DSS wing - not a donut - discuss

[Patrick]

Pat you have sold many more wings than I have, congradulations. Of your 16 wings for how many did you personally develop the actual production pattern, and how many were developed by your fabricator / contractor?

Tobin, I designed the shapes just as I did with all the prior wings. My mfg made the patterns aftter my simple drawings. I should note the previous patterns I had made for me during the initial prototpes were made by someone you know. Those patterns were useless and I had them made correctly. I can make patterns that basic, but my mfg requires something more advanced in order to get the consistant quality I look for. I must say that the design process is much more effient now than before because we have worked on quite a few products over the last years.

I've always solicited comments from my manufacturers, those testing the products and people at trade shows. It is common practice for me to take prototypes to dive shows just to get opinions from others.

So, what is the point in asking that?

My wings are made by people that have been doing this for well over 30 years and that is why I don't have to worry about how to correctly place a zipper on an outer shell. I spoke to them about that early on and they had done it previously many years ago on horse collar designs.

I don't have to worry about control because my mfg has seen just about anything that can be seen. I could buy the equipment, hire the staff or do what I do now. Why add overhead and expense whgen it is not needed. That said, I did pick up a really nice CNC 3 axis Mill. Need that like I need a 17th wing.

After designing 16 wings, five harness systems, and more in around a three year period, I have learned quite a bit myself.

Also, I have dove most of my competitor's wings and bcs and have over the years. That is why my wings have the shapes that they have. I knew we had to move the gas to different areas from the beginning.

Our goods are both developed and manufacturered in house. The pattern development, sewing, welding, and assembly all take place here in Pasadena California. We don't send anything "offshore", or "south of the border" My pattern maker is on staff, and we work closely together. It's been an education for me. My responsibilities are primarily for the welding dies, but the shape of the shell, and the shape of the bladder need to be coordinated. This not necessarily the lowest cost means of production, but if offers a degree of control that's hard to beat. I also enjoy having my hands in all phases of the product.

I don't know of any company out there that produces a product and is not activiely invloved. Who in their right mind would go through the production expense without knowing they are getting the product that they want? That is just one of the reasons we make prototypes and test them prior to production.

At some point in time, it will all be made in China. I don't have any plans now, but I am afraid it is inevitable.

Quite right, on float covers for inner tubes the zipper is either around the outside, or around the inside, that is exactly where the two sides of the zipper will be the same lenght.

Yes of course when I do use a zipper it's in the top arc of the wing. That's precisely because that portion of the wing is a simple curve, i.e. the "plane" of the zipper is curved in one direction only. If you lay the pattern flat on a table the zipper will be a straight line. I realize this is not any easy subject to convey using only text, but take a look at definitions for "simple curve" and "compound curve"

Tobin, if you took the zipper section (zipper and gusset) off of our wing, you could lay it out flat just as you stated above. By your own description, it is a "simple curve". Also, when installed it does not interfere with the cylinder.

Based on your comments, it is obvious that you have not really seen our 360 loop wings with bladders. If you did, you would not be supporting the argument that it cannot be properly done. From your prior postings, I am not even sure you know I had a single tank wing with a bladder. It is the Sig Series wing and it has been out for two years now.

Zippers don't work well when one side is compressed and the other is stretched. Take any jacket, front zip. Why do people hold down the bottom front of the zipper when closing? To force both halves to be the same lenght. Try zipping your jacket closed while pulling on one side while bunching up the other, jam city.

We don't do it the way you thought we did, so it is a non issue.

Are you sure Pat? I know for a fact that your double bladder donut for singles has the zipper installed exactly as I state, i.e. in a vertical section along side the cyclinder, curved in plane view, but very definitely a straight walled vertical cyclinder. You might want to check with your pattern maker.

The zipper is on a gussett. Your facts are not accurate. I'm sure you might benefit if this was an issue. However, it is not and my job is to make sure the information about my wings is accurate.


Best regards,

Patrick
OxyCheq

 

[Patrick]

"At some point in time, it will all be made in China. I don't have any plans now, but I am afraid it is inevitable."

