DSS wing - not a donut - discuss

[veggiedog]

Patrik,

Tobin makes some pretty compelling arguments for the narrowness of his wings. He hasn't quite come out and said his wings are narrower (in this thread, that I recall), but he has pointed out benefits to placing the bladder closer to the ridge in the backplate. Do you see any advantages to that design (potentially reducing donuts even further)? Are there any disadvantages to that approach from a diver's perspective?

I am also happy to hear Tobin's position regarding outsourcing. I always prefer to purchase items made in countries with at least the facade of certain basic human rights (free speech, ...). I realize you didn't say that you had specific plans on using China, just that it appeared inevitable, but I wanted to point out, at least to one diver, that it matters, although I am sure you are aware that many divers care.

I think that purchasing decisions involve many considerations, not just whether or not a bladder has a specific feature I am looking for. I have been very happy with my 30# Signature and I continue to dive it every chance I get, but I am sure there is still much for me to learn about the advantages and disadvantages of any bladder feature, never mind the other considerations.

I just started diving a drysuit, so I don't have the experience to comment on the realization of the benefits of a donut with a drysuit, but it was asserted in this thread that any potential benefit provided by a donut is pretty much constrained to just wetsuit wearing, perpetually head down diving only. Would you mind commenting on that?

Do you have any insight into Bill's appreciation for your donuts?

I am happy you dropped in when you did, I think they were about to tar and feather me. I don't think I am knowledgeable enough to say if any specific feature is better than some other feature, but I am pretty good about analyzing the mechanics of my dive experiences, and there are advantages to the donut that I am pretty certain I leverage on almost every dive that I use it.

 

[countryboy]

My offer was rather tongue in cheek... never expected it to actually work...

My skills will never match those of Mr. Main... But, hey.. can't win if you don't play.

I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion between Patrick and Tobin. Thank you both for your contribution.

FWIW.. I dive a DiveRite plate with rec wing (horseshoe).. mostly scrounging on the bottom between 15 - 25 feet looking for lobster. (yes majority of the time butt up) I have learned that a quick tilt to the right is sufficient to move the air over when necessary. I will borrow a friends "H" wing (donut) next season to see if there is any difference.. There are just not many BP/W users in my diving circle.. with little to no chance of renting a wing for a "test" drive..

 

[Patrick]

Patrik,

Tobin makes some pretty compelling arguments for the narrowness of his wings. He hasn't quite come out and said his wings are narrower (in this thread, that I recall), but he has pointed out benefits to placing the bladder closer to the ridge in the backplate. Do you see any advantages to that design (potentially reducing donuts even further)? Are there any disadvantages to that approach from a diver's perspective?

I agree and the inside our our wings lay next to the cylinder as well. I don't know of any single tank wings by any manufacturer that do not.

I am also happy to hear Tobin's position regarding outsourcing. I always prefer to purchase items made in countries with at least the facade of certain basic human rights (free speech, ...). I realize you didn't say that you had specific plans on using China, just that it appeared inevitable, but I wanted to point out, at least to one diver, that it matters, although I am sure you are aware that many divers care.

No plans. But, others in the industry have and will go in that direction. We began losing businesses that use that talent a long time ago. I remember growing up in the northeast when we still had shoe factories and clothing manufacturers there. Take a look at your clothes now and I'll be surprised if most of them are not made outside the US. From what I have seen coming out of China, the quality is improving. They have invested in state of the art equipment and it will pay off. Ask anyone from Boeing, I understand a lot of their production has been outsourced. They are not too good at originality and design, but they are good at duplicating (or knocking off) products.



I think that purchasing decisions involve many considerations, not just whether or not a bladder has a specific feature I am looking for. I have been very happy with my 30# Signature and I continue to dive it every chance I get, but I am sure there is still much for me to learn about the advantages and disadvantages of any bladder feature, never mind the other considerations.

There are a lot of considerations. Some include the overall profile of the wing, materials used, thickness of urethane (in the inside of the shell), type and thickness of bladder, weight and of the wing (travel purposes), consistent quality of production, easily repairable and more. Just a few, there are more.

I just started diving a drysuit, so I don't have the experience to comment on the realization of the benefits of a donut with a drysuit, but it was asserted in this thread that any potential benefit provided by a donut is pretty much constrained to just wetsuit wearing, perpetually head down diving only. Would you mind commenting on that?

