Patrick
Contributor
OK, how about this. It lifts the cylinder off the plate no more than the rubber thingy that you use on your DSS system.
Patrick
OxyCheq
http://oxycheq.com
Diverite Rec Wing and Singles
- Thread starter dkatchalov
- 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
OK, how about this. It lifts the cylinder off the plate no more than the rubber thingy that you use on your DSS system.
Patrick
OxyCheq
http://oxycheq.com
Floater posted some pictures a while back with the light weight Oxy STA (I think) and and with the DSS integrated STA. The distance looked about the same.
Patrick
Contributor
Some people prefer the rigidity of the STA on a plate. It functions as one piece.
Some do not want a STA and I imagine the most logical reason is cost. That is why we designed the Mach V with slots and roll control. In this case, when the cam straps are tightened, the wing is just as secure as a plate with a STA.
The only reason I see for someone using a STA with our wings now is because they might have STAs on extra cylinders and they can peel off the wing and stick it on the extra cylinder.
With the ever rising cost of metals, our whole objective was to make a wing system more affordable. That is why we came out with the Mini STAs and that is why we recently introduced the Ultra Lite Plate (photos not on the web site yet, but hopefully soon).
Best regards,
Patrick
OxyCheq
http://oxycheq.com
cool_hardware52
Contributor
Not true.
The total stack height of adding a sta to a Wing with metal grommets can easily exceed 1/2 inch. The metal grommet it self can be 1/4 inch thick. There are no metal grommets in DSS wings.
The head of our rubber locators is also compressible. This compressibility is also useful to reduce or eliminate tank rock.
Compare a tank resting on a soft compressible rubber locator to a tank that is resting on a the hard head of a fastener passing thru a metal grommet. Not hard to see how bolts and metal grommets become high "pivot" points for cylinders.
The absence of a metal grommet and the compressible rubber locator results in very little tank offset. The cylinder is rasied away from the plate by about .150" total.
.15" vs ~.55" Not the same at all.
When compared to weighted sta's the difference is even greater.
Tobin
It has nothing to do with spacing... the less spacing the better, actually, but with most current STAs it's not a hugely significant amount either way. It comes down to cost and preference. Some prefer to buy a STA, because it makes it easier to swap your entire rig from one tank to the other, quickly, lifting the entire unit as one piece just like a regular BC.
Others don't want to spend the money on a STA are happy using wings without it. Before roll control methods became more prevalent, there were wings with slots for cam bands that had no roll control extras, and the tanks were a bit wobbly on those (DiveRite's wings come to mind). STAs made a big difference there. Also if you're planning to switch your plate between doubles and singles with any regularity, it saves you from constantly threading and unthreading your cam bands each time you swap.
With the roll control options on many of your better currently-made wings (such as DSS wobblestoppers and the roll control tabs on OxyCheq wings), a STA is more preference than necessity. Some STA's are available weighted (or with a place to insert a weight), which can move weight off your belt and onto your rig, if that is beneficial to you. Others STAs are more simplistic: A bent plate of metal with two bolts for the plate and some slots for the cam bands.
Thanks Tobin,
But I wasn't questioning the stackup of dimensions. My question is much more fundamental. Why do we want to space the tank away from the back plate? If that is good, why don't we make the backplate so that it itself is further from the wearer's back? But, I thought that keeping the tank as close as possible, while keeping the valves from being hit with the back of the head, was the goal.
I am still not quite clear WHY we would use a STA when it is not required due to b/p wing construction.
I guess I don't understand how the STA makes tank removal easier, or more likely, I don't understand the difficulty with tank removal absent the STA. Isn't is just sliding the 2 cam bands down on a tank in either case?
Also, what is roll control, and how is that used? I have a back inflate DUI BC, and have no idea if it has roll control.
But I wasn't questioning the stackup of dimensions. My question is much more fundamental. Why do we want to space the tank away from the back plate? If that is good, why don't we make the backplate so that it itself is further from the wearer's back? But, I thought that keeping the tank as close as possible, while keeping the valves from being hit with the back of the head, was the goal.
I am still not quite clear WHY we would use a STA when it is not required due to b/p wing construction.
I guess I don't understand how the STA makes tank removal easier, or more likely, I don't understand the difficulty with tank removal absent the STA. Isn't is just sliding the 2 cam bands down on a tank in either case?
Also, what is roll control, and how is that used? I have a back inflate DUI BC, and have no idea if it has roll control.
Thanks Tobin,
But I wasn't questioning the stackup of dimensions. My question is much more fundamental. Why do we want to space the tank away from the back plate? If that is good, why don't we make the backplate so that it itself is further from the wearer's back? But, I thought that keeping the tank as close as possible, while keeping the valves from being hit with the back of the head, was the goal.
I am still not quite clear WHY we would use a STA when it is not required due to b/p wing construction.
I guess I don't understand how the STA makes tank removal easier, or more likely, I don't understand the difficulty with tank removal absent the STA. Isn't is just sliding the 2 cam bands down on a tank in either case?
Also, what is roll control, and how is that used? I have a back inflate DUI BC, and have no idea if it has roll control.
With little or nothing holding the wing to the plate except the tank, when you have no STA the wing gets floppy and tries to fall off as soon as you lift the rig off the tank. With a STA, it's more like a regular BC in that everything is held in place firmly while you move things around.
I recommend walking into a dive shop and trying it both ways, then you can decide.
Another option is to buy a rig without a STA to start, and if you decide it's annoying and want one, you can always add it later. No one will force to you decide in the beginning and then buy all your gear and never let you change your mind.
cool_hardware52
Contributor
There is no benefit from offsetting a the tank from the diver. Offsetting the tank increases the divers overall profile, increase the overturning moment, and increases drag.
Right, closer is better.
I am still not quite clear WHY we would use a STA when it is not required due to b/p wing construction.
I agree, STA's i.e. adapters are unnecessary with a properly designed, secure direct mount system. This concept has been the center piece of the DSS approach from the introduction of our gear in 2004.
Yup, you got that right too.
Tobin
Patrick
Contributor
I took a pair of calipers and it is .36, not .55. I have seen photos of your rubber locator and it sure is not .15 on the majority of diver's tanks.
When you do not use a STA with the Mach V, there is no offset. None. The cylinder sits on the spine webbing on the wing itself. That is 0".
Patrick
OxyCheq
http://oxycheq.com
Patrick
Contributor
There is a huge difference in both wings (DSS vs OxyCheq) in materials and features, the most important feature being that all OxyCheq wings (other than the bladderless Razor) have a zipper to access the bladder for repair and inspection.
Rather than writing down all of our materials and features here, I will do it on mfg section and then could always refer to it.
Best regards,
Patrick
OxyCheq
http://oxycheq.com
Similar threads