I meant to say inevitable for most manufactured products.

Safe diving,

Patrick Duffy
OxyCheq

 

[cool_hardware52]

I can make patterns that basic, but my mfg requires something more advanced in order to get the consistant quality I look for.

That's what I thought, Oxycheq production patterns are developed by your vendor, not you.

My wings are made by people that have been doing this for well over 30 years

Experience can be a wonderful thing, it can also impeed the introduction of new ideas. It cuts both ways. Experience can mean avoiding some mistakes (if you learned from the first time around) , but it can result in a "that's just the way it's always been done attitude"

I don't have to worry about control because my mfg has seen just about anything that can be seen. I could buy the equipment, hire the staff or do what I do now.

There is more than one successful business model, most in the Scuba Business are "marketing companies" who do leave the R&D and production to outside vendors. If you choose to focus on marketing, and that's your forte, go for it. This approach has it's benefits, but tighter control over design and production is not one of them.

Is a vertically integrated model like mine perfect? Of course not, I don't really have the flair for marketing, or the hours in the days to devote to doing it well. I do enjoy the design challenge, and also I enjoy applying the appropriate technology for production, if I am happy I'm productive.

Why add overhead and expense whgen it is not needed. That said, I did pick up a really nice CNC 3 axis Mill.

Do you realize that you contradict yourself frequently, often in the same sentence?

Need that like I need a 17th wing.

Why? Are 16 too many?

Also, I have dove most of my competitor's wings and bcs and have over the years. That is why my wings have the shapes that they have. I knew we had to move the gas to different areas from the beginning.

I agree.

I don't know of any company out there that produces a product and is not activiely invloved. Who in their right mind would go through the production expense without knowing they are getting the product that they want? That is just one of the reasons we make prototypes and test them prior to production.

Having pretty much all the processes in house allows us to make prototypes quickly, and permits an iterative design process. Additionally, but just as importantly, I don't ever have to try and communicate my ideas to someone else, they just rattle around in my head.

At some point in time, it will all be made in China. I don't have any plans now, but I am afraid it is inevitable.

Why?, If so who will have the income to go diving?

Tobin, if you took the zipper section (zipper and gusset) off of our wing, you could lay it out flat just as you stated above. By your own description, it is a "simple curve". Also, when installed it does not interfere with the cylinder.

Here again you contradict yourself in the same sentence. If your zipper is a straight line "in the flat", then both sides of the zipper are the same lenght. If both sides of the zipper are the same lenght, then the zipper section has to be a straight walled vertical section. This is not my opinion, this is dictated by geometry.

Based on your comments, it is obvious that you have not really seen our 360 loop wings with bladders. If you did, you would not be supporting the argument that it cannot be properly done. From your prior postings, I am not even sure you know I had a single tank wing with a bladder. It is the Sig Series wing and it has been out for two years now.

I've seen your double bladder wings, and even a glance at your website will show that the zipper is installed as I say it is on your "Signature Series" single wings. The photos show a very definite oval shaped, straight walled "pocket" in the center of your wings. I never said that it interferred with the cyclinder, but does produce a different shape than can be acheived with other methods.

We don't do it the way you thought we did, so it is a non issue.

If you don't understand the difference between a simple curve, and a compound curve, how can you tell what I think?

The zipper is on a gussett. Your facts are not accurate.

I've never discussed a gusset, gusset or no, the zipper is in a vertical section.

I'm sure you might benefit if this was an issue.

How? when the day comes when I need to denigrate other goods to sell mine, I'll find something else to do.

I'm repeating myself, but this bears repeating. I've never said your wings don't work, I've never said they were of substandard quality. I do maintain that many people believe they work in ways that defy the laws of physics. Is this your doing? I don't know really, but I'd guess it's more likely the result people misunderstanding how wings really work.

I have my reasons for electing not to build "donuts for singles" I have been consistent in this position also. This does not mean that I believe that donut wings are a bad thing, an evil to be avoided. All it means is that after careful consideration I didn't find the constraints imposed by such a design were sufficiently offset by the difference in performance.

