My 1st BC

[sbijou]

Wayward Son,
The unit pictured was only produced by Scubapro for a brief period of time and was featured on the cover of it's catalog when introduced. If I remember correctly, it went under the name of "Nautilus" which may have been the name of Dacor's hard shell case. Scubapro's unit basically had BCP wing integrated in the plastic faring. I have seen a white prototype of this unit, instead of the production blue, on Ebay, and the seller claimed that it was used in a James Bond movie. Part of the marketing scheme of the bc was to counter ATPAC sales ( a weight integrated unit) which Scubapro did not have at the time with it's rear mounted BCP.

FWIW, I started scuba in 1973, 12 years old living on an air force base in Turkey. I dove a plastic backpack, no octo, no SPG, J valve. Used a CO2 powered safety vest. As I didn't have a wet suit it really wasn't much of a problem. I didn't even have booties, I wore cheap tennis shoes in my Mini-Rocket fins.

Never heard of a BC until back in the states in 78, when I got legally certified (back then you couldn't get a card until 16 or 17, but when I was 11 I convinced the dive club to let me take the class. They decided that if I could pass it, I could dive with them. I got 3 years of diving in ) and the class used Scubapro jacket style BC's. Woulda bought one if I'd had the cash, LOL, they were nice.

 

[Tassie_Rohan]

Seeing how old technology is being remarketed as the latest thing (ie BP/W):

Are we looking at the BC of the future?

 

[sbijou]

Thats the thing about this sport. The older technology is still the mainstay of present day (newest and best ) products. I.E. balanced, adjustable second stages introduced twenty five years ago, if not more. The real exception are computers, driven by much larger consumer fields. The BC of the future might be something that was on the drawing boards years ago. Rather than a inflatable bouyancy bag, the main bouyancy mechanism might be rigid , rather than expanding.

Seeing how old technology is being remarketed as the latest thing (ie BP/W):

Are we looking at the BC of the future?

 

[Wayward Son]

I hope no one is thinking about bringing these beasts back! While it looks cool (and I do recall the white one in the Bond flick, have to look closer next time I see it), the shell adds a lot of unnecessary weight, has lousy handling characteristics when on the surface, and strikes me as lacking in flexibility as it regards to rigging your gear. Limited on tank sizes you can use, and no way to rig a pony behind you, for 2 examples.

 

[Tassie_Rohan]

I hope no one is thinking about bringing these beasts back! While it looks cool (and I do recall the white one in the Bond flick, have to look closer next time I see it), the shell adds a lot of unnecessary weight, has lousy handling characteristics when on the surface, and strikes me as lacking in flexibility as it regards to rigging your gear. Limited on tank sizes you can use, and no way to rig a pony behind you, for 2 examples.

Just wack a halcyon logo over the scubapro logo and sell it for ten times the price you paid for it… They’re not bugs – they’re features: it takes weight off your belt, looks (and for the James Bond model probably is) bullet proof and the DIR guys will be swarming over you to buy it as it lacks flexibility in rigging and forces you to use one cylinder size! (who needs surface characteristics in a cave dive anyway?).

Guys – the future of diving is here!

Its certainly an impressive piece of kit and it still looks futuristic: I assume the case covers an inflatable bladder?

Cheers,
Rohan.

 

[Wayward Son]

Yes, it's an inflatable air bladder inside. My LDS says he can still service the beast, but I opted to not spend the money.

It still works, meaning the power inflator worked the last time I hooked it up & I can orally inflate it. I'm not sure if I'd trust it to hold gas during a dive. Maybe in a pinch, but really do not think it should be dove without a competent servicing.

It'll be on it's way to HI in a few days, so I won't be doing anything to it other than boxing it up.

