Equipment Modifications for Sidemount Diving

[Karl_H]

Just remember, no one elected you guys sidemount gods, so don't assume to define what is and isn't sidemount for the rest of us.

Besides the redundant bladder to be used for a wetsuit, which can be resolved with a drysuit for deep dives, what is the difference between warm and cold water sidemount anyways?

Dale,

I don't think anyone is claiming to be a sidemount god, but I would say it's a pretty weak definition of sidemount diving when someone clips stage bottles to a regular BCD don't you think? I always assumed Scuba board was intended for people to help spread some experience and prevent others from falling into pitfalls they may have experienced.

I'm not sure if the second part of your post is a wind-up, but in line with what I've written above I'll try to outline some of the differences between warm water and cold water side mount diving.

Tanks - Steel or Aluminium? Tank buoyancy characteristics, change in buoyancy characteristics during dive, d-ring positioning on harness, trim and BC positioning

Bouyancy/Lift - How much is needed? Wing streamlining, taco-ing on wing, ability to 'balance' air in wing for unsymmetrical loads, surface conditions

Weights needed - Dry/wet suit, tank materials, where to mount weights

Tank mounting - Tank weights, diver dexterity (no gloves, gloves, dry gloves), tank buoyancy

etc...

It's the same style of diving be it warm water of cold water but there's quite a big difference between the optimum set-ups for each condition. Generally, it's pretty easy to spot an experienced or well trained sidemount diver from their configuration.

The Nomad still seems to be the choice for cold water diving (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have too many cold water sidemount dives) while in warm water conditions I (personally) think it's very hard to beat the Z-Trim, Stealth and Razor 2 harnesses, each have their own benefits and disadvantages but all perform much better in warm water conditions.

Using a cobbled together harness that doesn't give you most of the benefits of sidemount generally tends to defeat the object of going to sidemount in the first place?

Karl

 

[karstdvr]

I see your point but don't forget sidemount is not a new system, it's been used in the cave community for a long time and most of these modified versions were tried and rejected. Some companies lost way a little around the same time and are still trying to flog a dead horse with these systems (read as OMS) but otherwise a common consensus is been reached on which systems work well and which don't.

You are right sidemounting has been around for quite a few years,and there has been a lot of trial and error. My first sidemount system was a modified OW BC that was adopted from a 3rd generation sidemount rig-wow that was strange,but the best rig to date. The big thing that most people miss is there is a difference between sidemounting and diving a sidemount configuration. In sidemount configuration you are diving tanks on your side,but have no desire or training to enter restrictive environments. In this case use the quarter panel off a chevy and make a back plate rig,because it will essentially do the same. If you are wanting to sidemount, which is an advanced form of diving intended to use specialized gear configuration with the intent of entering very confined spaces-this includes gear removal,team skills to handle no viz communication etc,then a sidemount rig with this in mind and no hard back plate is essential. Sidemounting has strong market driven forces. How do you get people who are already diving and have gear to part with their money for more gear and training-sidemount has been an industry godsend for a cash infusion. But caveat emptor is needed. Some sidemount rigs are less than optimal with the intent of not being left behind in this market explosion,as well as some "sidemount instrustors" having taken a class one weekend in their new gear,and now an instructor. To me the pity is the sidemount rigs that are out there are generally copies of a typical shape,but no real innovation. I have to say old school sidemount was highly innovative,and some of the trail and errors learned then have been lost because of commercial rigs versus building a rig, for example the lost art of using carrabiners on the tanks versus bolt snaps on a leash attached to a rail on the sidemount rig. One day these lost sidemount secrets will be discovered,and then we will see 3G or 4G-LOL

 

[DevonDiver]

Just remember, no one elected you guys sidemount gods, so don't assume to define what is and isn't sidemount for the rest of us.

The big thing that most people miss is there is a difference between sidemounting and diving a sidemount configuration. In sidemount configuration you are diving tanks on your side,but have no desire or training to enter restrictive environments.

The fact is: Sidemount is now available as standardized training for numerous scuba agencies. That situation necessitates some 'defininition' - because people have an expectation of what knowledge, experience and skills they will receive through formal training.

