chrpai
Contributor
Good point. People forgot to trade mark it along the way so it couldn't easily be controlled. That and the bad rap has caused some to move away from the term.
DIR vs Hogarthian
- Thread starter MKrauter
- 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
Good point. People forgot to trade mark it along the way so it couldn't easily be controlled. That and the bad rap has caused some to move away from the term.
elmer fudd
Contributor
So far as it being solely meant for tech diving: yes and no. To the best of my understanding, a pure Hogarthian rig would be a set of manifolded doubles attached to a backplate/wing with a harness made of a single continuous strip of 2" webbing + a crotch strap. It would also include a 6 or 7 foot hose for the primary regulator and a shorter one for the octo which would be worn on a necklace. It includes a can light with the canister worn on the waist, (left side I think), with the light attached to a Goodman handle worn on the left hand. Large thigh pockets would store the spare mask, SMB, etc... The compass, computer, etc... are worn on the wrists.
There's more to it than that, but that's most of it.
Now pretty much all of that can be used for recreational diving. In my opinion the doubles and can light are overkill, but the rest of it actually makes for a pretty good recreational diving rig.
chrpai
Contributor
"Pure" would be doubles but widely accepted would include single tank. I picked up a home built canister light for $200 that has all the kick of a DRIS 1000 but with the functionality and longevity ( 4+ hours ) of a more serious light. I don't think it's overkill at all. 
Dr. Lecter
Contributor
Can goes on the right and secures the long hose; left side is where you sling your bottles, keeping the right cleaner for deploying the long hose in a donation.
It works great for everything to pretty fishes dives in the Caribbean all the way to wrecks and caves. You really don't have to change much as your diving progresses, although you might have to add things--deco bottles and stages, powerful primary lights, scooters, or whatever. The Hog rig is an equipment configuration, but DIR implies a team of like minded divers using that configuration in a specific manner.
elmer fudd
Contributor
"Pure" would be doubles but widely accepted would include single tank. I picked up a home built canister light for $200 that has all the kick of a DRIS 1000 but with the functionality and longevity ( 4+ hours ) of a more serious light. I don't think it's overkill at all.
If you've got it and you like it great, but I'd have real problems recommending a can light to a beginning recreational diver. Not so with a long hose, BPW, brass and glass SPG or wrist mounted computer.
---------- Post added June 19th, 2013 at 08:58 PM ----------
My bad. I knew the light went on the left so I figured the can did too.
The basis of a "Hogarthian" gear setup is minimalism and streamlining. The foundation is a backplate and simple harness, to which you add the minimum necessary to get the job done. In general, that consists of a longer hose setup with a bungied backup, a simple pressure gauge, depth and time gauge and compass on your wrists, and some type of light you can put on a Goodman handle.
"DIR" is a term that was originally coined to refer to the highly standardized procedures adopted by the WKPP for cave exploration in Florida. It was extended and generalized to other diving by Jarrod Jablonski and George Irvine, in the mid to late 1990s. It has evolved and changed into what is taught by GUE today. There are offshoots, like the philosophy taught by UTD, and some of the teaching of people certified as NAUI instructors. But the basics are a highly standardized approach to diving, beginning with standardized equipment, and going on to highly polished and standardized skills, emergency protocols, gases, decompression procedures, and the like.
Standardizing your approach to diving simplifies a lot. If you dive with someone else who has adopted the same strategy, you have so much less to go over -- because you both start with so many things that are assumed the same. Because you have been trained to a certain standard (and that standard is strict and consistent throughout the DIR world) you know what to expect from one another. And if you want to go on, everything you have learned is applicable to the next step in training; no gear needs to be jettisoned, and no procedures abandoned.
I have been diving in this world for about eight years. I can tell you that it works, and works amazingly well. But "DIR" builds enormously on the basic gear platform. They are not equivalent.
"DIR" is a term that was originally coined to refer to the highly standardized procedures adopted by the WKPP for cave exploration in Florida. It was extended and generalized to other diving by Jarrod Jablonski and George Irvine, in the mid to late 1990s. It has evolved and changed into what is taught by GUE today. There are offshoots, like the philosophy taught by UTD, and some of the teaching of people certified as NAUI instructors. But the basics are a highly standardized approach to diving, beginning with standardized equipment, and going on to highly polished and standardized skills, emergency protocols, gases, decompression procedures, and the like.
Standardizing your approach to diving simplifies a lot. If you dive with someone else who has adopted the same strategy, you have so much less to go over -- because you both start with so many things that are assumed the same. Because you have been trained to a certain standard (and that standard is strict and consistent throughout the DIR world) you know what to expect from one another. And if you want to go on, everything you have learned is applicable to the next step in training; no gear needs to be jettisoned, and no procedures abandoned.
I have been diving in this world for about eight years. I can tell you that it works, and works amazingly well. But "DIR" builds enormously on the basic gear platform. They are not equivalent.
DevonDiver
N/A
I never really understood the 'requirement' for a canister light. I didn't believe that it was 'DIR' in respect of being universally standardized.
With modern generations of hi-power, well-focused and significant duration hand-held LED lights becoming available, and the options to secure them on hard/soft Goodman mounts, there really is very little to merit such expenditure for open-water diving.
Duration can easily be calculated to necessity (burn-time 1/3rds etc)... which makes 2-6 hours more than sufficient for the vast majority of divers. For open-water, you need a strong spot for communication. For wrecks, too much candle-power can cause back-scatter glare-back. So that just leaves big lights for big caves. How many 'DIR' divers really dive deep into big caves?
With modern generations of hi-power, well-focused and significant duration hand-held LED lights becoming available, and the options to secure them on hard/soft Goodman mounts, there really is very little to merit such expenditure for open-water diving.
Duration can easily be calculated to necessity (burn-time 1/3rds etc)... which makes 2-6 hours more than sufficient for the vast majority of divers. For open-water, you need a strong spot for communication. For wrecks, too much candle-power can cause back-scatter glare-back. So that just leaves big lights for big caves. How many 'DIR' divers really dive deep into big caves?
Griffo
Contributor
I like diving with a light on a goodman handle. Makes it so simple that you don't have to think about it. I know you can get goodman style handles for handheld lights these days, but I like the fact it is also attached to me by the light cord (i have managed to drop it once during a stressful skills test), and that it also forms part of my ditchable weight. Oh and it's something to tuck my hose under
dbulmer
Contributor
The HID still has the edge over LED in my opinion as far as the beam is concerned but as LED technology improves I think that the HID will be replaced over time.
A good tight focussed beam is as valid for OW as it is for more demanding diving - the point being that the light is for communication primarily and that beam on a HID is just that wee better although right now it's getting harder to justify for the reasons you mentioned.
Given that DIR is highly standardised and originates from cave diving I'd guess that LED technology has not been considered good enough (within the cave environment )for GUE to dispense with but when it does I'm sure that GUE will change it.
Edit: Modern HID lights are very light in comparison to their old counterparts so the argument that modern HIDs form ditchable weight is no longer valid as it once was.
A good tight focussed beam is as valid for OW as it is for more demanding diving - the point being that the light is for communication primarily and that beam on a HID is just that wee better although right now it's getting harder to justify for the reasons you mentioned.
Given that DIR is highly standardised and originates from cave diving I'd guess that LED technology has not been considered good enough (within the cave environment )for GUE to dispense with but when it does I'm sure that GUE will change it.
Edit: Modern HID lights are very light in comparison to their old counterparts so the argument that modern HIDs form ditchable weight is no longer valid as it once was.
Similar threads
