LDS says My Torus 26 doesnt have enough LIFT

[Scott L]

Proper weighting is a safety issue and is due much more attention than it now receives.

Tobin

Amen to that...

 

[MonkSeal]

I really don't see how arguments about death fish or death lobster bouyancy contribute to wing sizing and proper weighting discussion. Especially in this sub-forum.

There's an easy solution for armchair divers to check validity of posted advices: go diving!

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

these comments show a true lack of understanding. Game is NOT neutral! Dead fish are normally quite bouyant unless their gas bladder is punctured. Scallops (like they get in the NE where this guy dives are very negative). I also know that a bag full of Florida lobsters can easily be 12 lbs negative.

As for the last statement: To imply that a hunter or game collector would not use his bouyancy compensator to compensate for game collected on a dive is really silly. Do you expect a diver to use a lift bag for most of the dive and to swim that around while collecting game and to then manage that bag on an ascent on an anchor line? Get real!

A lift bag represents a major pain in the butt and an expereinced diver would much rather use his BC to handle 10-12 lbs of negative weight from game or other treasures of the deep in his catch bag. Trying to manage a left bag to handle a game bag in strong currents, while diving from an anchored boat on a Jersey wreck would probably make the diver into "that guy". A lift bag is for anchors and extra weight belts which are often recovered.

It appears that you are really stretching things to try to justify a wing that is insufficent (based on my 35 yrs of real diving expereince).

These comments show a true lack of understanding of the principles of DIR diving ... and once again (as almost all of your posts in this forum do) violate the rules for posting here ... particular, rule #6.

1) No trolling! This is not the place for agency bashing! This is especially not a place for bashing DIR divers. Refer to Notice: the DIR forum is a No Trolling Zone for any questions about what constitutes a troll.
2) This forum is for a free exchange of ideas concerning DIR, but it is NOT intended to limit any mention of DIR to only this forum. There are many things pertaining to DIR that will be discussed in other forums as well.
3) All the rules of the board still apply here. You don't get to harrass or call people names. Civility should rule.
4) Most of all, have fun and learn something at the same time. Read our Mission statement and TOS for clarification.
5) This forum is NOT intended to replace or reduce the need for training with a qualified instructor. You might get more out of this forum if you have at least completed a DIR-f course.
6) The answers in this forum are member's best attempts to answer questions within, and according the DIR diving philosophy. If you wish to give a non-DIR answer, please do not post it in this forum. If you do not wish your question to be limited to DIR answer, please ask it in another applicable forum.

Dumpster Diver, I have never understood why you post in this forum. You have no comprehension whatsoever of what it means to dive a DIR system. Your comments above have no bearing on the DIR diver ... who, I assure you, does NOT consider their BCD as a substitute for a lift bag ... nor considers the use of a lift bag a "major pain in the butt".

Please take your "advice" outside this forum ... I will, as requested by himself, be contacting NetDoc to request that you be prevented from posting in this forum in the future, since you consistently violate the rules for posting here.

Regards ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[DeepSeaExplorer]

I have a 17lb batwing and it has just exactly the right amount of buoyancy for that particular gear configuration. It's perfect. My trim is perfect and my buoyany is perfect. Problem is all that perfection comes at a cost - diving conditions have to be perfect too. I can't as much as pick up a 1lb weight or I'm overweighted. (I don't wear a weightbelt.)

When it's rough on the surface, I have to time my breaths to avoid taking in a wave when they break over my head because I'm floating lower in the water; and with less lift, I'm slower to pop back up after the wave passes. (I don't carry a snorkel.)

Sometimes when I dive with less experienced divers, I will use a bigger wing for reserve buoyancy, since it's much more difficult to help a struggling buddy when you have no reserve. I had a new diver panic on a night dive in Bonaire. Because I had a larger bladder, I was able to take her weight belt from her to get her higher in the water and help her back to shore. I couldn't have been nearly as helpful if I had been wearing the batwing.

The point is being perfectly weighted is nice, but as others have pointed out, having some reserve buoyancy is important. It can even be a buddy issue if you can't help because you don't have any reserve.

 

[cool_hardware52]

Sometimes when I dive with less experienced divers, I will use a bigger wing for reserve buoyancy, since it's much more difficult to help a struggling buddy when you have no reserve. I had a new diver panic on a night dive in Bonaire. Because I had a larger bladder, I was able to take her weight belt from her to get her higher in the water and help her back to shore. I couldn't have been nearly as helpful if I had been wearing the batwing.

This actually illustrates my point. Less ballast is more effective than greater BC lift in getting a diver higher out of the water. I assume you inflated her BC too.