Same benefits would apply with a dry suit. Nothing new about U shaped wings, they have been the standard. I've dove both and have dove U shaped wings for over ten years. I think the advantages are quite clear when I dive a 360 loop vs the U. That said, there is a market for both and I don't see me eliminating the U shaped wings in my line. When diving singles I dive the 30# Sig Series. However, if I was diving a single in Cozemel, I would take the 18# Razor because it is so small and light. The profile on that thing is like diving without a wing.

Do you have any insight into Bill's appreciation for your donuts?

How about the a story?

Bill was diving our 50# Standard wing for about 1.5 years. Over time we discussed further streamlining and then I came up with the 50# Razor. The Razor is a bladderless 360 loop wing.

The firt day Bill dove it (very early 2005) he called me and was very excited. He had told me that it needed no modifications or improivements and he suggested that I go inot production immediately. He usually does a couple of cave dives a week and I wanted him to basically dive the crap out of it for six months so I can gauge durability. During that conversation, he told me that my standard wing had the least amount of drag over the competition and that the Razor had even less drag than the Standard wing. Six months later, the wing still looked new.

Bill has told other people that his gear confiuration is the best it has ever been in the whole time he has been diving.

Bill is a really nice guy and if anyone knows him, he is meticulous about his dive configuration. He even has a list of 14 reasons why he prefers the power inflator over the newer types. He described how he tested the wings and was in just about any orientation imaginable. I don't think he did this just for my input, that is just how detailed he is about gear he is diving.

One of Bill's dive buddies had a 50 Standard. Before Bill was diving the Razor, his buddy kept up with him kick per kick. When Bill switched from the Standard to the Razor, the buddy was behind a kick every six kicks. Within two weeks after Bill switched, his buddy asked if he could get a prototype Razor.

Efficiency in wing design is important, but even more so when you have long penetrations. If your dives are doing up and down dive profiles on a wreck, it is not that critical.

Other things to consider are the environment you are diving in. If doing wreck penetration, I would prefer a wing with an inner bladder. Just gives me a little more protection and that would normally not be a long swim.

I am happy you dropped in when you did, I think they were about to tar and feather me. I don't think I am knowledgeable enough to say if any specific feature is better than some other feature, but I am pretty good about analyzing the mechanics of my dive experiences, and there are advantages to the donut that I am pretty certain I leverage on almost every dive that I use it.

In the end, it is the consumer that will make the decision on the equipment he dives and hopefully they will make decisions based on facts and research. Sometimes these discussions can get a little out of control because nobody likes to think they bought the wrong product. I remeber when everyone began diving rebreathers, the RB List was really crazy. You think you get flack over the purchase of a wing, could you imagine the level of insanity over an expensive rebreather?

For the record, I did do a little more research on the 360 zipper. It was used in on the horse collars and at the time, it was a technical challenge.

Got to go pay some bills. Hopefully the information I provided was useful of interesting.

Safe Diving,

Patrick Duffy

 

[Patrick]

My offer was rather tongue in cheek... never expected it to actually work...

My skills will never match those of Mr. Main... But, hey.. can't win if you don't play.

I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion between Patrick and Tobin. Thank you both for your contribution.

FWIW.. I dive a DiveRite plate with rec wing (horseshoe).. mostly scrounging on the bottom between 15 - 25 feet looking for lobster. (yes majority of the time butt up) I have learned that a quick tilt to the right is sufficient to move the air over when necessary. I will borrow a friends "H" wing (donut) next season to see if there is any difference.. There are just not many BP/W users in my diving circle.. with little to no chance of renting a wing for a "test" drive..

I assumed that. However, felt I had to reply.

Safe Ddiving,

Patrick

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

FWIW.. I dive a DiveRite plate with rec wing (horseshoe).. mostly scrounging on the bottom between 15 - 25 feet looking for lobster. (yes majority of the time butt up) I have learned that a quick tilt to the right is sufficient to move the air over when necessary. I will borrow a friends "H" wing (donut) next season to see if there is any difference.. There are just not many BP/W users in my diving circle.. with little to no chance of renting a wing for a "test" drive..

A piece of advice ... make sure you have money on hand to purchase a new wing beforehand ... you aren't going to want to give your friend his wing back.

I dived a Rec wing for quite some time before trying out an Oxycheq. The Rec wing went up for sale that very afternoon, and I LIKED it before that ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Patrick]

How do you do any R & D in house without the means, or the ability to sew or RF weld?Tobin

Never said I did. Just agreed that in house prototyping is useful and can be fun. I did not agree that production needs to be in house. Especially when I can get better quality and keep my prices down by outsourcing. If I had people doing the work inside, I might not be able to have some of the products or product features that I presently do. I have hired and fired enough people in my prior career and I prefer to stay lean despite the long hours. I know I am not telling you anything new about long hours.

