GUE and Sidemount position ?

[Darghu]

This is the reason ? I'm more looking into something more explicit. - diving speaking.
If the system is really good but expensive why not è if the system is kinda bad (more cons than pros) It's good to know more you see.

 

[DevonDiver]

If the system is really good but expensive

If the system were really good, everyone would use it.

Nobody uses it.... NOBODY.... except for a miniscule number of UTD sidemount divers, for whom it's mandatory. They have no choice in which rig they can take UTD sidemount training with.

UTD instructors are the only ones who champion the system. But UTD instructors have financial and reputation incentive invested in supporting UTD policies, approaches and equipment sales.

You'll won't find a non-UTD sidemount diver using or supporting the z-system... not anywhere.

If it were good, people would use it. The cost wouldn't put off serious divers. But, nobody uses it...

Seriously, it's a laughing stock... nothing more.... no matter how many smoke and mirrors denials and justifications the UTD fringe make.

 

[Dan_P]

Please I would like to hear about your point of view.

Sure. Again, the views I have on it are my own, and apply to my diving, but maybe not the next diver's.

1) I donate all gas from the mouth/longhose.
It doesn't matter how many deco tanks or stages are involved, they all plug in and the donation procedure remains consistant with the OOG procedure taught to rote from the very beginning of our diver training.

2) I can donate my deco tank and beathe it at the same time.
This means if my team mate loses a deco tank, we can continue our ascend without delay, rather than having to double our stop times while swapping between deco gas and back gas.

3) I have significant redundancy in terms of my gas.
If I lose the whole system, I still have all my gas. I can gasshare while rotating my full tanks into a team mate's system.
If I lose a first stage, I can rotate in another (given there are 3 or more tanks involved).
If I lose either side of the system, I can isolate it and carry on. I still keep the gas from that side, as I can simply unplug it.

4) Easily scalable, I can use the system for all my diving.
If I need one tank, easy. If I need 10, no problem. If I need a rebreather, it can be fitted on with very little time use.

5) It's interoperable with hogarthian doubles.
Procedurally the same, making mixed team diving rather straightforward in my view. Sure, my staged tanks require a qc, but if that's really a downside, we're assuming I'm not around anymore. My team mates would then be welcome to my left behind tanks and rotating one of their first stages on there.

But UTD instructors have financial and reputation incentive invested in supporting UTD policies, approaches and equipment sales

That's not a correct statement. Far from all UTD-instructors are Z-instructors, and far from all UTD-instructors sell gear. When they do, they're under no obligation to sell UTD-gear.
Do you have any financial interests, training that you sell which is incompatible with the Z-system, or something to that effect?

 

[Patoux01]

1) I donate all gas from the mouth/longhose.
It doesn't matter how many deco tanks or stages are involved, they all plug in and the donation procedure remains consistant with the OOG procedure taught to rote from the very beginning of our diver training.

2) I can donate my deco tank and beathe it at the same time.
This means if my team mate loses a deco tank, we can continue our ascend without delay, rather than having to double our stop times while swapping between deco gas and back gas.

So UTD ditched the HP manifold in backmount to use their z-manifold?

3) I have significant redundancy in terms of my gas.
If I lose the whole system, I still have all my gas. I can gasshare while rotating my full tanks into a team mate's system.

What wat. Do you go and plug in your tanks in your buddy's manifold?

 

[Darghu]

If the system were really good, everyone would use it.

Nobody uses it.... NOBODY.... except for a miniscule number of UTD sidemount divers, for whom it's mandatory. They have no choice in which rig they can take UTD sidemount training with.

UTD instructors are the only ones who champion the system. But UTD instructors have financial and reputation incentive invested in supporting UTD policies, approaches and equipment sales.

You'll won't find a non-UTD sidemount diver using or supporting the z-system... not anywhere.

If it were good, people would use it. The cost wouldn't put off serious divers. But, nobody uses it...

Seriously, it's a laughing stock... nothing more.... no matter how many smoke and mirrors denials and justifications the UTD fringe make.

Thank you I do appreciate your point of view.

