Need suggestions about budget dive computer

[OMANDIVER]

I am looking for budget dive computer. I have few list which available at local shop and under my budget. (I set maximum budget at D4i Novo.)

1. Suunto Zoop - quite large (too large for my preference), no light, no gauge mode but cheap
2. Suunto D4i - perfect size but can't change battery myself. It would be better to get other model with same quality but cheaper.
3. Oceanic Veo 3.0 and Geo 2.0 - don't know for its size (never seen the real product), There are many posts/reviews about reliability and product quality issues (i.e. bought 6 units and malfunction 6 units same trip, some units consume more battery while some units don't, etc.) so I am reluctant in them.
4. UWATEC Aladin TEC 2G - no idea about this model but it is cheaper than D4i so it is just another option to me.

I prefer simplicity, easy to read dive computer with reliability and low maintenance. What dive computer do you suggest?

thanks,

Hi Bom, have a look at the Suunto Vyper, it's larger than D4 ( I have both), but you can change the battery and its a good all rounder. Best of luck.

---------- Post added September 23rd, 2014 at 03:34 AM ----------

I already posted a link in this thread, to a sticky'ed thread in this forum, with a table showing the Oceanic and others giving an NDL of 57 minutes compared to the Suunto NDL for the same dive of "40 - 48" minutes. You really think I don't understand what that line in that table means? Is it not "a normal diving practice" to dive to 60' and stay there as long as 50 minutes? And if it's misinformation, I am not the one who posted it. Further, no one in that (reasonably long) thread disputed the data in that table, so I'm skeptical that it is "misinformation".

It's nice that you and Lorenzoid have more conservative computers and you don't have an issue with the dive time you get. But, why do you feel like it's okay to use your personal dive habits and preferences as assumptions about what other divers are doing or going to do? You tell us that you have no issue with your Mares and Lorenzoid has no issue with his Suunto, implying that one of those should be good enough for anyone. Well, instead of implying that no one should have an issue with limiting their dives to as short as what you do, what is wrong with giving the OP the info about how the different computers work and let the OP decide what will be best for him or her?

This whole thing is really simple. The OP asked about budget computers, including listing some specific ones being considered. I made the observation that Suunto seem to be more limiting than other brands on bottom time. I have posted a link to a thread with data that supports my statement. I also stated that that data is A reason (but not the only reason) why I have removed Suunto from my own personal shopping list. And I have been attacked relentlessly for it. Where is the error in what I said?!? Some of you are acting like I called your baby dumb and ugly! If you cannot refute the data posted, using other data (not anecdotes), apparently, you still feel a need to attack me by pointing out my inexperience in diving - as if my diving experience has something to do with the truth or falsity of the statements made about how these different computers work.

If someone posts a comment that the computer you use is more conservative than others, and the comment was made as providing data that a person might use as they see fit when shopping for a computer, and that irks you (as Lorenzoid said it does him), you need to either refute the data or get over yourself! Personally, I would LOVE to see more actual data on the subject, so if you have some PLEASE post it. If you don't have anything more useful to say than "I use XYZ and it almost never limits me," well, I don't see how you're actually helping the OP or anyone else.

I suspect you and several others have developed an opinion of me that I am some kind of idiot and you expect that I'm going to be the kind of diver that you would never want to dive with. To that I say: I am a very experienced motorcyclist. I have even won several roadracing championships. And if you ask anyone that rides with me, I think they will ALL tell you that I am a safety Nazi! Many of them would probably also say that I sometimes ride extremely fast on public roads. But, even those people would also tell you that I have the best safety record of anyone they know. I have crashed on the street 1 time in the last 28 years or so. And that is because I work hard to KNOW what the limits are in whatever activity I'm engaged in. And then I am adamant about staying within the safe limits. At this point I have done enough research that I would say I have a basic understanding of how the dive tables work and all the different algorithms being used in these different Rec diving computers, and how the Buhlman algorithm with Gradient Factors works - in practical terms. Like motorcycling, I am approaching diving as something to learn as much as I can about it before I even put my first toe in the water. So, YOU may be perfectly comfortable limiting yourself to what your Mares tells you and I pass no judgment on that. But, I want to know what all the options. I want to know how they all work. And then I will make my own informed decision about what to use so that I am comfortable that what I am doing is safe - while also allowing myself the most time to enjoy the sport of diving. And make no mistake, making my own informed decision includes factoring in the input from experienced divers. I have been around the block enough times to know that experience often trumps spec sheets. Experience doesn't change the data - it just helps interpret the data in a different way than you might otherwise. That said, even the most experienced diver in the world could tell me "well, I use a Mares and it's fine for me, so there's no reason you could have for considering it to be too conservative" and I will still ask them "why? Can you show me the data on or explain why a more liberal computer wouldn't be better for me in the long run?"

I do understand that there's more to an NDL than just a number. There is a qualitative aspect to the decompression. And if I buy a computer that lets me stay down longer and I find that I don't feel that good when diving to those NDLs, then I will adopt a more conservative approach. But, I won't be FORCED to do that by my computer.