I doubt I ever will even approach that number of wings. At times I wonder if I need 6. Can you detail the specific different applications for each of the 16 different wings you currently produce?Tobin

Well, I originally planned on four. Different applications, different type of clyinders, different rebreathers, different type of diving, different training requirements, different body sizes, different levels of disposable income, different customer demands. I don't need 9 types of analyzers either, but I have them.

Being able to produce prototypes quickly allows for more "what ifs" The analogy I like is using a spreadsheet vs a tabular pad and pencil. I can look at far more combinations. I can test maybe a portion of an idea, and make changes on the fly, etc. That's what I meant when I said iterative design process. If you can quickly, and at fairly low cost, have test goods ready it makes "pushing the envelope" less risky. I try lots of things, some work, some don't, all teach. If I had to pay outside firms to do this I know I try many fewer. Tobin

Well, I guess I have not had the need. Would be nice to have the equipment and talent in house to play with ideas when I am slow. However, I'm busy and don't have much free time. I don't have any risks in the production products because they are already tested and shown to a number of people for input. As I stated earlier, the prototype time is minimal to the testing of the product the market research.

All true, but consider Europe. The United States did to Europe what China is doing to the US, we just did it in the early 1900's. Europe didn't "go out of business" , they changed and adapted. I'm optomistic that the nimble will survive. If we abdicate, and send all production to China the outcome will be grim.Tobin

I'm just a realist. Levis are no longer made in the US. Most of the low tech manufacturing in just about every area have gone. We'll be limited to short runs and prototypes. Just my opinion.

This is exactly what I have been saying, zippers need a straight wall.

Pat the words below are yours, taken from an earlier post. It appears that you are challenging my contention that zippers need two sides of equal lenght, and that there is no problem installing a zipper in a section that does not have vertical walls.

You still see no contradiction in your two diametrically opposed positions?Tobin

Tobin, I did not go back and read everything. The important thing is that zippers work well and it can be done despite there being somewhat of a technical challenge.

Show me

I know it is not in this thread. I thought I read it in an early post when you came out with wings. I'll try and see if I can find the thread over the weekend. You write too much ... and I am beginnig to as well.

If anyone is sick of reading my posts, let me know.

Should I take this to mean you agree that one of the main adavantages of a donut wing is the resultant narrower profile? Donut wings are one means of achieving a narrower profile, but not the only means. Look at the center panel of your singles wings. Measure the width of the center panel, by this I mean the portion that does no inflate. I'd guess from the photos that it is about 7-8 inches wide. Ours are just over 3 inches wide. That means by using the volume avaiable right down to where the tank contacts the plate we can make our wings very very narrrow in profile also. More than one way to skin a cat.

It certainly is an advantage of producing a smaller package and it sllows you to make a more streamlined wing. Tobin, wing width is just part of streamlining. Other factors are the front edge, the shape of the wing when deflated and inflated, angles or curves, and whether or not it has a bladder. I can make a two inch side, but it could be too long. I desined my wings to work with a variety of cylinders.

I had a design and prototype for a 30# wing a long time ago when I came out with the Standard 70#. Never took it past the prototype stage because I went in other directions.

Ya I bet you can, I'll stick with earthquakes.

Oh, anyone that sells a product similar to any of my products is a competitor ... and nothing wrong with that.

Safe diving,

Patrick
---
OxyCheq
3812 Crossroads Parkway
Fort Pierce FL 34945
Ph: 772.466.4612
Fax: 772.293.9657
web: http://oxycheq.com

 

[Humuhumunukunukuapua'a]

If anyone is sick of reading my posts, let me know.

Certainly not me. Big thanks to you and Tobin for contributing to the thread. Even though it has wandered into areas beyond the original topic, I for one have found this discussion very productive and informative. Based on the number of views this thread has, I don't think I'm the only one.

Thanks you guys! I'm convinced that you both make outstanding products and you care a great deal about getting them right.

Gregg

 

[cool_hardware52]

How do you do any R & D in house without the means, or the ability to sew or RF weld?

We agree on control and R&D.

