darned bit of difference.

My conversation with the RIO folks started because the running lines on their first couple of generations of Outbound lines were so tangle prone, they made me absolutely goofy. They swore this latest of running lines is better, and I'm testing their claim now. The new running line is fine for now, but I'll give them a couple of years to see if how it holds up.

Interesting sideline on that conversation: Reflecting the Australian use of the term, they call the Outbound Shorts "Joey" lines, as in baby kangeroos. They developed them as beginner lines, but wide popularity for experience casters has moved them well up their product list. I still hate them!!!! They cost me 20'-25' on long casts compared to the full length Outbounds.

I've also started throwing an array of the SA lines to test their running lines. I'm impressed so far.

[FlyKastr]

Good information BrownBear, thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience. The SA explanation makes sense to design entry level lines that way. I definitely fit into that 95% category. Thank goodness for smart engineers…

[briansII]

If I have one gripe, the line is only 80'.

Yes, even the SA Frequency lines have 82’–85’ lengths. Not sure why, perhaps its a cost cutting trend.

I had a chance to spend time with a couple of SA line engineers a few years back, and I've done the same with a couple of the RIO folks.

The SA folks explained it that they tend to build their running lines a little thicker to help minimize tangles on long shoots, so they cut back on the length to avoid losing backing capacity on reels when folks switch to their lines. They pointed out also, that only about 5 anglers in 100 can cast so far that 15' or so less running line makes a darned bit of difference.

My conversation with the RIO folks started because the running lines on their first couple of generations of Outbound lines were so tangle prone, they made me absolutely goofy. They swore this latest of running lines is better, and I'm testing their claim now. The new running line is fine for now, but I'll give them a couple of years to see if how it holds up.

Interesting sideline on that conversation: Reflecting the Australian use of the term, they call the Outbound Shorts "Joey" lines, as in baby kangeroos. They developed them as beginner lines, but wide popularity for experience casters has moved them well up their product list. I still hate them!!!! They cost me 20'-25' on long casts compared to the full length Outbounds.

I've also started throwing an array of the SA lines to test their running lines. I'm impressed so far.

Interesting stuff. I understand why SA decided to go shorter, but the two lines I mentioned are both Rio(I think the Sage line is made by Rio). I do see the Sage line as having a very thick head, which would cut down on backing capacity, BUT it's a bass specific line. How much backing does one need? Ten feet? I'm no great caster, but I do fish at longer distances with some lines. I do not like having backing in my stripping hand.

I find that Rio's running line has gotten better since the original Outbound line. I still fish some of the long head Outbounds, but used the Shorts quite a bit more.....especially the floater. That's an interesting story about the Shorts being called Joey. An acronym for them is ROS(or OBS), but you could get "roos" from that too. As in kange"roos".

I don't want to go too far off topic, but I have the new Rio InTouch running/shooting line. It has a spectra core, and a somewhat stiff coating. Very little memory, and shoots like crazy. I fished a InTouch Trout line for a 1/2 day, and it was nice too.

briansII