The bottom line: You cannot be considered "safe" (at least, not by me) if you don't KNOW what the limits are. If you are engaged in any activity that has hard limits (e.g. diving or riding a motorcycle or flying a plane or whatever), then the only way you can truly be safe is if you know what the limits really are. Otherwise, you will never know who close you are to them. I am researching the limits (of diving) and the limitations (of things like dive computers), in order to be as safe as I can. And I chose to share some of what I have learned. And I really do hope that if I've said something that is incorrect, someone will explain to me what is incorrect about it. For my safety and the safety of anyone who comes along later and reads what I posted.

So, do you have some data to share? Do you have more of an explanation than "I'm an old hand and it works fine for me and you're a newb, so you are automatically assumed to be stupid"? Or, let me make it even simpler for you. On a first dive to 60', an Oceanic computer will let you stay for 57 minutes. A Suunto will let you stay for "40 - 48" minutes. That is, according to another thread here on SB. What is the problem with telling someone that when they post that they are shopping for a computer and they list Oceanic and Suunto computers as ones they are considering?

---------- Post added September 22nd, 2014 at 02:29 PM ----------



I hear you. I am trying. I THOUGHT that I had not given any advice in this thread. I didn't advise the OP to buy or avoid anything. I shared data about computers that I have learned from research. And I shared my own shopping plan, since I felt like I am in a similar situation to the OP. And from there, Lorenzoid jumped on me like I kicked his dog.

If sharing information is considered "giving advice" and it's unwelcome based on the number of dives the poster has, rather than based on the accuracy of the information, I am a bit disappointed, to say the least.

little bit grumpy....

 

[stuartv]

Hey all, I do want to apologize for sounding grumpy. I don't feel grumpy and I don't mean to sound grumpy. But, I do know that I often can be interpreted as grumpy when I am writing - particularly to people who don't know me. I also know that it often happens that my questions make it appear that I think I know better than the person I'm questioning. And again, it's not that I feel that way. Generally, it's that I'm, essentially, playing Devil's Advocate in order to make sure I really understand what the person is telling me - especially when I have read or heard something that seems to conflict with what I'm being told. If I read one post that says "XYZ is true and here's why...", then I read somewhere else that "XYZ is false", I'm probably going to ask questions of whoever said XYZ is false until I feel like I really understand why one or the other is right/wrong. To the person I'm questioning I know I can look as if I'm trying to prove them wrong.

So, again, my apologies to any of you that have felt irritated by my posts. Lorenzoid, in particular, I want to say thank you for your last response and not coming across as being pissed off at me.

To get back to the OP, I just read a new review of computers published by Scuba magazine. It includes 12 computers and compression chamber simulation of 4 dives in a day:
100 feet/60 minutes
A one-hour surface interval
70 feet/45 minutes
A two-hour surface interval
80 feet/45 minutes
A one-hour surface interval
60 feet/40 minutes

The results are here:

http://ads.bonniercorp.com/scuba/PDF/ScubaLab-Computer-Test-September-2014-data.pdf

And the article itself is here:

SCUBALAB 2014: Dive Computer Review | Scuba Diving

You can draw your own conclusions about the algorithms the different computers use and which one would be better for you.

 

[Lorenzoid]

Stuart, please let me know if you ever figure out which of two SB posts at odds with each other is the correct one.

More info for the OP--now that's something we can all agree on.

I saw that review of 12 computers in Scuba Diving magazine, including their conclusions about conservativeness. Yes, perhaps the OP will find that helpful.

 

[stuartv]

Stuart, please let me know if you ever figure out which of two SB posts at odds with each other is the correct one.

Well, obviously, the correct one is whichever one is the answer I want!

 

[doctormike]

I saw that review of 12 computers in Scuba Diving magazine, including their conclusions about conservativeness. Yes, perhaps the OP will find that helpful.

Amazing to me that the Petrel wasn't on that list. That's a failure of the Shearwater marketing division (the one thing that the company doesn't do well!). It got tagged as a "tech" computer, even though it now has a "rec" mode which makes it great for any diver. Read threads here, you will hardly ever find a negative review.

It costs significantly less than many of the ones that were reviewed, has an incredibly readable and well organized display, built like a tank, FANTASTIC customer support, user replaceable AA battery, bluetooth, and can take you anywhere you want to go in diving.

Maybe not a good option for the OP if they are watching cost and want a budget computer, but certainly no justification for it not being on that list. I guess Shearwater didn't buy ad space in the magazine...

 

[boulderjohn]

Also, as of July 31st, 2014 (according to the shop where I'm going for OW cert), PADI now also no longer requires teaching tables and you can get PADI OW certification just using a computer.

The computer version of the PADI OW course has been in effect for several years now.

Hi
Well it is not because some agencies are using dive computers from day 1 that you have to bypass minimum deco knowledge.
This approach is just a way to shorten courses and to put more people in the water. Maybe is good, maybe not

If the computer version of the course is taught as it is designed to be taught, it does not save any time at all. In fact, it can take more time. It goes into great detail on what computers are designed to do. If the student and instructor take the time to go through the online dive simulator as they should, it can take a lot of time.