Never said I did. Just agreed that in house prototyping is useful and can be fun. I did not agree that production needs to be in house. Especially when I can get better quality and keep my prices down by outsourcing. If I had people doing the work inside, I might not be able to have some of the products or product features that I presently do. I have hired and fired enough people in my prior career and I prefer to stay lean despite the long hours. I know I am not telling you anything new about long hours.

I do R&D and production in house, and have stated my reasons for doing so.
How can you first say that you agree with my approach to in house R&D, and now say you never said that.......

I doubt I ever will even approach that number of wings. At times I wonder if I need 6. Can you detail the specific different applications for each of the 16 different wings you currently produce?

Well, I originally planned on four. Different applications, different type of clyinders, different rebreathers, different type of diving, different training requirements, different body sizes, different levels of disposable income, different customer demands.

Fine, but what are the specifics?

I don't need 9 types of analyzers either, but I have them.

If they aren't needed why have them?[/QUOTE]

Being able to produce prototypes quickly allows for more "what ifs" The analogy I like is using a spreadsheet vs a tabular pad and pencil. I can look at far more combinations. I can test maybe a portion of an idea, and make changes on the fly, etc. That's what I meant when I said iterative design process. If you can quickly, and at fairly low cost, have test goods ready it makes "pushing the envelope" less risky. I try lots of things, some work, some don't, all teach. If I had to pay outside firms to do this I know I try many fewer.

Well, I guess I have not had the need. Would be nice to have the equipment and talent in house to play with ideas when I am slow. However, I'm busy and don't have much free time. I don't have any risks in the production products because they are already tested and shown to a number of people for input. As I stated earlier, the prototype time is minimal to the testing of the product the market research.

The prototype phase for me is easily the longest, because we try a wide variety of solutions. I can't really seperate prototyping from testing. Failure is OK with me, if it happens in the development stage, and I learn something from it.

Tobin, I did not go back and read everything. The important thing is that zippers work well and it can be done despite there being somewhat of a technical challenge.

Maybe you should. Your second post in this thread, #78, quotes me, and you go onto dismiss the fact that zippers impose contraints, apparently without understanding what I was saying, or how zippers effect pattern development.

The gusset is a flat piece and the zipper is part of the gussett. It is a straight wall.

Then eventually you agree.

Should I take this to mean you agree that one of the main advantages of a donut wing is the resultant narrower profile? Donut wings are one means of achieving a narrower profile, but not the only means. Look at the center panel of your singles wings. Measure the width of the center panel, by this I mean the portion that does no inflate. I'd guess from the photos that it is about 7-8 inches wide. Ours are just over 3 inches wide. That means by using the volume avaiable right down to where the tank contacts the plate we can make our wings very very narrrow in profile also. More than one way to skin a cat.

It certainly is an advantage of producing a smaller package and it sllows you to make a more streamlined wing. Tobin, wing width is just part of streamlining. Other factors are the front edge, the shape of the wing when deflated and inflated, angles or curves, and whether or not it has a bladder. I can make a two inch side, but it could be too long. I desined my wings to work with a variety of cylinders.

The width of wing, either deflated, or inflated is the primary determinate of drag. A smooth shape helps some, but at the speeds divers see, even scootering, frontal area is the biggest player. Frontal area is a function of width.

I had a design and prototype for a 30# wing a long time ago when I came out with the Standard 70#. Never took it past the prototype stage because I went in other directions.

I have no idea what you are talking about here......

Regards,


Tobin

 

[fishb0y]

If anyone is sick of reading my posts, let me know.

Man, I'm looking forward to this more than I am about diving this weekend (well, not really but this is exciting). I just hope the no fun police don't stop this.

Question I pose to both of you... I understand Tobin's point about the complexity of donuts and if the extra engineering might not be worth the gains of a donut. So why a donut for doubles? Would the wing be really that much narrower? I'm trying to make my choice on which wing I need for doubles.

Thanks in advance.

 

[veggiedog]

I do R&D and production in house, and have stated my reasons for doing so.
How can you first say that you agree with my approach to in house R&D, and now say you never said that.......

I believe Patrik claimed he agreed that R&D should happen in house and that OxyCheq is not just a marketing company (like DSS), I don't believe he ever agreed production should be in house. This technique seems to be pretty common in your posts Tobin. Instead of trying to fatten up what he says, or read into his misunderstandings about your wording regarding zippers, can't we try to focus on details about bladders that might help a potential bladder purchaser make an informed decision? You know, things that matter (not that you aren't touching on those too).

Seems a bit strange to push for mimimalist principles in the area of product offering. Does sound like thinking outside of the box though.

Just my three cents worth...