NWGratefulDiver:
I don't know, looks like your a little high on right side.... SORRY!!! SORRY!!! Just stirring the pot a little bit!!!
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
I don't know, looks like your a little high on right side.... SORRY!!! SORRY!!! Just stirring the pot a little bit!!!
- Messages
- 94,638
- Reaction score
- 93,904
- Location
- On the Fun Side of Trump's Wall
- # of dives
- 2500 - 4999
LOL! ... just might have been ...fishb0y:
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
double80s
Contributor
TSandM:Going back to the original question, I'm a pretty novice diver and it never occurred to me to get worried about whether the air bubble was going to get unbalanced from side to side because the rear dump was on one side. I've used both the inflator and the rear dump, and never noticed being unbalanced (maybe I start that way and it feels normal
I'm in agreement with you. I own and have dove variety of single wings and use an Oxycheq 50# for my doubles. Although the airbubble can be factor, I don't really give it much thought during my dive. There are more important and more interesting things to focus on during a dive. If you dive enough, you don't think about the airbubble in your wing much.
If you haven't tried DSS delrin thumbwheels, get some they work awsome.
Will
In my defense, my efforts are noble. I may have rotten manners, but I am not trying to deceive, I am only trying to reconcile a discrepency between my experience venting a donut, and expert testimony that it matters, but only in a very constrained scenario (at least that is where it stands now). I am attempting to use logic to uncover the reason behind this discrepency because that is how I go about life: I value critical thought over expert recommendation.
Without contradiction, I also value experts enormously as they are a wealth of information. However, I still need to know the explanations behind recomendations so that I can determine if that recomendation is applicable to my needs. That is my motivation for this discussion over DSS singles wings not being donuts.
When I brought up my experience with donuts, at least vaguely similar to Dr Bills experience, Tobin waved that off as unusual. However, I perceive a functional difference when I use the donut that I can attribute to the design of the bladder that Tobin reluctantly admits exists, but he claims it is unlikely in a more constrained scenario than I believe properly depicts the wealth of scenarios that must exist to benefit from this aspect given the number of scenarios that exist in my limited number of dive profiles (and given that he acknowledges it exists).
I did not try to make these differences out to be major issues. In fact, efforts are being made to misconstrue my statements by exaggerating them. I did not claim that I was having difficulty balancing out in any position with any bladder, and pictures showing the obvious fact that this can be done seem to reflect a missunderstanding about what is being discussed (at least by me), or a purposeful effort to hijack the thread. I can balance out in any position with a 1970's style STAB jacket (with a wetsuit). And, in fact, it may be that the small benefit I perceive regarding the bubble may be trivially offset by Tobin's ultra low profile wings. However, the pictures presented appear to show a similar amount of "tacoing" as my OxyCheq donut, but I admit there all kinds of opportunities for discrepencies in that comparison.
I am only making general statements about my specific observations during my limited dive experience. I am not trying to make any claims that my “dive experience level” is high enough to measure up to Tobin's “dive experience level”, I am merely commenting on my specific dive “experiences”. I consider it quite juvenile to attack my “dive experience level”, but am thick skinned enough that it doesn't matter.
I only meant to explore discrepencies in an open forum so that we could all benefit from the truth that would hopefully unfold. I believe I have a capable enough mind to understand the physics behind bladder design when explained by an expert, and through this open discussion the information could be presented for critically thinking divers to better understand the motivation for choosing one bladder design over another.
If Tobin's wings are truly better, open discussion about that should benefit his business. If he handles himself well, he may even make a sell (which he appears to be doing). Given Tobin's excellent explanation regarding the difference between doubles wings and singles wings, readers can verify this for themselves, and determine if that information can be used to help them make an informed purchase.
My abrasive style was not meant to insult: I never claim, nor do I believe, that just because I suspect someone's motives that this is in any way a reflection on them. I openly admit that I am cynical, and I don't know Tobin (nor do many other divers considering his product). I was actually trying to contradict the larger insult of Tobin attributed to me by fishb0y (IIRC): that I believed Tobin's experience was in question. Furthermore, my manners should make it easier to side with Tobin.
My abrasive style was meant to hone in on the truth, to constrain the discussion to a logical discourse. I felt that Tobin was not doing this, whether purposefully or not, by using evasive techniques. If anything, I was pitting my experience with logical discourse against Tobin's. And no, I never felt Tobin had any obligation to respond. I suspect that he did this because he felt it would benefit him to do so (that is what I always expect). When he decides otherwise, he can stop responding.