One silly question, is gauge mode importance for recreational diving? I saw some posts mentioned that Zoop is not as good since it has no gauge mode but I don't know what it is and how importance it is.

The only reason you need gauge mode is if you think you might be getting into tech diving before too long and might want to use it in that capacity.

 

[jale]

If the computer version of the course is taught as it is designed to be taught, it does not save any time at all. In fact, it can take more time. It goes into great detail on what computers are designed to do. If the student and instructor take the time to go through the online dive simulator as they should, it can take a lot of time.
The only reason you need gauge mode is if you think you might be getting into tech diving before too long and might want to use it in that capacity.

Hi
Well we all know that teaching of deco trough tables or computer takes time but in a real world, we also know that a lot of instructors out there, do the minimum
As for gauge mode, I don't understand why it is only for "tech" diving

 

[boulderjohn]

Hi
Well we all know that teaching of deco trough tables or computer takes time but in a real world, we also know that a lot of instructors out there, do the minimum
As for gauge mode, I don't understand why it is only for "tech" diving

The contention was that dive agencies created the computer versions of classes solely to save time. The computer version they created takes more time, so that contradicts that contention. Whether or not an individual instructor may or may not not do what is supposed to be done is not relevant to the intent of the curriculum. If an instructor decides to hand out certifications without having students do anything, that is certainly not the intent of the agency. The fact is that only a very, very tiny percentage of recreational divers use tables. In all my years of diving, I have never seen it done a single time. Almost all divers use computers. Doesn't it make sense to teach people to use the tools they will actually use rather than the tools they will not use?

As for gauge mode, why would you buy a computer and use it in gauge mode during a recreational dive? That would make it the same as a watch and a depth gauge. I sure never did it when I was only doing recreational dives, and I can't think of a reason anyone would. When I started technical training and had to follow a preconceived dive plan, I could not use a computer for that purpose. I bought a bottom timer, a simple, clumsy computer that essentially told me depth and time. Other students in the class, who owned computers that could be put into gauge mode, did not have to buy a bottom timer. They put their computers into gauge mode, saving themselves that much money. Thus, a computer that can be put into gauge mode has benefit for technical diving, but really only to save the purchase price of a bottom timer. Perhaps you can explain why a recreational diver enjoying basic reef dives would need gauge mode.

 

[cascas]

Also, as of July 31st, 2014 (according to the shop where I'm going for OW cert), PADI now also no longer requires teaching tables and you can get PADI OW certification just using a computer.

Which IMHO is not the best idea they ever had. Learning to use tables is not the same as understanding their purpose. The mechanics of on gassing and off gassing is something that is important to understand to prevent getting bent. Learning how to use a computer doesn't teach you that.

In the padi curriculum where only tables were used the knowledge on dcs is already minimalistic, my fear is that it will not get better.
I'll probably never know for sure because I cancelled my padi membership last year.

 

[jale]

Hi
As Cascas said, it is not about learning how to use a tool but about understanding deco principles.
Unfortunately, being an instructor is not a guaranty of that fact and if you think that there is a "tiny percentage" of instructors out there who are really following the "intent curriculum" of the agencies, good for you but I don't buy it
As the usage of a gauge, it always amazes me to see that you have to "become" a "tech" diver, in order to plan your dives
If you just do planing at rec level, what is the point of having a computer?
Furthermore, as, you say, does a rec diver enjoying reef diving really needs a computer to know his/her ndl at 18 meters? And even going deeper, don't you know there are a lot of techniques to do multilevel dives without a computer?
But yes of course, a computer would give you a few extra minutes of ndl because it will consider the exact depth at every second but then what is the point when after becoming a "tech" diver you learn that you can "play" with deco software and get completely different run times for the same dive just by playing with settings.
Computer diving is just a commercial approach to diving. I don't say it is bad (it maybe puts more people in the water and most divers don't care and don't want to care about deco principles) but lets call a cat a cat.
Jale

The contention was that dive agencies created the computer versions of classes solely to save time. The computer version they created takes more time, so that contradicts that contention. Whether or not an individual instructor may or may not not do what is supposed to be done is not relevant to the intent of the curriculum. If an instructor decides to hand out certifications without having students do anything, that is certainly not the intent of the agency. The fact is that only a very, very tiny percentage of recreational divers use tables. In all my years of diving, I have never seen it done a single time. Almost all divers use computers. Doesn't it make sense to teach people to use the tools they will actually use rather than the tools they will not use?

As for gauge mode, why would you buy a computer and use it in gauge mode during a recreational dive? That would make it the same as a watch and a depth gauge. I sure never did it when I was only doing recreational dives, and I can't think of a reason anyone would. When I started technical training and had to follow a preconceived dive plan, I could not use a computer for that purpose. I bought a bottom timer, a simple, clumsy computer that essentially told me depth and time. Other students in the class, who owned computers that could be put into gauge mode, did not have to buy a bottom timer. They put their computers into gauge mode, saving themselves that much money. Thus, a computer that can be put into gauge mode has benefit for technical diving, but really only to save the purchase price of a bottom timer. Perhaps you can explain why a recreational diver enjoying basic reef dives would need gauge mode.