DSS wing - not a donut - discuss

[Patrick]

I think your right here, and I would add that both dedicated narrow single tank wings, and single bladder construction are fairly recent developments. Most earlier wings were double bladder construction. So if you are comparing an older double bladder design, to a more recent single bladder design you see the effects of both the materials used and the newer shapes.

Bladderless technology has actually been around for quite some time. Single bladder construction has been around since the 60s. Fenzy made a vulcanized rubber horseshoe. ScubaPro originally glued the Stab Jacket in the 70s. Laminated urethane BCs have been around since the late 80s. Another historical point, NASDS actually had a back mounted wing in the late 60s.

I'm not sure what you mean by bulkly? Do you mean less frontal area? Less apparent volume? The volumes should be pretty close, that's all based on the displacement.

Our front edge is very narrow. Agree that it is displacement. But, different patterns and the construction results in different shapes. Your single wings are narrow. My wings have a very low cutting edge (frontal profile).

Closely matching the inner bladder to the outer shell helps wings vent better. Often the same bladder is used in a range of wing sizes, say 40-70 lbs. Welding dies cost money, and having more sizes increases the required inventory of bladders, so this practice is not uncommon. A 40lb shell with a 70 bladder can result in less than ideal venting. .

All of our wings that have internal bladders have matching bladders. A specific sized bladder for each wing. Some people see it as a benefit, so I do it. Personally, I don’t think this is a great advantage and it is costly to produce the extra dies and carry the extra inventory.

Regards,

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

 

[cool_hardware52]

Bladderless technology has actually been around for quite some time. Single bladder construction has been around since the 60s. Fenzy made a vulcanized rubber horseshoe. ScubaPro originally glued the Stab Jacket in the 70s. Laminated urethane BCs have been around since the late 80s. Another historical point, NASDS actually had a back mounted wing in the late 60s.

I know that single bladder construction has a fairly long history, RF welding itself dates from 1940's and to this day the machines still use huge vacuum tubes. (My machine has a main oscillator tube the size of a football, looks like something from Frankenstein's lab)

What I was referring to was the much more recent widespread use of the single bladder construction on specific, purpose built, single tank wings.


Tobin

 

[Patrick]

I know that single bladder construction has a fairly long history, RF welding itself dates from 1940's and to this day the machines still use huge vacuum tubes. (My machine has a main oscillator tube the size of a football, looks like something from Frankenstein's lab)

What I was referring to was the much more recent widespread use of the single bladder construction on specific, purpose built, single tank wings.

… I would add that both dedicated narrow single tank wings, and single bladder construction are fairly recent developments.

Glad you cleared that up. However, ScubaPro and SeaQuest were making BCs and backmounted wings for single tanks in the late 80s. I assume others were as well, but I did not take an interest in all of the products that were available.

ScubaPro and SeaQuest sold quite a few BCs during the late 80s and early 90s that were made specifically for single tanks using the same bladderless technology. Perhaps the shapes have changed, but not the purpose or the process. In fact, the first back mounted bladderless singles wing I ever dove was a SeaQuest 3D. It had expanding gussets and it was U shaped. I used that with single tanks and a Dive Rite for doubles … that was about 12+ years ago. Still have the 3D hiding somewhere. Was a pleasure to dive that after diving a normal BC.

Only reason for me knowing the history is because my final lecture with LA County (UICC 40) was on "The History of Diving" and I used to collect a lot of old equipment. Got tired of moving it all over the place so sold most of the collection I had.

Still have one two hose reg left and the world's oldest Electrolung.

Regards,

Patrick

 

[Patrick]

Here are some shots of the two side by side. The one on the left is an inner bladder/outer shell. The one on the right is a single layer.

Sorry... the pictures might be a little misleading... but, hey, I tried! They also don't reflect what these wings would look like under water where they would be compressed. But what the heck.

Still, they sorta demonstrate what I described above. One definitely 'appears' more bulky and 'potentially' less streamlined.

In the first pic, the bladders are empty. In the second one, there is about two breaths of air in each. In the last photo, each wing is completely inflated. You can get a rough idea about the "puckering" of the single layer wing.

This is simply offered for discussion. I don't suggest that this proves anything!

Stephen,

Thanks for taking fthe photos. I wanted to, but did not have the time. Pictures are worth 1000 words. And, I agree, a properly designed bladderless has a lower cutting edge and is defintely less bulky than a wing with a bladder. However, they all have trade offs.

Safe diving,

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

 

[Patrick]

Patrick,
What are some the tradeoffs in deciding to go with or without a bladder? As an example is a bladderless Cordura singles wing, a better trade off than a nylon wing with a bladder.....

Joe,

Blaldderless is generally less expensive, However, as Tobin pointed out, costs can rise when you begin to add gussets because it is more difficult and labor intensive. In my opinion, they are more streamlined. Less weight is another benefit, but I would not make my decsion on a pound or two.

The advantage of one with a bladder is extra protection and the ability to replace the entire bladder if needed.

That said, I had someone send a bladderless wing back because someone stuck a knife through one side and out the other. We did repair it for him. Initially he thought it was toast, but it was repairable. Just not something I would suggest trying at home.

There are some tricks to reapiring bladders. If I can get some of the high priorities off my desk, I will put up a web page on some neat tricks that are not commonly known.

I would not have come out with the Razor 50# if we did not have a successful track record for bladderless wings. I would like to narrow the amount of wings down, but the opposite seams to be happening. As long as they last and they sell, I will continue to have them manufactured. The drawinngs for #17 are already completed, just want to think about it over night before I give the go on the prototype. I alreaday know the design can be achieved.

In fact, someone already called and asked what my plans were for #17 (to be called he Mach V). Trusting him, I shared the plans and sold the first Mach V.

Safe diving,

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

 

[Humuhumunukunukuapua'a]

Hey Patrick,

Are any of your singles wings of the STA-less variety?

Thanks for all the info!

Gregg

 

[LavaSurfer]

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

This has ben a great thread and answered a few final questions I had.
Its clear that Tobin has done his homework and I like what I see.

BTW
How do I change my username to
Lauwiliwilinukunukuoioi

LOL!

Got to love hawaiian fish names!

 

[GreenDiverDown]

BTW
How do I change my username to
Lauwiliwilinukunukuoioi

Great! That's all I need... two of you guys messing up my border width!

 

[Patrick]

Hey Patrick,

Are any of your singles wings of the STA-less variety?

Thanks for all the info!

Gregg

Hi Gregg,

If you have a tank with proper slots, you can strap it without a STA. Pesonally, I prefer a STA because it becomes one complete unit. If you are not using a back plate and use any of our Soft Harness Systems (like the A-Pac Lite or O-Pac), you do not need a STA. I also have a Soft STA, that attaches to the wing. It acts as a channel to stop any wobble and also reduces the load on plastic buckles. That said, we also have stainless buckles and many of the competitors do as well.

I do have another plate design that does not require a STA or any other type of material to prevent wobble, but I just need time to get the drawings done. Too many ideas and not enough time.

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]

I do have another plate design that does not require a STA or any other type of material to prevent wobble, but I just need time to get the drawings done. Too many ideas and not enough time.

Safe diving,

Patrick

A plate design? Interesting. It was my (very novice) understanding that most of the STA-less single tank solutions involved something like an STA built into the wing to prevent the wobble (like a H Pioneer).

So, would this plate be a strictly singles plate?

Sorry if I misunderstood, and thanks for the reply.

Gregg