Mares 52X for technical diving?

[b-raider]

The 62X is the 52X that has had a whopping 49 grams of brass strategically removed. They are internally the same, have the same port layout, and use the same parts including the TBP environmental seal kit (also called dry kit or cold water kit).

...and the 52X is the MR22 that had brass removed aswell.
In the mean time I found out that Mark Ellyatt dove his world record to 313 m with the MR22 and an Abyss second. So if this iconic diver can do it on the predecessor, why should my 52X not be good enough for a TEC 50 course?! I'm going to have a word with my Instructor/LDS sales clerk...

Knowing the history of the time tested 22 it's kind of funny that Mares' marketing people rate the current Abyss Navy 2 not(!) capable for technical diving... (see page 15)

https://www.dive4all.nl/images/mares.pdf

Why do they even print such a matrix. I wonder what's their definition of technical diving?

Mares really likes to play games by marketing the same stage - usually with some cosmetic changes - under different names. The current record holder is their classic all-metal second stage which has been sold as the Orbiter, Voltrex, Ruby, Turbo, Abyss, Abyss Navy, Abyss Extreme, and XR DR.

I got a really good deal on two XR DR and one X25 (the second one was apparently dropped into the deep blue in a strange scenario...) Anyway, I screwed on a Dual Adj and now have a fancy stage reg and use the two XR DR as primary and safe second for the next 20 years.


Thank you guys for all the information your providing!

Maybe I'm going to ask you about the potential upgrade with a Twin Balances System...
But thats for another time.

 

[BoltSnap]

...and the 52X is the MR22 that had brass removed aswell.
In the mean time I found out that Mark Ellyatt dove his world record to 313 m with the MR22 and an Abyss second. So if this iconic diver can do it on the predecessor, why should my 52X not be good enough for a TEC 50 course?! I'm going to have a word with my Instructor/LDS sales clerk...

Knowing the history of the time tested 22 it's kind of funny that Mares' marketing people rate the current Abyss Navy 2 not(!) capable for technical diving... (see page 15)

https://www.dive4all.nl/images/mares.pdf

Why do they even print such a matrix. I wonder what's their definition of technical diving?


I got a really good deal on two XR DR and one X25 (the second one was apparently dropped into the deep blue in a strange scenario...) Anyway, I screwed on a Dual Adj and now have a fancy stage reg and use the two XR DR as primary and safe second for the next 20 years.


Thank you guys for all the information your providing!

Maybe I'm going to ask you about the potential upgrade with a Twin Balances System...
But thats for another time.

Perhaps this is a good time to tell you the truth, get a Scubapro MK19 (or MK25)/G260 or an Atomic M1 and forget about anything Mares.

 

[b-raider]

Perhaps this is a good time to tell you the truth, get a Scubapro MK19 (or MK25)/G260 or an Atomic M1 and forget about anything Mares.

why? I have perfectly capable gear...
My questing was if my stuff will do the job. Not what else the is to buy...

but thanks for telling me the truth ;-)

 

[Jay Young]

Yes, its all the same internally. However I think technically the 52/62 have DSC on all ports, which the 22 does not have - I would have to go back and look at the engineering diagrams to really tell differences. Oh, and all standard ports on the new models.

But as I said previously, we don't get half of what is available in the rest of the world.

Anyhow, as to why the Navy 22 is not rated for anything other than what it is - NAVY. The testing standards and certification process do not allow for any changes. Can you take the 22 service kit and put them inside a Navy 22? Yes, but then it technically looses its US Military certification because non-certified parts were used. Its all paperwork and politics. Can one simply make the Navy 22 better by using modern internals, and raising the IP? Of course. The US Navy will not come check.

 

[halocline]

I have a question about the Mares 52x first stage. Can it be safely used for technical/deep diving? If not, why not?

There's no real difference in terms of safety between so called 'technical' diving regulators and recreational regulators. For technical diving, you typically need a 1st stage regulator that has a DIN connection and the ability to route hoses in a convenient way. For extremely deep diving (far deeper than virtually all divers go on open circuit these days) it's important to have a 1st stage that has a good strong flow rate and quick IP recovery. Balanced 1st stages are preferred as well so that IP remains constant as tank pressure decreases. But that's really it. I don't know the specifics about the Mares model you mentioned, but a quick glance at the website shows it to be a balanced diaphragm available in DIN and 4 LP ports, so the hose routing is probably ok, depending on what kind of configuration you're using. It might not be great for sidemount, where you really benefit from an end port and turret. But safe? Sure.

There is a lot of hype about regulators, and salesmen will frequently have all sorts of 'reasons' why a certain high end regulator is 'needed' for different dive situations. Meanwhile, just a few decades ago, divers were doing extremely difficult and demanding dives on regulators that many dive shops (and instructors) would say aren't suitable for diving in a pool. Take it all with a grain of salt.

 

[lowwall]

Yes, its all the same internally. However I think technically the 52/62 have DSC on all ports, which the 22 does not have - I would have to go back and look at the engineering diagrams to really tell differences. Oh, and all standard ports on the new models.

But as I said previously, we don't get half of what is available in the rest of the world.

Anyhow, as to why the Navy 22 is not rated for anything other than what it is - NAVY. The testing standards and certification process do not allow for any changes. Can you take the 22 service kit and put them inside a Navy 22? Yes, but then it technically looses its US Military certification because non-certified parts were used. Its all paperwork and politics. Can one simply make the Navy 22 better by using modern internals, and raising the IP? Of course. The US Navy will not come check.

