Is the DSS Thorus 25 Wing actually a horse shoe?!!!!

[Patrick]

When we reduced the center panel from 7-8" i.e."as wide as the cylinder" to ~ 3 inches the effects were pretty dramatic. Reducing it from ~3 inches to ~2 inches due to the geometry has almost no effect. Tobin

The Mach V pattern is nothing like anything made in the past or present.

I will still claim to have the most streamlined wing in the class.

Interesting, I had no idea Halcyon had tried this. I'm sure they were tortured. New ideas are tough for some to accept.Tobin

Bad ideas are even harder to accept. Personally, I am glad to see you headed in that direction. I would not want to be defending that design but will have fun seeing you do it.

More importantly; did the wings work? Were the bladders tough enough? Did they suffer routine failures? Has the MachV bladder suffered routine failures?Tobin

I am sure they worked as well as their existing design with a zipper. The headache arises when you get a small pin hole that the user cannot fix. In turn, they have to send the entire wing back to patch a small pin hole that could have been fixed in two minutes.

I know the 22 mil bladders in our Torus wings are performing well. We've had two out of hundreds returned, both replaced same day. Again, most divers don't carry a spare bladder, or the tools required to change the fittings. Most bladder repairs and replacements end up either at the dive shop or returned to the manufacturer, whether there is a zipper or not. Because we have the capacity in house to do these repairs the down time for the user, in the rare event repair is necessary, is minimal. Tobin

The Sig Series and Mach V have the same 25 mil bladder and maybe one bladder has been punctured that had to come back. No more than five others were repaired by the user with patches. If they did not have a zipper, they would have had to send them back. I think I have been using that thickness of bladder for approx three years now. Knowing the volume sold, the isues are low. I am talking thousands.

I try to design something that allows the user or dive shop to fix it in case something small happens.

We don't need to ship the wing cross county, and export it to foreign lands, and have it lost in customs and then sent back across the country. We just fix them, and return it to the customer. Tobin

You prefer to have someone send back a wing due to a small pin hole that can easiliy be repaired by the user or shop. I prefer to do it differently.

Any bladder repairs can be done in house, but time does not permit it for now. At present, the repairs are done in CA. You are making statements that you have no clue about my operation and make assumptions that are simply and often incorrect.

Good Point. Most BC's and many wings sold today don't have access to the bladder. "Single Bladder" or as you prefer "bladderless" wings do not provide access to the bladder. Are these known to routinely fail?Tobin

That is because they are easy repairs and in most cases, a little Aquaseal on the outside can easily repair small holes. That can be done by the user. If an inner bladder has a hole and the usere has no access to the bladder, he has to send it back to the mfg.

I will agree that you think no zipper is a good idea on a wing with an inner bladder. Personally, I would never even consider doing something like that for reasons mentioned.

I've explained why in depth many times. Short zippers in the top arc of a horeshoe wing is a very different thing than a 360 degree zipper in the center panel of a horeshoe wing. We use only #10 YKK zippers when we install a zipper. What do you use for a zipper in the Mach V?Tobin

You are the one making statements about a wing with a bladder not needing access to the bladder.

If that were truly such a good idea and the zipper is not needed, you should have the money on the zipper and the time to install it.

In my case, there is no difference in the instalation of the zipper. The arc is smaller, but it does not prevent access to the bladder. The same technique was done with some horse collars many years ago. As far as arcs go, even though luggage has a zipper on the outside, it is more extreme than any wing design. In that case, they make 90 degree turns.

I have had 360 loop zippers in the SIG Series for years. We do not share our suppliers list.

So, it sounds like you would put a 360 zipper on your wing if you could do it and if it did not make your wing wider.

Since you have already suggested that a inch or two wider is not going to make much of a difference in drag, that cannot be the reason. So, what is the real reason?

You are the only mfg that I know of that has wings with internal bladders that have no zippers. The reason they have not done it is simple --- it is not a good idea.

If our innovative design, i.e. using the plate and cylinder to control the inflated shape of the wing is so little value why are you reacting by having your line redesigned?

Tobin, I am always designing new wing wing designs and products. Even though the Mach V is one of my most recent designs (still have others being tested and have three new prototypes in the facility now), there is still a market for the Razor series and the Sig Series. In fact, I am back ordered on some of them now.

