DIR with a Double Hose Reg

[ScoobieDooo]

Doing it right with a double hose reg is different than the DIR concepts that have been built up recently.

First, you want the regulator low, between your shoulder blades, for optimum breathing. DIR doesn't like this, as they lake to reach their tank valve (because their single hose regs seem to like to die, or burst seams ; doubles don't do this much because they don't rely upon "O" rings much).

Second, you really don't want an extended hose wrapped around your neck with a double hose regulator system. You cannot easily "unwrap" the second stage and hand it to someone. Use a 36 inch hose, and use it like a normal octopus for your buddy.

Third, DIR is wrapped around the "wing" concept, and you would be better with a regular BC using a double hose regulator. Again, it's because the placement of the regulator is integral to its breathing characteristics. You want the regulator between you shoulder blades, and you want it to stay near you back, and not be lifted off by the "wing." This will mean the difference between 0 inches of water and about 3 inches of water resistence induced by the wing lifting the regulator off your back.

My advice; ignore the DIR stuff, and use the older, very proven techniques developed by US Navy Master Divers, the Cousteau team, US Divers Company, and a host of other expert divers over the last 50 years. Bill Barada put together a great chart for comparing the single hose verses the double hose regulators in his book, Let's Go Diving, published by U.S. Divers Company in 1962. Here's the chart, from page 29 of that publication (see attached jpg).

John,
Very nice. I find it interesting that the US Navy & Cousteau both managed to function for years without a 'label' as such and a 7 ft hose. I might add that Cousteau made plenty of wreck penetrations w/o a 7 ft hose, wings, SPG, etc.

 

[quimby]

Very nice. I find it interesting that the US Navy & Cousteau both managed to function for years without a 'label' as such and a 7 ft hose. I might add that Cousteau made plenty of wreck penetrations w/o a 7 ft hose, wings, SPG, etc

Actually there was another attempt at the 7footer

 

[ScoobieDooo]

Thanks quimby - thats interesting! However, the Norseman Buddy Tube was more of an octopus than a 7-footer design. DIR proponents advocate donating the reg is YOUR mouth vs. handing-off an octopus reg. The Buddy Tube was nothing more than an octopus reg that was handed-off to your buddy. That wasn't exactly a 7-foot design.

Still, I can 'add' that to my already extensive vintage catalog collection, pictures, manuals, etc.

 

[quimby]

wasn't exactly a 7-foot design.

Depends on how fast you are and how slow your buddy is along with stretch......but if he let go ooouch.

 

[ScoobieDooo]

Can you say "BOING?"

 

[Bob3]

John,
Very nice. I find it interesting that the US Navy & Cousteau both managed to function for years without a 'label' as such and a 7 ft hose. I might add that Cousteau made plenty of wreck penetrations w/o a 7 ft hose, wings, SPG, etc.

You should check out the gear Cousteau was using when they made their expedition to the Antarctic back in the early '70s.

Poseidon Unisuits (with a USD sticker over the Poseidon chest emblem), Cyklon 300s & Poseidon/Cressi FFMs.

I had to laugh like heck when I saw that video. At least they were smart enough to use the best gear for the job.

 

[ScoobieDooo]

Are you kidding me? Sheesh...