Doubles recommendations for a small framed women?

[halocline]

I'm kind of surprised nobody has suggested double LP72s. You'll have to hunt around for a pair of galvanized (don't get non-galvanized 72s) tanks, preferably made by the same company, PST is a good one and there's even the REE doc floating around so you have a chance at getting them plus rated. You should expect to pay less than $50 each for the tanks. Piranha dive gear has excellent deals on 7" bands and manifolds. Between the tanks, bands, manifold, hydro&vip, even throwing in a few cans of ZRC cold galvanizing compound, I spent about $350 on my LP72 doubles set. Here are the nice stats: Empty weight 26 lbs, height 25", diameter 6.9", empty buoyancy neutral (personally I find this ideal for doubles) and if you can get them mildly overfilled to 2700 PSI, they hold 77cft (same as AL80s) and if you can bump that to 2900, 83.4, very close to LP85s. They are 3AA tanks, I don't want to start the millionth overfill battle.

Lynn, I have no idea why you find them difficult to trim out in, but I would think they'd be ideal for a small woman. I'm not a big guy, (5'8"/160) and they're perfect for me. I do intend to pick up a set of LP85s at some point and use the bands/manifold I have just for comparisons sake.

In terms of ultimately choosing tanks, you really have to decide what exactly you hope to get out of the tank. Eventually you have to use the tanks that allow you to do the specific dives you want to do. For starters, in terms of having a set of doubles to dive recreationally and develop really good skills in doubles, for me the 72s are perfect. It's a shame they're not made any more. If they had the modern 3AA pressure rating (2400 plus 10%, which I would bet they could easily qualify for) they would be a great alternative to AL80s; smaller, lighter, better buoyancy, and the same amount of gas.

 

[ceb]

kathydee, I'm slightly bigger.. 5'5" and 130lbs, I run and workout so good leg strength. I regularly dive double 100s for shore diving, and occasionally use double 130s for shore (but mostly on boats). I love the 100s as everyday tanks, no problem handling them. The 130s I prefer a shorter walk and need to watch my balance. I have used 119s, 72s and 95s as well but no preference, I can pretty much go with whatever is around.

 

[kathydee]

Sounds like a good enough reason! Before you explained your situation, from an outsiders stand point it seemed like a little bit of a waste. I guess too much education is never a bad thing anyways.

Naw - too much of a good education is not a waste .

 

[kathydee]

And no synthetic insulation, just down and wet, heavy wool. A guy I knew had to spend three days in a crevasse on the Whitney glacier during a storm on Mt. Shasta around 1978, as the winds were howling so hard they'd broken the tent poles. They used the tent as a bivy sack and waited it out as their down bags and jackets get soggier and soggier - reading wasn't an option as they had to hold the tent up (between shovelings) to keep the snow from burying them, even if they'd had sufficient batteries (Candles were out of the question, lithiums were still a few years off, alkalines didn't have the capacity they do now, and the bulbs were either Tungsten or at best, Halogen).

Ever read "Minus 148" by Art Davidson, about the first winter ascent of Denali (1967)? Their weeklong bivy in a snow cave at Denali Pass pretty much encompasses the experience of the (pre Gore-Tex) down and wool era, albeit at the extreme end. I'm quite happy to enjoy the benefits of technology, even if I tend to avoid doing that sort of thing now.

Talk about tough bivys . Brrr - I rarely did ice, but there were plenty of other bivys on the vertical that won't be easily forgotten ;-).
But those stories are for a different board - or to shared over lunch one of these days .

Guy, nice meeting you. I look forward to seeing you in Monterey.

 

[rjack321]

A common problem with women and doubles is too much lower body bouyancy. (Even thin women) In my wife's case her CG is actually down around her hip socket or even further south. So even lead on a weight belt contributes to her being head heavy. The smaller, thinner and more undergarments you wear the bigger this problem become. AL80s are longer (than 100s) and allow for the use of a significant tail weight which is down over your arse instead of up high.

AL80s are also cheap off craig's list etc.
normal 7.25" bands can be converted to hp100s easy enough
convertible into bottom stages
convertible into singles
high used resale value
plenty of gas down to 140ft-ish in cold water depending on your consumption.

 

[Gombessa]

A common problem with women and doubles is too much lower body bouyancy. (Even thin women) In my wife's case her CG is actually down around her hip socket or even further south. So even lead on a weight belt contributes to her being head heavy. The smaller, thinner and more undergarments you wear the bigger this problem become. AL80s are longer (than 100s) and allow for the use of a significant tail weight which is down over your arse instead of up high.

I have head-down issues as well, and I've found that I can wear my weight belt hoodlum-style, low across my hips, which significantly shifts the center of gravity back towards my legs.

 

[Adobo]

I have head-down issues as well, and I've found that I can wear my weight belt hoodlum-style, low across my hips, which significantly shifts the center of gravity back towards my legs.

Two words for you Kenn, ankle weights.

 

[Anti-Hero]

Beto and Don are both top notch instructors, and exceptionally nice people. You can't go wrong with either. (or both in some cases)

 

[alwaingold]

I'm kind of surprised nobody has suggested double LP72s. ... if you can get them mildly overfilled to 2700 PSI, they hold 77cft (same as AL80s) and if you can bump that to 2900, 83.4, very close to LP85s.

I have a set of these tanks, and as I think I mentioned, they are nice for one long dive or shore dives where the weight of the tanks is a real issue (although on such dives, perhaps a single tank would be a better call). I don't think they make the best all-purpose set of doubles though. I can typically get a fill of 2600-2700 on these tanks, and 3200 on my 85s. (Based on her geography, I highly doubt Kathy is going to find a better fill on LP72s.) So you end up getting about 25% more gas in the 85s (or HP100s).

Most of the people diving single tanks around here are diving something in the range of LP85s or HP100s. So doubles85s/100s are ideal for doing two dives with single tank buddies too. If you have 72s, you end up having to schlep a stage, or do 25% less of a dive (I guess the same could be said of doubles divers too, that most are diving something bigger than the 72s). If you are diving LP85 or HP100 singles today, and switch to double 72s, then you can do less diving in a day than you could before. That seems silly to me.

Kathy, if you want to check out a set of 72s, feel free to borrow mine. Or for that matter, if you just want to compare land weights/comfort, we have LP85s, HP100s, LP72s, and Al80s (Ted's) in the garage all filled with 32% if you want to walk around the neighborhood in each set and see what you think I think you'll find that the weight difference on land among any of these tanks is not enough to be the big factor in which tanks to choose. You'll get over that pretty quickly given how much you dive. How they trim out in the water is way more important. For me, the 85s trim out better than the 72s or 100s, but the 72s and 100s are both diveable.

Allison

 

[TSandM]

That's interesting, Allison . . . I wonder if it depends on the kind of 72s? For me, the 72s we have (which are all very old tanks) trim out horribly. Of all the doubles I've dived, I like them the least. 85s and HP100s trim out very similarly, and 95s are very head heavy for me, without a tail weight. Al80s are easy to trim out when full, but get less cooperative as they get empty.