DIR- Generic dual bladder wings...

[Alaskan Scuba Dude]

The only good thing that ever came out of Belgium is Eddy Merckx.

 

[Wibble]

The only good thing that ever came out of Belgium is Eddy Merckx.

Belgium's primary export is bureaucracy.

It was said to exist to be a place where German and French troops could holiday prior to kicking lumps out of each other.

It's best export is some great beer -- with the exception of Stella Artois, the world's second worst beer after Peroni.

Belgian chocolates are nice, extremely indulgent.

Frites -- chips to you and I -- are amazing, always served with a sauce, normally mayonnaise

Plastic Bertrand -- That Plane's For Me / Ca plan pour moi -- was a forgettable pop song. Difficult to think of others.

Then there's the wonderful Revo rebreather. Very different from the rest of them.

 

[beester]

The only good thing that ever came out of Belgium is Eddy Merckx.

But what a good thing he is/was

Belgium's primary export is bureaucracy.

It was said to exist to be a place where German and French troops could holiday prior to kicking lumps out of each other.

It's best export is some great beer -- with the exception of Stella Artois, the world's second worst beer after Peroni.

Belgian chocolates are nice, extremely indulgent.

Frites -- chips to you and I -- are amazing, always served with a sauce, normally mayonnaise

Plastic Bertrand -- That Plane's For Me / Ca plan pour moi -- was a forgettable pop song. Difficult to think of others.

Then there's the wonderful Revo rebreather. Very different from the rest of them.

Battlefield of Europe: I concur
Stella Artois: Overprized medium quality ****. I concur (well Heineken is worse... but yeah)
Belgian chocolates are nice: Try pralines
Frites (frieten): It's a national sport to discuss favorite sauces, mayonnaise is just the tip of the iceberg (Cocktail, tartare, andalouse, Americain, Samurai, Pickles, Hawaii, Peper, etc, etc, etc)
Plastic bertrand: Good choice good choice... I would go for "licking the anus of a black cat"... but there are some others (Brel, Django Reinhardt, Toots Thielemans, Front 242, Praga Khan, Lords of Acid, Technotronic, Goose, Netsky, Gotye, Stromae, The Pebbles, The singing nun, Hooverphonic, Channel Zero, Angele, Adamo)... and then you have this Beethoven dude... who was born in nowadays Germany, but all his lineage (parents, grandparents) are all Belgian... so yeah not so bad for such a small country

 

[kensuf]

While I respect the dude (Nuno that is), his kind of diving, meaning setting depth records for the sake of it, is not something I care for or wish to emulate. I rather look at dudes and dudettes that use science to teach us new things underwater (geology in underwater caves) or discovering new wrecks and then documenting them.

Also this is totally not a GUE thing.. most divers that do the kind of dives I do are in fairly standardised setups (meaning drysuit, hog rigging, and doubles or rebreather). Yes lots of discussion possible on loads of topics from deco gasses, deco model, team bailout and gas planning, 80 percent or pure O2, stages left or righty richy lefty leany, to how to tie a knot and all these kind of minutae ... but honestly double bladder wings is not one of them (shrugs shoulders). It's more of an internet meme.

Unless you are diving in tropical water with no thermoclines (where overheating using a drysuit is possible) everybody is in a drysuit in any case (for me that's water temp until 24-25°C)... so why bother with the double bladder dingies.

If I see someone rocking those doublebladder oversized 90L OMS thingies, well props to them, but that categorises them in my mind as recreational divers with a big ego (big fish in a small pond kinda thing)... that's what an internet meme will do to your thought process

You're replying to a GPT-3 bot.

 

[kensuf]

The only good thing that ever came out of Belgium is Eddy Merckx.

Eddie Mercx is a fantastic cyclist. "The cannibal" won all of the grand tours and many of the classic races.

GPT-3 is getting more and more realistic every day, but there are still some unusual quirks.

 

[bakodiver391]

Unless you are diving in tropical water with no thermoclines (where overheating using a drysuit is possible) everybody is in a drysuit in any case (for me that's water temp until 24-25°C)... so why bother with the double bladder dingies.

