GUE and Sidemount position ?

[decompression]

I think sidemount will standardise just like back mount.............it wont. There will be a few agencies which will conform to a certain standard (equipment and procedures) as there are now but, more than back mount, one of the benefits of sidemount is its flexibility. I'm not sure Steve B and Steve M will have such an influence on one of their agencies as to completely standardise an SM sylibis. As we've already seen there are 2 essentially differing schools of SM, more so with equipment than procedures. And that is more water temp driven than anything else.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I think sidemount will standardise just like back mount.............it wont. There will be a few agencies which will conform to a certain standard (equipment and procedures) as there are now but, more than back mount, one of the benefits of sidemount is its flexibility. I'm not sure Steve B and Steve M will have such an influence on one of their agencies as to completely standardise an SM sylibis. As we've already seen there are 2 essentially differing schools of SM, more so with equipment than procedures. And that is more water temp driven than anything else.

Jay,

Can you elaborate? As I see SM I see 3 groups: traditional SM as epitomized bye the Steve's, UTD's Z-system and ISE's tank donation. I see UTD and ISE being a really small percentage of the market. Have I missed something?

 

[decompression]

Gotcha, the 2 schools/groups I mention are the cold water (Florida, Europe) SM and warm water (Mexico, carribean). Again more wing, harness and tank differences than procedures. I compare the procedures from my sources and they are either very similar (majority) or way out in left field.

The majority can be considered "traditional" sidemount, but even then are no where near standardized. The variation in equipment let alone procedures is mind boggling. UTD and ISE are just a blip on the radar.


Because of this there is far too great of variation to approach resembling standardization.

 

[J-Vo]

I'm no expert, but if donating the long hose from the mouth is so important why not just use two long hoses? Seems much simpler then the Z system.

 

[victorzamora]

Gotcha, the 2 schools/groups I mention are the cold water (Florida, Europe) SM and warm water (Mexico, carribean). Again more wing, harness and tank differences than procedures. I compare the procedures from my sources and they are either very similar (majority) or way out in left field.

The majority can be considered "traditional" sidemount, but even then are no where near standardized. The variation in equipment let alone procedures is mind boggling. UTD and ISE are just a blip on the radar.


Because of this there is far too great of variation to approach resembling standardization.

It's interesting to me that the majority of the coldwater/Florida style SM divers (myself included) dive procedures similar to the Bogarts/Razor/Euro style. With two tanks and no scooter, there's not a whole heck of a lot of difference procedurally between what I dive (Florida-style) and what the Razor/Stealth folks dive. The differences are mainly LPI hose routing and tank rigging/setup. There are some differences in gas planning for DPV and stages, but that mostly stems from the difference in primary tank sizes.

 

[DevonDiver]

If the z system is so great is there anyone using a set of backmounted independent doubles to drive it rather than manifolded doubles?

Different systems, different needs, different approaches.

Trying to dive sidemount and make it like backmount... or adhere to backmount derived principles... is what causes so many aborted design and protocol concepts to be created.

BBQ sauce goes great on a steak. But you wouldn't put it on an ice cream sundae...

Some things just aren't compatible... and that's true for sidemount and certain dogmatic principles that were entirely formulated from backmount experiences and analysis.

I had asked a similar question to a UTD instructor. Why didn't UTD mixed teams ALL make use of QR6 connections across all regulators, backmount and sidemount?

After all, we're told there's zero drawbacks to all those QR6 connections, complexity and failure points. So... zero drawbacks versus some potential benefits... 2nd stages become a transferable team resource etc etc

And yes.. that could encompass having flexible manifolds on backmount doubles also... saving weight, making back/sidemount identical, reducing the failure potential of a hard manifold system.

Again, we're told the Z-system manifold NEVER fails... but hard manifolds are well known to fail occasionally. De-facto, the Z-system manifold is safer than a hard manifold. So, surely it should be used on platforms... (?)

