Most manufacturers do this. Research and Development get all excited about some whiz-bang thing and try to convince Senior Management it’s a really good idea. Senior Management count the beans, check the potential costs, project future sales and rub their hands (or scratch their heads) over future profits. And if Senior Management decide R&D actually have something exciting and potentially profitable, then Production have the job of implementing R&Ds brainwave. If R&D costs money, applying changes in Production costs waaaaaay more money.

Some years back Orvis introduced a new composite for their Helios range. The core innovation was a tougher lighter resin and the cost of changing blank production was because that resin required higher temperatures and pressures – so a whole new set of expensive toys for the boys in the factory. Then came time spent learning the quirks of the new system and developing reliable production and products. The costs of those new machines, training and time are all reflected in high initial prices, while the company recoup their investment. (The most innovative companies I talk to about product development are working on tackle to be introduced three or more years in the future. From the consumer end of things, it can seem deeply unsympathetic if a superb new high-tech high-end product is brought to market just as the global economy dives into recession. Such are the risks of developing new product. Orvis can hardly be blamed for introducing the Helios when it did. Once started, the process of making costly production changes is very difficult to stop without incurring punishing costs.)

With the new machinery in place, the new product established in the market, typically the next step is to apply the same technology to less expensive product. That is the relationship between the Hydros and Helios rod ranges from Orvis.

The blanks for Hydros rods use the same composite as Orvis’ flagship Helios rods – dressed with less costly accessories, rings, reel seat, grip. Even the paint on Hydros rods was chosen to force production costs down.

Orvis has made it known that the Hydros rods use the same tapers, so we should expect Hydros to be similar to Helios rods. The finished rods should be fractionally heavier, slightly less keenly tuned, but the advantages of the basic blank material should still make these exceptional rods. At least that’s the tightrope I believe Orvis faced when they started designing the Hyros series – not an enviable walk.

As it happens I know the 9ft 6in Helios quite well so I found myself comparing it with this Hydros. In my opinion, the designers have walked that tightrope.

Casting a #6 line, the Hydros is exceptionally light, beautifully crisp and precise. Only by switching to the Helios can I feel a difference. The Helios is just a little more … Whether the price difference is justified, consumer preference and sales numbers will tell.

I can see where costs have been trimmed. The cork is not as good, the rings are hard chrome not Recoil, and the seat is simpler and slightly heavier. Hydros rods come packed in a sectioned nylon covered tube, no rod bag or flyweight graphite tube. The overall effect is a slightly less fussy, simpler rod (or a less attractive rod, depending on whether you see the glass half-full or half-empty). To my mind, the choice in cosmetics will influence some buyers, particularly those who find the Helios a little garish for their tastes. The performance differences are subtle, probably only really apparent to the most critical caster in absolutely optimal wind and weather conditions. Like its glitzier sister the Hydros incorporates arguably the most advanced resin system currently applied to a fly rod. Orvis has exploited that to the full in the design of the blank. The Hydros is well worth comparing with rods selling at a similar price.