cheap halcyon gear

[-hh]

SeaJay once bubbled...


Let's take a specific example...

Check out the actual measurement of a Scubapro Classic or Knighthawk and a Scott Koplin "standard" backplate. I see virtually no difference in bend radius.

FYI, the specific comparison I'm thinking of is the weave through the SS BP versus the weave through a plastic QD, as they're the worst-case bends for both systems (the bend radius of a harness through a Plastic BP is significantly larger).

Halycon doesn't say, but Koplin's BP's uses an 11 gage plate, which if the slots are 100% relieved (best case) results in a bend radius for the webbing of 0.0625". If they're only 50% relieved, the bend radius drops to ~0.03". For this metric, larger is better.

I'll have to measure a couple of QD's...my "3x" statement is based on a swag recollection that they're ~3/8" diameter, which would be a bend radius of ~0.1875" I'll verify this measurement.

You consider this maintenance to be an acceptable cost for all of the other benefits you believe the system has. For diving doubles, you're right.

Why would singles be any different?

Essentially, I agree that BP's/wings are the right gear to wear for twins. But just because they're good for one task/configuration doesn't automatically make them the best at all tasks/all configurations.

It is a "Right tool for the job" approach. If the problem is a ou're trying to nail in a #4D finishing nail, a 22oz framing hammer isn't the best tool for the job.

Furthermore, why force yourself to purchase two different rigs for two different dive situations? Wouldn't it be a benefit to have one rig that can handle all of your diving? Wouldn't it be a benefit to become accustomed to one rig, where all of the D-rings and connectors and straps are in the same place?

I understand and agree, but this is really a different question.

And the first requirement that this scenario has is the requirement that the diver in question is actually doing dives with both singles and doubles so as to benefit from the individual deopitmization in order to benefit from the standardization.

While that's applicable for some divers, they are but a small minority: within the recreational context, most divers never dive with anything other than a single, so its not a factor of consideration (and thus, accomodation).

So while the point does have very good merit, it doesn't have a broad enough application to be the basis of a broad, general recommendation: it is a minority (niche) application and should be recognized and treated as such.


-hh

 

[-hh]

SeaJay once bubbled...


Furthermore, why would you want the added stability (over a "regular" BC) in a doubles rig, but forgo it in your singles rig? Would you not want the benefit for all of your diving?

Yes I do prefer tank stability, but this isssue is simply yet another example of differences in individual priorities leading to a different conclusion as to what is the best system design trade-off for their needs.

Specifically, the majority of the BC's from which "stability" complaints come are those with soft backpacks. Going to any type of hard backpack solves the problem.

But a common reason why some people nevertheless prefer soft backpacks despite this in-water shortcoming is because their application is WWW travel diving, and soft backpack BC's generally pack down into a smaller package into the diver's suitcase.

So that's the trade-off that these divers have made. Its not the choice I made, but I can see and understand their point...and FWIW, some of the tropical low-lift BC's do indeed pack down into amazingly small packages.

Dive gear these days is really pretty darn good, even the cheap stuff. And the typical recreational diver today don't need the "Cadillac"...

Agreed.

If the diver feels that it's "Good Enough" to select the BC that isn't as durable... Doesn't help with trim and buoyancy... Isn't as stable... Isn't as simple... Isn't as easily repaired... Well, then... Perhaps they don't need the "Cadillac" of BC's.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with choosing a "maintainable" product over a "disposable", so long as you've been realistically objective in determining your needs so as to know that you'll benefit from it in the long run.

However, I do feel that it is a disservice to recommend these often expensive systems (or any expensive system, for that matter) to new divers, because the unfortunate facts of new divers are that more of them will drop out of the sport than stick with it, and of those that remain, most will stay "Rec" and never dive doubles.

As such, our recommendation is not necessarily optimal to their specific needs, plus it also runs the risk being a disservice, as it can be of greater benefit to ourselves than the person we think we're offering "useful" advice to. This might actually aggrivate their drop-out rates.