Would your smaller wing have prevented you from dropping her weight belt?

I've *never* advocated having no lift in reserve. If cold water divers follow my recommendations they will have in reserve at the surface, with a full cylinder, lift capacity at least equal to the buoyancy of their exposure suit.

With the typical 7mm suit being 18-26 lbs positive and the typical dry suit a bit more than that , this is a significant amount of reserve lift capacity.

Tobin

 

[DeepSeaExplorer]

I didn't really finish making my point... If the LDS says that it's barely enough, then I would go with a 40lb wing in order to have some reserve. If you cut it too close, you could find yourself buying yet another wing. The tendency is to overreact to the 100lb wing problem by going small, but it's hard to go wrong with a good 40lb wing. It has lots of flexibility without being overly large. One day, you'll find that elusive gold bar on the wreck. What wing do you want then...

Yes, I did inflate her BC, but in that state nothing is far enough out of the water, if you know what I mean.

 

[cool_hardware52]

I didn't really finish making my point... If the LDS says that it's barely enough, then I would go with a 40lb wing in order to have some reserve.

Call up 10 random LDS's and ask how to size a wing. My guess 9 out of 10 won't be able to tell you, and will offer only anecdotal responses like "every one around here uses at least XX lbs"

Having sold BP&W's for years I can say without a doubt that most, not all, but most LDS's have no idea how to analytically size a wing. This is somewhat understandable given that the vast majority of BC's sold have no option for different size bladders, and most BC's have far more lift than necessary.

If all you have ever sold are 30 - 50 lbs lift BC's it is pretty easy to assume that's minimum required.

So far I've seen no objective evidence that the 26 is too small, only the opinion of the LDS.

If you cut it too close, you could find yourself buying yet another wing.

Sure that might happen, and sometimes does if a diver's exposure suit changes, but it's one reason why I ask a lot of questions when I'm consulted about wing capacity.

One day, you'll find that elusive gold bar on the wreck. What wing do you want then...

The same wing I'd use if there was no treasure, artifact recovery a task for a lift bag, not the diver's BC.

Yes, I did inflate her BC, but in that state nothing is far enough out of the water, if you know what I mean.

So you inflated her BC, which no doubt offered at least 30 lbs of lift, and still you needed to "cure" her overweighted condition before she was comfortable?

Tobin

 

[Scott L]

When it's rough on the surface, I have to time my breaths to avoid taking in a wave when they break over my head because I'm floating lower in the water; and with less lift, I'm slower to pop back up after the wave passes. (I don't carry a snorkel.)

Add a speargun, DPV, catch, etc. and one will not rise with the wave action as compared to a lesser burdened diver...

 

[MonkSeal]

If the LDS says that it's barely enough ...

That's very strong argument

 

[Guy Alcala]

As mentioned in a post upthread, Faber has made something like six different tanks around 85 cu. ft. I've had the Huron Scuba chart since 2007, at which time I noticed that the buoyancy numbers didn't agree with those in the 2007 OMS catalog (Faber made OMS tanks at the time). Nor did the catalog stats agree with the stats for my OMS LP112s, bought used, and which agreed with the Huron Scuba spec. The current Faber stats are the same as the ones in that 2007 OMS catalog.

The simplest and most likely explanation is that Faber changed the design of the tanks, making them less negative (and thus, more suitable for freshwater doubles). Given the choice between believing the manufacturer's _current_ specs and the Huron Scuba/TDL chart, I'll put my trust on the manufacturer until proven otherwise. It appears to me that the TDL chart just copies the Huron Scuba one for older tanks, but adds the Worthingtons and interestingly, also has different buoyancy numbers from the ones Worthington/XS Scuba claim.

As to increasing the negative buoyancy of LP tanks to reflect typical fills, what a typical fill is varies from place to place. You aren't going to get cave fills where I live and dive, unless you fill your own. Without using the same fill pressure comparison is meaningless.

Guy

No the simplest answer is that OMS didn't get the numbers right. Neither did XScuba for a time. Faber doesn't actually publish buoyancy numbers all of these sources are essentially making them up based on weight and water capacity (you could too actually).

Didn't see this post until today.

Cylinder Specifications

Scrolling down to the LP85 you'll see exactly the same numbers as I gave, and the same ones which were in the OMS catalog. So, if the numbers are wrong the error is Faber's, not OMS, because (obviously) they do publish buoyancy numbers. As to Worthington, I don't know, although their website refers you right back to XS Scuba for scuba tanks, and those buoyancy numbers haven't changed.

Guy