I do find it a bit suspicous though that the discussion would get to where it did and then be immediately hijacked by the pro-DSS crowd. Do the OxyCheq designers know something too? Maybe OMS as well? At least a little? How can I, as a potential purchaser not know that other designers are not also knowlegeable about bladder design without a complete explanation of the various features. Maybe Tobin doen't like “making” donuts (a fact he has alluded to on other occasions?). Swooping in and directing the thread to anti-DSS bashing is a disservice to potential buyers (at least the critically thinking ones).
In fact, it's ironic because I don't even believe that Tobin's products are lacking other than that they represent a subset of the design choices, a fact which may or may not matter. A fact which I think potential purchasers deserve explained with something other than “buy it and then tell me if it isn't what you wanted” (a tainted paraphrase), or “it doesn't matter in the vast majority of cases so don't even consider those other manufacturers choices” (again, a tainted paraphrase).
I realize this is alot of noise over a potentially small detail, but, in my defense, I claim the noise is not my doing.
Without contradiction, I also value experts enormously as they are a wealth of information. However, I still need to know the explanations behind recomendations so that I can determine if that recomendation is applicable to my needs. That is my motivation for this discussion over DSS singles wings not being donuts.
When I brought up my experience with donuts, at least vaguely similar to Dr Bills experience, Tobin waved that off as unusual. However, I perceive a functional difference when I use the donut that I can attribute to the design of the bladder that Tobin reluctantly admits exists, but he claims it is unlikely in a more constrained scenario than I believe properly depicts the wealth of scenarios that must exist to benefit from this aspect given the number of scenarios that exist in my limited number of dive profiles (and given that he acknowledges it exists).
I did not try to make these differences out to be major issues. In fact, efforts are being made to misconstrue my statements by exaggerating them. I did not claim that I was having difficulty balancing out in any position with any bladder, and pictures showing the obvious fact that this can be done seem to reflect a missunderstanding about what is being discussed (at least by me), or a purposeful effort to hijack the thread. I can balance out in any position with a 1970's style STAB jacket (with a wetsuit). And, in fact, it may be that the small benefit I perceive regarding the bubble may be trivially offset by Tobin's ultra low profile wings. However, the pictures presented appear to show a similar amount of "tacoing" as my OxyCheq donut, but I admit there all kinds of opportunities for discrepencies in that comparison.
I am only making general statements about my specific observations during my limited dive experience. I am not trying to make any claims that my “dive experience level” is high enough to measure up to Tobin's “dive experience level”, I am merely commenting on my specific dive “experiences”. I consider it quite juvenile to attack my “dive experience level”, but am thick skinned enough that it doesn't matter.
I only meant to explore discrepencies in an open forum so that we could all benefit from the truth that would hopefully unfold. I believe I have a capable enough mind to understand the physics behind bladder design when explained by an expert, and through this open discussion the information could be presented for critically thinking divers to better understand the motivation for choosing one bladder design over another.
If Tobin's wings are truly better, open discussion about that should benefit his business. If he handles himself well, he may even make a sell (which he appears to be doing). Given Tobin's excellent explanation regarding the difference between doubles wings and singles wings, readers can verify this for themselves, and determine if that information can be used to help them make an informed purchase.
My abrasive style was not meant to insult: I never claim, nor do I believe, that just because I suspect someone's motives that this is in any way a reflection on them. I openly admit that I am cynical, and I don't know Tobin (nor do many other divers considering his product). I was actually trying to contradict the larger insult of Tobin attributed to me by fishb0y (IIRC): that I believed Tobin's experience was in question. Furthermore, my manners should make it easier to side with Tobin.
My abrasive style was meant to hone in on the truth, to constrain the discussion to a logical discourse. I felt that Tobin was not doing this, whether purposefully or not, by using evasive techniques. If anything, I was pitting my experience with logical discourse against Tobin's. And no, I never felt Tobin had any obligation to respond. I suspect that he did this because he felt it would benefit him to do so (that is what I always expect). When he decides otherwise, he can stop responding.