The optimistic dive industry estimates for the number of active divers is ~3 million. Since over 10 million have been certified, this means that the drop-out rate is ~70%. These people simply won't benefit from a "lasts for a hundred years" Cadillac BC.

If they dodge the "drop-out" bullet and actually exceed the average diver attention span of 5 years, then its time for them to consider buying a non-disposable BC. Simply not before then.

-hh

 

[SeaJay]

-hh once bubbled...


FYI, the specific comparison I'm thinking of is the weave through the SS BP versus the weave through a plastic QD, as they're the worst-case bends for both systems (the bend radius of a harness through a Plastic BP is significantly larger).

Yes, that's true, but then how do you get the webbing on a plastic backplate to stay put? Don't you use a weight keeper (tri-glide?)

Halycon doesn't say, but Koplin's BP's uses an 11 gage plate, which if the slots are 100% relieved (best case) results in a bend radius for the webbing of 0.0625". If they're only 50% relieved, the bend radius drops to ~0.03". For this metric, larger is better.

True, but then there are different thicknesses of plates, too, which cloud the measurement.

Additional clouding comes into play when you take into consideration that the webbing material is significantly thicker than the stuff on a "regular" BC. Not only does this make it tougher (JJ mentioned in a different thread something to the effect of, "double the thickness of the same material is stronger") but it also has the tendency to not be as pliable... Which could affect, either positively or negatively, the possibility of the material failing.

I'll have to measure a couple of QD's...my "3x" statement is based on a swag recollection that they're ~3/8" diameter, which would be a bend radius of ~0.1875" I'll verify this measurement.

It would be very interesting to find out. Admittedly, it's a good rule of thumb that a larger bend radius is going to wear better than a smaller one... But that's assuming the same material.

Essentially, I agree that BP's/wings are the right gear to wear for twins. But just because they're good for one task/configuration doesn't automatically make them the best at all tasks/all configurations.

It is a "Right tool for the job" approach. If the problem is a ou're trying to nail in a #4D finishing nail, a 22oz framing hammer isn't the best tool for the job.

...And that makes sense to me.

However, in that case we're talking about an inertial mass. In the case of deciding which inertial mass to choose for the job, power and control are inversely related. A lighter hammer gives more control, whereas a heavier one gives more power. The key is to select the appropriate power/control ratio.

This is not the case with BC's... But I understand the analogy... And I can understand how one might choose something other than a bp/wing no matter what the circumstance. It's not my choice, but different people choose different things for different reasons.

So while the point does have very good merit, it doesn't have a broad enough application to be the basis of a broad, general recommendation: it is a minority (niche) application and should be recognized and treated as such.

-hh

I agree that it's a minority of divers who choose to dive a bp/wing. Most divers dive what they were taught in... Which is most commonly a "regular" BC.

Along the same thought process, perhaps we should all drive Plymouth K-cars because we were taught to drive in them during our driver's ed courses in high school?

I agree that QD's and "on-the-fly" adjusters might be beneficial for rental gear, for a quick setup and ease of diving. However, for personal gear, I don't believe this to be the best option.

But I respect that your opinion is different than mine, and I'm glad that you're willing to talk about it.

I truly don't believe that either of us is going to change the other's opinion on this topic... But at least we're able to discuss it civilly.

 

[SeaJay]

-hh once bubbled...

Specifically, the majority of the BC's from which "stability" complaints come are those with soft backpacks. Going to any type of hard backpack solves the problem.

I've found that those BC's which don't have any sort of hard structure in them at all simply don't hold the tank still enough to my liking. I'm not a fan of them, although some seem less prone to the problem than others (the TPII comes to mind as being one of the better soft packs).

But I totally agree that the situation is dramatically improved with the addition of a hard plate in the BC, which is almost always plastic.

That said, I still found a regular bp/wing to be even more stable than a hardpack-equipped "regular" BC. I felt that the major difference was in the way that the plate connected to the rest of the rig.