 

[sbijou]

I've used the unit and really wasn't impressed by it either. It is bulky and not easy to
transport, in relation to a soft exterior BC. Underwater , it was OK , but the weight compartments were a first generation product that only took standard lead weights (or soft pouched weights) that could shift at different angles. At the time, the standard cylinders were 72 steels or 80 aluminums, so the tank slot didn't have to offer much flixibilty in terms of tank sizes. The device was I think a quick fix approach to capture sales, and that's why it appeared so briefly in the market place. It didn't do anything extremely well.

Yes, it's an inflatable air bladder inside. My LDS says he can still service the beast, but I opted to not spend the money.

It still works, meaning the power inflator worked the last time I hooked it up & I can orally inflate it. I'm not sure if I'd trust it to hold gas during a dive. Maybe in a pinch, but really do not think it should be dove without a competent servicing.

It'll be on it's way to HI in a few days, so I won't be doing anything to it other than boxing it up.

 

[PurpleRonald]

It's Scubapro's answer to the Watergill At-Pac. The At-Pacs were also being sold with ferrings<sp> - rigid outer shells. US Divers had a rigid all-in-one unit too. The AT-Pac was however the best imho...and most At-Pac users soon discarded the rigid shells(they were just too bulky and the natural folding of the At-Pac wasn't really a drag problem...I can remember in the 70's argueing with people about the safety of the At-Pac. People said it was dangerous because you could end up floating face down on the surface if you passed out.(as if you passed out in a horse collar BC...you would be safer?) People said they were like sails and couldn't be used in drift diving(I used mine without a problem and thought it was actualy more streamlined) and people said the self-contained weights were a nightmire(I never had a problem and frankly never was in a situation where I had to ditch my weights.) At-Pac countered that a traditional weight belt was uncomfortable and even more dangerous because a traditional weight belt could get tangled with the BC straps and that some newbie divers sometimes made the error of not putting on their weight belts 'last'... If you started off with an At-Pac - it was great. You learned how to easily don it in the water...ie. inflate the unit...drop it in the water...jump in...and in one quick technique , roll it over and strap it on...and you were ready to go... True Story: a fellow I dived with threw in his At-Pack(it was in the hard shell) and it sank strait to the bottom... He had forgot to inflate it. ; ) Another reason for not using the rigid shell.
What I loved about the At-Pac was the 'all-in-one-design'. It was comfortable and there were just few straps to worry about. I also liked the pressure relief valve being on the inflator hose/mouthpiece... At the surface it was pure comfort ie. 80lbs of lift..you could lie on your back high out of the water and paddle back to boat while
having a nice conversation. In swells you'd be high and dry and comfy...while someone in a horse collar was having to bob at eye level using a snorkle... The Nautilus - like the US Divers unit - had the reputation of 'shifting' underwater and not being as comfortable as the At-Pac. At-Pac weights were in the hollow of backpack closed by a trap door held by a pin the diver could pull to release the weights. You would fill the pack about halfway with marbles and the rest with 00 Buckshot. While that seems like a lot of trouble - it was well-balanced and the weights were close to the small of your back and the unit didn't 'shift'. I've seen the OMS systems today - and they remind me most of the old At-Pac, but the At-Pac was perhaps even superior to the OMS. It was a double bladder and I remember the Scubapro Nautilus being criticized for being a kind of inferor copy ie. the At-Pac could be used with doubles, had more lift, didn't shift...and the outer shells came in more colors ; )
Ban the necktie! Ban the weight belt! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

 

[JMdiver]

Seeing how old technology is being remarketed as the latest thing (ie BP/W):

Are we looking at the BC of the future?

What is BP/W

 

[Nemrod]

A BP/W is short hand for todays tech diver/DIR diver (Do It Right Diver) for back plate and wing. The back plate is a type of tank holder made of aluminum or steel and a wingi is the back inflation type BC marketed by Dive Rite and Halycon that attaches to the backplate. I dive a BP/W when I dive with more modern types of gear and I use the backplate even with my vintage gear with no BC or horsecollar. They are a very flexible system thus their popularity with the tech crowd. N