What's with the UTD haters?

[victorzamora]

we don't bite ;-)

Well THAT'S no fun!

progressive, innovating and dynamic agency.

I'm a huge fan of technology and gadgets and pushing the limits of current accepted standards by introducing new variables. Progression is my life. However, what UTD seems to be missing (mostly with their Z-Manifold monstrosity) is that all progress is change, but not all change is progress.

I've held my tongue for a while on this thread, as you could call me a "UTD Hater" per the OP. I dislike the Z-manifold entirely, after having liked the concept for about 5 minutes. My other problem is the way people try to defend it (UTD and the Z-manifold).

For example: Switching tanks. Kev posted a 5-step process to switch tanks. This involved manipulating two valves and switching scooter hands twice. In SM, isn't the process just "1) switch regs"?? How on the PLANET is a 5-step double-valve-drill simpler than switching regs? What if you forget which tank you're drawing from and shut the one you're breathing off of? Not a big deal, but still not pleasant. Do you run them wide open? In which case, how about the time it takes to switch tanks? Is that not vastly greater than the time needed to switch regs?

9-Failures Heuristic Model: If backmount is 9, Z-manifold would be 13....right? The 9 Kev outlined and then 4 more: Left QC6M, Left QC6F, Right QC6M, Right QC6F. Sidemount would be, what, 4? Right post failure fixable/nonfixable, Left post failure fixable/nonfixable. None of these provide a serious danger to the diver as emergency feathering drills can provide practically all gas from all tanks.

Mixed-Team Diving: I have YET to see a good reason to go the route of Z-Manifold for mixed team diving. You can always hand the OOA diver your long hose? Congratulations. So can I....without the additional failure points, complexity, or expense. If unclipping a reg and/or breaking the breakaway zip tie is that big of a deal for you, maybe you shouldn't be in a cave or on a tech dive....or in the water at all. Aside from the "donating your long-hose" issue I keep seeing spewed everywhere, are there any other "benefits" of the Z-manifold in a mixed team scenario? Hint: I'm not accepting "accessing all available gas" per my earlier point about accessing all gas from all tanks.

Having said all of that, I'm really not a UTD hater. I don't hate the Z-manifold, I just haven't seen a good reason for it or any benefit from it, whatsoever. What I can't stand is it being marketed and defended as the greatest piece of gear that has ever existed, and its defenders not coming to terms with the fact that there are serious drawbacks to it.

 

[wedivebc]

i'm not sure why you think your dive team is more valid than my "ad-hoc" dive team.
And the places i dive are both challenging and beautiful! So i'm not sure why you're insulting where i like to dive. But it just might answer the original question that sandiegosidemount asked.

​bingo!

 

[Kevrumbo]

Umm...I'm pretty sure I can access the air from both of my tanks without the use of a manifold. So I see no need to spend the extra $1000. Nothing prevents me from donating to an OOA diver in back mount or CCR with a long hose if I have to. I can even do it without having to worry about turning valves on and off, so a lot less task loading, and a lot more like traditional back mount.

I'm not sure why you think your dive team is more valid than my "ad-hoc" dive team.
And the places I dive are both challenging and beautiful! So I'm not sure why you're insulting where I like to dive. But it just might answer the original question that SanDiegoSidemount asked.

Well THAT'S no fun!


I'm a huge fan of technology and gadgets and pushing the limits of current accepted standards by introducing new variables. Progression is my life. However, what UTD seems to be missing (mostly with their Z-Manifold monstrosity) is that all progress is change, but not all change is progress.

I've held my tongue for a while on this thread, as you could call me a "UTD Hater" per the OP. I dislike the Z-manifold entirely, after having liked the concept for about 5 minutes. My other problem is the way people try to defend it (UTD and the Z-manifold).

For example: Switching tanks. Kev posted a 5-step process to switch tanks. This involved manipulating two valves and switching scooter hands twice. In SM, isn't the process just "1) switch regs"?? How on the PLANET is a 5-step double-valve-drill simpler than switching regs? What if you forget which tank you're drawing from and shut the one you're breathing off of? Not a big deal, but still not pleasant. Do you run them wide open? In which case, how about the time it takes to switch tanks? Is that not vastly greater than the time needed to switch regs?

9-Failures Heuristic Model: If backmount is 9, Z-manifold would be 13....right? The 9 Kev outlined and then 4 more: Left QC6M, Left QC6F, Right QC6M, Right QC6F. Sidemount would be, what, 4? Right post failure fixable/nonfixable, Left post failure fixable/nonfixable. None of these provide a serious danger to the diver as emergency feathering drills can provide practically all gas from all tanks.

