Please help me find a new "Non-Suunto" Air Integrated Dive Computer...

[buton]

It would be a good idea if Someone with a pressure chamber take over this myth something like mythbusters......

You might want to check out the comparison chart discussed in this article.
And you might want also to check out my article Fine Tuning a Decompression Algorithm

Alberto (aka eDiver)

Great reading.... So suunto does not seem to be a that bad at all after seeing the images article.

 

[Lorenzoid]

It looks like the widely demonized Suunto is NOT the most conservative computer in the group in your chart.

Maybe this is a rhetorical question, but why don't all computers just have a wide-range adjustment to make it as liberal or conservative as the diver wishes? Is it because you'd have divers reasoning, "Well, none of us got bent today, so let's crank it up more liberal tomorrow." And then tomorrow they say, "Well, none of us got bent today, so let's crank it up a little bit more tomorrow." And so forth, until one day someone in the group gets bent. So the reason why no computer has a wide-range liberal-conservative adjustment would be legal liability?

Another thing I've been curious about is, if it's assumed that there are few incidents of undeserved DCS in rec divers using computers having the most common algorithms (say, taking the OP's observations of his dive buddies doing just fine as a representative sample), then why would a manufacturer develop an even more conservative computer? Why would Suunto introduce their relatively conservative implementation of RGBM unless Suunto perceived some problem in the dive community--that is, too many people taking undeserved DCS hits using the then-available computers? Nobody introduces a product unless there is some perceived need that isn't being addressed by existing products. If the holy grail of dive computers is one that balances maximal bottom time with maximal safety, why would a manufacturer sacrifice bottom time unless there were a real need to improve safety? I suppose it's possible that Suunto's (or others, so as not to pick on Suunto) marketing strategy might be to hoodwink the consuming public into believing that Mr. Joe Statistical Average Diver had been taking one too many undeserved DCS hits when in fact that wasn't true. But how long could they expect to play that game before divers got wise (as the OP believes he has)? Thoughts?

 

[charlesml3]

Analog pressure gauges do not fail often. Computers do fail and that means that in an AI set-up you have no idea of your remaining air supply.

It's funny how often we hear this posted here on Scubaboard and how often I hear it whenever divers get together. It's always said as such a matter-of-fact and yet there has been no study that supports the conclusion. All we have is anecdotal evidence. I think a lot of people hear "computer" and their perception immediately turns to all of the PCs and laptops they've had over the years that have hung or rebooted constantly or just died without warning.

For my own anecdotal evidence, I've been diving since 1982 and in that time I've seen one dead computer and 3 dead "plain old pressure gauges." So given that evidence, the computer is MORE reliable.

And if you're going to reply with a "dead computer" story please don't bother with dead battery stories. That's a pre-dive check failure. Not a computer failure.

 

[fnfalman]

It's funny how often we hear this posted here on Scubaboard and how often I hear it whenever divers get together. It's always said as such a matter-of-fact and yet there has been no study that supports the conclusion. All we have is anecdotal evidence. I think a lot of people hear "computer" and their perception immediately turns to all of the PCs and laptops they've had over the years that have hung or rebooted constantly or just died without warning.

For my own anecdotal evidence, I've been diving since 1982 and in that time I've seen one dead computer and 3 dead "plain old pressure gauges." So given that evidence, the computer is MORE reliable.

And if you're going to reply with a "dead computer" story please don't bother with dead battery stories. That's a pre-dive check failure. Not a computer failure.

I have three air integrated computers. None of them are dead, nor are the transmitters dead. At least not if I were to make sure the batteries are changed per annum. On the other hand, I have one of them "dead reliable" brass & glass SPG from OMS that leaked at the first dive and is truly dead.

 

[charlesml3]

Exactly. All we have is anecdotes. I'm actually surprised I didn't have several snarly posts back to me along the lines of "You're an idiot. Everyone knows dive computers aren't reliable."

My experience with dive computers is actually very good. I've seen one that was flooded but that was because the dive shop replaced the battery and nicked the O-Ring. Is that really the computer's fault?

I think a lot of the hatred for dive computers comes from the DIR crowd who seems to believe that anyone that isn't doing it their way is Doing It Wrong. They won't even use computers. I'm not even sure why not.

-Charles

 

[fnfalman]

My experience with dive computers is actually very good. I've seen one that was flooded but that was because the dive shop replaced the battery and nicked the O-Ring. Is that really the computer's fault?

I think a lot of the hatred for dive computers comes from the DIR crowd who seems to believe that anyone that isn't doing it their way is Doing It Wrong. They won't even use computers. I'm not even sure why not.

-Charles

Plenty of them use computers. Otherwise joints like Liquivision, Shearwater, VR Technology, Hammerhead wouldn't be around.

