Oms Iq Harness?
- Thread starter zmanzimp
- 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're missing the point, mempilot. You can be 0% DIR and still contribute to this forum if, given your best effort, you try and supply a DIR answer -- *that's* what this section of the board is about, DIR answers, not DIR people.
Yhea, there's plenty of solutions to a problem, but this part of the board is about DIR solutions, period. The rest of the board is for all solutions.
zmanzimp, do you want opinions on the IQ harness in general, or do you want a DIR opinion of the IQ harness? If the former, I'll move this note to the Buoyancy Compensator note, if not, I'll give you the DIR opinion on this BC.
Roak
Yhea, there's plenty of solutions to a problem, but this part of the board is about DIR solutions, period. The rest of the board is for all solutions.
zmanzimp, do you want opinions on the IQ harness in general, or do you want a DIR opinion of the IQ harness? If the former, I'll move this note to the Buoyancy Compensator note, if not, I'll give you the DIR opinion on this BC.
Roak
roakey:
I want to eventually get into tech diving and dont want to have to buy all new gear to be able to do it....is this a BC im going to be able use for tech stuff? is it better to have a bc with a little padding on it for comfort, or do the plain backplate/harness combos work better? is a tech bc gonna make my rec dives suck?
Apparently this BC is not "DIR" since so many people are having a fuss. what makes a bc true "DIR". does a bc have to be Halcyon to be "DIR" since the guy who wrote the DIR manual the owner of Halcyon? basically...DIR opinion please...
A 100# bungee wing is NOT DIR. Mainly because you dont need that much lift, and secondly you dont need bungess on a wing. For doubles (plus deco bottles), a 45-65 # wing works well, and is all you need (non-bungee). For the Backplate, a standard aluminum plate or ss is fine with a one-piece webbing harness with a five point dring system. The IQ Pac and the Transpac are not DIR for the reasons of the plastic quick release buckle (extra failure point).
Its been said many times, but just to refresh, you can be DIR without one stitch of Halcyon gear.
Also, like others have said, a BC that you would use with doubles, will NOT work with singles. SImple. You will get a taco effect. Get a single tank wing for singles, and then when you go to doubles, buy a doubles wing. Two different animals. No, you dont need the padding, but there are some pads out there to add to a BP if you really think you need it. I have never found the need. My BP feels fine.
Its been said many times, but just to refresh, you can be DIR without one stitch of Halcyon gear.
Also, like others have said, a BC that you would use with doubles, will NOT work with singles. SImple. You will get a taco effect. Get a single tank wing for singles, and then when you go to doubles, buy a doubles wing. Two different animals. No, you dont need the padding, but there are some pads out there to add to a BP if you really think you need it. I have never found the need. My BP feels fine.
reubencahn
Contributor
You might want to go to the www.gue.com or wkpp.org and look at the gear sections. I can't offer any comments on the OMS IQ but I can tell you that a plain bp/wing will not make your rec dives suck. I moved from a jacket to a bp/wing when I took DIR-F. I immediately noticed a positive change. I see no real downside to the bp/wing. I am happy I switched. I am now switching my wife and son over. However, I wear exposure protection even in 84 degree water. The 2" webbing might be uncomfortable walking with the gear on if you are not wearing anything on your upper body. I can't say because I haven't done it.zmanzimp:
The Fresh Prince
Contributor
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 1
Read the forum notes. This is the DIR forum. IMO, and per moderators discussion, for people to find out more about DIR, philosphy, configurations, etc. Not to post whatever pops up into you mind. There are other appropriate forums for that. In that light, I posited my opinion. Not a bash, but a reminder of which forum we were in. If you took it as a bash, too bad. If there is a question on appropriate DIR gear or configuration, a DIR answer from an appropriate DIR instructor or spokesperson would then be in order. Not everyone jumping in with there .02. Oh, by the way, my growing up days are past, now I am just growing out. No insults.mempilot:
VTernovski
Contributor
zmanzimp:
See my other thread at http://www.scubaboard.com/t39819.html
Basically, OMS is not DIR, even though they kinda claim to be with their DIR-alike setup... I'll explain why... The IQ pack is definitely not DIR, so stay away form that.. now.. their simplest BP and harness is almost DIR, but here is a major problem that drives me nuts, and I ended up changing everything - it's their crotch strap - it's not soft (unlike Halcyon's) and the belt loop is way too tight - here what it means - you can;t slide through a buckle through it, which means you will have a buckle on a wrong side (or pointing the wrong way) which is pain in the *** if you wear a dive light canister... at this point the canister becomes non-ditch able which is not good, not to mention is not convenient. I ended up getting a Halcyon crotch strap instead... which is a shame, since I have been the support for OMS for the longest time (even have their logo decal on my car) and I liked the people running the company.. I am planning to write them a letter explaining and suggestion certain modifications to their. It's nice to see some alternative an overprized Halcyon products... and it would be better if we can actually use their stuff and be happy.