I do find it a bit suspicous though that the discussion would get to where it did and then be immediately hijacked by the pro-DSS crowd. Do the OxyCheq designers know something too? Maybe OMS as well? At least a little? How can I, as a potential purchaser not know that other designers are not also knowlegeable about bladder design without a complete explanation of the various features. Maybe Tobin doen't like “making” donuts (a fact he has alluded to on other occasions?). Swooping in and directing the thread to anti-DSS bashing is a disservice to potential buyers (at least the critically thinking ones).
In fact, it's ironic because I don't even believe that Tobin's products are lacking other than that they represent a subset of the design choices, a fact which may or may not matter. A fact which I think potential purchasers deserve explained with something other than “buy it and then tell me if it isn't what you wanted” (a tainted paraphrase), or “it doesn't matter in the vast majority of cases so don't even consider those other manufacturers choices” (again, a tainted paraphrase).
I realize this is alot of noise over a potentially small detail, but, in my defense, I claim the noise is not my doing.
cool_hardware52
Contributor
Veggiedog,
Lets see, now I'm "reluctant" and "evasive" how nice.
The facts:
1. I have never stated that donut wings are a poor design, or that they don't work. My consistent position has been that the manner in which donut wings function is not primarily due to the donut shape, but due to the narrow profile.
Can you show me where I have ever said anything to the contrary?
2. Donut wings impose design constraints, if I can acheive the same performance without these contraints why do it?
3. Arguing the validity of any feature based on no more than that feature might be present on some other product is simply flawed logic. It is not my desire or intention to denigrate other gear, but to stand on "well other people do it so it must be necessary" is completely intellectually vacant.
If you are happy diving your donut, great! If you need me to validate your purchase, you are in for a long wait.
Tobin
Lets see, now I'm "reluctant" and "evasive" how nice.
The facts:
1. I have never stated that donut wings are a poor design, or that they don't work. My consistent position has been that the manner in which donut wings function is not primarily due to the donut shape, but due to the narrow profile.
Can you show me where I have ever said anything to the contrary?
2. Donut wings impose design constraints, if I can acheive the same performance without these contraints why do it?
3. Arguing the validity of any feature based on no more than that feature might be present on some other product is simply flawed logic. It is not my desire or intention to denigrate other gear, but to stand on "well other people do it so it must be necessary" is completely intellectually vacant.
If you are happy diving your donut, great! If you need me to validate your purchase, you are in for a long wait.
Tobin
Patrick
Contributor
I wish I had read this thread earlier than the present stage.
The benefits to a 360 loop wing over a "U" shaped wing are a smaller profile, better trim and an almost seamless transition when moving in various positions. In my opinion and most others that are actually experienced divers, you would find agreement and that is why three companies (including myself) have come out with their variation of a 360 loop wing within the last year.
We introduced the Razor 50 in the early summer. Bill "Hogarth" Main began diving the prototype in February. The success of that wing resulted in the line of wings that will be introuced over the next two weeks. I'm sure some of the people and competitors on this list saw it at DEMA, we showed it to everyone that stopped by and we showed it to some at a trade show in Florida last weekend.
When I design a wing, I look for low drag and superior trim. There are a number of things that we do to reduce the profiles and that can be the use of expandable gussets, soft curves and adding gas near the cylinder to reduce the drag and increase the performance.
Some people people actually prefer "U" shaped wings for their rebreathers and not all rebreathers have the same buoyancy characteristics. The KISS Sport does not need any additional lift at the bottom. Doing so could put you in a face down orientation due to the back mounted counterlungs it uses. That said, most RBs do place you in a heads up attitude.
I see some people prefer Velcro over zippers to access the inner bladder. I don't and the reason is that I believe Velcro will wear out faster than a zipper.
Other factors to consider when purchasing a wing is how heavy is the urethane on the inside of the outer shell as well as the thickness and type of material of the inner bladder. I would also tell those interested in wings to look at the profile of the wing when defalted as well as when blown up since they all take on different shapes when full.
I hope I added some new information here and did not repeat too much that may have already been stated.
Safe diving,
Patrick Duffy
OxyCheq
3812 Crossroads Parkway
Fort Pierce FL 34945
http://oxycheq.com
ph: 772.466.4612
The benefits to a 360 loop wing over a "U" shaped wing are a smaller profile, better trim and an almost seamless transition when moving in various positions. In my opinion and most others that are actually experienced divers, you would find agreement and that is why three companies (including myself) have come out with their variation of a 360 loop wing within the last year.
