GUE and Sidemount position ?

[tbone1004]

You forgot that while diving a Z system you have to alternate shutting down and opening bottles because otherwise you will be only breathing from the one with the higher IP until it is empty (increasing task loading). And if you lose a first stage, you lose access to the gas in that cylinder (the biggest con in sidemount). And if you rupture a hose, you've probably fubar'ed yourself (the biggest con in a manifold).

And to keep yourself from experiencing an exploding hose, you need to add over pressure relief valves on your first stages, which of course introduce a failure point.

BTW -- The water ingress on the QC6 thing is minimal, I use them on my CCR with no issues, did so in the ocean even.

I think it's 6 drops per connection which is pretty negligible, but it's still there. In the caves I don't care, but tend to prefer salt water not being blown thru my regulators if I can help it.

The shut down of the first stages is the real bitch for me. That is f*cking obnoxious if your bottles are truly sidemounted. Less so if they are up where the Razor crowd puts them, but still really damned annoying especially on the trigger.

A slightly less obnoxious version in my opinion would be the following.
Omni 6 position block. One blocked, two regulators, two inflator hoses, one inlet.
Inlet would come from a switch block where you could switch between the two primary bottles. Those would have to have a QD on them as well so you wouldn't be perma-attached to your bottles. At least with this you would be able to QD into the switch block and not have to shut valves down. I would have the bottles setup like CRC b/o bottles with the QD hose, normal second stage, and SPG so anyone can use any dropped bottles. Extra cost there is about the same as going the UTD route but at least stops the valve shutdowns.

When you weigh what it is trying to solve which is primary donate, and ease of gas switching, the cost and complexity just doesn't work. Made worse by the fact that most people doing the "big" dives are going to CCR where primary donate is obviously not possible so why try to use that as justification for a system that is that much more complex?


There is actually a really interesting thread on the vintage double hose forum where we are trying to figure out if there is a way to treat a double hose like a CCR for open water technical diving and the biggest thing that we are all struggling with is gas switching protocols to stay on the loop during deco, especially without blowing salt water into the regulator

 

[RainPilot]

I keep my IP on the two regs the same and they empty at the same rate, within a couple of bar. Also means I don't need to change tanks every 20-30 bar as I do when diving independent sidemount.

When I use someone else's first stages or if I see IP is not quite the same, I don't find opening one and closing the other every 50 bar to be all that much hassle.

OW ocean diving, ali tanks in the razor type position.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

@tbone1004, @kensuf,

Thanks for the breakdown. Now it makes complete sense to me (and likely others).

 

[OMANDIVER]

Sidemount has been discussed more than once within GUE, and I think that naturally sometime soon they'll offer a training scheme for it! Even George Ervine, one of the DIR philosophy founders did acknowledge that they used to dive sidemount during the early days of the WKPP, although they only did for decompression as it was more comfortable and it provided more mobility for moving out of the water into troughs or habitats. Lately, Steve Bogaerts proposed the
"Bogaerthian" approach, during a GUE conference, to standardise the equipments choice, configurations, skills, and procedures. So, I guess we are getting there sometime soon!

As for instructors; Steve Bogaerts and Steve Martin are among the top and most famous SM instructors out there. I was trained by Erik Brown who is also very good. Other good choices would be Tom Steiner, Sameh Sokkar or Moe Shetta, but it mainly depends on your location! My advice on this matter would be to look for someone who is always diving sidemount, and have that "Sidemount Passion" to guide you through the different techniques and configurations out there.

Good luck with your training, and you won't regret it as it is a very nice and helpful skill to poses

+1 for Tom Steiner

 

[kensuf]

@tbone1004, @kensuf,

Thanks for the breakdown. Now it makes complete sense to me (and likely others).

The idea behind a sidemount manifold has merit, but by using LP ports as the cross-over, the z-manifold design is lacking.