If I see someone rocking those doublebladder oversized 90L OMS thingies, well props to them, but that categorises them in my mind as recreational divers with a big ego (big fish in a small pond kinda thing)... that's what an internet meme will do to your thought process

I dive in 29 degree water and, yes, I use a bungied OMS double bladder, but I guess i get a pass from you because of the warm water. I have several thousand technical wreck penetration dives in this configuration, so I am satisfied that it works, FOR ME. This is an issue that will never be settled, you do you and I'll do me. FWIW, I spent a week diving with Nuno Gomez and can't remember if he was single or double bladder, but he had his own signature series wing, so i assume it conformed to his beliefs regarding double bladders.

 

[boriss]

I realize this is a DIR forum, turned into more of a GUE discussion, so I'll tread carefully, but why is having a backup piece of equipment a bad thing? I read the entire thread, please let me know if I've missed an argument against having a second bladder:

1. Potential for uncontrolled inflation - for this to happen, two inflator hoses would have to be connected
2. Using BC as a crutch over proper weighting - agreed, but what does this have to do with carrying a backup piece of gear?
3. While descending oral inflation of second bladder wouldn't provide enough lift fast enough - this is probably true (I haven't tried), but what about in conjunction with kicking?

I guess I don't understand why there's such a strong reaction against having a backup piece of gear? I have two of everything, including myself, in the form of a buddy. Why are some people here anti-redundancy? Serious question, by the way, it just seems like there are such strong dogmatic views and "if you're not with us then you're against us."

Thanks in advance!

My non-GUE compliant setup:

 

[Adobo]

I realize this is a DIR forum, turned into more of a GUE discussion, so I'll tread carefully, but why is having a backup piece of equipment a bad thing? I read the entire thread, please let me know if I've missed an argument against having a second bladder:

1. Potential for uncontrolled inflation - for this to happen, two inflator hoses would have to be connected
2. Using BC as a crutch over proper weighting - agreed, but what does this have to do with carrying a backup piece of gear?
3. While descending oral inflation of second bladder wouldn't provide enough lift fast enough - this is probably true (I haven't tried), but what about in conjunction with kicking?

I guess I don't understand why there's such a strong reaction against having a backup piece of gear? I have two of everything, including myself, in the form of a buddy. Why are some people here anti-redundancy? Serious question, by the way, it just seems like there are such strong dogmatic views and "if you're not with us then you're against us."

Thanks in advance!

My non-GUE compliant setup:
View attachment 718983

If I understood the original question correctly, it was, what are the "issues" with dual bladder wing + wetsuit that don't exist with a single bladder wing and a drysuit?

For me, I look at it the other way around. What advantages do I have with a dual bladder wing + wetsuit? In any configuration, I would always be looking to have a balanced rig - one that I have a reasonable chance of swimming up from depth in case of a wing failure. If I were using a wetsuit, that would likely be aluminum 80 doubles. When the dives get deeper, you will need more and more gas. So now you are looking at steel 85s, 100s and for those who do deep tech 1 dives or tech 2 dives, you are talking about steel 120s at least.

In any of the steel tank configurations, you are getting pretty far away from a balanced rig. And you get less and less options in terms of ditchable weight. Exacerbating the issue is that on the deeper dives where you need these bigger steel tanks, your wetsuit looses more and more buoyancy. Not to mention that this wetsuit compression means diminished ability to keep the diver warm. In this situation, you have painted yourself into a corner wherein a dual bladder wing is the only answer you have for a failed wing.

The question becomes, what benefit did you get?

Whereas in a drysuit, exposure suit compression is a non issue - you just inflate the drysuit as you go deeper. If you wing fails, the combination of the drysuit and the balance rig gives you the ability to get to the surface.

What are the benefits of going this approach? You get two buoyancy sources that are available at all times so if one fails, the other one is readily available for use. You get exposure protection that you need which is not diminished by depth. The only downside I can see personally (aside from the maintenance and somewhat delicate nature of drysuits) is that in some locations, drysuits can be uncomfortably warm both on the surface and in the water. The warmest locations I myself have dived are in the Yucatan peninsula and in Hawaii. I dove a drysuit in Mexico and would have been perfectly fine diving Hawaii in a drysuit if the circumstances warranted it.

