OP
Humuhumunukunukuapua'a
Contributor
veggiedog:
You use that line too??
DSS wing - not a donut - discuss
- Thread starter Humuhumunukunukuapua'a
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
You use that line too??
You found one easter egg. If you look a little harder, you might find another.
My original goal in entering this thread was to provide the counterpoint to Tobin for your benefit as well as the benefit of the readers of this thread, as the thread appeared to be missing the pro-oval viewpoint, and I view the oval as having advantages that the U does not (seamless head down transitions when rotating, task load minimized bottom dumping, ...), and the U as having advantages that the oval does not (ability to retain air on one side, lack of airspace use that may interfere with specific gear configurations, ...). This is not based on speculation but instead a logical analysis of the mechanics of each style of bladder.
Firstly, before considering the end product, I propose that you would want to determine which of the basic features even matter to you (not just the ones I listed, I'm no expert on bladders, but whatever "features" matter to you (durability, political affiliation, ...)).
Secondly, you should choose a bladder armed with that information.
However, that does not mean that a bladder can't be made that performs better than some other bladder in some specific regard, and consequently offset the fact that it doesn't have a feature that the other bladder does have. If you determine that you don't need the additional features of an oval that are not in a U, and you find a U that has better features in other regards, that U would justifiably deserve consideration. Or, if you determine that some feature is only marginally beneficial in your application (streamlining, 360 degree continuity, ...), it is easy to do without that feature when comparing bladders.
Do you have other divers that dive similar to you that favor a specific bladder? Their input could also prove useful. However, keep in mind that you should oil more than just the squeeky wheel, and I recommend being suspicous of everyone's motives (well meaning or not) when getting "recommendations".
My original goal in entering this thread was to provide the counterpoint to Tobin for your benefit as well as the benefit of the readers of this thread, as the thread appeared to be missing the pro-oval viewpoint, and I view the oval as having advantages that the U does not (seamless head down transitions when rotating, task load minimized bottom dumping, ...), and the U as having advantages that the oval does not (ability to retain air on one side, lack of airspace use that may interfere with specific gear configurations, ...). This is not based on speculation but instead a logical analysis of the mechanics of each style of bladder.
Firstly, before considering the end product, I propose that you would want to determine which of the basic features even matter to you (not just the ones I listed, I'm no expert on bladders, but whatever "features" matter to you (durability, political affiliation, ...)).
Secondly, you should choose a bladder armed with that information.
However, that does not mean that a bladder can't be made that performs better than some other bladder in some specific regard, and consequently offset the fact that it doesn't have a feature that the other bladder does have. If you determine that you don't need the additional features of an oval that are not in a U, and you find a U that has better features in other regards, that U would justifiably deserve consideration. Or, if you determine that some feature is only marginally beneficial in your application (streamlining, 360 degree continuity, ...), it is easy to do without that feature when comparing bladders.
Do you have other divers that dive similar to you that favor a specific bladder? Their input could also prove useful. However, keep in mind that you should oil more than just the squeeky wheel, and I recommend being suspicous of everyone's motives (well meaning or not) when getting "recommendations".
cool_hardware52
Contributor
Humuhumunukunukuapua'a:
The max width of our LCD 20, and LCD 30 wings, at max inflation is ~13 1/2 inches, our LCD 40 is slightly wider, ~ 14 1/2 inches
The overall lenght is ~22 inches for the LCD 20, ~26 inches for the LCD 30 and LCD 40
The LCD 30 weighs 2.48 lbs. (digital scale .01 lbs resolution) I don't really think weight is a good comparison however, because so great a percentage of the total is contributed by the corrigated hose, inflator and OPV.
Gotta run, I'll be incommunicado 'till monday, (maybe sunday night) I've been promised 59 degree water, no swell and 25 ft of vis, hope they are right.
Humuhumunukunukuapua'a:
My pleasure.
Regards,
Tobin
veggiedog:
Ba
Veggie, luckily with your 51-100 dives, we were able to understand thanks to your limited experience in wings. I still can't remember, have you dove a horseshoe wing that only had the one dump? We thank you.
