DSS wing - not a donut - discuss

[cool_hardware52]

I believe Patrik claimed he agreed that R&D should happen in house and that OxyCheq is not just a marketing company,

If you do no R&D, and no production, what's left other than Marketing and perhaps fulfillment?

Instead of trying to fatten up what he says, or read into his misunderstandings about your wording regarding zippers,

Is it wise to make blanket statements regarding things you don't understand?

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).

Was I failing to do that prior to post # 76?

Seems a bit strange that mimimalist principles would applied to the concept of product offering.

I know I can't be all thing to all people. I want to focus on making the best goods I can with the resources, materials and technology available to me. There are many products and ideas that time won't permit me to tackle. Proctor and Gamble may want to market 20+ types of toothpaste, and find success doing so, but is the customer really better served?


Regards,



Tobin

 

[Patrick]

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 stated that in house R&D is nice to have. It is not a requirement for me. Don't know how much clearer I can get on this and not quite sure why you even brought it up in the first place. My customers don't care if I have an R&D department or not. They do care that they get a quality product.

The ability to type twice as fast as I do now would benefit me more these days than having inside R&D.

I have nine analyzers because I can.

Fine, but what are the specifics?

You must be kidding. Got to keep some trade secrets.

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.

OK. I know what I want and I generally get it in few attempts at design. I think that comes from experience at diving a lot of products over the years and having a knack for shapes that work. You like to experiment and I already know what I want. You likely have more fun, but I feel pretty productive.

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.

Maybe you should have just agreed that I and others had zippers that worked rather than going off on tangents. I told you from the beginning that the zipper had no impact on the design. For whaterver reason, you had difficulty believing it. Normally when someone has a product out there for over two years and they tell me it works, I generally give them the benefit of the doubt. I gave you examples (luggage, float, horse collar) and you did not accept them. Rather than accept actual working applications, you wanted to discuss race tracks and simple and complex curves.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to design wings. You do have to have some common sense and a good support group (in house or out house) that manufactures the product. Sorry, I could not resist. Made myself laugh.

Reminds me of the memo I saw at work on Special High Intensity Training (S.H.I.T.). Upper management supports giving all employees ..., you will get .... everyday, etc.

Hey, just found that on the internet ... http://barkerjr.net/jokes/****

Sorry, I just find that memo to be insanely funny. I laugh so hard at that my eyes tear up.

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.

And frontal depth.

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

I honestly have had similar thoughts.

Safe diving,

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

 

[fishb0y]

Just my three cents worth...

Just curious, did Tobin offend your honor?

 

[Patrick]

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.

My new doubles wing (name unknown yet) series won't have any advantage in streamlining over the existing 50#. Some people in colder water want a little more lift than a 50#, but don't want 70#. So, I compromised by adding a few pounds of lift more and maintained the same profile. The advantage will be for those that shift around in various positions during the dive. The 55# 360 will be for doubles and the 42# 360 will be used with smaller doubles and some rebreathers.

That said, the Razor is definitely a smaller profile.

The extra complexity in engineering is a non issue to me.

My question to you is what is your configuration? Type/Size of cylinders? Wet or dry? Stages (how many)? Canister light? Typical sea state? Wreck or cave penetration? Long swim or vertical dive?

That is one of the benefits of offering a wide range of wings. You have choices.

Safe diving,

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

 

[cool_hardware52]

I stated that in house R&D is nice to have. It is not a requirement for me. Don't know how much clearer I can get on this and not quite sure why you even brought it up in the first place.

I originally asked the question because I was having such difficulty helping you understand the difference between simple curves and compound curves. If you did your own pattern development I thought we might have a common ground to discuss the matter.

My customers don't care if I have an R&D department or not. They do care that they get a quality product.

I won't pretend to know your customer better than you do.

I have nine analyzers because I can.

Seems I heard that same basic answer in relation to cannie behavoir.

You must be kidding. Got to keep some trade secrets.

If someone inquires as to which of your 16 offerings is best for them, is your answer, "I can't tell you it's a trade secret"? Are they asked to sign a non disclosure if you do tell them? Now that is funny.

OK. I know what I want and I generally get it in few attempts at design. I think that comes from experience at diving a lot of products over the years and having a knack for shapes that work. You like to experiment and I already know what I want. You likely have more fun, but I feel pretty productive.