Of course, there's always the too cool for school types that would try to out DIR the real DIR people.

 

[Bopper]

It looks like the widely demonized Suunto is NOT the most conservative computer in the group in your chart.

Actually it appears that when Dive 4 rolls around Suunto is at the bottom of the chart and - if I'm reading the chart correctly - the most conservative computer of the bunch.

Why would Suunto introduce their relatively conservative implementation of RGBM unless Suunto perceived some problem in the dive community--that is, too many people taking undeserved DCS hits using the then-available computers? Nobody introduces a product unless there is some perceived need that isn't being addressed by existing products. If the holy grail of dive computers is one that balances maximal bottom time with maximal safety, why would a manufacturer sacrifice bottom time unless there were a real need to improve safety? I suppose it's possible that Suunto's (or others, so as not to pick on Suunto) marketing strategy might be to hoodwink the consuming public into believing that Mr. Joe Statistical Average Diver had been taking one too many undeserved DCS hits when in fact that wasn't true. But how long could they expect to play that game before divers got wise (as the OP believes he has)? Thoughts?

I would guess 3 reasons:

1. To avoid lawsuits
2. To cater to divers who actually want conservative profiles
3. To avoid having their name attached to DCS-related dive injuries (doesn't prevent them from doing so but does swing the chances in their favor in relation to other dive companies)

 

[dmoore19]

Actually it appears that when Dive 4 rolls around Suunto is at the bottom of the chart and - if I'm reading the chart correctly - the most conservative computer of the bunch.



I would guess 3 reasons:

1. To avoid lawsuits
2. To cater to divers who actually want conservative profiles
3. To avoid having their name attached to DCS-related dive injuries (doesn't prevent them from doing so but does swing the chances in their favor in relation to other dive companies)

I don't recall seeing what brand dive computer was being used on any of the DCS incidents I have read about.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I would guess 3 reasons:

1. To avoid lawsuits
2. To cater to divers who actually want conservative profiles
3. To avoid having their name attached to DCS-related dive injuries (doesn't prevent them from doing so but does swing the chances in their favor in relation to other dive companies)

You're saying that Suunto would introduce a new product "to avoid lawsuits"? Was Suunto being sued on some dive computer they manufactured before the current generation?

If Suunto would introduce a new product "to cater to divers who actually want conservative profiles," what led Suunto to believe that a computer that's MORE conservative than the most conservative computer then on the market would be desirable? As I said, if essentially nobody was taking undeserved DCS hits using the most conservative computer then on the market (pre-Suunto, that is), then why would Suunto think there are divers who want a computer that's even more conservative? If almost nobody were getting injured in car accidents because of air bags, would a car manufacturer on its own initiative introduce a car with MORE air bags? This doesn't make sense to me.

As to number 3, are there any computer manufacturers who are suffering from "having their name attached to DCS-related dive injuries"? Which ones?

It just seems to me that I must be missing something in either Suunto's product history, Suunto's business objectives, or the real stats for DCS occurrences. If essentially no divers are taking undeserved DCS hits with the most common computers (well, that's what the OP seems to believe), then it seems like it would be a bad business decision for a dive computer manufacturer to say "hey, let's try to sell an even MORE conservative computer than our competitors!"

---------- Post Merged at 01:53 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 01:43 PM ----------

Somewhat related, I read somewhere that there's some evidence that RGBM might help reduce diver fatigue in instances that might not be characterized as DCS. But that doesn't explain why Suunto's implementation of RGBM would be more conservative than other computers' implementations of RGBM (and I believe there are a few).

 

[Bopper]

You're saying that Suunto would introduce a new product "to avoid lawsuits"? Was Suunto being sued on some dive computer they manufactured before the current generation?

Obviously every scuba company is concerned about lawsuits regardless if they are currently parties to lawsuits. If Suunto was ever dragged into court and their safety policies and attitudes were questioned, they'd be in an advantageous position of being able to say they have erred on the safest side of the "industry norm".

It just seems to me that I must be missing something in either Suunto's product history, Suunto's business objectives, or the real stats for DCS occurrences. If essentially no divers are taking undeserved DCS hits with the most common computers (well, that's what the OP seems to believe), then it seems like it would be a bad business decision for a dive computer manufacturer to say "hey, let's try to sell an even MORE conservative computer than our competitors!"

It's my experience that many of the divers I've encountered abroad actually rarely dive and most do not visit online sites such as ScubaBoard to get a deeper education about dive equipment (or subjects such as deserved vs undeserved hits, for that matter). For these divers, the idea of a "safer" dive computer is attractive, even at the expense of bottom time. Seems to me that Suunto has been happy to carve out a niche in the market the way Volvo has carved out their own niche, at the expense of getting a "boring" and "boxy" reputation for building cars.