DSS wing - not a donut - discuss

[Humuhumunukunukuapua'a]

Question: How the heck do you remember that user name when you need to type it in?

2 'humu's (hoomoo)
2 'nuku's (nookoo)
1 'apu' (apoo)
2 'a's (ah)

 

[GreenDiverDown]

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

Tobin

He mentioned that he needed a lot of weight.

 

[GreenDiverDown]

I don't know that one is better than the other. I dive both and they work equally as well.

I certainly wouldn't agree that with singles an oval is the only way to go. IMHO, this comment sounds like it might come from innexperience. My first single wing was a horseshoe... I had been using a back inflate BC... and this new wing seemed a little weird. But now I enjoy diving it just as much... if not more... than my oval wings.

To be honest, I think we just get used to what we dive... we learn how to move air around the wing, no matter which way the thing is designed.

 

[cool_hardware52]

Good point. I should have explained my perspective on these issues in my original post.

1 - The benfits to a donut-shaped bladder that I perceive, based solely on what I have read, and my own experience in a back inflate BCD with a horseshoe-style bladder, are that air tends to migrate more easily from one side of the bladder to the other, that the rear dump can more effectively dump air from the entire bladder in a donut shaped bladder.

I have never heard/read about benefits of horseshoe over donut (lots of folks say donut is 'the way'). But I have read a lot about the DSS wing in particular being just as good as any donut shaped wing available (Pioneer, Eclipse, Oxycheq). Is there something exceptionally good about the DSS wing that makes it as good as the popular donut wings?

2 - No. I have never read about a single issue from a user of a DSS wing in regards to wing venting, trim or anything else. The positive reviews I have read about the entire DSS system are what make that system attractive to me. It sounds great!

The only reason I ask is that I have read in a number of places, without DSS wings being introduced to the discussion, that donut wings are "the only way" for singles. Yet, when the best singles wings are discussed, DSS wings are inevitably in the top running. Is there something exceptional about the DSS wing that makes it perform as well as the donuts? Or is the advantage of a donut wing overrated?

Thanks very much for all of your perspectives.

In my opinion donut wings are overrated. It's not that donut wings don't work well, they do, it's just that they don't work the way most think they do.

One needs to consider the history of the backplate and wing. They started out as a way to mount big doubles, and were later "adapted" for use with single tanks. Many of the early adaptations involved installing a STA or single tank adapter on a backplate, using the very same wide horseshoe wing that was being used with the double tanks. The results are predictable, the wide wing tacos the tank, meaning the gas in the wing is trapped in two bubbles above the tank, making venting very difficult. Even today one can purchase wings that claim to be ok for use with doubles or singles. These have to wide enough for doubles, and therefore too wide to be effective with a single. Even today, many many singles wings have huge, wide center panels, I can only assume they are made using basically the same pattern as a doubles wing.

What is significant about singles "donut" wings is that they are universally narrower than the "doubles derived" horseshoe wings they superceeded. It is this narrow profile that makes them vent better. Because they do not fold up around the tank, the bubble in each side of the wing is along side the tank, not above it. This also means there is some air in the top arc. The air does not have to travel down under the bottom of the tanks, it just flows through the top arc.

We took that idea one step further, and made our singles wings even narrower. That's why they vent easily.

Now for the benefits of a horseshoe over a donut. Two ways to build wings; Single Bladder, and Double bladder. Single layer or single bladder wings use a single layer of urethane coated nylon for both the air tight layer, and the structural layer. This makes fabrication less expensive, and eliminates the need to be able to install a bladder with in a bladder. The downside is that the wing is basically impossible to repair if it is ever punctured.

Double bladder wings don't really have two bladders, it just means they have and outer sewn shell, and an inner welded urethane air tight bladder. The advantage is a much tougher wing, ballistic nylon outer, and repairable or replaceable urethane inner.
The downsides are greater cost, and in the case of a donut the need for a 360 degree zipper. This zipper is necessary because you need to be able to install a donut in a donut. Long zippers are hard to install, and can be problematic.

With a very narrow profile horseshoe we acheived the easy venting features of a donut, and retained the benefits of "Double Bladder" construction without a 360 zipper.

Hope this helps,


Tobin

 

[cool_hardware52]

He mentioned that he needed a lot of weight.

I'd suggest bolt on weight plates. I prefer that to moving the tank further away.


Tobin

 

[GreenDiverDown]

Why do you suppose doubles wings are moving toward donut shape.

I don't know that they are.

I think the only significant advantage of an oval double would be the smaller profile.

 

[cool_hardware52]

I don't know that they are.

I think the only significant advantage of an oval double would be the smaller profile.

Stephen, you nailed it. That's the major benefit, unless diving an RB.

Tobin

 

[TSandM]

Just a question from a simple-minded reader . . . if you are properly weighted and anticipating your buoyancy changes well, why would you need to vent more than a small amount of air from the wing at any one time? An amount you should be able to get out of either the inflator (which, if you are slightly head up, is venting from both sides) or your rear dump, which admittedly only vents one?

 

[GreenDiverDown]

I'd suggest bolt on weight plates. I prefer that to moving the tank further away.


Tobin

Right. But if a guy might want another 2 to 3 pounds on the back, then an STA can sure do it. Besides, for most, an additional set back of a half an inch isn't really a big deal and it sure makes tank swaps a snap... swapping a just used for a new full, that is.

Your deal certainly is hot for those that like the STA-less set up, though.

Hey Tobin, why not make a hard STA for us STA guys!

 

[cool_hardware52]

Just a question from a simple-minded reader . . . if you are properly weighted and anticipating your buoyancy changes well, why would you need to vent more than a small amount of air from the wing at any one time? An amount you should be able to get out of either the inflator (which, if you are slightly head up, is venting from both sides) or your rear dump, which admittedly only vents one?

You are Right one target TSandM. One of the most useful drills I've ever done was the "oral buoyancy" drill. Of course it's good idea to know how to orally inflate, but of much greater benefit was the enforced requirement to anticipate buoyancy changes, and not just mash the button. Pretty soon you find that far fewer, and more subtle changes are all that's required. When making small changes perfect side to side air balance seems kinda silly.

Tobin