Inexpensive Doubles

[fweber]

John,
From what I can tell, vintage diving is niche that people gravitate to for a number of reasons, but I don't believe that there is a lot to be learned from it to apply to modern diving.

I think the most important tenet of vintage diving that could and should be apllied to modern diving is, development of a high degree of watermanship.

 

[Soggy]

I think the most important tenet of vintage diving that could and should be apllied to modern diving is, development of a high degree of watermanship.

That's not really a vintage diving concept, is it? It certainly isn't to me.

 

[fweber]

That's not really a vintage diving concept, is it? It certainly isn't to me.

It's not exclusive to vintage diving. But it is an idea and practice that was developed during the period we now refer to as vintage and that has largely been eroded.

Let's use depths of slightly more than 100' as an example. On one side I have friends who routinely freedive to these depths with the intent of spearing a large pelagic fish. These same guys view a tank and a reg as more than adequate to scuba to these depths, within ndl limits. On the "modern" side I know divers who deem diving deeper than 100' to be unsafe unless, you're using nitrox or preferably trimix, in double tanks, with an isolation manifold, a buddy who you are never more than a body length from and in constant light contact with. Even though your still within recreational limits.

Somewhere along the way we've lost something: Comfort in the marine environment. I think that's probably more of the vintage idea that's slowly disappearing. People continually adopt equipment or procedures to make up for that short coming. If vintage offers you nothing else, it provides you a very workable reference for comparison when trying to optimize your diving experience safely and comfortably with the minimal amount of faff.

 

[Soggy]

On the "modern" side I know divers who deem diving deeper than 100' to be unsafe unless, you're using nitrox or preferably trimix, in double tanks, with an isolation manifold, a buddy who you are never more than a body length from and in constant light contact with. Even though your still within recreational limits.

I'm one of those people...perhaps not as extremely as you have described it, but I would prefer not to do a 100' dive on anything but nitrox and with a competent buddy. I think that there is a disconnect in what you and I would describe as watermanship skills. I believe that when diving at that level, one should be capable enough to solve problems *underwater* and not look to the surface as the first resort. It's a distinct philosophical difference.

While I cannot free-dive to 100', I do like to free-dive on vacation and have no issues with going under 40' or so to hang with a sea turtle. In fact, I do this without a buddy. On the flip side, I would not go hang out on scuba at the same depths without a buddy. Strapping a tank to your back changes a lot of things. I would say that we have learned a lot since the days when people were diving with J-valves and no SPG.

 

[JohnW]

Here is a photo of how the doubles should sit on your back

Thank you John, your other pictures are great too!

BTW thanks to Soggy for both his insightful input and calm demeanor in this forum. It's interesting to see an intelligent debate spring from a picture post thread.

 

[captain]

While I cannot free-dive to 100', I do like to free-dive on vacation and have no issues with going under 40' or so to hang with a sea turtle. In fact, I do this without a buddy. On the flip side, I would not go hang out on scuba at the same depths without a buddy. Strapping a tank to your back changes a lot of things. I would say that we have learned a lot since the days when people were diving with J-valves and no SPG.

I fail to see any great difference between free diving to 40 feet solo and 40 feet solo on scuba other than on accent should you have a problem with the scuba which is easly managable with a free accent. By contrast a problem while freediving such as shallow water blackout or entaglement will probably be 100% fatal.

 

[nereas]

Well, I haven't bought new gear in a while now.

I do like the inexpensive doubles that were posted here, they are really beautiful. Twin 72s are a great way to dive if you don't mind the weight, or have someone who can heft them to the water for you.

SeaRat

Do you want to know what "weight" really is? Try twin 130s. :light:

 

[nereas]

That's not really a vintage diving concept, is it? It certainly isn't to me.

What I think was meant is that you cannot develop watermanship over one weekend of 4 open water dives, with that being it.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Very cool photos and description of the old gear!

 

[duckbill]

I'm with Captain on the "40 foot free vs. SCUBA" issue.

Soggy may be unusual in today's day and age. Too often I see "SCUBA divers" who are inept in the water. Pretty scary. Watermanship skills are on an individual basis. I'm sure there were plenty of "water-illiterate" divers in the days before certifications as well, but they probably all died off as a result.

I think that what is simply being said here is not so much that "vintage" has anything to offer modern divers so much as that "vintage" points out by contrast what has been lost in SCUBA training today, such as proper weighting (not over-weighting and using the BC to make up the difference) and the use of tables (which visually shows the student how the time limits are affected by depth, duration, and surface intervals. You just can't get the whole picture by viewing a computer readout, I don't think), not to mention simple don and doff procedures which REALLY make one feel comfortable with his gear while under water.