But I can at least agree that a "regular" BC is dramatically improved with the addition of a hard plate.

But a common reason why some people nevertheless prefer soft backpacks despite this in-water shortcoming is because their application is WWW travel diving, and soft backpack BC's generally pack down into a smaller package into the diver's suitcase.

I agree with that, too. Generally speaking, a TPII, for example, packs smaller than, say, a Black Diamond. In fact, there's a huge amount of difference.

That said, I've found bp/wings to excel in this area as well. While they won't fold for obvious reasons, they pack as flat as a pancake for travel... Even moreso than the padded harnesses of soft packs.

Additionally, with less material and padding, a bp/wing has the tendency to dry faster than padded "regular" BC's, and can actually weigh less on the return trip - and make a lot less of a mess - than a BC with a lot of padding on it.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with choosing a "maintainable" product over a "disposable", so long as you've been realistically objective in determining your needs so as to know that you'll benefit from it in the long run.

I agree.

However, I do feel that it is a disservice to recommend these often expensive systems (or any expensive system, for that matter) to new divers, because the unfortunate facts of new divers are that more of them will drop out of the sport than stick with it, and of those that remain, most will stay "Rec" and never dive doubles.

I'm not sure where the "expensive" adjective comes from... A bp/wing often costs less than a better "regular" BC... Especially when you're comparing one that's designed for travel or one that has a "backplate" built in.

As such, our recommendation is not necessarily optimal to their specific needs, plus it also runs the risk being a disservice, as it can be of greater benefit to ourselves than the person we think we're offering "useful" advice to. This might actually aggrivate their drop-out rates.

When people have asked me before, I typically tell them to try out a lot of things... And to also consider a bp/wing, since it's often overlooked (being the minority and all). I believe that anyone who takes information on the 'net and buys several hundred dollars' worth of gear based on others' opinions alone is asking for problems. Apparently, you feel this way too.

The optimistic dive industry estimates for the number of active divers is ~3 million. Since over 10 million have been certified, this means that the drop-out rate is ~70%. These people simply won't benefit from a "lasts for a hundred years" Cadillac BC.

Agreed. It's hard to benefit from a product that they don't use.

If they dodge the "drop-out" bullet and actually exceed the average diver attention span of 5 years, then its time for them to consider buying a non-disposable BC. Simply not before then.

-hh

Heck, I wouldn't even recommend buying a BC unless they're diving regularly... Say, at least not for the first 100 or 150 dives. How could they possibly know what they want if they haven't tried out a variety of BC's?

 

[-hh]

SeaJay once bubbled...


Agreed... We aren't looking to land on the moon here... This is diving. However, you've nailed the very crux of the difference between DIR and "everyone else." While your claim that this is "merely recreational diving" is true, the entire mindset of DIR is one that takes the entire diving experience much more seriously.

For the original tenents of DIR, which was WKPP exploration missions, its all quite appropriate.

However, what becomes inappropriate is to apply these "Apollo Mission" requirements to mundane, low-risk recreational diving. As such, a lot of their elements are pretty far out the curve of diminishing returns.

It's simply a different approach... And may not be for everyone.

Their holistic approach is a good starting point. However, it appears to have the very basic shortcoming is in they assume that everyone will eventually become tech divers and have requirements similar to their own.

I've already touched on this with the singles vs. twins trade-offs. DIR starts you with the BP/Wings because they assume that everyone will always graduate to twins. That simply isn't so for the majority of divers. Early indoctrination of some of these items (such as the BP/Wing) are based on the concept that it prevents having to "unlearn" when moving up to their specialty equipment/protocols. This is a good idea if you're building tech divers from scratch, but again, since most divers will never go tech, the real-world rationale is lacking.

While the major agencies that I'm aware of preach understanding, education, and a healthy lifestyle, it's simply been my experience that DIR/GUE takes the approach a little more seriously. That may be for some, but I understand if others don't want to "be a diver" but simply want to "dive occassionally." It's a choice that depends completely on your mindset and what you deem to be "right" for you.