I redesign products based on new ideas, new materials and market demands. My competition plays a small role in what directions I take.

1/2 inch or even 3/4 inch a side is insignificant down where the tank meets the plate, see above, do the math. 2-3 inches per side, from out board of the cylinder, is significant.

Can you show me any wing Oxycheq markets that predates our LCD wings where the center panel was significantly narrower than the cylinder? Tobin

My doubles wings were much narrower than any wings at the time. Prior to the Mach V Series, the center panels have always been 6.25" wide and that includes the Razor Series and Sig Series --- both out prior to your single wings.


Patrick
----
OxyCheq
http://oxycheq.com

 

[SparticleBrane]

The competition here is brutal! :11:

 

[*Floater*]

Ask,and you shall receive. Just might take some time. I could make the most insane 18# wing you have ever seen.

Insane = . Can't wait as my next wing purchase will probably be a small travel wing (though I may try it out even when not traveling).

 

[Patrick]

Insane = . Can't wait as my next wing purchase will probably be a small travel wing (though I may try it out even when not traveling).

Call to hear what I do to the Extreme wing. You WILL NOT believe it.

It is so insane, I might even change the name from Extreme to Insane.

Best regards,

Patrick
----
OxyCheq
http://oxycheq.com

 

[cool_hardware52]

The Mach V pattern is nothing like anything made in the past or present.

I will still claim to have the most streamlined wing in the class.

Claims are one thing. Can you back it up? How do you define the "class" the MachV is in. Is it based on lift? If is is based on lift you need to qualify how that lift was measured. Was it measured in the free state, or assembled and ready for use?

Anything less is apples to oranges, and is apparently something you are unwilling to do. Why again are you unwilling to provide capacity information in the assembled condition?

Bad ideas are even harder to accept. Personally, I am glad to see you headed in that direction. I would not want to be defending that design but will have fun seeing you do it.

So you take pleasure in the troubles of others?

I am sure they worked as well as their existing design with a zipper. The headache arises when you get a small pin hole that the user cannot fix. In turn, they have to send the entire wing back to patch a small pin hole that could have been fixed in two minutes.

The Sig Series and Mach V have the same 25 mil bladder and maybe one bladder has been punctured that had to come back.

So you agree that most wings are returned if the bladder needs replacement? You do agree that bladder replacement is not often done in the field?

No more than five others were repaired by the user with patches. If they did not have a zipper, they would have had to send them back. I think I have been using that thickness of bladder for approx three years now. Knowing the volume sold, the isues are low. I am talking thousands.

So in your experience using a heavy gage urethane bladder in multiple 1000's of wings over a three year period has resulted in only 6 known failures of all kinds, and that having a zipper prevented 5 from being returned. Do I understand you correctly?

5 out of say 3000, that's 0.167% That's a risk I'm willing to take.

You prefer to have someone send back a wing due to a small pin hole that can easiliy be repaired by the user or shop. I prefer to do it differently.

This is a viable option for us, and our customers, because we can turn around the repair promptly.

The fact remains that many users, maybe even most, don't want to do their own repairs. The goods often are returned even when it might be repaired in the field.

At present, the repairs are done in CA. You are making statements that you have no clue about my operation and make assumptions that are simply and often incorrect.

I know full well how we do repairs, right here, right now. You are still in Florida right? and your fabricator has facilities in CA and Mexico. Doesn't that require shipping the goods coast to coast twice?

In my case, there is no difference in the instalation of the zipper.

you have already stated that you don't sew. I really doubt anyone that has actually installed a zipper would claim installation of a short zipper with bottom and top stops and a 360 degree seperating zipper are the same task.

We do not share our suppliers list.

How convenient. In the world of zippers there really are only a few players. YKK is leader. The # 10 Molded Vislon zipper is the toughest thing available. All you have to do is look at the zipper pull. If it says YKK 10 you have the best. If it says YKK 8 or YKK 5 or YKK 3 etc it's a lighter weight zipper.

So, it sounds like you would put a 360 zipper on your wing if you could do it and if it did not make your wing wider.

Why would I want to put in a long, lightweight zipper just to reduce a 0.167% return rate.