This thread, as I see it, stems from an instructor in sidemount. Karl raised some issues in that regard. An instructor is a role-model and should be expected to provide some definitive and tangible training. That training has to be consistent with the community.

What DaleC or Karstdvr use for sidemount in their own time, on their own private dives is irrelevant. So is what they call it. That is freedom.

An instructor does not share that same 'freedom', they have an obligation.... a responsibility.... to provide a product....a service... to others. As such, they are not at liberty to re-define (especially to down-grade), what they provide.

If Joe Doe wants to use two deco-rigged tanks on his jacket BCD, that's fine. It's a free world. However, if he wants to take peoples' money for a 'Sidemount Course' and puts students... or role-models himself... in that rig, then it's a fraudulent mis-representation of Sidemount (as the community expects/defines/regards it).

As mentioned earlier... and I will repeat... sidemount training is equipment proficiency training. It is not environment specific. A sidemount instructor should be able to teach that equipment proficiency for the diver/student to subsequently apply in whatever diving they choose to undertake. That might be open-water. It might be cave. It might be wrecks. It might be in the tropics, or temperate... or even under the ice. Whatever is taught as equipment proficiency must be applicable to whatever diving the student intends to utilize that equipment for.

Karl teaches sidemount with the UTD... his students can do open-water dives, technical dives or cave dive with it afterwards.

I teach sidemount with Razor or Hollis... my students might be open-water divers, technical divers...whatever. They do the same training and gain the same equipment proficiency,for a universal application.

Can the OP say the same? How about those defending the use of Jacket BCD and slung 'stage-rigged' tanks? No... they cannot. They can only teach 'open-water sidemount'... and such a term is non-existent. It is a 'code' for weak training and weak configuration. Excuse making at its finest.

To me the pity is the sidemount rigs that are out there are generally copies of a typical shape,but no real innovation.

The same could be said for 'standarization' of back-mounted configurations... and the precise similarities between what manufacturers produce for that market.... and the training that puts divers into back-mounted doubles. If something works....it gets popular...it gets copied... it becomes a 'standard'.

Sidemount has gone through the 'broad brush' strokes of development. It is now being fine-tuned. There's little need to re-invent the whole wheel each time...

resolved with a drysuit for deep dives, what is the difference between warm and cold water sidemount anyways?

The difference? Heat-stroke. Why do you ask?

 

[DaleC]

I was curious that you guys thought there was some intrinsic difference between the two. All those things listed are also considerations for cold water divers. We also use Al or St tanks, different exposure protection and have different lift requirements based on what we take with us (rec/tech/stages etc...) and the seasons. To me, the one big difference is the use of a drysuit for tech/extended diving which cold water divers always do and thus, have a redundant lift source.

I will concede that an argument regarding the best commercially generated SM rig is valid from an instructor POV as the premise is mass marketed (standardized) instruction which naturally would be married to mass marketed (standardized) gear. When SM is approached from an individualist basis however, no such "one size fits all" pronouncements are required.

And I would again state that sidemount is just an equipment configuration. What Karstdvr describes is the sidemount configuration used for an application that is commonly called in cave diving "sidemounting". Correct. But, it doesn't own the rights to define the terminology for everyone else. Others may also, just as validly, use the generic words too - as long as they are not implying that they refer to that specific activity. Thus recreational divers can SM as well as cave divers; their configurations may look different but they are both side mounting cylinders.

If the suggestion is that instructors are teaching an OW style SM course and suggesting that the students are now equipped to go SMing in caves (or tech) then I would say that's not good. But it isn't really the gears fault either.

 

[DevonDiver]

I was curious that you guys thought there was some intrinsic difference between the two. All those things listed are also considerations for cold water divers. We also use Al or St tanks, different exposure protection and have different lift requirements based on what we take with us (rec/tech/stages etc...) and the seasons. To me, the one big difference is the use of a drysuit for tech/extended diving which cold water divers always do and thus, have a redundant lift source.

