Looking to buy a dive computer
- Thread starter DewTheDewDude
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
No, I mean you want the sensor on a bit of hose rather than directly on the first stage anyway and if that bit is longer than a couple of inches you probably want to clip it to something. You might as well route it on top of the shoulder where you can easily reach the wire connector and can tie it to the corrugated hose.
Stuartv. Stop. Think. Its not about the gear or the alarms. Its the mindset. The way you approach diving. The experienced divers here are trying to get to to look at things a little differently. With more of a "technical mindset." Analytical is good. But you are approaching it the wrong way. Be open minded. Try to see things from their prospective instead of arguing against it. You might just have an epiphany, an aha moment.
I knew my last post would spur some responses. 
I understand what you all are saying and why you are saying it. Yes, if you offer some people a crutch, they will take it and use it and, eventually, have one leg atrophied to uselessness. So to speak.
@doctormike: I suspect you are not an experienced motorcyclist? I have been riding for 30 years. Let's just say my riding resume is LONG and extremely varied. I have never had an accident for any other reason than my own running out of talent. I have only had one accident on a public street in the last 28 years or so. Based on my experience, I believe that the motorcycle analogy is TOTALLY applicable. Riders with proper training don't have accidents in just the same way that properly trained divers don't. In both cases, accidents are almost always attributable to a screw-up on the diver/rider's part. Some people will argue with me about that and motorcycling, and that is a debate I will be glad to have with anyone, but this is not the post for that. Nevertheless, I assert that even the vast majority of motorcycle accidents that were "totally not the rider's fault. The rider could not have done anything to prevent it" were, in fact, traceable back to rider error. Just like diving accidents. Failures of proper maintenance. Failures of judgment on conditions. It all applies equally.
And so, I come back to my point: If you make somebody ride without a helmet, they will be (generally) more cautious and careful. Is that a reason to argue against wearing a helmet?
Is removing a safety oriented feature (that has no impact on performance) ever really a good idea? Or is it like Alberto pointed out - old school railing against anything that's not "the way we've always done it"?
Personally, my biggest area of getting chapped, in my brief history of diving is being talked down to and treated like I'm too stupid AND too ignorant to be simply told the straight facts and allowed to make my own decisions. It's insulting and off-putting to new and potential new divers. At least, it surely has been to me.
"You shouldn't have that feature because you might come to rely on it and you shouldn't do that" is kind of a BS response, to me. It implies "I can tell you the right way to do something, but I don't believe you have sufficiently good judgment or intelligence to stick to your training if I let you have something that will prop you up."
It doesn't seem any different than "you are not allowed to use a dive computer and must use tables instead, because using a dive computer will let you become dependent on that and then you won't plan your dives properly any more." And, yes, I do realize there are some people who probably still feel that way.
Bottom line: I noted a feature of a dive computer, in an objective assessment comparing two computers. You don't have to like that feature. Posts that imply that I have in any way suggested that people should rely on that feature are simply fallacious. The feature exists. Some folks may be comforted by knowing the feature is there as an extra safety net to however they manage their dives already, and that may then be a reason to choose one computer over another. How about we let people have the objective information and let them decide what to do with that information? Don't blast me for noting the feature or observing how someone might find it useful.
I understand what you all are saying and why you are saying it. Yes, if you offer some people a crutch, they will take it and use it and, eventually, have one leg atrophied to uselessness. So to speak.
@doctormike: I suspect you are not an experienced motorcyclist? I have been riding for 30 years. Let's just say my riding resume is LONG and extremely varied. I have never had an accident for any other reason than my own running out of talent. I have only had one accident on a public street in the last 28 years or so. Based on my experience, I believe that the motorcycle analogy is TOTALLY applicable. Riders with proper training don't have accidents in just the same way that properly trained divers don't. In both cases, accidents are almost always attributable to a screw-up on the diver/rider's part. Some people will argue with me about that and motorcycling, and that is a debate I will be glad to have with anyone, but this is not the post for that. Nevertheless, I assert that even the vast majority of motorcycle accidents that were "totally not the rider's fault. The rider could not have done anything to prevent it" were, in fact, traceable back to rider error. Just like diving accidents. Failures of proper maintenance. Failures of judgment on conditions. It all applies equally.
And so, I come back to my point: If you make somebody ride without a helmet, they will be (generally) more cautious and careful. Is that a reason to argue against wearing a helmet?
Is removing a safety oriented feature (that has no impact on performance) ever really a good idea? Or is it like Alberto pointed out - old school railing against anything that's not "the way we've always done it"?
