Not servicing my gear EVER!

[redacted]

He didn't say that. He said that the risk is death, not that the probable outcome of a reg malfunction is death.

Not to split hairs, but I'd certainly agree that a risk of a reg malfunction is death because death would be within the realm of possiblity, especially if you were doing something else wrong.

And would really suck if it happened, which is why it's worth mentioning.

The risk is death when you enter a roadway too; but I don't think that is the way he meant his statement.

The risk of death from not servicing your regulators is similar to the risk of death from having your regulators serviced - they both enjoy lots of leading zeros.

 

[Ron Parker]

Can you dial 9 -1-1 at depth and report your emergency? Go figure. And I do not want to be your dive buddy either.

 

[redacted]

And I do not want to be your dive buddy either.

Well, I guess I may have to change my attitude.

 

[Emparo821]

this just seems like a pointless question, its the same answer as anything else. you don't not HAVE to get it serviced, but if you don't the risk of it not working goes up. so you have answer for yourself is your life worth the risk of the servicing cost when your 30, 60, 90, or even 120ft below the surface of the water. its just like your car, is it worth the risk of replacing your tires or do you run them till you have no traction and are at risk of a blow-out at 60+ miles per hour.

 

[redacted]

this just seems like a pointless question, its the same answer as anything else. you don't not HAVE to get it serviced, but if you don't the risk of it not working goes up. so you have answer for yourself is your life worth the risk of the servicing cost when your 30, 60, 90, or even 120ft below the surface of the water. its just like your car, is it worth the risk of replacing your tires or do you run them till you have no traction and are at risk of a blow-out at 60+ miles per hour.

Well, that does bring up a very good question: What does the failure rate curve for a regulator look like? I suspect it is close to the classic bathtub curve. That is, it starts out relatively high after a service (may not be as bad new) and then drops sharply to a very low and steady failure rate. Then, at some point in time it starts to increase and, I suspect, not very steeply. So the challenge becomes trading off the initial high failure rate for the increasing failure rate later in the cycle.

My small experience with fairly well cared for regulators, is that the point where the failure rate starts to again increase is 3 to 5 years out (less with heavy usage) and the nature of the failures that occur are rather mild.

It is not just like your car tires which have a more well defined life expectancy, but that example will do. Would you replace your tires after 1 year or 15,000 miles if there is no indication of excessive wear or other problems????

 

[Mr Carcharodon]

My small experience with fairly well cared for regulators, is that the point where the failure rate starts to again increase is 3 to 5 years out (less with heavy usage) and the nature of the failures that occur are rather mild.

This is similar to my experience as well. Extended service has usually meant slightly decreased performance. The fear mongers will suggest that your regulator will somehow conspire to have a sudden catastrophic failure at 130 fsw even though there is nothing to substantiate that there is any increased risk at all. I have more than once just serviced a second stage, and let the first stage be since that is what seems to restore performance. Why fix something that is not broken? I certainly would not recommend the risky option of giving your regulator to an anonymous technician. That would really be asking for trouble.

 

[h90]

As long as you don t take them diving, the risk is zero

And if going diving the the risk of drown.
So not much to discuss.

 

[Downing]

The risk is death when you enter a roadway too; but I don't think that is the way he meant his statement.

The risk of death from not servicing your regulators is similar to the risk of death from having your regulators serviced - they both enjoy lots of leading zeros.

Hmm. It's pointless to argue about what someone else meant, so let me just say that I don't understand his statement to be what you understand his statement to be.

Otherwise, we're in complete agreement. The risk of death is small should you suffer a reg malfunction, assuming you're not otherwise doing something wrong.

 

[100days-a-year]

Buy good stuff to start with don't have it serviced unless it breathes bad.After 10 yrs on 1 service my MK2G250 Scubapro will be on ebay,it has a couple thousand dives on it.The money I did not pay to some 8$ an hour "tech" will pay for the new reg.

Did I mention the time I sent one out and it came apart the first time I used it,thankfully on the boat not u/w.

Caveat:I can take my stuff apart,replace any bad orings and christolube and reassemble it myself in 30 minutes.

 

[scubafanatic]

Only if you are also doing something else wrong. Or do you really figure that death is a probable outcome of a regulator malfunction?

...given the average skill set/experience level of the average diver, there's a reasonable chance the average diver IS doing something else 'wrong', so yeah, I think a substantial reg failure would stand a good chance of resulting in a serious injury/fatality.