The use of drysuit is a major difference with regards to the necessary configuration for certain courses/agencies. PADI insist on redundant buoyancy (not accepting lift-bag) and in the tropics using a drysuit can be detrimental. That does add some criteria for the instructor to consider. That said, I agree with Karl in respect to the fact that redundancy isn't strictly necessary providing the diver has approached their overall configuration in an informed manner. PADI don't deal with such a level of refinement - the lowest common denominator (the instructor) may not be sufficiently capable of ensuring a reasonably safe outcome... thus the hammer approach to standards.

I will concede that an argument regarding the best commercially generated SM rig is valid from an instructor POV as the premise is mass marketed (standardized) instruction which naturally would be married to mass marketed (standardized) gear. When SM is approached from an individualist basis however, no such "one size fits all" pronouncements are required.

I don't see a difference between "mass market" and "individualist". It's quite feasible to offer an individualist solution within a training frame-work. That is, however, instructor capability dependent. I have great fun with students... helping them adapt what they have for their needs. SMS100 is particular enjoyable to de-construct.

That said, the adaptation and experimentation have to be conducted within a specific framework...and with particular outcomes in mind. The stated 'benefits' of side-mount encapsulate those outcomes. Those outcomes are generic and independent of any given diving environment or activity that the sidemount diver may participate in. They are equipment parameters - not diving parameters. Any adaptation/experimentation that drags the rig further from those outcomes could be deemed a failure. Double-backplates on generic wings... stage-slung tanks on jacket-BCDs are examples of those failures IMHO.

... an application that is commonly called in cave diving "sidemounting". Correct. But, it doesn't own the rights to define the terminology for everyone else. Others may also, just as validly, use the generic words too - as long as they are not implying that they refer to that specific activity.

Nobody owns any term, unless it is a specific copyright. 'DIR', 'tech', 'hogarthian'... whatever... 'sidemount'.... nobody has a right to place strict parameters upon the meaning. However, the logic in using a specific term to represent a specific configuration or approach is undeniable. Sidemount has been around long enough...and is represented in a specific way in enough published media and course materials to be considered a descriptive term for a specific equipment configuration and the skill-set attributed to using it. Those definitions/parameters assigned popularly and/or commonly to sidemount do exclude jacket BCDs and simple stage-slung tanks etc.

IThus recreational divers can SM as well as cave divers; their configurations may look different but they are both side mounting cylinders.

In one paragraph you state that "sidemount is just an equipment configuration"... and then you state that sidemount can be different. That's a contradiction. Is it an equipment approach... or is it an environment approach?

Do you see a difference between "OW sidemount" and "Overhead sidemount". If so... why? It's about using the equipment (as you said)... not the dives you use the equipment on..

Or are you saying simply that "it's okay to have a sloppier approach, depending upon environmental risk factors"?

I simply see this as a 'degradation for the masses'. OW Instructors teach OW divers to "OW sidemount". OW sidemount being the same as 'overhead sidemount'... except it's sloppy, based on zero breadth of knowledge...and is prepared to accept a multitude of known risk factors...stuff proven through accident analysis.... simply because the instructors concerned are unaware of them?

If the suggestion is that instructors are teaching an OW style SM course and suggesting that the students are now equipped to go SMing in caves (or tech) then I would say that's not good. But it isn't really the gears fault either.

It's an equipment course. It trains any given diver to use the equipment. They should then be able to use that equipment in line with whatever environmental diving that they undertake.

If 'Diver X' is fully cave qualified, he doesn't need more cave training on a sidemount course. He needs to know how to use sidemount. The application of that knowledge to the environment he is trained to dive in is his business. Sidemount training should enable him to do that. If it doesn't, then it has failed.

The equipment is the tool. I can show you how to use a spanner. It doesn't matter whether you are a master-plumber.... or an marine engine technician...or an engineer at NASA... you will use the tool... the equipment the same. The principles of use... the techniques... the understanding necessary is universal.

So it is with sidemount. So it should be​ with sidemount training...

 

[karstdvr]

If 'Diver X' is fully cave qualified, he doesn't need more cave training on a sidemount course. He needs to know how to use sidemount. The application of that knowledge to the environment he is trained to dive in is his business. Sidemount training should enable him to do that. If it doesn't, then it has failed.

