Diving Performance - Beyond Drag (article Series And Discussion)

[REVAN]

Some here already know that I am very much interested in improving my swimming performance when scuba diving, and also sharing the information to help others achieve similar performance gains. I have mentioned before that I was working on an article on the subject and, after many weeks in the editor's queue, it is finally getting released.

This is the first part of a 4 part series: Diving Performance, Beyond Drag - Part 1 – DeeperBlue.com

The rest of the series will come out over the course of the week and I will link them to this thread as they become available. I hope others find the series useful and the scuba technology inspiring.

Freediving offers greater freedom of movement in the water than scuba diving. Freediving is growing in popularity and scuba diving is waning in popularity. I don't think this is a coincidence. However, it can get better and this series aims to show how it can be done. If a scuba diver has not experienced greater freedom of mobility, they won't know what they are missing. I'm hoping this series can be an initial exposure for many divers to better freedom of movement in the water and bring illumination to the subject of scuba streamlining, propulsion and diving performance.

 

[fjpatrum]

Interesting start. I'll wait to see the rest for something other than the assumptions you've already stated here, which many (most?) of us disagree with already.

I will say you've conflated some terminology. The "christmas tree diver" and the "tech diver" are different concepts, as a general rule, and the "tech look" doesn't have an "abundance of D rings". I believe you're aware of that and this is a disingenuous way to convince people your basic premise is correct though I will admit to reading with a particular bias since I disagree with your original position anyway.

 

[REVAN]

Part 2 has been published: Diving Performance, Beyond Drag - Part 2 – DeeperBlue.com

The "christmas tree diver" and the "tech diver" are different concepts...

I didn't think I had implied that they were the same, just that the Tech looking BCs made attaching more ornaments possible. Back when I started diving in the 80s, it was hard to attach more than two things to a BC.

...and the "tech look" doesn't have an "abundance of D rings".

My DiveRite harness has a total of 12 D rings, 4 on the front, 2 on the sides and 6 smaller rings on the back. I can clip something just about anywhere I would want. It is not a bad thing to have options, but one needs to exercise some restraint. I like my DiveRite harness, I've had it for almost 20 years now, but I like it best when the D rings are mostly empty.

 

[REVAN]

BTW: Articles change between delivery to the editor and publishing. Originally, there was no monofin video in Part 2, just a picture and a footnote that this is an example of a diving fin that is over 70% thrust efficient. As published, I think it is a bit confusing as to why that video is there.

 

[fjpatrum]

From your article: "Buoyancy Compensators (BCs) and popularization of the “tech” look for dive gear with an abundance of ‘D’ rings to allow a diver to clip on an abundence of accessories forming what is sometimes refered to as a “Christmas Tree Diver”."
If that doesn't imply the "tech look" and "Christmas tree diver" are the same, you and I read very differently.

If the Diverite harness has 12 D-rings, it's an anomaly. Most "tech" rigs have 4 or 5. Hell, most jackets only have 6 or less. More importantly, the "tech look" does other things to streamline gear, which you have deliberately ignored in your article. Again, from my biased (non-tech diver) perspective, that is disingenuous.

For the record, I think the article is well written and you clearly have an audience you're writing to, I just think I'm not part of that audience.

PS: Not intended as a dig or insult but wanted to let you know abundance is spelled wrong in the above quoted text. (Let your editor know they need a better spell checker.)

 

[REVAN]

PS: Not intended as a dig or insult but wanted to let you know abundance is spelled wrong in the above quoted text. (Let your editor know they need a better spell checker.)

the definition of abundance
I guess I don't see the problem.

If that doesn't imply the "tech look" and "Christmas tree diver" are the same, you and I read very differently.

Yes, I think it is likely that we do read differently. I'm sorry that it wasn't written in a way that is clearer to you.

Part 3 is where it gets really interesting. That's were we get to take a look at some real and unique gear that is pretty slick.

 

[fjpatrum]

the definition of abundance
I guess I don't see the problem.


Yes, I think it is likely that we do read differently. I'm sorry that it wasn't written in a way that is clearer to you.

Part 3 is where it gets really interesting. That's were we get to take a look at some real and unique gear that is pretty slick.

Definition of abundance wasn't the issue I was pointing out. I think you used it correctly, as you intended, I just disagree with the implication.

Looking forward to reading the rest, @REVAN . Like I said elsewhere, I don't agree with your base justification, but I find your ideas pretty darned interesting.

 

[REVAN]

Like I said elsewhere, I don't agree with your base justification, but I find your ideas pretty darned interesting.

I would appreciate your elaborating on this statement. Are you saying that you think my proposed working requirements are off, or are you referring to something else?

 

[ronscuba]

Interesting articles. I am definitely looking forward to parts 3 & 4 as I am in the progress of streamlining my gear and not carrying as much on a dive as I used to.

It is clear the point of view of the article is to improve speed and efficiency. Some of the comments do read as "digs" against certain equipment and dive styles. The article does not address how different priorities and goals have led to what we have now. The article could have been written more neutral by stating the benefits of improved speed/efficiency and what changes can be made IF that is the biggest priority.

 

[Rred]

Swimming performance:
Then whether you go monofin or not, I think I would argue that the single greatest change a diver can make is to forget about crawl kicks and go to a dolphin stroke, with the arms tucked back alongside the tank and the feet kicking only in unison.
A normal human feels quite spastic trying a dolphin kick for the first time, we just don't normally use those midriff muscles. But it certainly covers ground way faster than any crawl, and that's efficiency.
Going contrary to the modern trend of "more stuff" (RIP George Carlin) and ditching the pony, the spare air, the gadgets...probably helps even more. But of course that contradicts all the civilian experts in the dive industry.