Backplate/wing: set-up questions concerning buckle and weights.

[tbone1004]

Hmmm. Just to clarify, ditch and swim is specifically the circumstance where the other thread’s definition of a balanced rig provided for having ditchable weights. I’m trying to keep us exact as having (some) ditchable is a fairly central premise in basic instruction, though it is more safely used on the surface.

Clutter on the harness waist belt might be a better argument for having the weight you’ve kept ditchable be on a weight belt instead of adding harness mounted ditchable weight pockets. Among other arguments for a weight belt.

someone more involved with GUE will have to clarify, but as I understand it, they do not teach blow and go. @kirill egorov can you clarify please?
Ditchable weight is for surface emergencies only, but you should be able to swim your rig up. Where they say to ditch weight on the page that was quoted as I understand is things like stage bottles and other non-"core" pieces of equipment that aren't factored into your base weighting.

 

[MichaelMc]

I do not know GUE standards. Just you were using a balanced rig as an argument against (harness) ditchable weights. And it seems not to be. I did not want people reading this basic thread to understand a balanced rig as an argument against (some) ditchable weights.

Edit: And to say 'You do not get to use "ditchable weights" as the concept is incompatible with a balanced rig', does not make sense as you then start talking about using a weight belt.

 

[tbone1004]

I do not know GUE standards. Just you were using a balanced rig as an argument against (harness) ditchable weights. And it seems not to be. I did not want people reading this basic thread to understand a balanced rig as an argument against (some) ditchable weights.

I do very much want them to understand that you should never ever, ever never have to, or even think about ditching weight at the bottom. It's incredibly dangerous.

You do not need ditchable weight as the industry has called it for a "blow and go" if you are diving a balanced rig, that's the point. Sure, being able to shed some at the surface for comfort if you're in an emergency is nice, but I very much want them to understand that a balanced rig is used so you don't have to worry about being able to get to the surface if your wing fails. If you get to the surface, use a lift bag, 2m safety sausage, etc. which will have enough inherent lift for you to not need to ditch weight. More importantly, by the time you get to the surface, you should be truly neutral with an empty tank or negative only by the mass of gas left in the tanks.
Which comes back to one of two arguments for 7mm farmer johns being unsafe because they compress so much at depth *the other being thermal issues*

 

[elgoog]

Excellent suggestions. Do all these three methods satisfy the GUE standards ?

I think all those meet the standard but look at the practical aspect as well.

I use bolt on weights and/or camband pockets with single tank because that's where I need the weight .i.e. high up on my torso. With doubles, I need weight closer to my waist so I have bullet weight sitting behind my can light (ditchable by removing the 2nd belt buckle) and a weight pocket on my left hip, behind the left hip D-ring (not ditchable by unhooking the waist strap but it's a velcro pouch so my buddy would be able to remove it if needed). I like having that there to split the weight needed on my waist on both sides.

The issue I see with shoulder strap weight is that if you put it above the chest D-rings, it's going to be rubbing up against your face, longhose, inflator, etc. If you put it below it's going to get in the way of your backup light. If you put it below your backup light, it's going to be close enough to your waist belt that you might just want to add weight there or get a weight belt.

Around here, for weights around the waist, I see weight belts as well as weight pockets on the waist strap. As @MichaelMc mentioned, clutter is the main thing that will determine whether you absolutely can or can't use pockets. Obviously, if you prefer a weight belt do that regardless of clutter.

EDIT: Also, and most importantly, you need to get in the water and try out different options to figure out what works for you. There isn't only one correct way, regardless of whether you're in the GUE system or not. Even with GUE's rigid equipment requirements, there's still room for trying out different stuff and diving what works best for you. You're trying to figure everything out perfectly ahead of time on an Internet forum and that's not how this works.

 

[scubarushu]

Which comes back to one of two arguments for 7mm farmer johns being unsafe because they compress so much at depth *the other being thermal issues*

This seems to be key. I wouldn't go so far as to say they're categorically unsafe, but there are definitely considerations to diving thick wetsuits that weren't thoroughly discussed or understood by me in the OW class that I took. Practically speaking, these sorts of 7mm + 7mm wetsuits are the only option for a significant portion of new divers in cold water for a variety of reasons. With a soft bottom of 60ft in PADI OW, maybe not a huge issue.

I extended my soft bottom with PADI AOW in SE Asia, and then came home and read on scubaboard about how great diving steel tanks is for reducing lead and set out to try it. No significant issues, but there was definitely a bit of not knowing what I didn't know going on there. It took a bit of gears grinding in my head to get more of a handle on the variable buoyancy that exposure protection like that introduces. There's no PADI specialty cert for diving deep in thick wetsuits... yet. Point being I'm not sure how other new divers discover these issues, and it seems even divers experienced in other environments can be surprised by them.

We don't all dive the same conditions, but the exposure suit variable seems to sometimes get lost in the debate about "balanced rigs and ditchable weight". Maybe it's my understanding of "rig" that was off, but I'm mentally adjusting that to include exposure protection.

 

[tbone1004]

@scubarushu there is a difference in kool-aid drinkers and thinking divers. The thinking divers will figure it out. Hopefully the kool-aid drinkers become thinking divers.

 

[scubarushu]

@scubarushu there is a difference in kool-aid drinkers and thinking divers. The thinking divers will figure it out. Hopefully the kool-aid drinkers become thinking divers.

You're such a positive guy. I love it! I'm not so hopeful myself though...

 

[Roger Hobden]

You're trying to figure everything out perfectly ahead of time on an Internet forum

Oh no, far from that. Currently, I dive in a lake here in Quebec 2-3 times a week and make adjustments every time.

Temperature of the water presently is 17 Celsius near the surface, so a 7mm wetsuit is clearly required.
I won't be diving deep enough that compression will be an issue, though.
OTOH, my drysuit should be arriving at the dive store next week, so I will need to reassess my weight needs.

 

[MichaelMc]

I'm not sure exactly what the kool-aid folk are being served, but between them and the post-enlightenment thinking divers, ScubaBoard suggests there is a vast pool of divers that are fuzzy on even the most basic of buoyancy and weight management issues.

The notion that these, fuzzy on buoyancy and weighting, diver's balanced rigs precludes any net benefit from some of their ballast being ditchable, seems really optimistic in a world of prevalent concern for overweighting.

 

[decompression]

I'm not sure exactly what the kool-aid folk are being served, but between them and the post-enlightenment thinking divers, ScubaBoard suggests there is a vast pool of divers that are fussy on even the most basic of buoyancy and weight management issues.

The notion that these, fussy on buoyancy and weighting, diver's balanced rigs precludes any net benefit from some of their ballast being ditchable, seems really optimistic in a world of prevalent concern for overweighting.[/QUOTE

Sorry, double post.