Regulator bungie for recreational diver

[Nemrod]

Whatever.

After extensive interviews I found that 99.995% of fish could care less.

N

 

[ScoobaChef]

I'd like to share a minor mishap which happened the other day which put me firmly in favour of the long hose primary with bungee'd secondary. I was making an exit on a rocky shore, standing about mid thigh level in the water and just finished taking off my fins when a freak wave knocked me off my feet and slammed me into the rocks. The impact jarred my primary out of my mouth and without even thinking i ducked my chin down and grabbed my secondary with my mouth, put my fins back on and swam clear.

Now I know doing a reg recovery or grabbing for my octo would not have been a huge deal either but when dealing with life support systems, I kinda like the idea that a minor ish issue with a rec setup is practically a non issue with the long hose/necklace rig.

 

[SangP]

I think that the only good thing about an octopus necklace (bungie cord or pre-fabricated) on a short hose is that it's right by your mouth. That's it.

Everything else is academic. Good golly, we even had a discussion not on whether or not the cord is pre-fabricated or bungie, but how to tie the knot on the bungie.

That's like saying the only good thing about a jeep is the 4x4 dive lol. Diff lock, high/low range, free wheeling hubs etc are all academic.

Case in point of the whole being greater then the sum of it parts. The bungee octo is part of a dive system not an independent component.

You're confused. Even the example you give highlights my point.

"The probability of none failing is 25%." The balance of that is 75%. The probability of one of the two hypothetical regs failing has increased from 50% (with one reg) to 75% (with two regs).

So, mathematically speaking, you're wrong.

Adding failure points does not decrease the chance of a failure of a system. That's preposterous. The idea is to minimize the number of things that can break. Adding more things gives more opportunity for things to break,

Excluding some of the hypothesis on failure points etc. I think you are confusing failure points with redundancy. Adding redundancy does add failure points but without redundancies there 0% of recovery.

 

[ScoobaChef]

Excluding some of the hypothesis on failure points etc. I think you are confusing failure points with redundancy. Adding redundancy does add failure points but without redundancies there 0% of recovery.

To use the coin analogy again: if flipping all tails is a total system failure resulting in death, which is more probable?

single first stage = 1 coin
two first stages = 2 coins
two first stages + pony = 3 coins

 

[danvolker]

As Mark Twain said, "there are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics"....

This thread is getting ridiculous. You could dive for 30 years and NEVER have a reg failure. Most people that had one, had it for a very specific reason, and you can get these reasons, and avoid them.

If a recreational divers commits to dive with good gear, and a buddy...and to maintain buddy contact( peripheral awareness for both) -- the concept of a failure becomes only an annoyance.

 

[PfcAJ]

That's like saying the only good thing about a jeep is the 4x4 dive lol. Diff lock, high/low range, free wheeling hubs etc are all academic.

Case in point of the whole being greater then the sum of it parts. The bungee octo is part of a dive system not an independent component.



Excluding some of the hypothesis on failure points etc. I think you are confusing failure points with redundancy. Adding redundancy does add failure points but without redundancies there 0% of recovery.

There is nothing redundant about adding an extra fitting to your gear. I've got a decent handle on redundant systems in diving.

 

[idive2]

I'd like to share a minor mishap which happened the other day which put me firmly in favour of the long hose primary with bungee'd secondary. I was making an exit on a rocky shore, standing about mid thigh level in the water and just finished taking off my fins when a freak wave knocked me off my feet and slammed me into the rocks. The impact jarred my primary out of my mouth and without even thinking i ducked my chin down and grabbed my secondary with my mouth, put my fins back on and swam clear

In this case it was the bungied second stage that was available to you. This very same quick access to a second stage is exactly what some
divers are looking for by having a necklace on their octo or breathing reg only without the inconvenience of the long hose. Had this same event
happened to you with a standard hose configuration and an octo on a necklace it would have been in the exact location as the second stage you used.

 

[ScoobaChef]

In this case it was the bungied second stage that was available to you. This very same quick access to a second stage is exactly what some
divers are looking for by having a necklace on their octo or breathing reg only without the inconvenience of the long hose. Had this same event
happened to you with a standard hose configuration and an octo on a necklace it would have been in the exact location as the second stage you used.

Idive,

it's late and I'm half asleep, so I apologise if I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I was expressing my support for wearing whichever reg you are NOT going to donate in an OOA situation on a necklace. As far as hose length, I personally prefer long hose over standard but as long as a diver can comfortably share air in an emergency, i'm not gonna lose any sleep over the length of his hose.

 

[DaleC]

If a recreational divers commits to dive with good gear, and a buddy...and to maintain buddy contact( peripheral awareness for both) -- the concept of a failure becomes only an annoyance.

I would agree with this if it reflected recreational diving as it exists today. Although, I still reject the concept of someone else carrying my secondary air source. I simply refuse to cede this equipment to anothers care.

If I had asthma I'd carry my own inhaler
If I were allergic to peanut butter I'd carry my own epi pen.

On the bungiied octo theme. Another benefit to having your octo so convenient is that you may actually tend to breath it once in awhile, so you know how it performs. Much better than just pointing to or tapping the purge somewhere on your torso region to indicate you have a donatable reg that theoretically works. I've met few who go through the inconvenience of detaching the octo from the keeper to actually test the breathability themselves.

 

[Colliam7]

Reading this thread is like watching some TV contest show and awaiting the judges' decision. Oh, wait. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the judges have reached a conclusion.

This discussion has drifted

Ya think?

This thread is getting ridiculous.

So it would seem.

This thread is not what I expected. I'm a little shocked that a) it's so controversial and b) that there is so much mis understanding of the bungeed backup reg as part of a larger system.

Well stated, and I agree, I am also a bit surprised. But, I suspect that your point ‘b)’ has contributed to your point ‘a)’. Plus, there has been some really laughable misinformation provided.

By its self, its no more likely to fail. But now you have two (the elbow and the regular hose fitting), which doubles the (unlikely) chance of a failure.

It is statements like this that cause people with the future of civilization at heart, to despair.

I was wrong about the 'doubles the chances' thing (I think..

Yes, please do continue to THINK, you may just be onto something.

On a serious note:

I gotta agree with AJ too that swivels are bad.

I am curious about this comment. Why do you think they are bad? There were problems with Omni brand swivels in the past, but those have been corrected as far as I know. I also understand that there are ANECDOTAL reports that other brands of swivels have had ‘problems’. But, I am able to find no documentation of the incidence or severity, and no documentation of problems with the redesigned Omni brand swivels. I am not aware of ‘failures’ of current Omni-brand swivels. So, why are swivels ‘bad’? I am not trying to disagree, I am trying to understand the basis for the statement.

Do you know of many 90-elbow failures?

This is a logical question that was asked, and nothing appeared in the way of an answer. We post comments suggesting that 90 degree elbows are either problematic or better, but what is the basis? (Personally, I have not seen a report of a failure, but that is just me.)