jjsteffen,jjsteffen:
For the record, a clarification has been made to the "Welcome to the DIR forum" note due to a problem pointed out by mempilot.
Point #6 has been reworded in the last 12 hours to allow everyone to post here, as it should be, but only DIR solutions should be offered here.
non-BCs shouldn't be discuused the BC forum and non-DIR solutions should not be discused in the DIR forum. Same rules as everwhere else.
Roak
The Fresh Prince
Contributor
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 1
Thanks for the notice. I agree with the point of posting questions to seek answers. What I was taking issues with was answers that were not DIR or not from a DIR person. I hold many cards, only one of which is GUE. I am by no means an expert in any area on this board and don't hold myself out to be. If I know an answer, I will post it. I, like many others, seek to learn more through this board. This includes DIR answers, which is why I read many of the posts. When in this forum, I expect DIR answers. If I want to read about Wankers monkey, I go to that forum. Apparantly, an expert took umbrage to my reminder that this was the DIR forum and the thread was seeking their opinion, not the expertise of an ant-DIR poster. Joeroakey:
MHK
Guest
Let me see if I can add some comments and perspective in the spirit of keeping this, a DIR forum, on a friendly track..
Many of us that post to this section often, you must understand, do so for a wide variety of reasons, one of which is that many of us are all aware that the dive industry has many options available to it, and many gear manufacturers make gear that isn't necessarily the most efficient but appeals to the widest consumer base. That being said, many of our comments are in the form of, or predicated on the fact, that we accept from the get go, that we are looking for what is most efficient underwater, not what is most adaptable to a wide variety of options that we have rejected.
Take for example the piece of gear in question, the OMS, 100# bondage wing:
Many of us feel that there are way to many unnecessary D-rings;
Many of us feel that a 100# lift only makes sense if you have an unbalanced configuration that would require the need for 100#'s of lift. We'd rather balance our rig in lieu of buying inappropriate gear to solve a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place;
Many of us feel that the quick release snaps included in the OMS pose an unnecessary failure point;
Many of us feel that the size of a 100# wing creates too much additional drag;
Many of us feel that dual bladders create failure points where there need be none..
Many of us feel that using bands to restrict the abiliity to fully expand the BC is a horrific idea and has resulted in fatalities as a result. More importanly then anything else, we believe this particular aspect of the wing speaks to a design to a system that isn't well thought out whatsoever;
Many of us believe that the use of 2 inflator hoses, and the size of the inflator hoses, are unecessary..
In other words, we have our reasons, and they are consistent with the DIR system and we'd be happy to discuss any of them with you in great detail.
I suspect the point others were trying to make, is that on other "non-DIR" forums discussions often get side-tracked because many just want to argue. The moderators were kind enough to set up a forum that is predicated on the DIR system, accordingly our answers pre-suppose that the person asking the question is interested in our response from a DIR point of view, so when some of us see people giving non-DIR solutions or allowing for flexibilities inconsistent with DIR views, we think it's important to point out that one of the founding principles of DIR is consistency amongst the team members so we're less forgiving in this forum because people who ask questions here deserve to get answers consistent with DIR principles. Certainly we welcome other opinions and we'd be happy to discuss why we do what we do, but what we'd prefer this DIR section doesn't become is the free-for-all that usually accompanies DIR discussions in the General Forum.