We introduced the Razor 50 in the early summer. Bill "Hogarth" Main began diving the prototype in February. The success of that wing resulted in the line of wings that will be introuced over the next two weeks. I'm sure some of the people and competitors on this list saw it at DEMA, we showed it to everyone that stopped by and we showed it to some at a trade show in Florida last weekend.
When I design a wing, I look for low drag and superior trim. There are a number of things that we do to reduce the profiles and that can be the use of expandable gussets, soft curves and adding gas near the cylinder to reduce the drag and increase the performance.
Some people people actually prefer "U" shaped wings for their rebreathers and not all rebreathers have the same buoyancy characteristics. The KISS Sport does not need any additional lift at the bottom. Doing so could put you in a face down orientation due to the back mounted counterlungs it uses. That said, most RBs do place you in a heads up attitude.
I see some people prefer Velcro over zippers to access the inner bladder. I don't and the reason is that I believe Velcro will wear out faster than a zipper.
Other factors to consider when purchasing a wing is how heavy is the urethane on the inside of the outer shell as well as the thickness and type of material of the inner bladder. I would also tell those interested in wings to look at the profile of the wing when defalted as well as when blown up since they all take on different shapes when full.
I hope I added some new information here and did not repeat too much that may have already been stated.
Safe diving,
Patrick Duffy
OxyCheq
3812 Crossroads Parkway
Fort Pierce FL 34945
http://oxycheq.com
ph: 772.466.4612
- Messages
- 94,638
- Reaction score
- 93,904
- Location
- On the Fun Side of Trump's Wall
- # of dives
- 2500 - 4999
a) I don't consider myself "pro-DSS" ... FWIW, I own DSS, Oxycheq, Deep Outdoors, and Halcyon wings and dive them all regularly. They're all good wings.veggiedog:
b) I didn't see anywhere in this thread where anyone was bashing any product.
You're entitled to any opinion you like ... about any product you like ... it's your "discussion" methods that I found objectionable. Before you go around questioning someone's motives, or inferring that they're not being truthful, you should at least make an effort to learn a little something about the topic of the discussion.
This "hijack" you allude to isn't about critical thinking ... it's about keeping a reasonably civil tone to your level of discourse. Questioning people's motives, and inferring that they're somehow not being truthful, isn't a very productive way to conduct a reasoned conversation ... but if you somehow feel you're entitled to do that to people, then you have no right to object when someone takes you to task for it.
If it's critical thinking you want, then tone your approach back a bit ... you'll be far more likely to get a good, productive conversation.
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
Patrick
Contributor
2. Donut wings impose design constraints, if I can acheive the same performance without these contraints why do it?
They have not posed any restraints for Halcyon, OMS, OxyCheq (me), Deep OutDoors and others. Speaking onoy for my 360 loop wings, they work great. If anything, they are a little more difficult to manufacture and assemble.
Safe diving,
Patrick Duffy
OxyCheq
3812 Crossroads Parkway
Fort Pierce FL 34945
http://oxycheq.com
ph: 772.466.4612
They have not posed any restraints for Halcyon, OMS, OxyCheq (me), Deep OutDoors and others. Speaking onoy for my 360 loop wings, they work great. If anything, they are a little more difficult to manufacture and assemble.
Safe diving,
Patrick Duffy
OxyCheq
3812 Crossroads Parkway
Fort Pierce FL 34945
http://oxycheq.com
ph: 772.466.4612
SeanQ
Contributor
veggiedog:
Now that we've heard from Tobin and Patrick, are there any other wing makers on the board that would like to comment? Now would be a good time.
NWGratefulDiver:
I apologize for mischaracterizing you as pro-DSS, I was really just referring to your efforts to defend Tobin's honor from my assault instead of addressing the topic.
I openly admit that my methods may not be as "friendly" as many (you) would like. I only questioned Tobin's motives because he is selling a product, and I only suspected things reasonable to suspect in such a scenario. Nothing personal about Tobin. I did find his tactics to be evasive, put possibly not intentionally, and possibly I wasn't communicating well the intent of my questions (exploring other design considerations that demonstrate the usefullness of heads down venting).
I believe I remain just on this side of civility. In fact, I try to get as close as I can without becoming uncivil. Maybe I define civility different than you.
I agree that I could benefit from more careful research: I entered this thread on a knee jerk impulse. I don't think I did any harm, isn't that enough?
Similar threads
