B2 swivel qualify for DIR?

[Scared Silly]

I would not recommend a swiveled reg. Besides the points that have already been mentioned (unnecessary, possible failure point), you should be aware that the Atomic swivel regs use a non-standard fitting at the second stage. If you have a problem at the dive site and have to swap something out, then trust me - you will wish you had a second stage with a standard fitting.

This is not quite true. The thread size and diameter of the atomic's swivel hose are the same as what is on other regs. What is different is that you have to remove a spacer nut from the reg when putting the swivel hose on. If you have to replace the swivel hose with a std hose you will want to put the spacer nut on first. As such, for those who have an Atomic swivel hose I would reccomend getting this spacer nut and put it into your save a dive kit so that if the hose blows you can put a std hose on. Without the nut I think you would run the risk of damaging the inlet port

Also consider that most Atomic second stages cannot be disassembled that easily. The outer cover is easy enough to take off by hand, but there is an internal retaining ring that requires a tool to remove before you can get to the diaphragm. Atomic sells a "cave ring" option for the M1 that addresses this issue, but as far as I know, that's the only Atomic reg that it fits.

This is true, however I have been able to remove the retaining ring by hand so the need for a tool is questionable. However, if the ring is jammed a tool would be helpful.

 

[Dan Gibson]

So you are suggesting non standardization is ok as long as you carry mass quantities of replacements?

Although it may or may not be correct for the Atomic swivel as one of the poster notes it really the same connection but a spacer is required (I have no idea since I only own some of the older Z1 models and would never buy the newer swivel models), the concept of standardization covers a wider range of equipment.

That's a most typically (ab)used non-argument...
If I go diving, I have a complete spare reg with me in the car... because in a lot of cases at the dive site it did/does occur that someone of our group, or other divers at the dive site, did forget his reg at home and/or someone has a problem with his reg and instead of starting to disassemble/assemble/modify regs I simply hand over my spare reg and that's it. Life can be as simple and easy as you want it to be... :14:

 

[Luc Dupas]

So you are suggesting non standardization is ok as long as you carry mass quantities of replacements?

No...standardisation undoubtly is a great thing which everyone should pursue !
But what I'm saying is that standardisation is of no big use when someone forgot his reg... or, as we do a lot, when you're diving in tidal waters and have to stick to the tides and right at the water side one of your hoses fail there isn't much time left for starting to fumble with pliers and keys and spare hoses, etc. and it's so much more convenient to simple take a complete spare reg and start your dive, and later on that day upon driving back home stop over at a LDS and buy whatever part you need for fixing your own reg...
And in these cases having something non-standard is not an issue...

 

[TSandM]

Standardization is a goal. The more critical the environment, the more useful it is. It would be annoying to cancel a fun local dive because a hose blew and nobody there could replace it because it was non-standard. It would be far more than annoying if you had scheduled project dives involving chartering a large boat, assembling a crew of support divers and collecting a lot of expensive equipment and gases. But most of us aren't doing those dives.

It irks me when people say, "Is this DIR?" It implies that for every "thing", there is a cutoff where you "aren't DIR" if you have or use or do that thing. There are certainly big basic minimums . . . The BP/W/long hose setup is pretty central, as are non-split fins so you can do the non-silting kicks. People can start there. There are many other equipment prescriptions and proscriptions, if you read JJ's book or the articles on the GUE website, and most of them are explained and have good reasons behind them. But getting obsessed about the size of your boltsnaps or whether there's a swivel on a hose is only going to be critical when the dives are critical.

I'm not trying to say that a swivel is DIR. DIR-Atlanta has given some good reasons why this particular setup is not optimal, and would not be preferred. I just think attention to situational awareness, development of a high level of personal skills, facility with emergency procedures, careful dive planning and gas management and things like that end up being far more important in whether you are DIR than a small piece of your equipment like this.

 

[DIR-Atlanta]

I can take out my B2's retaining ring by hand just fine.

Depending on which second stage you have and what was done when it was last serviced, it might be possible to do that. My experience (particularly with relatively new Atomic regs) has always been that some type of tool is required. This has proven to be the case with several Atomic seconds that I have personally seen and disassembled in the field - the original Ti2, the Z1, and the B2. I have no direct experience with the M1 or Z2, so can't comment on those.

 

[DIR-Atlanta]

If you have to replace the swivel hose with a std hose you will want to put the spacer nut on first.

In other words - Atomic swivel regs use a non-standard fitting at the second stage, which is exactly what I said in my original reply. Why not just use a second stage with a standard fitting, and avoid the spacer nut altogether?