Tobin, I want to make sure I got this right... but for any perceived benefit of a 'donut' wing for singles, you feel the technical issues are don't make the wing feasible, but are worth it for doubles because they are a different beast, correct?
Patrick, I did not think your response was sarcastic. But I am a warm water diver, Al80 doubles (I dive wet) and I'm just getting back into tech diving after a 4 year hiatus (I recently sold my OMS and bought a bp/w).
While the thread did get a little testy at times, I thank both Tobin and Patrick for their time and knowledge. Let me know when you two want the have the BC Builders Challenge here on the lovely island of Oahu. I'm sure I could get my local dive club to vote on your rigs (a couple of them enjoy looking at shiny objects.)
Well, off to dive now.
cool_hardware52
Contributor
fishb0y:
I'm not sure I choose the word feasible, donuts for singles are widely available right now, well made and nice to dive.
My testing has shown me that the primary benefit of donut wings is in fact a narrower profile, and I can acheive a profile at least as narrow, or perhaps even slimer using our current horseshoe design. Air flow through the bottom connection, has in my experience, been far down on the list of benefits.
Singles and doubles are different applications. Building our "Torus" wing is a great deal more work than our other wings. Many more pieces, lots of velcro, special diecut pieces of velcro, etc. It is IMO worth the additional effort and cost to produce a shape that cannot be achieved with a zipper.
fishb0y:
You are welcome, enjoy your dive.
Tobin
OP
Humuhumunukunukuapua'a
Contributor
veggiedog:
Yeah I read the thread. I am aware that you are a suspicious guy, you like the Oxycheq you have, and seem to have a problem with Tobin. Reiterating, clarifying or rewording this sentiment really really isn't a reason to post again.
But thanks for posting the size of the Oxycheq wing. It would be just so super if people could limit themselves to useful, on-topic posts like that one.
And thanks Tobin for the DSS wing measurements. This is all very educational.
Gregg
I have to agree. Ive learned a lot and have gained more understanding about the 2 companies (who both make good products). This is one of the best threads in SB right now. Furthermore, I'd like to thank Tobin for all the thought hes but into his producs and new ideas, Im not reffering to the wings but the small things like the hose hats, Vyper and SK7 mounts, thumb wheels, weight plates etc.
fishb0y:
Fishb0y:
Tou had to take another cheap (sarcastic?) shot at Veggie. Further deteriorating what should have been an otherwise informative thread. The way you jump to Tobin's defense (he clearly is able to defend himself), one could infer that your interest here may be less than impartial.
Do I have any less right to post than you because I don't have the experience you have?
What if Patrick had more dive experience than Tobin? Does that mean we discount what Tobin has said?
I really don't want to start this up again, but being a relatively inexperienced diver, I take exception to your comment on Veggie's experience.
To set the record straight, I do own an Oxycheq wing. Have not used it yet. I was undecided between the Oxycheq and the DSS (I checked out SB comments on all wings available). I opted for the Oxycheq because in my limited experience (no sarcasm intended ) I like the idea of the donut. (I dive with back inflate BC's and have had trouble moving the gas around with one rear dump)
When I first started reading this thread I wondered if perhaps I would have been better off with the DSS. (I really like the narrow profile and the way it tucks in behind the tank). Well after the thread got what I percieved to be "dirty", I was not sure. I am still glad I have the Oxycheq.
Having said all that, I'll probably end up buying a DSS wing anyway (20#) and when I do I'll post how the 2 compare with regards to venting gas (if my relative lack of experience entitles me to that)
Splitlip:
You're right, didn't need to... and I kinda am partial, I have a DSS rig now and rate it up there with sliced bread. I have in no way and will not discount Patrick's gear. I havn't dove it, but I also have not made my decision on what bladder to get yet either.
BUT HEY!!! SAW A HAMMERHEAD TODAY!!! The shark, not trying to drag in Hammerhead Dive gear now. Karma did hit me today however, my video camera was in my car.
Similar threads