Personally, my biggest area of getting chapped, in my brief history of diving is being talked down to and treated like I'm too stupid AND too ignorant to be simply told the straight facts and allowed to make my own decisions. It's insulting and off-putting to new and potential new divers. At least, it surely has been to me.
"You shouldn't have that feature because you might come to rely on it and you shouldn't do that" is kind of a BS response, to me. It implies "I can tell you the right way to do something, but I don't believe you have sufficiently good judgment or intelligence to stick to your training if I let you have something that will prop you up."
It doesn't seem any different than "you are not allowed to use a dive computer and must use tables instead, because using a dive computer will let you become dependent on that and then you won't plan your dives properly any more." And, yes, I do realize there are some people who probably still feel that way.
Bottom line: I noted a feature of a dive computer, in an objective assessment comparing two computers. You don't have to like that feature. Posts that imply that I have in any way suggested that people should rely on that feature are simply fallacious. The feature exists. Some folks may be comforted by knowing the feature is there as an extra safety net to however they manage their dives already, and that may then be a reason to choose one computer over another. How about we let people have the objective information and let them decide what to do with that information? Don't blast me for noting the feature or observing how someone might find it useful.
Aha! OK, I don't know jack about motorcycles, other than the fact that I have heard about a lot of people getting hit by cars, so that was what I was driving at - the helmet being useful even if you are a good rider. But I will happily CONCEDE that point.
It's exhausting arguing with you about diving, I'm certainly not going to start arguing with you about motorcycles...
Well, you certainly have ruffled a lot of feathers here and elicited some scathing replies (that's one of the things that I like about you, BTW). But I think that if you read my last post, you will see that you are not being talked down to, but that I have made some effort to explain why the pushback against low gas alarms. As I predicted, you don't need to agree, but I hope you understand that I'm not just saying that they are bad without an explanation.
The difference there is that a DC does something that a human diver can't do - continually recalculate nitrogen loading based on a real-time non-square profile. Diving tables just means less NDL if you stay above your predicted depth, and DCS risk if you go below your predicted depth.
I think that you are developing a persecution complex here... You are free to state your opinion, we are free to state ours. Not sure why you feel that anyone not agreeing with you is some sort of violation of your dignity or rights. You aren't getting "blasted", you are being disagreed with. If you really don't like that, then you shouldn't post here.
But I hope that you do keep posting here, seriously. For all of the noise, you are passionate about diving and have taken a lot of time to think through aspects of a sport that you recently adopted. It might go a long way if once we heard you say "huh, that's interesting, I hadn't thought of that", instead of rightfighting about ever single thing as if the insights of experienced divers were just obstacles to forum victory...
Dive safe, Stuart!
Aha! OK, I don't know jack about motorcycles, other than the fact that I have heard about a lot of people getting hit by cars, so that was what I was driving at - the helmet being useful even if you are a good rider. But I will happily CONCEDE that point.
It's exhausting arguing with you about diving, I'm certainly not going to start arguing with you about motorcycles...
LOL It's not that properly trained riders never have accidents. But, I think they are about as rare as properly trained divers running low on air without realizing it.
Yes, I was not referring to your last post. I appreciated what you said and also the way you said it. I just didn't want to take the time to quote every single individual response and address them individually, since many of them said a lot of the same things.
How many posts have I read talking about what happens if a diver's computer croaks and the need to be able to plan using tables when that happens? People who don't maintain their skills in using tables could easily have a computer croak and then attempt to use tables to plan a repetitive dive and hurt themselves. This actually seems like a more likely scenario, to me, than someone getting hurt because they were relying on a low gas alarm to go off. I've seen posts here, myself, from at least one diver who had a computer croak and explained how he used tables to plan his next dive. And he explained that he used his buddy's computer's AVERAGE depth as the basis for his table lookup to calculate his next dive. There's an obvious example to support the suggestion that nobody should be allowed to use computers because they can become a crutch that causes you a problem later. At least, it seems like anyone who thinks that it's bad to have a low gas alarm should also feel that way.
Let me quote an esteemed fellow SB'er's earlier post:
Thank you for the non-attacking post and willingness to have a polite discussion.
You dive safe as well!
There's always a downside. the issue is whether the upside is worth as much or more. In the case of people who do things because the computer(*) is always right, the downside is not with the computer.
(*) Or their imaginary friend, or The Supreme Galactic Overlord, or whatever.
Similar threads