You may not believe this but I really don't see Oxycheq, Halcyon, DiveRite, OMS, DeepOutdoors, Zeagle, etc. as my main competitors. I see the Xbox360, Golf, Backpacking, and the high cost of fuel as my competition.

The diversity of ideas in the market place right now is good for the consumer, and ultimately good for the producers too.


Regards,


Tobin

 

[Patrick]

That's what I thought, Oxycheq production patterns are developed by your vendor, not you.



Experience can be a wonderful thing, it can also impeed the introduction of new ideas. It cuts both ways. Experience can mean avoiding some mistakes (if you learned from the first time around) , but it can result in a "that's just the way it's always been done attitude"

I agree and that is why I take the time to test it and get input from people I respect in diving as well as the end consumer. I have yet to launch a poorly received product and hopefully will continue that trend.





There is more than one successful business model, most in the Scuba Business are "marketing companies" who do leave the R&D and production to outside vendors. If you choose to focus on marketing, and that's your forte, go for it. This approach has it's benefits, but tighter control over design and production is not one of them.


We agree on control and R&D. There are trade offs for production inside. I don't sew and don't see myself doing it or managing others that do. I am able to keep my costs lower and get the quality that I want.





Is a vertically integrated model like mine perfect? Of course not, I don't really have the flair for marketing, or the hours in the days to devote to doing it well. I do enjoy the design challenge, and also I enjoy applying the appropriate technology for production, if I am happy I'm productive.



Do you realize that you contradict yourself frequently, often in the same sentence?

No. Maybe I am tired. Why the attitude?



Why? Are 16 too many?

When you get close to that amount, we could start a new thread.




Having pretty much all the processes in house allows us to make prototypes quickly, and permits an iterative design process. Additionally, but just as importantly, I don't ever have to try and communicate my ideas to someone else, they just rattle around in my head.

Even though it is nice to have the ability to make something in a few hours, I cannot think of any time I could have used that option. The long time for me is really testing the prototypes. Two or four weeks is a short time frame when I look at the whole picture.



Why?, If so who will have the income to go diving?

China has state of the art equipment, low wages and a lot of people. Very few. So, guy buy extra dive equipment now.



Here again you contradict yourself in the same sentence. If your zipper is a straight line "in the flat", then both sides of the zipper are the same lenght. If both sides of the zipper are the same lenght, then the zipper section has to be a straight walled vertical section. This is not my opinion, this is dictated by geometry.


I see no contradiction. The gusset is a flat piece and the zipper is part of the gussett. It is a straight wall. You can continue to make this arguement and believe that it does not work or that I am some kind of brilliant people working with me. Either one works for me. The fact is it works and obviously works for others.



I've seen your double bladder wings, and even a glance at your website will show that the zipper is installed as I say it is on your "Signature Series" single wings. The photos show a very definite oval shaped, straight walled "pocket" in the center of your wings. I never said that it interferred with the cyclinder, but does produce a different shape than can be acheived with other methods.


I thought I read one of your previous threads where you stated that zippers interfere with the cylinder. I know it was not in this thread.

If you don't understand the difference between a simple curve, and a compound curve, how can you tell what I think?


That wall you speak of is the gussett. If the wing was in pieces, it would lay flat. So, is that a simple or compund curve? Personally, I don't really care what you call it as long as people know it works and works well. The appropriate term for the part we are talking about is gussett.


I've never discussed a gusset, gusset or no, the zipper is in a vertical section.

See above.



How? when the day comes when I need to denigrate other goods to sell mine, I'll find something else to do.

I would not call it denegration.


I'm repeating myself, but this bears repeating. I've never said your wings don't work, I've never said they were of substandard quality. I do maintain that many people believe they work in ways that defy the laws of physics. Is this your doing? I don't know really, but I'd guess it's more likely the result people misunderstanding how wings really work.