In short, many of the General Forum are sick of DIR discussions and arguments while many DIR advocates are sick of wasting time on General forums arguing contrarian points of view against professional cyber debater's so we tend to keep to ourselves on here and would rather not see this section denegrate.. Think of this as a DIR playground where people here have already accepted the DIR system, or where people come to seek DIR solutions. You wouldn't walk into a Jewish temple and expect that they would be receptive to an argument about Jesus Christ, would you?? You wouldn't walk into an AA meeting and expect a receptive audience to offering that you could drink in moderation, would you?? The point being, that this forum is predicated on DIR, both in terms of solutions and in terms of idealogical philosphy.. We tend to get proactive when we see people who have no background in DIR offering solutions inconsistent with DIR principles because some may read it as a DIR solution, which it isn't.
If you have any questions please feel free to ask them here, or e-mail me at mhk@gue.com and we'll be happy to address them but please accept that I'm not interested in arguing or interested in trying to convince you of anything, we accept any way you choose to dive, we just believe that DIR is the most safest and most efficient, if you feel otherwise we wish you the best of luck in your diving endeavours.
Later
Michael Kane
Many of us that post to this section often, you must understand, do so for a wide variety of reasons, one of which is that many of us are all aware that the dive industry has many options available to it, and many gear manufacturers make gear that isn't necessarily the most efficient but appeals to the widest consumer base. That being said, many of our comments are in the form of, or predicated on the fact, that we accept from the get go, that we are looking for what is most efficient underwater, not what is most adaptable to a wide variety of options that we have rejected.
Take for example the piece of gear in question, the OMS, 100# bondage wing:
Many of us feel that there are way to many unnecessary D-rings;
Many of us feel that a 100# lift only makes sense if you have an unbalanced configuration that would require the need for 100#'s of lift. We'd rather balance our rig in lieu of buying inappropriate gear to solve a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place;
Many of us feel that the quick release snaps included in the OMS pose an unnecessary failure point;
Many of us feel that the size of a 100# wing creates too much additional drag;
Many of us feel that dual bladders create failure points where there need be none..
Many of us feel that using bands to restrict the abiliity to fully expand the BC is a horrific idea and has resulted in fatalities as a result. More importanly then anything else, we believe this particular aspect of the wing speaks to a design to a system that isn't well thought out whatsoever;
Many of us believe that the use of 2 inflator hoses, and the size of the inflator hoses, are unecessary..
In other words, we have our reasons, and they are consistent with the DIR system and we'd be happy to discuss any of them with you in great detail.
I suspect the point others were trying to make, is that on other "non-DIR" forums discussions often get side-tracked because many just want to argue. The moderators were kind enough to set up a forum that is predicated on the DIR system, accordingly our answers pre-suppose that the person asking the question is interested in our response from a DIR point of view, so when some of us see people giving non-DIR solutions or allowing for flexibilities inconsistent with DIR views, we think it's important to point out that one of the founding principles of DIR is consistency amongst the team members so we're less forgiving in this forum because people who ask questions here deserve to get answers consistent with DIR principles. Certainly we welcome other opinions and we'd be happy to discuss why we do what we do, but what we'd prefer this DIR section doesn't become is the free-for-all that usually accompanies DIR discussions in the General Forum.
In short, many of the General Forum are sick of DIR discussions and arguments while many DIR advocates are sick of wasting time on General forums arguing contrarian points of view against professional cyber debater's so we tend to keep to ourselves on here and would rather not see this section denegrate.. Think of this as a DIR playground where people here have already accepted the DIR system, or where people come to seek DIR solutions. You wouldn't walk into a Jewish temple and expect that they would be receptive to an argument about Jesus Christ, would you?? You wouldn't walk into an AA meeting and expect a receptive audience to offering that you could drink in moderation, would you?? The point being, that this forum is predicated on DIR, both in terms of solutions and in terms of idealogical philosphy.. We tend to get proactive when we see people who have no background in DIR offering solutions inconsistent with DIR principles because some may read it as a DIR solution, which it isn't.
If you have any questions please feel free to ask them here, or e-mail me at mhk@gue.com and we'll be happy to address them but please accept that I'm not interested in arguing or interested in trying to convince you of anything, we accept any way you choose to dive, we just believe that DIR is the most safest and most efficient, if you feel otherwise we wish you the best of luck in your diving endeavours.
Later
Michael Kane
Similar threads