Personally, if I were to try and come up with a solution to give me the benefits of a manifold while in a sidemount configuration, I would probably do something with LOLA valves and a cross-connect cable. I know one guy playing with such a system, and it may be viable.

 

[Dan_P]

Comparing apples to apples gets a bit murky, quick, when we're comparing single/double-backmount to Z to single/double-indies all at the same time

Also, I'm not really confident that I can fully relate to all the points made.

But, as for the cost, I agree that the Z is on the expensive side of solutions...
...at least if we don't count cost through diver progression from single-tank backmount to double-tank backmount and (any) sidemount solution when "needed", which is all facilitated with one single Z purchase.

On the other hand, a diver who starts out in indies from the get-go will not incur that cost over the carreer either, accepting different capabilities and limitations of that system.

It's a plus for the Z-system, in my view, that I can make do with just that one rig purchase, but also easily adapt it for whichever type of dive I need, in a team diving situation, on the road.

The reason I opted for Z myself, is that I prefer a system that scales from entry-level to hypoxic tech, cave, R/B, whatever, while always adhering to the consistent gas donation on the longhose.
I see significant value in that, and am willing to accept a higher statistical risk of leakage if that's the case (my reasoning is that any leak is easily managed routine anyway, and I have a team with me for spare brains).

But even if I loose the system altogether, I keep the gas.
That is, I gas share from my team and rotate my full tanks into their system. Or, I could bring a spare 2.-stage, but I don't bother with that personally.

The isolator allows me to separate the sides very easily, though. It's simply incorrect to say that's not the case.

I.e., I still have one working side of the system to get me home if I loose the other - also, I get to keep all my gas if that does happen - I simply plug the tank from the broken side, over to the working side. Even so, I can choose to bring an offboard 2.-stage to plug in, but I really don't see a need in a team diving scenario.

In a team, it's no problem. Neither is handling a manifold issue. I get to look at, and solve, more gas failures myself on Z than on backmount, which I think is a nice flexibility though.

If I loose a first stage (QC south), I can swap it (piston) and carry on unaffected, or cut off that tank if it's leaking. I still keep the system, rest of my gas and have my team.

The QC water inlet was never a problem in the RB applications, so I don't think it's fair to bring it up in a Z-system context, if I'm completely honest. It's an insignificant matter in real terms either way.


In summary, I think the Z system facilitates and scales better than any other system currently available, while integrating into the mixed-team methodology and building block progression of the diver. It also has some neat benefits over my backmount rig, for instance long hose donation during deco/stage portions and consistency throughout the whole dive (and carreer). I weigh this highly, so of course, that will tilt the scales in favor of the Z in my case.

But I do acknowledge that there's no universal truth there - for instance, if I were solo diving, I'd probably weigh things completely differently.
Personally, however, I think the Z works very well and has some clear advantages for MY diving.
And it definitely integrates well into the Mixed Team, which is my initial point.

But, a word of warning: I've had plenty people tell me about how much the Z system sucks only to go "ahaaa!" after being actually shown one

 

[decompression]

Ah yes.......the Z system......the great debate.

 

[PfcAJ]

The QC water inlet was never a problem in the RB applications, so I don't think it's fair to bring it up in a Z-system context, if I'm completely honest. It's an insignificant matter in real terms either way.

I don't think that's really accurate. Introduction of particulate does happen, and salt buildup can also be a problem. I blow out my RB80 QC inlets and all the associated plumbing after every dive and rinse with freshwater after saltwater dives. There's a set of teo mk10 sintered filters at the hose/switchblock interface that catches any crap. After a year or so they look pretty gross and have to be tapped out.

I wouldn't want any of that reaching the injectors (pretty much just R190 regulators).

 

[tbone1004]

The idea behind a sidemount manifold has merit, but by using LP ports as the cross-over, the z-manifold design is lacking.