Really couldn't disagree more. If you want to put on a sidemount rig and put your tanks on your side,then from the basis of a cave diver you are no different than a back mount diver. Once you want to use sidemount configuration in a true sidemount situtation,then basic entry level cave training won't save your life at this point. Look at how a person rigs their gear for diving sidemount configuration versus sidemounting-there is a huge difference. A perfect example of this was a fatality that happened with someone who was using sidemount configuration and tried gear removal to enter a tight restriction,and they floated away from their tanks and drowned. If people want to enter true sidemount situations with their sidemount configuration then they need the training to be able to survive. People like to attach the word advanced to things,that is fine,so lets call it advanced sidemount training,either way there is a skill set that someone entering true sidemount situations needs to have,because having your tanks on your side isn't enough.

 

[DaleC]

I thinkthere is as much difference between OW SM and Tech SM (to capture aspects such as cave, wrecks, restrictions etc...) as there is between OW BM and Tech BM. No one suggests the gear that can be successfully used for rec BM diving is the same as can be used successfully for Tech BM diving or that a OW BM diver should have the same skills as a Tech BM diver.

As the commitment rises so the selection of workable equipment configurations diminishes. In this way I agree with the DIR/Hogarthian mindset. At some point, the small details do become extremely relevant and some choices can be said to be detrimental or just plain dangerous.

But those same choices are not as detrimental in the OW setting and there is more leeway for successful equipment choices. That's what I see as being different between the two.

Now, one may wish to say "the best way is the best no matter what" or "this rig is better than that" but those are just opinions: the acid test comes if people can successfully dive their rigs in their environment in a safe and practical manner.

My first SM rig was a wing between two plates - it was a cheap and easy way for me to enter OW SM to see if I liked it. I certainly wasn't about to shell out $500-$1000 for a SM rig just to sell it 6 months later on craigslist because it wasn't for me after all. It works moderately well but has some drawbacks. My second rig is a just a wing with some webbing (lost the plates). Still experimenting... I don't see that as sloppy; it's just me enjoying my hobby. If I really think this is the route for me I will probably buy a SM wing down the road.

I don't do caves and I don't penetrate anything in SM that I wouldn't do in BM. For me it's pure enjoyment of the configuration, it's balance, and ease of carrying tanks on shore. I agree with what Karstdvr said above; I see myself as still rec diving, just with a different rig. I don't secretly imagine I'm a cave diver and thus, don't feel the need to go to those extremes in training or gear selection/configuration/refinement.

 

[karstdvr]

I thinkthere is as much difference between OW SM and Tech SM (to capture aspects such as cave, wrecks, restrictions etc...) as there is between OW BM and Tech BM..

I agree.. Devon Diver comments," sidemount training is equipment proficiency training. It is not environment specific.",and this may be true but I think clarification of terms need to be used. If a person is receiving configuration training then lets call it that,say sidemount configuration,basic sidemount,sidemount fundies.....,but a delination needs to be made that "sidemounting" is the act of performing the function of this gear in intended environment. I think this is important,because at least in cave diving,and perhaps people who are wreck divers,there are people who feel that this equipment configuration immediately leads to entering restrictive environments,and this has resulted in incidents and fatalities,because there is a specific knowledge set needed for this type of diving. I see people who will show up to a particular cave dive that is a sidemount dive,and the gear not be rigged for tank removal,nor a rudimentary understanding of what to do,but because they have the gear,and a sidemount c-card,they are ready to go.

 

[ianr33]

sidemount fundies.....

:d


.......

 

[DA Aquamaster]

I've seen "side mount" students churned out by a particular instructor in VA (I won't mention her name) that technically had a card and had passed a "side mount" class. I suppose by virtue of that training they can do it safely, if not cleanly, in the open water environment where they acquired the skills, but I would in no way advocate them attempting to use those limited skills or that still needs a lot of work configuration in a cave, even with cavern or cave training.

Side mount diving in a cave requires a higher degree of refinement and competence than open water, and side mount diving in actual small "side mount" passages in a cave requires an even higher degree of refinement, knowledge, skill and competence to do it safely.