If the question was different - let's say, why not use a dual bladder wing when diving heavy doubles with a drysuit? Maybe the answer would be, what for?

 

[crofrog]

I realize this is a DIR forum, turned into more of a GUE discussion, so I'll tread carefully, but why is having a backup piece of equipment a bad thing? I read the entire thread, please let me know if I've missed an argument against having a second bladder:

1. Potential for uncontrolled inflation - for this to happen, two inflator hoses would have to be connected
2. Using BC as a crutch over proper weighting - agreed, but what does this have to do with carrying a backup piece of gear?
3. While descending oral inflation of second bladder wouldn't provide enough lift fast enough - this is probably true (I haven't tried), but what about in conjunction with kicking?

I guess I don't understand why there's such a strong reaction against having a backup piece of gear? I have two of everything, including myself, in the form of a buddy. Why are some people here anti-redundancy? Serious question, by the way, it just seems like there are such strong dogmatic views and "if you're not with us then you're against us."

Thanks in advance!

My non-GUE compliant setup:
View attachment 718983

Because there is already 2 of them. Your wing and your dry suit, or your wing and the ability to swim your rig up. It’s just not needed.

If you found on the surface one of your bladders was broken would you do the dive still?

 

[boriss]

If I understood the original question correctly, it was, what are the "issues" with dual bladder wing + wetsuit that don't exist with a single bladder wing and a drysuit?

For me, I look at it the other way around. What advantages do I have with a dual bladder wing + wetsuit? In any configuration, I would always be looking to have a balanced rig - one that I have a reasonable chance of swimming up from depth in case of a wing failure. If I were using a wetsuit, that would likely be aluminum 80 doubles. When the dives get deeper, you will need more and more gas. So now you are looking at steel 85s, 100s and for those who do deep tech 1 dives or tech 2 dives, you are talking about steel 120s at least.

In any of the steel tank configurations, you are getting pretty far away from a balanced rig. And you get less and less options in terms of ditchable weight. Exacerbating the issue is that on the deeper dives where you need these bigger steel tanks, your wetsuit looses more and more buoyancy. Not to mention that this wetsuit compression means diminished ability to keep the diver warm. In this situation, you have painted yourself into a corner wherein a dual bladder wing is the only answer you have for a failed wing.

The question becomes, what benefit did you get?

Whereas in a drysuit, exposure suit compression is a non issue - you just inflate the drysuit as you go deeper. If you wing fails, the combination of the drysuit and the balance rig gives you the ability to get to the surface.

What are the benefits of going this approach? You get two buoyancy sources that are available at all times so if one fails, the other one is readily available for use. You get exposure protection that you need which is not diminished by depth. The only downside I can see personally (aside from the maintenance and somewhat delicate nature of drysuits) is that in some locations, drysuits can be uncomfortably warm both on the surface and in the water. The warmest locations I myself have dived are in the Yucatan peninsula and in Hawaii. I dove a drysuit in Mexico and would have been perfectly fine diving Hawaii in a drysuit if the circumstances warranted it.

If the question was different - let's say, why not use a dual bladder wing when diving heavy doubles with a drysuit? Maybe the answer would be, what for?

Understood, that makes sense and thanks for breaking it down and explaining the nuances.

I see you're in Cali. One of my friends dove a lot in Monterey, where a drysuit is required. Here in SE Florida I don't see them. Some of the other replies are from people in Europe, where drysuits seem to be part of standard gear as well. I wonder how many of these ideas (or rules) are a result of locality? People tend to project a lot and it becomes very obvious in certain debates here, for example BM vs SM doubles.

I have dual HP100's... they're heavy as eff... and even heavier while full of gas. You add in the reels, flashlights, deco/stage bottles and whatever other junk and getting balanced becomes impossible. The setup I dive is very common amongst tech divers here.

Anyway, thanks again for the explanation/levelheaded response!