Is this dry suit "DIR approved"?

[Tod]

My dry suit has cuff rings installed. It allows for both wet or dry gloves to be used with the suit. In either option, the suit maintains the use of the latex wrist seal.

Last night I received my copy of Dress For Success and I found in the book where it discusses the use of dry gloves it states that "Ring systems that are permanently attached to the suit and those that have no method of using an internal seal are extremely dangerous and not recommended."

It seems like the concern is over a ripped dry glove resulting in the flooding the suit. But even with my rings in my suit the inner seal would be maintained if the dry glove were ripped, so I cannot see why there is any concern over having the rings permanently mounted. I assume the quoted sentence above applies only to only those suits with permanent cuff rings AND NO inner wrist seal? Am I reading this correctly?


[edit: After no response, I rephrased the question and added the exact quote.]

 

[Diver0001]

My dry suit has cuff rings installed. It allows for both wet or dry gloves to be used with the suit. In either option, the suit maintains the use of the latex wrist seal.

Last night I received my copy of Dress For Success and I found in the book where it discusses the use of dry gloves it states that "Ring systems that are permanently attached to the suit and those that have no method of using an internal seal are extremely dangerous and not recommended."

I think I might know what he was referring to. A few years ago there were some ring systems on the market whereby you stretched the wrist seal over the ring. With that system the inner wrist seal was basically gone and a ripped glove would flood the whole suit. I haven't seen one like that for a while so maybe they've disappeared from the market now. The newer ring systems leave the wrist seal intact and a ripped glove would only flood the glove. I think in terms of DIR this system would be ok.

R..

 

[Randy43068]

I think I might know what he was referring to. A few years ago there were some ring systems on the market whereby you stretched the wrist seal over the ring. With that system the inner wrist seal was basically gone and a ripped glove would flood the whole suit. I haven't seen one like that for a while so maybe they've disappeared from the market now. The newer ring systems leave the wrist seal intact and a ripped glove would only flood the glove. I think in terms of DIR this system would be ok.

R..

As I recall Mr. MacKay’s contention is, and I would agree, when using a drysuit one WILL in all likelihood, get a hole in the dry glove, and without the wrist seal will flood your suit. Which of course, will ruin your day.

Then reversing the logic, if you have wrist seals I can’t see where you would have any problem. I am, however not an expert.

 

[Snowbear]

As long as you still have an intact wrist seal, there is nothing wrong or dangerous with having the gloves rings permanently attached. IMO of course.

 

[Randy43068]

My dry suit has cuff rings installed. It allows for both wet or dry gloves to be used with the suit. In either option, the suit maintains the use of the latex wrist seal.

Last night I received my copy of Dress For Success and I found in the book where it discusses the use of dry gloves it states that "Ring systems that are permanently attached to the suit and those that have no method of using an internal seal are extremely dangerous and not recommended."

It seems like the concern is over a ripped dry glove resulting in the flooding the suit. But even with my rings in my suit the inner seal would be maintained if the dry glove were ripped, so I cannot see why there is any concern over having the rings permanently mounted. I assume the quoted sentence above applies only to only those suits with permanent cuff rings AND NO inner wrist seal? Am I reading this correctly?


[edit: After no response, I rephrased the question and added the exact quote.]

I don't know of any "approving panel" for DIR so asking if it's "approved" ... well it just doesn't seem ...right.

 

[Tod]

I don't know of any "approving panel" for DIR so asking if it's "approved" ... well it just doesn't seem ...right.

It was meant as an honest question. I am curious about the DIR approach to diving (and not just the equipment configuration) and in doing some basic-level research I came across something in writing (from the DIR world) that sparked a potential safety concern. I do know there is no "approving panel" as such, but if there was an honest safety issue I didn't know about, or hadn't yet considered, I felt it was worth asking.

Sorry if it doesn't "seem right" to you, I am not pretending to be one of you.

 

[Randy43068]

It was meant as an honest question. I am curious about the DIR approach to diving (and not just the equipment configuration) and in doing some basic-level research I came across something in writing (from the DIR world) that sparked a potential safety concern. I do know there is no "approving panel" as such, but if there was an honest safety issue I didn't know about, or hadn't yet considered, I felt it was worth asking.

Sorry if it doesn't "seem right" to you, I am not pretending to be one of you.

Please don't take offense at that comment. I was trying to add some humor to the thread, and it was a poor attempt at it.

The DIR method is really a good one, and I hope my smart-alec comment doesn't make you want to run from it. The DIR people I know are really smart, nice, and ready to explain, or help with any question you or others may have. I'm not talking about some of the know-it-all types found on the internet boards, but the real live folks you'll meet at a dive site.

No doubt you'll have your occasional person who is DIR and not very approachable, but you'll have people like that in anything in life. Please don't let anyone with that attitude make you think DIR is a bad thing.