So which system do use other instructors from SDITDI (do they have Sidemount?) IANTD, BSAC (maybe?), cave diving agency

 

[RainPilot]

I teach independent side mount for RAID and manifold for UTD. When I do my own diving, I use the Z-system exclusively. In my particular circumstances, I find it to be much more user friendly than independent.

I have NO financial gain from any Z-system sales or training, when someone wants to do a side mount course I take them in the pool with both systems and show them the ins and outs of both. Almost exclusively they choose to dive Z-system. This is in the Recreational Ocean diver category only, as I have said before I have zero overhead experience so am completely unqualified to have an opinion on that.

As far as costs go, the rec option for the Z-system is an LP block instead of a manifold, that can be attached to any SM system with an upper trapezoid plate. UTD Z-Distribution Block · UTD Scuba Diving

Hoses are the same so for a single tank diver like my wife who quit scuba diving due to her back issues, the added cost is a LP block, one QD (I used QC6 because I have some spare for CCR) and an extra LP hose for the tank.

In her case, the biggest benefit was allowing her to dive single tank side mount with exactly the same reg configuration she had been using, the only additional training was adjusting for the trim of the tank during the dive.

There are some user cases where the Z system is a good option, whether that includes overhead diving is not for me to say.

 

[Dan_P]

So UTD ditched the HP manifold in backmount to use their z-manifold?

I'm on about consolidating gas output and making the gas input more flexible, while ensuring complete redundancy.

I can't tear tanks out of my backmounted doubles rig and replace them with other ones, and in backmount, the manifold block wouldn't remove the single point of failure anyway. In Z, I can and it does.

What wat. Do you go and plug in your tanks in your buddy's manifold?

I'm saying the gas isn't lost if I lose my system. It's right there, functioning tanks with loads of gas in them.
One wouldn't discard such a ressource, surely.

 

[kensuf]

Thank you I do appreciate your point of view.

So which system do use other instructors from SDITDI (do they have Sidemount?) IANTD, BSAC (maybe?), cave diving agency

Living in N. Florida where depths of 100' in our caves are common, whenever I dive side-mount I'm usually found using steel bottles. That means I need something with some lift. I currently dive a Nomad LTZ when I dive side-mount. While the LTZ is no longer in production, the LS is nearly identical and provides 35# of lift.

I am a firm believer that side mount is an advanced specialty designed for getting into and out of tight places and is inappropriate for new technical / overhead divers. If you're shopping for a side mount system to take your overhead/technical training in you would be better served to either begin training in backmount doubles and then switching to side mount only after gaining substantial experience when you find yourself wanting to get into smaller areas __OR__ take a side mount course from a person with substantial side mount experience and beginning your technical / overhead training only after gaining substantial recreational side mount experience first so that the rig is second nature to you.

IMHO, the industry has latched on to side mount because of $$$ and it is being over sold to people that probably do not need to use side mount. There are some pro's to the config, but there are also some substantial cons.

Personally, I only dive side mount when the dive calls for it. The simplicity of doubles is something you cannot take for granted. But, when the dive calls for it, side mount is an awesome tool.

Caveat emptor. There is LOTS of "bad side mount" out there. I mean there really are LOTS of people with really sloppy side mount configurations that look like hell. Sadly there are a number of instructors that have almost ZERO side mount experience themselves that are teaching it, and they are turning out sloppy students. If you show up for a side mount class and your instructor doesn't have a camera / go-pro and one of these, then run like hell away from that guy.

 

[DevonDiver]

Thank you I do appreciate your point of view.

I didn't express a point of view.

1) A fact:
"Nobody, outside of UTD uses the z-manifold".

2) A point-of-view:
"I don't think anyone should consider using the z-manifold".

I'm pretty sure it's a fact.

So which system do use other instructors from SDITDI (do they have Sidemount?) IANTD, BSAC (maybe?), cave diving agency

UTD is the only agency that forces students to use a specific brand of sidemount. Surprisingly, it's one they manufacture, sell and profit from.

Pretty much every dive training agency has a sidemount programme. The exception is GUE... hence this thread topic.

 

[Darghu]

My bad my english is still not perfect at all I might fail at some communciation-word meaning.