I think you missed one of the person's main points. Why is it that the industry as a whole does it that way. If they did, you wouldn't need custom hoses for that setup, and the rest of the world would already be doing it.
Mounting tanks upside down
- Thread starter ckharlan66
- 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
I think you missed one of the person's main points. Why is it that the industry as a whole does it that way. If they did, you wouldn't need custom hoses for that setup, and the rest of the world would already be doing it.
No actually, I didnt MISS the point, I just replyed in a manner I deemed fit.
Now, to answer why it was STARTED that way, I have no idea. SOmebody said in the other thread on this topic, that maybe it came from the old double hose reg, how it had to be at head level for it to work., I think it just kinda stuck from there.
You have to admit though, It does provide alot more problems than solutions...
Much easier to carry your tanks right side up than upside down...
Now, to answer why it was STARTED that way, I have no idea. SOmebody said in the other thread on this topic, that maybe it came from the old double hose reg, how it had to be at head level for it to work., I think it just kinda stuck from there.
You have to admit though, It does provide alot more problems than solutions...
Much easier to carry your tanks right side up than upside down...
JCKCSYCMD
Contributor
Knew I could count on hooking at least a couple of supporting DIR comments....
Yes I agree diving community is valves & regs up, and for clarification I have no intention to change from that format. Actually I did try the old tri tank US Divers rig back in the 70s and didn't like the multiple low hose placements. I like finding items right over my shoulders, from either side. As far as someone loosing a reg, that's what the bungee necklass is for on the primary backup, etc.
Have to say I'm new to this particular board, and like playing cards, some times you just have to toss out certain cards to see who the other players are.
Yes I agree diving community is valves & regs up, and for clarification I have no intention to change from that format. Actually I did try the old tri tank US Divers rig back in the 70s and didn't like the multiple low hose placements. I like finding items right over my shoulders, from either side. As far as someone loosing a reg, that's what the bungee necklass is for on the primary backup, etc.
Have to say I'm new to this particular board, and like playing cards, some times you just have to toss out certain cards to see who the other players are.
Thanks for letting us know that you're a troll. I can comfortably add you to the "List of people I would ignore if it weren't so much fun to watch them."
Even if this were a more mainstream configuration for which hoses were readily available, it does seem that it would create more issues than it solves. In particular, you've still got the problems that the cage would create, including entanglement issues and a greater change of damage to the valves and reg sets when donning and doffing.
With the valves upright, you solve the problem of reaching your valves by proper positioning of the tanks, stretching exercises to improve flexibility and practice.
I believe that you need to ask youself three questions:
1. What problems does your proposed configuration solve;
2. What new problems does the proposed configuration create; and
3. Which set of problems is easier to deal with?
This is not a DIR question. Rather, its simple failure analysis and risk management.
That said, you sound like the kind of person who should definately dive valves down. In a single. With a Spare Air (also mounted upside down). Inside a wreck. At about 150 fsw. Solo. And don't let anyone give you garbage about a safety cage either.
Even if this were a more mainstream configuration for which hoses were readily available, it does seem that it would create more issues than it solves. In particular, you've still got the problems that the cage would create, including entanglement issues and a greater change of damage to the valves and reg sets when donning and doffing.
With the valves upright, you solve the problem of reaching your valves by proper positioning of the tanks, stretching exercises to improve flexibility and practice.
I believe that you need to ask youself three questions:
1. What problems does your proposed configuration solve;
2. What new problems does the proposed configuration create; and
3. Which set of problems is easier to deal with?
This is not a DIR question. Rather, its simple failure analysis and risk management.
That said, you sound like the kind of person who should definately dive valves down. In a single. With a Spare Air (also mounted upside down). Inside a wreck. At about 150 fsw. Solo. And don't let anyone give you garbage about a safety cage either.
Folks I watch an Aussie show "Water Rats". A show about the Sydney Harbour police <?>...The police divers wear their tanks upside down.
Question is, Is this still done?...Is the show reasonably accurate?
BTW I have not yet checked out the other thread...
Question is, Is this still done?...Is the show reasonably accurate?
BTW I have not yet checked out the other thread...
JCKCSYCMD
Contributor
You are, in my opinion, very much welcome, and obviously familiar with the techniques, with various levels of ......etc. Have we offered supporting "opinions" on some topics on the D2D board....also? Your format seems familiar.
Thanks for the other Tech site I didn't have.