I prefer the scientific method. I like to test lots of ideas, maybe I just lack the confidence to "know" without trying.....

Maybe you should have just agreed that I and others had zippers that worked rather than going off on tangents.

I never said zippers don't work, I said they impose contraints, this you dismissed out of hand, and then ultimately agreed that they do.... you stated that your zipper was installed in a straight walled section, exactly as I said.

Now another 180 degree turn.....

I told you from the beginning that the zipper had no impact on the design. For whaterver reason, you had difficulty believing it. Normally when someone has a product out there for over two years and they tell me it works, I generally give them the benefit of the doubt. I gave you examples (luggage, float, horse collar) and you did not accept them. Rather than accept actual working applications, you wanted to discuss race tracks and simple and complex curves.

That's language a pattern maker would understand.

Regards,


Tobin

 

[DivesWithTurtles]

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

If they aren't needed why have them?

(Not to speak for Patrick, but,) probably because consumer demand dictates different models with different price points, bells and whistles, aesthetics, etc. Remember when Ford sold only one model in one color. Very good for keeping the production costs down, but do you think it would fly in today's market?


Tobin, since there is clearly plenty of consumer demand for single tank donut wings, why don't you consider satisfying that demand, even if you don't feel that they are necessary technically and would have higher production costs? You have a strong following of loyal customers. Why ignore the consumer base that wants something very similar to, but substantially different in detail to, your current product? Isn't your bottom line objective to stay in business by selling high quality products that the consumer demands?

I don't think that your argument can be "that market is already satisfied". You make a backplate despite the fact that other manufacturers already have satisfied that market. You differentiate your product by features and quality. Surely you could differentiate a singles donut wing with your technical details.

Thank you both for this outstanding, (even if sometimes tangential,) exchange. Extremely informative.

 

[cool_hardware52]

I don't think that your argument can be "that market is already satisfied". You make a backplate despite the fact that other manufacturers already have satisfied that market. You differentiate your product by features and quality. Surely you could differentiate a singles donut wing with your technical details.

Thank you both for this outstanding, (even if sometimes tangential,) exchange. Extremely informative.

DWT, I have already differenciated my single wing offerings by shape. Our current singles wings perform very well, several other posters in this very thread have comfirmed this point.

Call me stubborn, but what is there to gain by conforming to the current fashion?

Let me restate my reasons for not building singles donuts.

1) I prefer not to make single layer, all welded wings. This construction technique imposes it's own constraints, and the final product is difficult to repair if damaged

2) Double layer donuts require 360 access to install the inner bladder. This access requirement also imposes design contraints. These have detailed earlier in this thread.

In short our current extremely narrow singles horseshoe wings are low drag, vent well, and are rugged and simple in construction.

Tobin

 

[cool_hardware52]

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.

Fishb0y, Forgive my delay in responding, I missed youu question amoung the other distraction in this thread.

One might ask why I choose not to build donuts for singles, but have done exactly that for doubles. The answer lies in how the wing fits the tank and plate.

With a single tank one can build a very narrow, well perfoming horseshoe wing by allowing the wing to inflate right down to where the tank contacts the plate. This utlilizes the space between the tank and the plate. One could combine this technique, i.e. narrow center panel, with a donut shape and have an even slightly narrower wing, but for the capacities most often seen for single tanks the reduction in width is trivial, and not worth the impacts of providing 360 degree bladder access.

With doubles the situation is different. Double tanks contact the plate more or less right down the out side edge of the plate. This means that there is no space between the tank and plate, and that all the inflation is outside of the "footprint" of the plate. Here there are worthwhile gains to be had by "hidding" some of the required lift under the bottom of the tanks. In the case of doubles the reduction in profile is real, and worth the extra effort to provide 360 access.

Hope this helps,

Tobin

 

[DivesWithTurtles]

Call me stubborn, but what is there to gain by conforming to the current fashion?

Market share. Customer base. Money. Company longevity. Jobs for production staff.

What is there to gain by being stubborn and not conforming to consumer demand? (Loss of market share. Smaller customer base. Less income. Smaller domestic workforce.)

I don't run a business, so I don't know. Aren't there business benefits to satisfying customer demand that outweigh attitudes of perceived technical superiority? We all want your business to thrive.

 

[*Floater*]

Call me stubborn, but what is there to gain by conforming to the current fashion?

Profit.