Opinions on BP& Wing (Looking to Upgrade)

[cool_hardware52]

Not to be at all argumentative--

Wing size does depend on a lot of things, but there's one thing that can be said universally: a 32 pound wing can be deflated to have zero lift, but a 20 pound wing can never be inflated to have 32 pounds of lift.

To me it's better to simplify problems when possible. Wing size should be chosen for as much lift you're liable to need. If the OP is wearing a stainless steel backplate, and if there's any chance of someday wearing a steel tank with a thin wetsuit in rolling seas, he'd do well to check that he's got a nice layer of fat to help out with lift before going for a small wing. There is no buyer's remorse worse than what you feel when you can't keep your head out of the water.

1) Personal buoyancy impacts weighting, but does not change with depth, and therefore does not require compensation.

2) Comfort at the surface is a function of proper weighting, not a huge wing.

3) The proper solution to being overweighted is never a bigger wing. If your choice in gear, i.e. plate type, cylinder type etc. provides more ballast than the exposure suit requires *change* something. Being overweight is never a good idea, and can be dangerous.

4) Oversizing a wing is not without downsides in terms of performance.

Tobin

 

[victorzamora]

My mind is truly blown. that is great to know!!

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk

 

[halocline]

Wing size should be chosen for as much lift you're liable to need.

Yes, that's true, but many people over-estimate the amount of lift they need. You only need lift for two things; 1) compensating for the combined weight of the gas you carry and the loss of buoyancy of the suit, and 2) floating your rig without you in it. Whichever of those numbers is larger is the required lift. This is assuming you're not diving overweighted, which is a different problem.

I've never once heard anyone complain about having a wing that's too small, but I've heard lots of complaints about having too big a wing.

---------- Post added September 27th, 2013 at 10:43 AM ----------

Why would you " upgrade " when you already have the best?

Yay! Beav to the rescue!

 

[kotik]

1) Personal buoyancy impacts weighting, but does not change with depth, and therefore does not require compensation.

Nowhere did I say that personal buoyancy changes with depth. What I said is that a positively buoyant person can float on the surface with a smaller wing than a negatively buoyant person would need.

2) Comfort at the surface is a function of proper weighting, not a huge wing.

I do not consider a 32lb wing to be "huge". I consider a 20lb wing to be small.

3) The proper solution to being overweighted is never a bigger wing. If your choice in gear, i.e. plate type, cylinder type etc. provides more ballast than the exposure suit requires *change* something. Being overweight is never a good idea, and can be dangerous.

I'm not following. The situation I described is wearing my 25lb wing with a steel tank, with an aluminum backplate and no weight belt at all. It barely has enough lift when I'm on the surface, and a 20lb wing wouldn't cut it. What exactly am I supposed to do here, sell the steel tank and dive an aluminum because all gear configuration choices should be made toward the goal of buying a wing with 20lb of lift?

Other diving I do involves wearing two steel cylinders, multiple aluminum cylinders, several lights, multiple reels and other junk. What's the something I'm supposed to change there? The only answer that occurs to me is that no one should be doing that kind of diving, since there's no exposure suit that's going to allow you to wear a 20lb wing with all of that on.

4) Oversizing a wing is not without downsides in terms of performance.

I agree with that, but I think the downside of oversizing a wing just a little bit is much more minor than the downside of undersizing just a little bit.

I've never once heard anyone complain about having a wing that's too small

Not true if you read my next post. I edge just a little into complaint territory. I can live with the 25lb wing, but if I were to get another singles wing I'd get one with a little more lift. If I'd had an 18 or 20lb wing, the complaints would be much, much louder.

Yay! Beav to the rescue!

Yeah...
"Buy Scubapro gadget X! Because it's the best!!"
"Why is it the best?"
"Because it's the best!"

 

[cool_hardware52]

Nowhere did I say that personal buoyancy changes with depth. What I said is that a positively buoyant person can float on the surface with a smaller wing than a negatively buoyant person would need.

Good grief, where to begin. The gross volume of mis information here is probably more than I have time to dispel today .

I'll start with just your first "nugget" quoted above.

A large wing implies a buoyant suit. You seem to think everyone should have at least 30 lbs "just in case" OK fine I'll play along.

Any single tank diver using an exposure suit buoyant enough to need a 30 lbs wing should be able to remain at the surface with **little to no** gas in their wing even when their tank is full.

This is true regardless of their personal buoyancy. If they are "naturally" negative they will need less ballast to achieve this. If they are "naturally positive" they will need more ballast.

One's inherent buoyancy impacts total ballast requirements, but does not impact required lift capacity. Buoyancy Compensators are used to compensate for things that change in buoyancy during the dive, and inherent buoyancy does not change, i.e. fat doesn't compress.........

Tobin

 

[kotik]

Good grief, where to begin. The gross volume of mis information here is probably more than I have time to dispel today .

I'll start with just your first "nugget" quoted above.

A large wing implies a buoyant suit. You seem to think everyone should have at least 30 lbs "just in case" OK fine I'll play along.

Any single tank diver using an exposure suit buoyant enough to need a 30 lbs wing should be able to remain at the surface with **little to no** gas in their wing even when their tank is full.