Carpe Diem litigiosus,
Jc.No. I've never heard of that site.
Regardless, my questions stand.
I would not be adverse to a valves down configuration if someone could show me that it was safer.
In the meantime, I'll stick with what works.
You're quite welcome for the link.
Regardless, my questions stand.
I would not be adverse to a valves down configuration if someone could show me that it was safer.
In the meantime, I'll stick with what works.
You're quite welcome for the link.
I am enjoying the comments here and on the other thread (which I didn't know about before I started this one--sorry). Like many passionate people who frequent this forum, I like to argue. Besides my propensity to swim upstream, I have no experience w/ valves down except for a childhood experiment w/ firefighting rig in the lake (My Dad still doesn't know about that) and later with that High Pressure norwegian rig w/ the 1st built into the manifold (4,500psi). A great deal of the criticism of valves down is due to thinking of it as just another "application" w/in an established "system". I'm questioning the "system". If the idea has merrit then it will be built from scratch, not kludged from the valves up kit. I have so far been able to manage my valves. It is an uncomfortable manoever that many here seem to love just because it hurts! If I'm injured, tired, confused or panicked then why in the world would I want using my valves to be almost a stunt?
One major question that we probably need to address is just how important is access to valves?
Single tank sport diving maybe not very. Tech diving w/ doubles, isolator etc. it is much more important (but not routinely, mostly just during malfunction).
Another Question: entanglement The picture posted of a valve guard w/ isolator pointing to the back is potential for trouble. It also doesn't need to point back, it can point down w/ different guard design. Also, what could possibly be more vulnerable than the valves up? Isolator pointing at direction of travel, 1st stages of various protrusions etc.
hose routing: Now that we have so many using 7' hoses etc. I just can't see this as a problem. Finding the optimum will require thought, but it just can't be a serious problem, can it?
Dealing w/ Kit topside transport, rigging etc. is where a lot of us see the biggest problem. But even this is because of convention. We lug our tanks around by the valves (never the manifolds--yeah right!) and waddle around the deck. Is this a good idea? Valves down would probably make attaching handles more necessary but then would that be a good idea regardless?
If you have to choose, do you want maximum efficiency IN the water, or ON the boat? I realize this is not retorical. I have most of my frustration out of the water (loading, moving, rigging, trying to get off my knees on the dive platform w/ out some teenage girl having to help me up!).
All of this is pretty much theoretical for me so please take it in that spirit I have no qualifications on this issue, it's just a mental exercise. Even so, without mentioning names
I'll bet a pony bottle that the most ardent opponents of Valves down on this thread, could solve all the problems they and others have stated! In fact, they would be the very people who would come up with the most bullet proof solutions.
Again, I have really enjoyed the discussion/argument
One major question that we probably need to address is just how important is access to valves?
Single tank sport diving maybe not very. Tech diving w/ doubles, isolator etc. it is much more important (but not routinely, mostly just during malfunction).
Another Question: entanglement The picture posted of a valve guard w/ isolator pointing to the back is potential for trouble. It also doesn't need to point back, it can point down w/ different guard design. Also, what could possibly be more vulnerable than the valves up? Isolator pointing at direction of travel, 1st stages of various protrusions etc.
hose routing: Now that we have so many using 7' hoses etc. I just can't see this as a problem. Finding the optimum will require thought, but it just can't be a serious problem, can it?
Dealing w/ Kit topside transport, rigging etc. is where a lot of us see the biggest problem. But even this is because of convention. We lug our tanks around by the valves (never the manifolds--yeah right!) and waddle around the deck. Is this a good idea? Valves down would probably make attaching handles more necessary but then would that be a good idea regardless?
If you have to choose, do you want maximum efficiency IN the water, or ON the boat? I realize this is not retorical. I have most of my frustration out of the water (loading, moving, rigging, trying to get off my knees on the dive platform w/ out some teenage girl having to help me up!).
All of this is pretty much theoretical for me so please take it in that spirit I have no qualifications on this issue, it's just a mental exercise. Even so, without mentioning names
I'll bet a pony bottle that the most ardent opponents of Valves down on this thread, could solve all the problems they and others have stated! In fact, they would be the very people who would come up with the most bullet proof solutions. Again, I have really enjoyed the discussion/argument
scubafanatic
Contributor
- Messages
- 5,090
- Reaction score
- 916
......the 'valves-down' solution can be avoided with proper gear set up and planning. One needs to experiment the whatever tank/BC combo you dive, and set up the tank height such that it's easy to reach the valves with the tanks in the upright position.