Mixed-Team Diving: I have YET to see a good reason to go the route of Z-Manifold for mixed team diving. You can always hand the OOA diver your long hose? Congratulations. So can I....without the additional failure points, complexity, or expense. If unclipping a reg and/or breaking the breakaway zip tie is that big of a deal for you, maybe you shouldn't be in a cave or on a tech dive....or in the water at all. Aside from the "donating your long-hose" issue I keep seeing spewed everywhere, are there any other "benefits" of the Z-manifold in a mixed team scenario? Hint: I'm not accepting "accessing all available gas" per my earlier point about accessing all gas from all tanks.

Having said all of that, I'm really not a UTD hater. I don't hate the Z-manifold, I just haven't seen a good reason for it or any benefit from it, whatsoever. What I can't stand is it being marketed and defended as the greatest piece of gear that has ever existed, and its defenders not coming to terms with the fact that there are serious drawbacks to it.

​bingo!

Y'all Haters --Argue for your limitations enough . . .and sure enough they're all yours!

 

[gearhound]

Poor Kev
Anyway SanDiegoSidemount, I think if you step back and look at this thread objectively, you'll find your answer.

 

[SanDiegoSidemount]

I guess the main thought that occurs to me after all this is that it should be possible to love what you dive without hating what others dive.

It's been illuminating for me to see the opinions on all sides. Thanks for all your contributions.

---------- Post added February 9th, 2014 at 04:12 PM ----------

My other thought is that the acrimony is all about UTD's sidemount manifold, and little else. Since there appear to be no facts (i.e. incident/accident/fatality statistics) to confirm or deny how "safe" it is or isn't, then I'm tempted to view the entire subject as a matter of personal opinion.

As ever, safety is mostly about the diver, not the gear.

 

[rjack321]

My other thought is that the acrimony is all about UTD's sidemount manifold, and little else. Since there appear to be no facts (i.e. incident/accident/fatality statistics) to confirm or deny how "safe" it is or isn't, .

Yeah and part of that is because it was designed by people with basically no sidemount experience. In exchange for now having a long hose and not needing to routinely switch regs to balance the consumption from the tanks, you have to turn valves on and off because the manifold does not balance the IP in the regulators. So you can't have "all valves open" like you would in backmount anyway. And the logic that it's "just like backmount" is just plain false.

There are no accident statistics regarding its safety because very few actual sidemount dives (dives where backmounted tanks would never fit) are done with it. That's partly because most serious sidemount divers think the manifold - with or without the valve is BS. The accident rate for open water dives, in sidemount or not is low enough that there will never be enough statistical power to differentiate that manifold from any other configuration.

I see no reason to spend money on it since its insanely expensive and doesn't solve any problems.

 

[sunnyboy]

And this is also where IMO the UTD Z-system sidemount trumps all: by virtue of that Distribution Block or Isofold/Maniifold, I can access and combine both available remaining tank volumes in a primary long-hose donation to an Out-of-Gas Buddy...

But according to UTD your dumbass buddy isn't SUPPOSED to be running out of air!!!

Sounds suspiciously like a manufactured reason to expain the rubber hose manifold.

 

[Kevrumbo]

Yeah and part of that is because it was designed by people with basically no sidemount experience. In exchange for now having a long hose and not needing to routinely switch regs to balance the consumption from the tanks, you have to turn valves on and off because the manifold does not balance the IP in the regulators. So you can't have "all valves open" like you would in backmount anyway. And the logic that it's "just like backmount" is just plain false.

There are no accident statistics regarding its safety because very few actual sidemount dives (dives where backmounted tanks would never fit) are done with it. That's partly because most serious sidemount divers think the manifold - with or without the valve is BS. The accident rate for open water dives, in sidemount or not is low enough that there will never be enough statistical power to differentiate that manifold from any other configuration.

I see no reason to spend money on it since its insanely expensive and doesn't solve any problems.

To reiterate again objectively to your dismissive uninformed opinion Richard:

I carry both conventional BP/W and the Z-system sidemount while traveling, because I still elect to keep the long hose paradigm & protocol to be consistent between Backmount & Sidemount. I am confident in my previous & current training to handle the extra "failure points" of both conventional manifolded twinsets as well as the new doubles sidemount Z-system. In Truk Lagoon, I dive backmount 11L doubles & deco bottles on the deeper wrecks 45m & greater in the morning, and use Z-sidemount in the afternoon on the shallower wrecks.

Either way -conventional backmount or Z-system sidemount-- I'm compatible with my Truk Dive Guide who uses DIR/Hogarth long hose configuration with backmount doubles. And that's the fact -Rjack. . .

It all works foe me, regardless of your weak two cents to a "nickel rocket" worth opinion. . .

 

[victorzamora]

I'm compatible with [anybody] who uses DIR/Hogarth long hose configuration with backmount doubles

This is the HEART of the Z-manifold, is it not?

Please explain to me, any of you, in what way I am not compatible with DIR/Doubles divers.

 

[PfcAJ]

I am confident in my previous & current training to handle the extra "failure points" of both conventional manifolded twinsets as well as the new doubles sidemount Z-system.