The 52 is based on the 22, but it's not really a rebadged version. The primary difference is the 22 has the single, larger DFC LP port. From the numbers I've seen, the 22 has greater maximum flow through its 1/2" DFC port than any of the LP ports on the 52 and 62, but all 4 of the LP ports on the 52/62 have greater maximum flow than the 3 standard (3/8") LP ports on the 22.

All of which is academic unless you are heading below about 200m in which case I hope you aren't relying on random internet people for your reg selection

As to the Navy... There were a few years where the Abyss 22 Navy II used the previous generation of the poppet (what Mares call the T shaped piece that seals against the volcano orifice) and thus required an annual inspection instead of the 2 year (or 200 dive) service interval called for in the regs with an X suffix. However that is no longer true and the first stage of the Navy now uses the same service kit (which includes the poppet) as the 22X and upgraded versions of the 16, 22 and 32.

The only thing that has not been updated on any version of the 22 is that Mares has not made a TBP environmental sealing kit for it, so it still requires the older standard style cold water kits that uses a second diaphragm. There are two versions of this. The original one, which has to be filled with silicone oil, comes standard on the Abyss Navy II. There's a later version that does not require oil that came with the Abyss Extreme. Either can be fitted on any version of the 12, 16, 22 or 32.

 

[BoltSnap]

Meanwhile, just a few decades ago, divers were doing extremely difficult and demanding dives on regulators that many dive shops (and instructors) would say aren't suitable for diving in a pool.

This is an extreme exaggeration here. These so called divers making extremely difficult and demanding dives many decades ago didn't have any choice in regulators. They were using what was considered "best" in those times but this doesn't mean that they wouldn't have wanted better regulators if they were available then. Sailors and explorers were making discovery expeditions with their boats and ships centuries ago without any of the tools and technologies we have today but one can't say that what we have today isn't important or superior in every way to what was available few years ago let alone centuries ago.

 

[lowwall]

This is an extreme exaggeration here. These so called divers making extremely difficult and demanding dives many decades ago didn't have any choice in regulators. They were using what was considered "best" in those times but this doesn't mean that they wouldn't have wanted better regulators if they were available then. Sailors and explorers were making discovery expeditions with their boats and ships centuries ago without any of the tools and technologies we have today but one can't say that what we have today isn't important or superior in every way to what was available few years ago let alone centuries ago.

What nonsense. We aren't talking about eighteenth century frigates or twentieth century dive computers here. Scuba demand regulators are fully worked out mechanical devices. A better metaphor would be a block plane or, if you want a a more complex mechanical system, a carburetor. These things were all perfected decades ago.

Basic reliability and decent performance was readily available as early as the 1950s. Modest improvements in performance continued in uneven bursts over the next few decades as gas flow dynamics became easier to model. By the 90s, regulators had reached their performance limits and we've basically been coasting since then. When a new model of regulator is introduced today, nearly all of the "improvements" are either marketing gimmicks or changes made to lower manufacturing costs.

For example, we've been talking about the original Abyss. It is highly doubtful that anyone has produced a superior reg for extreme deep dives. Mark Ellyatt used a stock MR22 with Abyss second when he set the then depth record (and still 3rd deepest OC dive) at 313m in 2003.

The regulators were chosen for there heavyweight all metal construction helping to maximise internal temperatures. The DFC system is great at managing high gas flows with its smooth operation as opposed to Venturi flow support, Finally no environmental seal means less Intermediate pressure amplification with the ensuing high pressure seat instability etc The water temp was 3-4 c at depth, the gas flows were enormous but all resulted in zero free flow or stutter. - Mark Ellyatt Scuba Depth Record

The pre-2008 Abyss first stage is a giant hunk of metal which helps prevent internal icing and the oversize (1/2") primary LP port flows a vast amount of gas. Some Apeks regs had this feature as well, including the regs used on the deepest and 4th deepest dives. This feature has been value engineered out of current regs. Which is sensible since it only becomes an advantage below 150m, but suggests that newer regs aren't necessarily better for "extremely difficult and demanding dives".

The second stage is also all metal which again is more resistant to freeze ups than thermoplastics, gas flow is unobstructed as it enters the main chamber through its own tube rather than threading through all the valve hardware (which also makes internal icing less likely) and the parts count is much lower so there's less to go wrong. The same second stage is still the flagship of their XR line.

BTW, Ellyatt's record was broken by Nuno Gomes who used a Poseidon Cyklon 5000, a reg that was introduced a decade before the Abyss.

 

[theduckguru]

Just tell them you checked on scubaboard and no one is recommending Mares regs for tech diving. That should start a discussion.

 

[Jay Young]

You know, I do wonder about that IP amplification statement. Seems to me the silicone oil filled chamber would be the most smooth, spreading out the pressure differential over the full surface area, unlike the Apeks/Aqualung piston design.

I do have confirmation from Mares engineer Sergio that the 82x 200m certification is without the twin balanced piston installed. For those that are going that deep..... And that piston design probably mimics what the oil filled chamber would do as far as surface area goes.

Anyhow, I still have my 22, love it, but I am having a lot of fun putting the 82x through as many different environments as possible. We were just talking about if we should still actually stock the Navy 22, and in our market, there is no call for it. Old, bomb proof, proven technology doesn't sell unfortunately.

I was just skimming through those old Navy 22 technical bulletins this morning. New parts numbers - ugh, new poppit - ugh, now I have to memorize a whole new set!