 

[DIR-Atlanta]

If I go diving, I have a complete spare reg with me in the car... because in a lot of cases at the dive site it did/does occur that someone of our group, or other divers at the dive site, did forget his reg at home and/or someone has a problem with his reg and instead of starting to disassemble/assemble/modify regs I simply hand over my spare reg and that's it.

Depending on where you dive and what types of diving you do, carrying spares for everything may not be practical. For example, a "typical" dive for me involves up to four different types of regulators - primary and backup on the doubles, stage/deco regs (usually at least 2-3 of these), and an argon reg. I always carry multiple stage regs and a spare argon reg, but IMO it's not really practical (or even necessary) to carry a spare doubles setup.

What I usually do is pack a couple of extra second stages and then my single tank OW reg, which by design is part-for-part compatible with my doubles regs (except for one less first stage). In my experience it's usually a second stage that causes problems anyway, and I find it much easier to swap out just that part, as compared to replacing the entire reg assembly (except maybe with stage bottles - depends on what point during the pre-dive setup the problem occurs).

Of course, this all assumes that you are somewhat comfortable with taking things apart. Some folks might be reluctant to do that, so a complete spare reg set might make sense in that case. Personally I find it much easier (and less expensive) to carry a spare second stage and a wrench, but maybe that's just me. You should use whatever solution you are most comfortable with.

 

[Dan Gibson]

I understand loaning out regs when necessary, but most divers don't have spare gear to loan out. Taking extra sets is a great idea until you are limited in space or weight. It's those times that just having spare parts that are more likely to fail (i.e. a lp hose) beats carrying a whole item. And then there are times when one might (although most divers never will) have to do an underwater fix such as swaping out the second stage or even opening a second stage to reset the diaphragm. You don't want to make it tough to take apart due to non standard items.

No...standardisation undoubtly is a great thing which everyone should pursue !
But what I'm saying is that standardisation is of no big use when someone forgot his reg... or, as we do a lot, when you're diving in tidal waters and have to stick to the tides and right at the water side one of your hoses fail there isn't much time left for starting to fumble with pliers and keys and spare hoses, etc. and it's so much more convenient to simple take a complete spare reg and start your dive, and later on that day upon driving back home stop over at a LDS and buy whatever part you need for fixing your own reg...
And in these cases having something non-standard is not an issue...

 

[DIR-Atlanta]

I'm not trying to say that a swivel is DIR. DIR-Atlanta has given some good reasons why this particular setup is not optimal, and would not be preferred.

That's actually an important point, and deserves to be emphasized. Many people believe that DIR is about "absolutes", and that is not exactly true. Some equipment might be perfectly acceptable for some types of diving, but not acceptable for others. For example, I would personally have no qualms about using an Atomics reg (even with a non-removable diaphragm) on a recreational openwater dive. I don't think I am likely to encounter any situation on such a dive that would lead to a huge problem if I could not remove the diaphragm. But would I be somewhat reluctant to use it for a mission critical reg on a long decompression dive? Probably so - different environment, different requirements.

One of the underlying concepts of DIR is "begin with the end in mind", which is certainly not original to diving, but is nevertheless important to understanding the DIR perspective. As the complexity of your diving increases, then a lot of these issues like standardization, compatibility, and maintainability become that much more critical to the overall success of your dives. A certain type of reg might be perfectly OK for whatever type of diving you are doing now, but a potential liability for other types of dives that you may do later.

So when faced with the question of what reg to purchase for DIR diving, you need to take into account not only your current diving interests, but also the type of diving that you might be doing 5 or 10 years from now (and who among us can predict that?). For example, if anyone had told me when I first got certified that I would eventually be doing mixed gas dives with multiple stages and a scooter, I would have said they were crazy. Yet here I am, doing exactly those types of dives.

So TSandM's point about things being optimal is spot on. The important questions to ask are: Will this particular reg work for me now, based on the type of diving that I am doing now? Will it cause any problems with the type of diving that I am doing now? Will it continue to work for me as I progress into other types of diving? The answers to those questions should all be factored into your decision process.

You see, it's not really about "this reg is DIR and that one is not". What it is about is that history and experience have demonstrated that certain types of regs (and certain features of those regs) are far less likely to cause problems further down the road with more advanced forms of diving. If you start with that type of reg now, then you will not have to replace it later when your interests (and their associated requirements) change.

In other words - why start off with a regulator that is OK now, but might limit what you can do later, when you can start with one that you can keep with you no matter how far you go? That is the question to the "DIR answer".

 

[TSandM]

Beautiful post, DIR-Atlanta (as usual), but I want to add one more thing -- Many people come to DIR after they've been diving a while, and many of them own equipment. Some of that equipment must be replaced or altered immediately to begin diving DIR and some of it can wait until funds are available. It's important to know which is which.