Is Suunto really that bad

[vladimir]

It's also worth checking your dives through the pressure group tables, as first time I relied on a dive computer - I was horrified to see how I had exceeded limits on the tables !

Horrified? If your dive had been the square profile that the tables are predicated upon, you would not have exceeded the table limits. To the extent that you spent time at intermediate depths your computer allowed you more no-deco time, which you should have expected.

 

[Wantonmien]

Horrified? If your dive had been the square profile that the tables are predicated upon, you would not have exceeded the table limits. To the extent that you spent time at intermediate depths your computer allowed you more no-deco time, which you should have expected.

Vladmir, at time I'd been relying religiously on the tables, and after first use of computer on two consecutive dives (I think they first two done after OW) I wasn't thinking about multi level - I was imagining square dives, as per PG tables - but yes of course I now appreciate differences due to varying depths.

Cheers

 

[Karl_H]

Suunto do tend to be more conservative than most computers - but I don't see how that is a bad thing!?

If you're looking for a recreational computer the Suunto is a good choice, if you're looking for something for technical diving then I'd avoid Suunto and look for a computer specifically for technical diving like the CR3 or the X1 - quality tends to (but doesn't always!) follow price, if you plan of progressing to more advanced diving spend the most you can afford on a good computer that will last.

A good value computer would be the Nitek Duo/Apeks Quantum (same computer, there's also several other versions available under different names). I think this is much better value than the Suunto range, but it's probably slightly more conservative.

One thing to look for in a recreational computer is an easily replaceable battery and a reset button - this shouldn't be used but is very useful to have sometimes!

 

[FritzCat66]

That ex diving Cousin now works as a fairly senior chap in the British Health Service, and in one recent conversation with him about diving, he was interested in my training, did I know the pressure tables and so on - and from medical records in the UK, he was of the oppinion that as more and more reliance is made on dive computers - then % wise more and more divers were ending up in decompression chambers - due to diving closer and closer to the limits, and exceeding them ! I'd love to get my hands on some real statistics, but well worth thinking about when being concerned about 'overly' conservative dive computers.

I would also be interested in seeing some hard statistics, because at a DAN seminar I attended last year sponsored by my LDS, the DAN rep directly contraindicated what your guy just said. Talking about the history of deco theory and the rise of computers, he pointed out that there were wild predictions on both sides - that computers would totally prevent DCS on the one side vs. those who predicted computer-using divers would be fizzing out left and right like shaken cola cans on the other. From the DAN data, however, he said neither seems to be true - that the only thing they can see statistically tied to the increase in computer use is a decrease in AGE (embolisms), most likely due not to computers' nitrogen-tracking abilities but simply due to their ascent-rate alarms.

I don't think Suuntos are particularly any more or less conservative as far as ascent alarms go, although I'm sure there's some variance among all the computer models out there (especially below 60'/20m). Nevertheless, they all seem to be doing a decent job at that.

It's also worth checking your dives through the pressure group tables, as first time I relied on a dive computer - I was horrified to see how I had exceeded limits on the tables !

I don't know why this should be horrifying at all. I would guess most real-world dives, if tracked by both computer and tables, would show the diver exceeding tables. That's kinda the whole point of diving a computer, to get "credit" for time NOT spent at max depth...

it was emphasised to me several times that when diving with a buddy and both are wearing dive computers, it is better to rely on the more conservative of your or buddys two computers

But of course: if you are buddy diving then it's not just a good idea to follow the more conservative computer, you simply MUST follow the more conservative computer!

I'm not big on buddy diving, but if I were teamed with a buddy with a very conservative computer who kept bringing me up in 30 minutes where my computer would have let me stay down for an extra 15, they simply wouldn't be my buddy for much longer. :cool2:

Now, if the delta in that situation were only five minutes - which is far more likely - then eh... it's mostly a wash between the two and no big deal.

 

[scubadada]

See recent related thread with suggested background reading for the interested http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/advanced-scuba-discussions/346588-difference-algorithms.html

Good diving, Craig

 

[Lorenzoid]

It was precisely this talk of the Suunto being on the conservative end of the spectrum that prompted me to choose it over other computers!

I'm the kind of person who prefers to minimize risk, to the extent it still lets me enjoy what I'm doing. Being told by my computer that I might want to ascend a few minutes before someone else's computer tells them they might want to ascend has a negligible impact on my enjoyment of any given dive. By the time I run out of no-deco time, I've usually seen what I wanted to see anyway and am ready to end the dive.

 

[pnw_diver]

So my original thinking here to make it more clear is that I was considering the Oceanic Veo 3.0 with dual algorithms. So that would give me Pelagic DSAT, Z+, and also DSAT w/conservatism factor. Personally, I don't care if I lose a dive or dive time - I'm perfectly happy missing some time in the water in return for being able to dive another day. I'm a new diver - so I'm naturally going to lean towards conservative. Something like the Veo 3.0 seems to put much more power in the hands of the consumer to decide.

For what it's worth, I used to have a Suunto Cobra2, and now I dive a Veo 3.0.

Regarding the conservatism factor - my take on this is that you can dive a more liberal computer conservatively by not pushing limits. You don't have the option of diving a conservative computer more liberally. It's my recollection that the Cobra2 allowed you to set the computer to be more conservative than it already was (I suspect that this is true across the Suunto line) - but you can't set it to be less conservative, even if it is still safe.

I liked the Cobra2 when I had it - I'd still be diving it, but the high pressure sensor went bad, which made it pretty well useless except in gauge mode. I replaced it with the Veo 3.0. I don't miss air integration, or any of the other features that the Cobra2 had that the Veo doesn't. I've only got about 30 dives on the Veo, but so far I'm happy with it.

 

[galvanni]

I've only got about 30 dives on the Veo, but so far I'm happy with it.

It's my top choice right now - how's the visibility and functionality of the ascent bar?

 

[fnfalman]

A conservative computer equals a safe diver... I was never taught that it was okay to blow stops.

I'm curious, but how can a piece of equipment MAKE you a safe diver?

You make yourself a safe diver and not a computer or a regular or a BC or a knife or a set of fins.

 

[pnw_diver]

It's my top choice right now - how's the visibility and functionality of the ascent bar?

I find it visible enough, even with poor vis. Also, if you exceed it's idea of a safe ascent rate (30 fpm above 60ft, 60 fpm below), it has a bright blinky light and a noisy beeper to let you know.

The only annoying part of it is this - if you raise your computer up too quickly to read it, it will sometimes briefly set off the ascent rate alarm. It's that sensitive. I don't consider that a bad thing, but it can be annoying until you get used to it.