The claims and arguments for Z-system just don't seem defensible when taken in a wider context or 'scaled' to other scenarios...

 

[DevonDiver]

I think sidemount will standardise just like back mount.............it wont. There will be a few agencies which will conform to a certain standard (equipment and procedures) as there are now but, more than back mount, one of the benefits of sidemount is its flexibility. I'm not sure Steve B and Steve M will have such an influence on one of their agencies as to completely standardise an SM sylibis. As we've already seen there are 2 essentially differing schools of SM, more so with equipment than procedures. And that is more water temp driven than anything else.

I don't think it'd ever be standardised as a syllabus. Most agencies tend to shy away from being so proscriptive.

However, it does have the potential to reach a global majority consensus....just like hogarthian/DIR did with backmount i.e. that's what the majority of instructors teach, and divers use, globally.

Even if we accept that Hogarthian backmount is somewhat standardised... there's still hordes of divers using bungeed OMS wings, inverted tanks, slob knobs, bungeed long hoses... you name it. Independent backmount doubles are still seen frequently in places like the UK..

Backmount is pretty damned flexible too... with just as much variation as sidemount.

'Globally Standardised' doesn't mean unilateral adoption by divers, instructors or agencies.... it means the diving community, in general, accepts and agrees on broad outlines.

Within those broad outlines, agencies or instructors may define tighter standardisation, as suits their needs and beliefs.

UTD's Z-system is anomalous. It's just not accepted outside of that specific fringe. A bit like BSAC's (old?) directive prohibiting hogarthian looped long hoses. It flies in the face of commonly/globally accepted and implemented solutions.

 

[DevonDiver]

I'm no expert, but if donating the long hose from the mouth is so important why not just use two long hoses? Seems much simpler then the Z system.

Because UTD wouldn't have a monopoly to sell a very expensive product to its members....?

Do you REALLY think it's genuinely about simplicity or efficiency?

 

[tbone1004]

I'm no expert, but if donating the long hose from the mouth is so important why not just use two long hoses? Seems much simpler then the Z system.

part of the issue there is how you route the regulators. In order to do that effectively you have to eliminate the hose crossing. To do that with "normal" regulators, your left side long hose would go around your neck per normal, and the right long hose would have to come straight up to the mouth. This doesn't work comfortably on the right side without some sort of angle adapter.
The issue here on the right side hose and in a true sidemount restriction you have the risk of that reg getting pulled out of your mouth.
On the left side, when you go to donate that regulator to an OOA diver and have to make a single file exit, you have a hose crossing to the other side of the diver. Without an angle adapter that causes excessive strain on the OOA divers mouth and artificial shortening of that long hose which may not allow enough length to safely exit the cave. Even with an angle adapter, it is still crossing under the diver and that can be extremely problematic.

You can mitigate the crossing issue by having a reversible regulator on the left, but then you have both regulators coming straight up. As mentioned, that can be a problem in a true restriction, but it also means that if a reg gets ripped out of your mouth or spat out of your mouth, you HAVE to clip it off. No short term or long term "hanging" of one of the second stages. Some divers mitigate this by putting a suicide strap on each regulator or one with two openings on a single strap *Forrest Wilson being one of them*, but he's an insane sump diver which puts him on a special level of crazy.

the vast majority of us that actually dive in sidemount cave *which I'm not actually aware of anyone diving UTD Z-system in true sidemount passages....* have accepted that in a cave environment in particular, we are 99.999% likely to have some sort of warning prior to being mugged for a regulator where we can grab the long hose and get it in the mouth of the other diver fast enough for it to not be a concern.

 

[PfcAJ]

BBQ sauce goes great on a steak.

This thread just went off the rails. THAT, sir, is TOO MUCH.

Some ******' people...bbq sauce on a goddamn steak? Don't get me wrong, bbq sauce is the Lord's condiment, but it does NOT go on a steak.

Philistine...