Question about “balanced rigs” and having all ballast unditchable

[Eric Sedletzky]

When I started diving everybody used weightbelts. We were taught that if you got in trouble and needed to establish positive buoyancy you were to jettison your weight belt (mostly at the surface, but not always).
As time went on, integrated BC became more and more popular but the weight systems were still ditchable.
Then came BP/W setups, but most or all people I knew, including me, used weightbelts with them, just smaller ones because the weight of the plate was figured into the sum total.
So now, in the more recent past it seems to have become fashionable for people who use BP/W to somehow attach all their weight to their rigs in an unditchable form, I.E. weight plates, bars, tank weights, fixed weights on straps, extra heavy back plates, etc.
I’m just wondering where this mentality came from and what was the original specific purpose for such an idea? I personally don’t understand why having ditchable weight is not optimal, to me having ditchable weight is a great safety tool.
I’m seeing many people buy into the no ditchable weight balanced rig idea, and I wonder if they really understand what they are getting into, and if they understand the original purpose.
What is the original theory behind it?

 

[Anthony A.]

My experience using al80, 3mm wetsuit in salt water I use 8-10lbs ballast + the 2.5lb backplate. That is neutral with a 500psi tank at the end of a dive and zero air in my wing at the safety stop. At the beginning of the dive with my wing empty I still have to kick down since I wont sink on my own. So during any time during a dive, i can swim up to the surface quite easily and not even break a sweat (if thats even possible underwatr ). So for me, 2 weight blocks in trim pockets on my camband is nice, clean and streamlined. No annoying belt to go under my bp.

The freedom i get from a bp/w has caused me to continuously try to streamline every single thing i could. I will never go back to weightbelt after being so free underwater.

Now if you have more ballast with thicker exposure suit, maybe a ditcheable weightbelt would make sense. But tropical diving with 10lbs ballast is easy enough to swim up to the surface.

 

[lowviz]

To me, a balanced rig means that at any time during the dive (and under the worst possible situation) I can swim my rig back to the surface.

I suppose that the worst case scenario would be to dirt dart with a full tank, no BCD or suit inflation, and a closed valve with no way to open the valve. Yes, one could envision a wonderfully balanced rig that puts you at 5-8 pounds shy. One could swim that rig up. No weight belt to drop at the surface, though.

I'll stick with a W/B, thank you.

 

[Lorenzoid]

To me, a balanced rig means that at any time during the dive (and under the worst possible situation) I can swim my rig back to the surface.

Yeah, that's my understanding of the terminology. "Balanced rig" doesn't equate to "no ditchable weight." If you have to ditch ballast to swim it up, it can still be a "balanced rig." A diver with a balanced rig may or may not have ditchable weight. I think a less confusing term might be "properly weighted rig," as in not over-weighted.

 

[doctormike]

I think that the term "balanced rig" means that you can swim it to the surface in case of a wing failure. And if properly weighted, the wing should just have enough gas in it to compensate for suit compression and the gas in the tank that you have yet to breathe.

I had never heard of that term used in the context of ditching weight. You really should never be in a position where you need to ditch weight at depth. The only rig where I can see that being a problem would be heavy steel doubles and a heavy wetsuit, early in the dive. Even then, it would be good to be able to start the ascent to the point of recovering some suit buoyancy. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be diving that gear configuration - maybe get a dry suit.

Ditching weight is basically for a tired or incapacitated diver at the surface who can't easily achieve positive buoyancy, or for a surface rescue.

 

[lowviz]

...//... Ditching weight is basically for a tired or incapacitated diver at the surface who can't easily achieve positive buoyancy, or for a surface rescue.

I would like to add an additional thought to that. It is also for peace of mind.

I did exactly that drill once, and once was enough. When I realized that every time I stopped finning I would sink, it began to creep me out.

 

[MichaelMc]

I’m just wondering where this mentality came from and what was the original specific purpose for such an idea? I personally don’t understand why having ditchable weight is not optimal, to me having ditchable weight is a great safety tool.

I'm relatively new (~130 dives), but the history I read sounds like:

- Early divers, no BC, no pausing, ditch belt if problem. Ditch option is good. (and it is...)
- BCs added, divers can pause and hold their depth. Cool.
- Backplates move lots of weight over lungs. Hey, level trim when not finning is really cool too.

But, if you only have a few pounds or only a few mid to low places to put it and have to choose, do you pick trim or ditchable. Because both are optimal.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

The term “balanced” had a different meaning years ago. It was separate from properly weighted, which everyone should be anyway. What it meant was that you and your rig were weighted equally so that in the event that you removed your rig underwater for whatever reason, you were weighted neutrally and your rig was also weighted neutrally at depth. This was the definition of “balanced”. You could remove your rig and neither you or your rig would go up or down. Lobster divers in Southern California distribute weight this way so they can remove their rigs at the entrance to a cave and go in separate from their S.C.U.B.A. on a 15’ or 25’ hookah line to grab bugs.
And please don’t tell me that nobody ever removes their rig at depth, because they do. If you never need to remove your rig at depth then you’re not diving in a location where it happens. They teach this around here for kelp entanglements.

So now “balanced” means being able to swim your rig to the surface in case of a wing failure and no drysuit, weightbelt or not.
To me that just means “properly weighted” or minimally weighted and not having to drag up a bunch of extra weight that doesn’t need to be there, and also having the common sense not to dive too deep in a thick wetsuit without some sort of redundant lift.

Nobody has answered my question yet, where and why did the practice of no ditchable weight come from?

 

[CWK]

So now, in the more recent past it seems to have become fashionable for people who use BP/W to somehow attach all their weight to their rigs in an unditchable form, I.E. weight plates, bars, tank weights, fixed weights on straps, extra heavy back plates, etc.
I’m just wondering where this mentality came from and what was the original specific purpose for such an idea? I personally don’t understand why having ditchable weight is not optimal, to me having ditchable weight is a great safety tool.
I’m seeing many people buy into the no ditchable weight balanced rig idea, and I wonder if they really understand what they are getting into, and if they understand the original purpose.
What is the original theory behind it?

When I did my first tech course, one of my instructors (I had two) said that his weights are bolted on because he would be dead if his weights dropped accidentally. Perhaps it comes from decompression diving where you do not want weights dropped accidentally because of the deco ceiling.

 

[lowviz]

...//... Nobody has answered my question yet, where and why did the practice of no ditchable weight come from?

OK. This question gave me serious pause. I'm not so sure that no ditchable weight ever did become a 'thing'!

I put some thought into this. I think that maybe you are expecting a common theme for both singles and doubles. Such does not exist. It is damn hard to make a balanced coldwater doubles drysuit rig. Singles, no prob.

Maybe read this for insight: Balanced Rig with a Single Tank?

-or I could be totally off-base on this. Even if so, it is a most interesting question.