You're question was a really good one, and I'm not an expert but was relaying what I know and about drysuits and what Dan MacKay said about it. Again, it was and is a really great question and I'm sorry if I sounded like such a smart***** about it.

Sincerely,

Randy

 

[boomx5]

Here's is an email from the Quest List that JJ sent out today.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have not yet been able to see a compelling argument to justify the
several
negative aspects to the rock boots but the zip seals are more of a
conundrum. Regarding the rock boots, I see many issues ranging from
simple
issues such as the potential for forgetting/losing them to more subtle
issues such as extra drag and reduced ankle flexibility. I recognize
that
some people feel shore diving near sharp rocks is a compelling problem;
for
these people perhaps rock boots are useful. Yet, from my perspective
this
sort of diving can usually be accomplished without damage. If you
disagree
then consider the rock boots. Personally I would not use them.

The zip seals are one product about which I remain conflicted. I have
been
using them for a considerable time on two of five suits. One suit is a
teaching suit for local conditions where a flood would only be
uncomfortable
but not dangerous; in this suit I have been impressed with the zip
seals
longevity and the problem free nature of their use. The other suit is a
recent addition. I have been using this for a few months now and used
it in
Norway with the new built in seal zip seal dry gloves (wrist seal in
glove).
Thus far I find that this glove was at least as reliable as the snap on
cuffs which I have seen come free on two occasions. In looking at dry
globe
options I consider that one has either snap on, seal on seal,
permanent, or
zip as options. Personally I find the zip seals easy to use and rather
warm.
I do not like the snap on cuffs which are bulky and sometimes release.
The
permanent gloves are, well permanent, and therefore problematic in
terms of
flexibility, replacement and regular wear. The seal on seal are
probably the
"safest" but I also do not dive them regularly enough to keep them
entirely
dry as apparently is the case for others with whom I have spoken.
Therefore,
in this crowded market of compromises the zip seals seem to perform at
least
as well as the other options. This ignores three finger and semi-dry
options
which can be considered separate from dry gloves.

Speaking generally about zip seals they are so easy to remove that it
is
hard to hold faith in their ability to stay in place. Yet, thus far I
have
done what I could to remove them while in place with no success. Having
divers pull on them with the glove in place, mistreating them generally
and
trying to be careless have not affected the integrity. I see the
biggest
likelihood of failure occurring during transport when the suit is not
on the
diver; this allows the cuff to deform and the seal to pull free. This
is
quite noticeable when putting on the suit but it may be possible to
have
this problem go unnoticed. I expect that this would be immediately
obvious
upon getting in the water; yet, I can' be sure.

So far I remain careful about recommending these for mission critical
applications. Yet, my regular use indicates that for most rental and
some
traveling divers this is a consideration. I currently use regular DUI
seals
in long cave dives and would lean toward this configuration in colder
water
where wet gloves are a consideration.

Best,

Jarrod Jablonski

President/Director of Training www.gue.com

CEO Halcyon Manufacturing www.halcyon.net

CEO EE www.extreme-exposure.com

 

[Tod]

For the record, my suit does not have the DUI "Zip Seals" but the SI Tech cuff rings.

But now after reading this, I am not sure if Jarrod's message was referring to these types of cuff rings when he mentions the "snap on cuffs." It seems more likely he was thinking of these types of rings I have, since they can be considered "bulky" as they don't flex and remain firm. The latex seal is sandwiched between the outter ring (mounted to the suit sleeve) and an inner ring that is pressed into to outter ring from the outside. The rings obviously allow for a "quick change" of the seal, and the seal/fit is visible from the outside (so it's easy to check if a ring has come loose). It takes some effort to pop the inner ring out.

Interesting read. Thanks Scott for passing this along.

 

[Diver0001]

For the record, my suit does not have the DUI "Zip Seals" but the SI Tech cuff rings.

But now after reading this, I am not sure if Jarrod's message was referring to these types of cuff rings when he mentions the "snap on cuffs." It seems more likely he was thinking of these types of rings I have, since they can be considered "bulky" as they don't flex and remain firm. The latex seal is sandwiched between the outter ring (mounted to the suit sleeve) and an inner ring that is pressed into to outter ring from the outside. The rings obviously allow for a "quick change" of the seal, and the seal/fit is visible from the outside (so it's easy to check if a ring has come loose). It takes some effort to pop the inner ring out.

Interesting read. Thanks Scott for passing this along.

I have the si-tek cuffs too and they're definitely bulky but I think he might be talking about something else, like the system of rings and seals used on some of the Bare dry suits.

The si-tech cuffs use the existing seal. There is no possibility that the seal could pop off even if the cuff came loose. The most you'd get is a flooded glove. I have, however, had a *glove* pop off once..... It happened when I fell about 5 metres down the ladder on the outside of a ship will all my stuff on (long story). Somewhere along the line the glove got dislodged, so at least in theory I know it's possible when falling down a ladder.

R..