For singles I dive LP 120 or LP 85's (Zeagle Ranger)....for doubles I dive twin LP 85's (DeepOutDoors BC). The 120's are about 29 inches long (without valve) the LP85's are 26 inches long (without valve).
One simply has to experiment a little bit to figure out the optimum height at which to mount the BC to the tanks....but this is pretty easy.
I did a tech class where I used rented LP 95's, they are only 24 inches long (without valve/manifold), and I found those doubles to be too short to comfortably do valve shutdowns....not too mention way too heavy on land......however the LP 85's I just took delivery of a couple weeks ago have worked out much nicer for me......significantly lighter on land, and the extra 2 inches of length makes it a lot easier for me to reach the valves.
I see no compelling reason to attempt the 'valves-down' configuration....you are much more likely to damage the valves/manifold while doffing/donning the tanks with them in the upside down position than you are to smack into something UW and damage valves which are in the upright position......plus you'd have to build/attach somesort of carriage to suspend the upside down tanks off the ground to shield the valves......which is an entanglement hazzard, plus it will increase the length of the tanks, possibly making it difficult/impossible to sit down and be able to doff/donn the tanks.
As far as maximum efficiency on the boat vs. in the water....well, efficiency in the water is irrelevant unless the design is efficient on land/boat first.....gotta be able to make it to the water before we even worry about what happens in the water......the valves down position just makes to too much trouble to even get to the point where you're in position to dive.
For singles I dive LP 120 or LP 85's (Zeagle Ranger)....for doubles I dive twin LP 85's (DeepOutDoors BC). The 120's are about 29 inches long (without valve) the LP85's are 26 inches long (without valve).
One simply has to experiment a little bit to figure out the optimum height at which to mount the BC to the tanks....but this is pretty easy.
I did a tech class where I used rented LP 95's, they are only 24 inches long (without valve/manifold), and I found those doubles to be too short to comfortably do valve shutdowns....not too mention way too heavy on land......however the LP 85's I just took delivery of a couple weeks ago have worked out much nicer for me......significantly lighter on land, and the extra 2 inches of length makes it a lot easier for me to reach the valves.
I see no compelling reason to attempt the 'valves-down' configuration....you are much more likely to damage the valves/manifold while doffing/donning the tanks with them in the upside down position than you are to smack into something UW and damage valves which are in the upright position......plus you'd have to build/attach somesort of carriage to suspend the upside down tanks off the ground to shield the valves......which is an entanglement hazzard, plus it will increase the length of the tanks, possibly making it difficult/impossible to sit down and be able to doff/donn the tanks.
As far as maximum efficiency on the boat vs. in the water....well, efficiency in the water is irrelevant unless the design is efficient on land/boat first.....gotta be able to make it to the water before we even worry about what happens in the water......the valves down position just makes to too much trouble to even get to the point where you're in position to dive.
Maybe we should call the British and ask them why they wear their tanks upside down? Heck, lets ask about the driving on the wrong side of the road too. Maybe they are related.
They use their valves repeatedly during every dive Correct me if anyone has more accurate info, but I believe that the navy divers DO NOT use SPG's. They dive one cylinder dry, open the isolator to equalize tanks then shut it again. When they go dry again they know that they have 1/3 left as they shift to the other cylinder. I may have the exact proceedure wrong but you get the idea, they isolate and equalize to portion their gas. Since they are spinning their values repeatedly easy access may be more important to them. (Or, muscle bound navy seal types can't scratch between their shoulder blades!). I have decided not to pioneer the technology this side of the pond unless my flexibility declines further (sling my mains?).
They use their valves repeatedly during every dive Correct me if anyone has more accurate info, but I believe that the navy divers DO NOT use SPG's. They dive one cylinder dry, open the isolator to equalize tanks then shut it again. When they go dry again they know that they have 1/3 left as they shift to the other cylinder. I may have the exact proceedure wrong but you get the idea, they isolate and equalize to portion their gas. Since they are spinning their values repeatedly easy access may be more important to them. (Or, muscle bound navy seal types can't scratch between their shoulder blades!). I have decided not to pioneer the technology this side of the pond unless my flexibility declines further (sling my mains?).
Similar threads
