Hollis backplate details

[Sadamune]

I wanted to ask few questions about the new Hollis backplate.

1. What is the reasoning for the particular geometry of the backplate's bends?

2. What alloy of stainless steel is it fabricated from?

3. How much does it weigh?

Oh, and I also wanted to ask: why is it that the 2" webbing doesn't have pink H's all over it? I was kinda looking forward to that...

Sadamune

 

[Dive Right In Scuba]

I can answer a couple for you...

1. The bends make the plate more comfortable so its not diggin into your side, jits bent away from your body
2. Dont know....but does it matter? Is one better than another?
3. Weight-5.5lbs or 2.2kgs

 

[Hollis Gear Nick]

I wanted to ask few questions about the new Hollis backplate.

1. What is the reasoning for the particular geometry of the backplate's bends?

2. What alloy of stainless steel is it fabricated from?

3. How much does it weigh?

Oh, and I also wanted to ask: why is it that the 2" webbing doesn't have pink H's all over it? I was kinda looking forward to that...

Sadamune

Hi Sadamune,

I am a little unclear as to which "bends" you are refering to?? Our plates have many different bends for obvious reasons. Be a little more specific.

The material is polished 316 Stainless and it weights about 6lbs.

Thanks,

 

[Sadamune]

Hi Nick,

By "bends", I wasn't referring to any specific feature, but the overall geometry of the backplate. While backplate designs in the industry are very similar, there are subtle differences between them, most of which are the result of some kind of reasoning, e.g. conformance to the back, single/twin cylinder spacing, etc. I was just curious if the particular geometry of the new Hollis backplate were the result of a specific design philosophy or not.

I do applaud the use of 316 stainless steel. It's an excellent alloy for marine applications and is a feature I look for when shopping for gear.

Thanks for answering my questions.

Cheers!

Sadamune

 

[Sadamune]

2. Dont know....but does it matter? Is one better than another?

Thanks for the weight info. As for whether alloy type matters, I certainly think it does. Many backplates are made from 304 SS, which is a grade I consider less than ideal. 316 SS, generally called "marine grade", is more corrosion resistant than 304 and is also used by some manufacturers, such as Agir-Brokk, FredT, and now Hollis. While it is a non-issue for some people, alloy type is important to me, so that's why I asked.

Cheers,

Sadamune

 

[Dive Right In Scuba]

Thanks for the weight info. As for whether alloy type matters, I certainly think it does. Many backplates are made from 304 SS, which is a grade I consider less than ideal. 316 SS, generally called "marine grade", is more corrosion resistant than 304 and is also used by some manufacturers, such as Agir-Brokk, FredT, and now Hollis. While it is a non-issue for some people, alloy type is important to me, so that's why I asked.

Cheers,

Sadamune

Thanks for the info...thats exactly why I asked

 

[cool_hardware52]

Many backplates are made from 304 SS, which is a grade I consider less than ideal.

Why? Can you cite numerous reports of 304 Back plates failing?

316 SS, generally called "marine grade", is more corrosion resistant than 304 and is also used by some manufacturers, such as Agir-Brokk, FredT, and now Hollis. While it is a non-issue for some people, alloy type is important to me, so that's why I asked.

From Marine

# 304 may be used for fully exposed components, frequently washed with fresh water;
# 316 may be used for all hull and deck fitting applications above the water line;



It's pretty clear that for typical scuba applications where gear is routinely washed in fresh water, that 304 can be expected to perform satisfactorily.

What is of equal or perhaps greater importance is passivation.

From PF Online Feature Article - Passivation of Stainless Steel

In lay terms, the passivation process removes "free iron" contamination left behind on the surface of the stainless steel from machining and fabricating. These contaminants are potential corrosion sites that result in premature corrosion and ultimately result in deterioration of the component if not removed. In addition, the passivation process facilitates the formation of a thin, transparent oxide film that protects the stainless steel from selective oxidation (corrosion). So what is passivation? Is it cleaning? Is it a protective coating? It is a combination of both.

Which would expect to more reliably perform in the typical scuba environment, passivated 304, or unpassivated 316?

Tobin

 

[Dive Right In Scuba]

And....this belongs in the Hollis forum why?? No need to imply that the metal they use is not reliable on their forum........:mooner:

 

[cool_hardware52]

And....this belongs in the Hollis forum why?? No need to imply that the metal they use is not reliable on their forum........

Did you actually read what I posted?

Where exactly did I say anything of the sort?

Tobin

 

[Hollis Gear Nick]

Why? Can you cite numerous reports of 304 Back plates failing?




From Marine

# 304 may be used for fully exposed components, frequently washed with fresh water;
# 316 may be used for all hull and deck fitting applications above the water line;



It's pretty clear that for typical scuba applications where gear is routinely washed in fresh water, that 304 can be expected to perform satisfactorily.

What is of equal or perhaps greater importance is passivation.

From PF Online Feature Article - Passivation of Stainless Steel

In lay terms, the passivation process removes "free iron" contamination left behind on the surface of the stainless steel from machining and fabricating. These contaminants are potential corrosion sites that result in premature corrosion and ultimately result in deterioration of the component if not removed. In addition, the passivation process facilitates the formation of a thin, transparent oxide film that protects the stainless steel from selective oxidation (corrosion). So what is passivation? Is it cleaning? Is it a protective coating? It is a combination of both.

Which would expect to more reliably perform in the typical scuba environment, passivated 304, or unpassivated 316?

Tobin

Tobin,

Thanks for your comments.

304 Stainless has been proven in many applications to be "adequate". What we have found with 304 is that it is easier to machine, less expensive, but more vulnerable to corrosion.

316 is more corrosion resistant having less carbon, and is actually the standard in salt water applications being "marine grade". In addition, we also passivate. I think we can both agree the necessity of passivation in this case.

Regards,