A very predictable thread............
I think I've regretted reading one just like it before!!
I think I've regretted reading one just like it before!!
Banded/Unbanded Debate
- Thread starter Zero
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Mandy3206
Contributor
roakey:
I understand and respect your minimalist hog or DIR approach, good for you, but it's not fair to call claptrap a piece of gear simply 'cause you don't like it.
The fact is that OMS pioneered the bungie approach and many yrs after that DR came with a similar design, probably many manufacturers will follow the bungie route since there's a market out there and the downs of this systems haven't been properly prooved.
I doubt that DR is going to risk it's very good reputation on a risky design or a dubious product.
Everyone knows that DR is the pretty boy of dive manufacturers and it's reputation is very well earned, and that OMS is the bad boy of the dive manufacturers and some segments of the dive comunity hate them very much.
Facts are facts, and I bet that in the near future allmost all the manufacturers will have a bungied wing, except for the DIR oriented like Halcyon just to name one.
Same happened with the QRs and soft packs, one manufacturer pioneered them and then the rest followed.
Peace brother peace don't take it personal my friend.
I understand and respect your minimalist hog or DIR approach, good for you, but it's not fair to call claptrap a piece of gear simply 'cause you don't like it.
The fact is that OMS pioneered the bungie approach and many yrs after that DR came with a similar design, probably many manufacturers will follow the bungie route since there's a market out there and the downs of this systems haven't been properly prooved.
I doubt that DR is going to risk it's very good reputation on a risky design or a dubious product.
Everyone knows that DR is the pretty boy of dive manufacturers and it's reputation is very well earned, and that OMS is the bad boy of the dive manufacturers and some segments of the dive comunity hate them very much.
Facts are facts, and I bet that in the near future allmost all the manufacturers will have a bungied wing, except for the DIR oriented like Halcyon just to name one.
Same happened with the QRs and soft packs, one manufacturer pioneered them and then the rest followed.
Peace brother peace don't take it personal my friend.
- Messages
- 3,138
- Reaction score
- 4
So...why do you guys like 'em? Under what circumstances are they preferred over non-bungeed wings? Who do you believe would benefit from their use?
roakey:
Actually, no. It still has NOT been proven. You make a statement, relate an anecdote, and then generalize to the whole. This is neither logical nor correct thinking.
As Doc pointed out, we do not have any scientifically performed studies, complete with large enough samples and blind comparisons, to prove anything one way or another.
Judging simply by anecdotal reports then, in this thread, things are running 6 to 3 against what you claim to be true. In which case we have to assume that you are mistaken, or exaggerating, I am sorry to say. No offense, sir, but that is an observation of the situation.
Shall we start the poll?
"De gustabus non disputandam!" Or, to paraphrase Mr. Natural, get the tool that works well for you, Kids!" :doctor:
Mandy3206:
If you really want to make them dangerous just add a Halcyon inflator.
There you go, folks. Poll is open. And just a reminder from the Staff, spirited bun-fignts (as the Brits say) are welcome. Just keep it polite, and not personal.
Let the mayhem continue!
R. Davie
Scuba Board Staff
Let the mayhem continue!
R. Davie
Scuba Board Staff
- Messages
- 3,138
- Reaction score
- 4
BigJetDriver69:There you go, folks. Poll is open. And just a reminder from the Staff, spirited bun-fignts (as the Brits say) are welcome. Just keep it polite, and not personal.
Let the mayhem continue!
R. Davie
Scuba Board Staff
Well, I voted. But I think you have asked the wrong question.
- Messages
- 3,138
- Reaction score
- 4
Aw, man! Now you changed the poll and I can't re-vote! Now the results are doomed to be flawed. We're never gonna figure this out now!
I think we should start a poll to see if it is fair to add questions to a poll after the vote has started!
I think we should start a poll to see if it is fair to add questions to a poll after the vote has started!
Tavi, at this point, we can see this stuff coming like the predicted storm tracks of all these hurricanes trying to wash me out to sea.Tavi:
- Messages
- 2,195
- Reaction score
- 6
- # of dives
The issue is lift capacity and the reduction of drag. When the bladders were designed the intent was to provide the diver a method to keep the bladder from getting fouled in a wreck or whatever environment the diver was is in at the time. The lift capacity of the bladder increases the volume (reads-size). A 32 lb lift OMS bladder is tight to the back plate whereas the 100 lb lift bladder is large. Conditions, profile, and diver preference again come into play. Select the best tool for the job. Always keep 50 bar!
Similar threads
