New UTD rig, thoughts?
- Thread starter ucfdiver
- 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
Ragnar
Contributor
Thanks for playing along.
liuk3
Contributor
Ragnar
Contributor
I know, and I think that's a good thing, but it will take a long time for DIR to not be used in regard to them......if ever. It's like all the other stuff we use, Scotch tape, Xerox copies or Renolds wrap, we call those things by brand name even if we could care less if the copy was made on a Canon, and that has been going on for decades seemingly with no change.
What exactly are they calling it then? Because unless they can get some other catchy name to stick DIR will always be synonymous with Halcyon and GUE as will the idea that Halcyon makes all the best gear for that diving. Probably that is what they actually want consumers to believe anyway.
I think it's pretty cool that Andrew Georgitsis attempts to apply solid diving philosophy to new equipment innovation. If we stop at the current DIR philosophy our capabilities will remain what they are today. Without advances in technology, education, and even philosophy we succumb to a parochial and limiting mindset. Scuba diving has suffered from poorly skilled divers implementing inappropriate changes and education for several decades. When quality divers such as AG pioneer new things, the sport of scuba diving gets to enjoy the same hope for advancement as top end competitors bring to other sports such as snowboarding and skiing. Whether a design works well or fails to work, we at least keep moving the sport forward rather than just sitting frozen in time or regressing.
OP
ucfdiver
Contributor
Change for the sake of change (or financial gain) isn't progression-- it's stalling, actually.
cfenton
Contributor
I agree that Andrew's innovation spirit is good for diving in general. But, I don't really see this product as overly innovative, and I strongly suspect it won't find any traction in the market. Time will tell.
I think if UTD keeps or accelerates this pace of change it won't be long before the 'DIR' sub-forum loses all value.
One thing is indisputable: change for the sake of financial gain is one of the cornerstones of Western Society. A LOT of good products have been developed In pursuit of the almighty dollar.
I think if UTD keeps or accelerates this pace of change it won't be long before the 'DIR' sub-forum loses all value.
One thing is indisputable: change for the sake of financial gain is one of the cornerstones of Western Society. A LOT of good products have been developed In pursuit of the almighty dollar.
I'm with you, Trace -- I think it's interesting to try new things, and as I said, the inflator from the rear dump setup I dove with the Nomad worked well. I have some reservations about this design, because of the lack of a site to vent when vertical, but I'll hold judgment until or unless I actually get to see the wing in action.
However, it does not fit with the idea of maintaining a standardized equipment configuration that is scaleable. On the one hand, you have the whole Z-system -- introducing unnecessary complexity into a simple sidemount setup in the name of maintaining the long hose/bungied backup that we're all used to, and on the other hand, you have a wing which is quite dissimilar to what we are all used to using. I don't think you can really have it both ways. I think I've just decided that UTD no longer prioritizes "begin as you mean to go on", and a standard setup -- which is entirely their choice as an agency.
However, it does not fit with the idea of maintaining a standardized equipment configuration that is scaleable. On the one hand, you have the whole Z-system -- introducing unnecessary complexity into a simple sidemount setup in the name of maintaining the long hose/bungied backup that we're all used to, and on the other hand, you have a wing which is quite dissimilar to what we are all used to using. I don't think you can really have it both ways. I think I've just decided that UTD no longer prioritizes "begin as you mean to go on", and a standard setup -- which is entirely their choice as an agency.
lamont
Contributor
10 years down the road most of this will be as useful as cuff dumps.
Wait, maybe not...Similar threads
