I've been thinking about this some. Why was I not convincing? There are probably many parts to this and it should be noted that some people are convinced that better swimming performance can lead to better dives and that this goal is worth pursuing. Obviously, others are not convinced.
There was a lot of resistence to my "requirements". I think that the term may have gotten distorted in translation from engineer to diver. The engineering process begins with "requirements". The requirements define what the goal of the design is to accomplish. Does it mean that no one should dive without meeting these requirements. No, it does not mean that. It means that a system I design to those requirements should be able to demonstrate compliance to those requirements. If not the design failed to achieve the intended goal for the hardware. I defined my requirements in terms of the speeds that are statistically driven by ocean conditions. Perhaps I needed to spend more time talking about why I wanted to do this aside from general safety and a claim that "it just makes sense”.
The problem I see here, as a fellow engineer, is that requirements need to be based on some realistic scenario. It follows that, from an engineering perspective, your requirements are fine, for your stated goals. From a marketable perspective, this is where they fail, in my opinion. What I’ve always said is that you fail to look at ANY perspective, other than your own, of what people WANT. That is what makes engineers fail as entrepreneurs. Sure, what you’re doing is interesting, awesome, even.
But you have to market it (even just as information) to a large enough audience that it will sell. You simply aren’t doing that. You’re marketing it to a very small niche market, which is fine, if that’s what you’re shooting for but I suspect you want to reach a larger audience.
As I’ve indicated, the way to do this is to make it relatable to the average diver, not the person you think wants to go seeking adventure where the currents get strong.
While not everyone, I think it is true that most people who are interested in diving are initially drawn to it because of a desire for exploration and adventure. I also think one of the reasons that the attrition rate among new divers is so high is that they eventually learn that scuba diving is not an cost effective activity to satisfy that urge for exploration. The general lack of mobility leaves divers, in many cases, slaved to a dive boat for access to the ocean and that means you go where the dive boat goes. For some, and perhaps many, that is fine. That's what they want, they want the dive to be easy and they are willing customers for a guided tour. But this type of tour bus experience will not do much for quenching one's appetite for exploration, as you are unlikely to discover anything new. You will see what thousands of others have seen before you and it may be nice, but it is not very adventuresome.
If you want adventure, you need to get your own boat. Now, you are not talking about a few thousand dollars for dive gear to explore the ocean, you are adding anywhere from about $5k for a used small minimalist boat to $120k for a larger sized new boat that you can stay on, with the average boat probably falling in the $20k to $30k range. Then there are the costs for maintaining and operating a boat. Those costs usually match the initial purchase price over a typical time of ownership. In the end, it gets too expensive and people decide to go hiking or camping instead.
You’re using a lot of vague terms that are so subjective as to be useless for this conversation. There are plenty of “adventures” that don’t involve a “guided tour” nor do they require any more mobility than is currently available commercially. I suspect the things I find “ho hum” in another aspect of my life would be considered incredibly thrilling by you while the diving I find “adventuresome” you clearly find boring. Again, you’re incorrectly extrapolating your own interests to the rest of the diving population. I also, still, disagree with your myopic assessment of why people stop diving. It’s far more complicated than you’re suggesting.
As for needing your own boat for “adventure”, that’s a red herring and you know it. It’s trivially easy for people to hire a private charter at a fraction of the costs you’re discussing. That said, I think that cost is actually a minor concern for most people who stick with diving.
Adventure and exploration demand a certain level of autonomy of the diver. One can't be adventuresome while being slaved to a dive boat operator.
My "requirements" were designed to reach what I thought would achieve that needed level of autonomy in the ocean, that a diver can be liberated from the dive boat operator. They can do a lot of dives without the dive boat at all and in the cases where a dive boat is still used, the scope of operations gives the diver a wide range of explorable territory (A diver could potentially range several miles if desired).
On top of this, the improved mobility can add certain elements of safety to just being in the ocean, so it is good from that perspective as well.
Adventure requires autonomy of your mind, nothing more. The rest is just degrees of subjectivity, as I’ve said before. Again, all these dives you’re considering swimming to without a boat are far more practical with surface support of a boat. In the end, you gain very little other than not having other people around. In cases where currents are “adventurous” this negates all the added safety you’re claiming you get by being able to swim at such speeds. The only added safety is if you continue to dive in the same environments we currently dive in and have the same level of dive support that is common. Only then does your actual safety gain any improvement.
For those to want the tour bus experience, that's fine. The goal of those operations is to try to show you a nice dive spot that will have easy diving conditions. You probably will not have to swim much. In that case, this equipment will not do a whole lot for you and I can see why that kind of diver would not want to pay extra for the added capability that they will not use.
I have known people who just dropped of the back of the boat, went to the bottom and sat there looking around until they got board, and then back up to the boat. They had no need for swimming performance because they really didn't swim at all. They eventually quit diving.
And I know people who’ve done just that for thousands of dives with no compunction to do otherwise. See how useless anecdotes are for convincing people of your position?
Furthermore there are far more people currently diving (that’s your target audience, after all) that consider the “easy dive where they probably won’t have to swim much” as the epitome of diving than there are people looking for your “adventure” dives. There are very few “pioneers” looking to find new places to explore. Perhaps you are truly one of those personalities and simply can’t grasp why the rest of the world isn’t.
Some people keep diving interesting by becoming photographers, or instructors. The diving becomes a means to an end rather than the focus of the activity. The swimming performance is not as important because it is not needed to do the main focus of the activity (framing pictures, or interacting with students). But when it comes to exploration, options are limited. You can become a tech diver and explore deeper, but the only options presently for exploring outward in the ocean instead of down is the equipment of treasure hunting. That equipment is far more expensive than even tech diving equipment, and very few people do it. My equipment can chip away at those limitations and allow divers to start exploring out instead of down. I think there are a lot of really great dive sites out there that have yet to be discovered because no one has ever dove there to find it. The adoption of this type of new equipment could be the dawn of a new era in underwater exploration.
Does this make any more sense?
Again, “expoloration” doesn’t have to mean moving fast. Astronomers explore every day by looking through a tiny lens or reading reports. Photographers, whether above the surface or below, explore a thousand different ways without moving more than a few feet. I can “explore” the same 400 square feet of a reef for an infinite number of dives and never see the exact same thing twice. For me, the beauty is in the interaction not in how much space I cover. I’m not looking for “thrills” while diving.
I’ve always understood your perspective so it didn’t really require any more explanation. As I’ve said, I think you are simply mistakenly assuming that a lot of divers are like you.
Again, to be convincing you have to relate the information to what the audience wants, not what you want.