You can take your diving very seriously without choosing to also conduct the higher risk profiles from which DIR has evolved from.

And unfortunately, a common insinuation is that you are a "nothing" diver unless you're a DIR diver. I recognize this for the macho elitism nonsense it is. The problem is all of the collateral damage caused by the perceptions of inferiority and emotional baggage that it creates in its wake.

The WKPP/GUE/DIR have has their hits...and their misses. Like all things mortal, they're not perfect. Personally, I don't accept any of their claimed "Truths" until I've cross-checked them against recognized authoritative and scientific sources...particularly when I hit brick walls from MHK because even he doesn't really fully understand the subject. FYI, you might want to do some research on "Slobitis" DCS hits and its occurrence rates to find out what types of risks they actually consider acceptable before you embrace them any further.


-hh

 

[VTernovski]

cheap halcyon gear? sounds like oxymoron to me...

 

[-hh]

SeaJay once bubbled...


Yes, that's true, but then how do you get the webbing on a plastic backplate to stay put? Don't you use a weight keeper (tri-glide?)

I'll have to refresh my memory. Over the years, I've seen some that just serpentined it around. Others actually had rivets through the webbing to secure it to the BP. Some have been sewn right onto the bladder. Many have had doubled-up webbing for reenforcement.

Additional clouding comes into play when you take into consideration that the webbing material is significantly thicker than the stuff on a "regular" BC.

Because of the higher rate that it cuts through? Sorry couldn't resist.

Yes, there's a lot of factors that go through all of this. The easiest metric is to just ask people how often the stuff falls apart. On BP's, I've also seen people wrap their webbing in duct tape in order to improve its resistance to cutting at the slots, even after they've deburred them...it doesn't look pretty.

I agree that QD's and "on-the-fly" adjusters might be beneficial for rental gear, for a quick setup and ease of diving. However, for personal gear, I don't believe this to be the best option.

Rental gear...another benefit (thanks!).

Actually, for personal gear, different levels of thermal protection creates a need to slightly adjust the system. While I agree that they're not necesssarily frequently needed changes, when I was in the Galapagos last year, the water out at Wolf was "almost" warm enough, so I was alternating dives between wearing both halfs of my 7mm Farmer John and wearing just the bottoms. This dive-to-dive variation added or removed 7mm off the chest and shoulders, and required BC adjustments. It also took ~13lbs off the weightbelt...I just rigged up a second one for use.


-hh

 

[-hh]

SeaJay once bubbled...

I'm not sure where the "expensive" adjective comes from... A bp/wing often costs less than a better "regular" BC... Especially when you're comparing one that's designed for travel or one that has a "backplate" built in.

Well, LP has the Tusa Liberator (BCJ-3100) for $200; can you suggest a complete BP/Wings at that price point?

I picked the Liberator because I dove with the original for many years: if its anything like the original, it will easily give 5+ years of diving, has a hard backpack to prevent wiggle, and handles single tank warmwater diving just fine. It is marginal for coldwater because of surface bouyancy lift squeeze with the bladder fully pumped. Also, its tank strap will give out after a few years (I'd probably upgrade it to a ScubaPro cinch strap right away). But for warmwater single tank diving, its IMO a good choice...all for a mere $200.


-hh

 

[SeaJay]

-hh once bubbled... ...

I'll have to refresh my memory. Over the years, I've seen some that just serpentined it around. Others actually had rivets through the webbing to secure it to the BP. Some have been sewn right onto the bladder. Many have had doubled-up webbing for reenforcement.

The two-dozen or so that I've seen all used tri-glides... You know, the ones with the "tight bend radius."

Because of the higher rate that it cuts through? Sorry couldn't resist.

Man, you really need to get over that. I tell you, it doesn't happen like you think it does. I don't know where you got that misinformation, but you really need to let it go.