Tobin, I am happy to see you stay with U wings. I have them in doubles versions. However, the gas does shift easier from one side to another when you are rotating and you also can make a smaller wing profile by taking advantage of a 360 loop. Ask the guys that crawl into bug holes or those that have to maneuver in a cave and ask them if there is a difference. The gas shifts more quickly and it appears seemless.



I have my reasons for electing not to build "donuts for singles" I have been consistent in this position also. This does not mean that I believe that donut wings are a bad thing, an evil to be avoided. All it means is that after careful consideration I didn't find the constraints imposed by such a design were sufficiently offset by the difference in performance.

And I don't believe U shaped wings are an evil either. We agree again.



You may not believe this but I really don't see Oxycheq, Halcyon, DiveRite, OMS, DeepOutdoors, Zeagle, etc. as my main competitors. I see the Xbox360, Golf, Backpacking, and the high cost of fuel as my competition.


I can add hurricanes.


The diversity of ideas in the market place right now is good for the consumer, and ultimately good for the producers too.


Agreed.

Safe diving,

Patrick Duffy




Tobin

a

 

[veggiedog]

I think some of the confusion regarding the orientation of the zipper could have been via a poor choice of wording to describe the difference. The choices are not just between choosing a simple curve or a compound curve (although that choice also exists): the choices of interest are between choosing a curve that involves curving the zipper up or down as it follows the curve vs having it move right or left as it follows the curve. The latter choice would still be a simple curve, but it would result in one side of the zipper (the outer side) needing to be longer than the inner. The OxyCheq Signature has the zipper curve up (in relation to itself) as it goes around the inner cylinder of the donut. A banked curve would be a compound curve, but that is not necessary to demonstrate a limitation regarding the inner and outer edges not being equal in length.

This seems to be a manufacturing detail: why would a purchaser of a donut care about this specific aspect of the design? Does it affect the fit or function of the bladder to incorporate a vertical cylinder, at least as tall as a zipper, on the inner portion of the donut? The OxyCheq Signature is actually much wider than that on the inner cylinder via the inclusion of a gusset. Is there a disadvantage to this choice in design?

Some wardrobe luggage (the kind that folds in half after being zipped up) have a big long zipper that runs up one side, makes a big semi-circle near the top, and the runs back down the other side. Admittedly though, the zipper ends up having equal sides as the fabric portion of zipper takes up the difference via compression on the inner side and expansion on the outer side of the semi-circle, as well as twisting (i.e. the zipper, via the flexible fabric that is part of the zipper, does not lay totally flat ). Not optimal, but it does work for cheap wardrobe luggage.

 

[GreenDiverDown]

I, for one, appreciate the FANTASTIC gear made by you two fellas. Keep up the good work!

I have oval and horseshoe single wings and I just don't notice much difference between the two. When I was new to wings I thought that an oval was important. Now... well... I could care less.

Still, I can understand that some guys will prefer one to the other.

 

[willy wonka dives]

With a DSS plate and wing why would you need a STA?

Tobin

it makes it so much easier to switch from a doubles wing to a single wing. now if you never plan on doing any diving with a set of doubles then yes you may decide to avoid the STA but it is up to the user.

 

[fishb0y]

Man, I wish I brought popcorn before I read this thread.

 

[fishb0y]

it makes it so much easier to switch from a doubles wing to a single wing. now if you never plan on doing any diving with a set of doubles then yes you may decide to avoid the STA but it is up to the user.

Ummm... no, doesn't work like that. Don't wanna rehash stuff that has already been said about this, but DSS wings don't need a STA and you really wanna use different wings for singles and doubles due to their sizes.

 

[GreenDiverDown]

Man, I wish I brought popcorn before I read this thread.

The zipper thing is way over my head. I have enough trouble just remembering to zip up my fly.

I don't like seeing these two guys go at it, though. They are both above that and they know it. It's enough that they make great stuff. Tobin thinks out of the box and his gear reflects that gift. Patrick... well, he got things rollin' and continues to crank out top of the line gear. Both have earned my respect.