This is true regardless of their personal buoyancy. If they are "naturally" negative they will need less ballast to achieve this. If they are "naturally positive" they will need more ballast.

One's inherent buoyancy impacts total ballast requirements, but does not impact required lift capacity. Buoyancy Compensators are used to compensate for things that change in buoyancy during the dive, and inherent buoyancy does not change, i.e. fat doesn't compress.........

Tobin

Good grief, you talk a lot of poop about what a person has said without bothering to read what they actually said. If you care to know what you're talking about before you go off:

See post number 7. I encourage anyone to consider the case of the most negative rig they might dive, combined with the least positively buoyant exposure protection they might be wearing with that rig, before picking the tiniest wing possible. If there's any doubt that they'll have enough lift to keep the face above water on the surface, I advise to check it out before buying. Why would you be so determined that people shouldn't consider this and check for themselves?

If a large wing implies a buoyant suit to you, then again it's because you haven't bothered to read what I said, you just decided to go on a rant about whatever the last argument is you fixated on. So, the reason I say a 20lb wing is inadequate is for those occasions when I dive with no suit, at all. For my own needs, I want one wing with enough lift for all situations. I'll be just fine with a wing that's a little oversized for some configurations. I don't feel like buying a few wings from you so I can always pick the one with just enough lift. I'm not buying various configurations of the rest of my gear just to be able to use your 20lb wing.

You telling me that my suit, which is my skin in this case, should allow me to float with no air in the wing, makes no sense to me. Probably I just don't know what I'm doing or I'm just imagining that sinking situation, but in my case I'd say that one thing I'm using my BC for is to compensate for the fact that my ass would sink and drown if I had no air in the wing.

 

[cool_hardware52]

You telling me that my suit, which is my skin in this case, should allow me to float with no air in the wing, makes no sense to me. Probably I just don't know what I'm doing or I'm just imagining that sinking situation, but in my case I'd say that one thing I'm using my BC for is to compensate for the fact that my ass would sink and drown if I had no air in the wing.

1) Do you consider negative steel tanks + a (slightly) negative aluminum plate a good choice when using no exposure suit?

2) What possible tank and aluminum plate left you 25 lbs negative?

Tobin

 

[kotik]

1) Do you consider negative steel tanks + a (slightly) negative aluminum plate a good choice when using no exposure suit?

2) What possible tank and aluminum plate left you 25 lbs negative?

Tobin

My body: say it's ~1lb negative
Aluminum backplate: ~2lb negative
Steel 120, full: ~9lb negative
The human head: I prefer every bit of this to be out of the water, which means it's not displacing any water, so the whole weight pushes down, ~10lb
The head being out of the water also means some of the tank is out of the water, and it happens to be the heavy end with the neck, valve, and regulator.

I'm not 25 lbs negative. I'm still a little bit positive in this situation, enough so that I could fully exhale and my mouth would still be just barely out of the water. It's not the most comfortable thing though. I would be able to swim this rig up to a boat ladder if the wing exploded somehow, or if it were in the lake here I'd have a couple of hours if I felt like crawling to shore along the bottom. A few more pounds of lift would make floating on the surface relaxing, rather than something that takes a little bit of work. A few less pounds of lift would make it stressful. I see absolutely no point in that, there is just nothing about an ultra-small wing that I'm in love with, I have no compulsion to spoil my fun just to shave off every last bit of extra lift.

 

[NAM001]

youve used the 20 for some time so you know what it will do. as such you know that if tobin sized it for you then it is probably the right size. i use a 28-32 my self but got it for the use of a dry suit also.
your wing has to carry you and your equipent at its most neg point of the divew. full tank at 100 ft with a min of a 10# reserve at the surface. so i guess 10 for the tank and 10 for squeezed suit is about the min you can afford to have. Something not figured into things is can you pull your buddy up in the event of a wing fauilure in thier gear. you may be able to do it if you vent your and your buddies tanks to offload 10# opf air between you.


as for the hog issue, i would look and see what the techies are using. the mk25 and s600 is a dinamite reg. hogs on the otherhand are simpler reg and you can take them apart arepair and reassemble underwater. i use the mk25 and s600 myself.

To be honest, not Sur e which would be the better option 32# or 20#

---------- Post added September 9th, 2013 at 07:17 PM ----------

How do you think the Hog 2nd stage compares to Scuba pro S600? Big price difference.

 

[eelnoraa]

My body: say it's ~1lb negative
Aluminum backplate: ~2lb negative
Steel 120, full: ~9lb negative
The human head: I prefer every bit of this to be out of the water, which means it's not displacing any water, so the whole weight pushes down, ~10lb
The head being out of the water also means some of the tank is out of the water, and it happens to be the heavy end with the neck, valve, and regulator.

So no exposure suit???

If true, you are over weighted with your rig. If nothing else, add a set of regulator, say -2lb, you are -5lb with empty tank. Maybe time to try an AL80.

If properly weighed, you should be only be negative by the weight of the gas you are carrying at the beginning of the dive. HP120 carrys about 10lb of air/nitrox. So with a 25lb wing, there should be 15lb to use to flow your head above water.