Yes, there's a lot of factors that go through all of this. The easiest metric is to just ask people how often the stuff falls apart. On BP's, I've also seen people wrap their webbing in duct tape in order to improve its resistance to cutting at the slots, even after they've deburred them...it doesn't look pretty.

I've seen that too... But then again, I've also seen people with zip-tied QD's. Some people don't take pride in their gear the way that you and I do... Or perhaps offer "band-aid" solutions for problems that may or may not actually exist anyway. I can't admit to understanding it, as I feel there are better solutions.

Rental gear...another benefit (thanks!).

Hey, you're welcome. You looked to be struggling there for a while.

If you're interested in rental gear for personal ownership, then feel free.

Actually, for personal gear, different levels of thermal protection creates a need to slightly adjust the system.

No it doesn't. Again, that's misinformation based on an assumption. A correctly fitted bp/wing allows for the change without any hassle, no adjustments necessary. The idea that you *think* that you need to change your adjustments on a harness again proves that you've got little to no experience with a bp/wing.

Think about this... If it was true that you had to make adjustments to your harness according to how much exposure protection you had on, then how do you compensate for the compression of the suit at depth? Do you have to tighten it on the way down and loosen it on the way up too? After all, it's generally known that a neoprene suit loses about 85% of it's thickness at 100 feet.

Well, LP has the Tusa Liberator (BCJ-3100) for $200; can you suggest a complete BP/Wings at that price point?

Sure, man... Dive Rite makes a variety of wings, and if you attach them to a FredT backplate...

...Or hey, if we're talking about Leisurepro, why not also consider Ebay? Heck, I've seen complete bp/wings sell for $160.

...Of course, you might want to consider buying a little more than "the cheapest" BC you can find. Would you also purchase the cheapest parachute?

Why is it that you don't consider this stuff "life support," and if you do, then why would you try to skimp so bad?

I picked the Liberator because I dove with the original for many years: if its anything like the original, it will easily give 5+ years of diving, has a hard backpack to prevent wiggle, and handles single tank warmwater diving just fine. It is marginal for coldwater because of surface bouyancy lift squeeze with the bladder fully pumped. Also, its tank strap will give out after a few years (I'd probably upgrade it to a ScubaPro cinch strap right away). But for warmwater single tank diving, its IMO a good choice...all for a mere $200.


-hh

Hey, I learned to drive on a Yugo... But I beleive there to be better choices out there today than there was at that time.

 

[SeaJay]

-hh once bubbled...


For the original tenents of DIR, which was WKPP exploration missions, its all quite appropriate.

However, what becomes inappropriate is to apply these "Apollo Mission" requirements to mundane, low-risk recreational diving. As such, a lot of their elements are pretty far out the curve of diminishing returns.

I don't agree at all.

While things like 4 valves per cylinder, overhead cams, and electronic ignition on automobiles might have been borne of racing, the fact remains that the technology transfers nicely to today's passenger cars. Similarly, what was borne out of necessity in the caves of Wakulla transfers nicely to even the most simple of recreational dives.

Their holistic approach is a good starting point. However, it appears to have the very basic shortcoming is in they assume that everyone will eventually become tech divers and have requirements similar to their own.

No, they haven't assumed that... YOU have assumed that. Taking the analogy further, while overhead cams and fuel injection were once things reserved only for racing, they do amazing things for passenger automobiles, too. Saying that DIR has no place in rec diving... Or saying that it "assumes" that divers are going to get into technical diving... Is like saying that the designers of today's automobiles assume that you're getting into racing because your car has fully independent suspension and four-wheel disc brakes.

The fact is that the tenents of DIR work equally well no matter what sort of diving you're doing.

I've already touched on this with the singles vs. twins trade-offs. DIR starts you with the BP/Wings because they assume that everyone will always graduate to twins.

That's simply not true, and unless you've taken a DIR-F course, then you are speaking out of turn and out of assumptions and ignorance.