Since you have already suggested that a inch or two wider is not going to make much of a difference in drag, that cannot be the reason. So, what is the real reason?

Instead of implying that I'm lying you need to try and understand the geometry. I never said 1-2 inches wider than the 3 inches we currently use would have no impact.

There is useable volume in the space between the tank and the backplate that is left vacant with wide center panel wings. Wings that have center panels 6-7-8 wide fail to utilize this volume. By making reducing the width of the center panel on our LCD wings to just over 3 inches wide we took full advantage of this unused space. Narrower than 3 inches gains almost no lift, and eliminates the ablility to use our direct mount "STA-Less" design.

When you start to get much wider than 3 inches you do impact the lift. Look at tank assembled to a back plate from the top. Close to where the tank meets the plate the void is roughly "V". One leg of the triangle is formed by the plate, and the other leg is formed by the tank.

As you move away from the center line of the tank this is no longer true. The side of the plate is a straight line, but the tank starts to curve away rapidly. This means that small changes in offset from the center line start to have a large effect.

You are the only mfg that I know of that has wings with internal bladders that have no zippers. The reason they have not done it is simple --- it is not a good idea.

There a long list of things that only DSS does. Hose Hats, Bottom Timer Mounts, Compass Mounts, Hydration Bags, Low profile OPV's, Tail weight Pouches, Over molded grommets in our Backplates, 5 Sizes of back plate, bolt on weight plates, wedge blocks, rubber pull tabs, etc. etc. etc. Are all these "not a good Idea"?

I prefer not to do what everybody else is doing, plan on keeping it that way too.

there is still a market for the Razor series and the Sig Series. In fact, I am back ordered on some of them now.

What diver would benefit from a wider and higher drag wing, or is this information top secret also?

My doubles wings were much narrower than any wings at the time.

Nothing I've said in this thread had anything to do with doubles wings. Doubles wings are limited in width by the center to center distance of the tanks. Most manifolds are 215 mm (8.46 inch) center to center. If you build a wing with a center panel much under 9" wide you will pinch the bladder between the tanks and the plate. There a much smaller bag of tricks one can use in designing doubles wings.

Prior to the Mach V Series, the center panels have always been 6.25" wide and that includes the Razor Series and Sig Series --- both out prior to your single wings.

Exactly what I've been saying. 6.25" About as wide as the cylinder. Only after we introduced the LCD wings with a ~3 inch center panel did you move in that direction.

Tobin

 

[SparticleBrane]

Geez guys. Why all the bickering?

You both make good wings; that's been established for a while now. I don't see the point in arguing who came first, or who claims to have come first, or whose wing is the most narrow, yadda yadda yadda. If someone likes an STA-less wing without a zipper, get it from DSS. If you want a zipper and want to use an STA, get it from Patrick. Thankfully in our capitalist society we have competition, thus we have multiple options. With that being said, there's no need to beat each other down and to bash each other's products.


Both of you--put out what you consider to be the best wing--then let the market decide. :14:

 

[cool_hardware52]

Geez guys. Why all the bickering?

You both make good wings; that's been established for a while now. I don't see the point in arguing who came first, or who claims to have come first, or whose wing is the most narrow, yadda yadda yadda. If someone likes an STA-less wing without a zipper, get it from DSS. If you want a zipper and want to use an STA, get it from Patrick. Thankfully in our capitalist society we have competition, thus we have multiple options. With that being said, there's no need to beat each other down and to bash each other's products.


Both of you--put out what you consider to be the best wing--then let the market decide. :14:

I'm perfectly content to do just that.

Where exactly have I bashed any product?

Where exactly have I engaged in personal attacks?

Where exactly have I done anything other than state the facts as they are known to me?


Tobin

 

[cerich]

Both of you are giving too much away to the competition!

 

[GreenDiverDown]

I'm perfectly content to do just that.

Where exactly have I bashed any product?

Where exactly have I engaged in personal attacks?

Where exactly have I done anything other than state the facts as they are known to me?


Tobin

Well actually...

In my opinion, you responded to my post with "inflammatory questions."

 

[GreenDiverDown]

Both of you are giving too much away to the competition!

Cerich... I'll let you in on a secret...

The zipper in my Oxy Mach V appears to be exactly the same as the zipper in my DSS LCD... and my Agir and my OMS...