Personally, if I were to try and come up with a solution to give me the benefits of a manifold while in a sidemount configuration, I would probably do something with LOLA valves and a cross-connect cable. I know one guy playing with such a system, and it may be viable.

the lola valves have come up as well, but you're going from 2 or 3 to 4 valve outlets, and 3 first stages for that which is a bit dicey.

@Dan_P I have to disagree on the cost progression, even if you're including rigs.
Z system is $1800USD not including regulators, tanks etc. which are all the same regardless of z system vs backmount vs sidemount
DSS backplates and wings are call it $500 each, and the Katana is $500.
$1500 and you get 3 fully equipped rigs vs a single rig. One lightweight plate, one ss plate, 1 wing customized to your singles diving, one to your doubles, and one that will handle steel or ali doubles.
I save $300, and get 3 separate rigs. That sounds like a much better deal than 1 rig and an extra $300.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Comparing apples to apples gets a bit murky, quick, when we're comparing single/double-backmount to Z to single/double-indies all at the same time

Also, I'm not really confident that I can fully relate to all the points made.

But, as for the cost, I agree that the Z is on the expensive side of solutions...
...at least if we don't count cost through diver progression from single-tank backmount to double-tank backmount and (any) sidemount solution when "needed", which is all facilitated with one single Z purchase.

On the other hand, a diver who starts out in indies from the get-go will not incur that cost over the carreer either, accepting different capabilities and limitations of that system.

It's a plus for the Z-system, in my view, that I can make do with just that one rig purchase, but also easily adapt it for whichever type of dive I need, in a team diving situation, on the road.

The reason I opted for Z myself, is that I prefer a system that scales from entry-level to hypoxic tech, cave, R/B, whatever, while always adhering to the consistent gas donation on the longhose.
I see significant value in that, and am willing to accept a higher statistical risk of leakage if that's the case (my reasoning is that any leak is easily managed routine anyway, and I have a team with me for spare brains).

But even if I loose the system altogether, I keep the gas.
That is, I gas share from my team and rotate my full tanks into their system. Or, I could bring a spare 2.-stage, but I don't bother with that personally.

The isolator allows me to separate the sides very easily, though. It's simply incorrect to say that's not the case.

I.e., I still have one working side of the system to get me home if I loose the other - also, I get to keep all my gas if that does happen - I simply plug the tank from the broken side, over to the working side. Even so, I can choose to bring an offboard 2.-stage to plug in, but I really don't see a need in a team diving scenario.

In a team, it's no problem. Neither is handling a manifold issue. I get to look at, and solve, more gas failures myself on Z than on backmount, which I think is a nice flexibility though.

If I loose a first stage (QC south), I can swap it (piston) and carry on unaffected, or cut off that tank if it's leaking. I still keep the system, rest of my gas and have my team.

The QC water inlet was never a problem in the RB applications, so I don't think it's fair to bring it up in a Z-system context, if I'm completely honest. It's an insignificant matter in real terms either way.


In summary, I think the Z system facilitates and scales better than any other system currently available, while integrating into the mixed-team methodology and building block progression of the diver. It also has some neat benefits over my backmount rig, for instance long hose donation during deco/stage portions and consistency throughout the whole dive (and carreer). I weigh this highly, so of course, that will tilt the scales in favor of the Z in my case.

But I do acknowledge that there's no universal truth there - for instance, if I were solo diving, I'd probably weigh things completely differently.
Personally, however, I think the Z works very well and has some clear advantages for MY diving.
And it definitely integrates well into the Mixed Team, which is my initial point.

But, a word of warning: I've had plenty people tell me about how much the Z system sucks only to go "ahaaa!" after being actually shown one

I saw the Z-system at DEMA last year. AG went over it with me. I do understand the philosophy behind it. I'm still on the fence and I have absolutely no skin in this game other than cave training is in my future and sidemount is my configuration of choice when diving for fun.

One concern of mine is the issue that was brought up for wet connects. To me, this is a big negative. Your thoughts? I'm asking sincerely, not as a way to belittle (as there is no tone of voice in text).