That simply isn't so for the majority of divers. Early indoctrination of some of these items (such as the BP/Wing) are based on the concept that it prevents having to "unlearn" when moving up to their specialty equipment/protocols. This is a good idea if you're building tech divers from scratch, but again, since most divers will never go tech, the real-world rationale is lacking.

Again, that's an incorrect assumption.

However, using the same mentality that you were using above, how many people would be "turned off" to tech diving if they felt that there was a huge difference between tech and rec? Why would it not be advantageous - particularly for rec-only divers - to minimize the difference between tech and rec?

I mean, is it not beneficial for the passenger car market to benefit from racing technology? Why do you think the same doesn't hold true for diving? Why not bring a little more "tech" into "rec?"

Frankly, it's been my experience that DIR minimizes the difference between those two types of diving... Much to the benefit of recreational-only divers.

And unfortunately, a common insinuation is that you are a "nothing" diver unless you're a DIR diver.

I don't know where you got that from. I hear it consistently from those people who are not DIR, and have never seen, heard, or done anything DIR. I hear people who have never taken a DIR class say things like that.

In case you haven't realized, I - just like every diver who's taken a DIR class - was not taught DIR from the outset. Instead, I was taught the standard PADI ways... And when I looked around at the different dive styles, including DIR, I was welcomed into the community and explained why DIR recommends the things it does. The same has gone pretty much for every diver out there - save for GI3 and JJ, who pioneered and invented the program.

In fact, I've never heard any representative of DIR/GUE ever imply that you're "nothing" unless you're a DIR diver.

Now... If those are your own feelings... If that's how you feel... If those are your assumptions... Then I recommend taking the course and checking it out for yourself. I did.

...And really, that's the only difference between you and me... That I've taken the course, and can speak from an educated standpoint about DIR-F... At least to a small degree. You, on the other hand, have never taken the course and have positively no clue as to what you're talking about.

...And that's not a personal attack. That's a fact.

I recognize this for the macho elitism nonsense it is. The problem is all of the collateral damage caused by the perceptions of inferiority and emotional baggage that it creates in its wake.

I'm amazed at how you've formed an opinion based on nothing but your own fear of failure... Perhaps with some inaccurate information fed to you a little here and there.

When did you take any GUE class? If the answer is, "I haven't ever," then realize how silly you sound. Hey, I could have an opinion on what it's like to live in Singapore, but if I've never even been there, how valid are my assumptions?

The WKPP/GUE/DIR have has their hits...and their misses.

Disclaimer to all that are reading: The WKPP is not affiliated with GUE. They are independent organizations, although many tenents were borrowed from the WKPP.

Additionally, keep in mind that this series of opinions coming from -hh has positively no basis other than what -hh "thinks" might be his opinion. He really has no idea, since he's got no experience with DIR.

Like all things mortal, they're not perfect. Personally, I don't accept any of their claimed "Truths" until I've cross-checked them against recognized authoritative and scientific sources...particularly when I hit brick walls from MHK because even he doesn't really fully understand the subject.

Hahahahahaaaaa! Alright, dude... Now half the board thinks you're out of line in a big way. Have you ever attended one of his classes?

Something tells me that if you've talked to him, he offered many answers, but ended them by saying, "You can't learn everything on the 'net. If you want to know, you'll have to attend class..." Which you promptly declined. Am I right? Sorry, I've seen this 1000 times already.

FYI, you might want to do some research on "Slobitis" DCS hits and its occurrence rates to find out what types of risks they actually consider acceptable before you embrace them any further.

-hh

This will be my last post to you. You've gotten completely off-topic, and I've fed the troll enough. You obviously have no interest in debating a topic... You simply want to hear yourself argue. Your mind is closed, you have already formed your opinions (based on hearsay) and even common sense hasn't broken through your faulty logic. If you want to dive plastic components and justify it with some sort of drivel about how there's a huge difference between tech and rec, then feel free.

Did MHK do this, too? Did he finally give up on you too? Nevermind... That's a rhetorical question.