Rookie curiosity here

[LowDrag]

You are tougher than me; summer there would still feel cold to me. My coldest adult diving was caves in Florida, in the springtime; probably not colder than 65 degrees.

Intro Dives are "try it" diving before training dives. They are typically pool and easy dive site diving that might count towards certification, depending on where and when you certify afterwards.

Some people are not sure if they will like diving, so they try the Intro Dive to see if they want to actually learn to dive. Just like everything, there are pro's and con's.

Sorry that one slipped past me. Now that you mention it I get what was being referred to. I have snorkeled/free dive (which ever term is preferred) here in Oregon, in Washington State, in Florida on the Gulf Coast and in several places in the Caribbean while on cruises with my wife. She and I did Snuba in St. Thomas in the USVI. We loved that so I kinda figure that counts as our Intro to Scuba. I know it is not the exactly the same but it sure gave my wife the idea that she would like to be certified for future cruises. She is not to big on the idea of cold water diving just yet. She thinks I am a bit on the crazy side for even considering it...LOL!!!

So, if I may be direct, why the big hub bub over which is better between the two styles of BC's and how does one go about figuring out what they want to dive with. I figure that I am a long time away from Cavern or even Intro to Cave so should I just go with a vest style BC? Just looking for opinions from veteran divers is all. Thanks.

 

[TSandM]

Rollin, are you planning to do much PNW diving? If you are, the backplate system has a lot of advantages.

One of the basic realities of diving where we do is weight. We have to wear a lot of insulation, and with that comes lead. What you DON'T want to do is add anything to your gear that requires MORE lead and doesn't help you keep warm. That means we rarely use any sort of aluminum tank (because they are positive when empty, which equals more lead) and we don't like BCs that are intrinsically positive (meaning more lead, just to sink them). Backplate systems are wonderful in this way, because they have no padding or foam, so there is nothing about them that requires to be sunk. The backplate is negative -- five or six pounds just for the stainless plate, and more if you add weight plates or a weighted STA. This is ballast you can take out of weight pouches or off your belt, and weight you add up between your shoulders, which helps you stay horizontal.

There is a reason why many experienced PNW divers use backplate systems -- it's because they work in our waters. Anything works pretty well in warm water, because you are dealing with minimal ballast. But in cold water, minimizing the total weight of your system helps a ton with entries and exits, and arranging your ballast so it doesn't put you in an obligatory foot-down position helps your buoyancy control, too.

 

[lv2dive]

Speaking further to Lynn's point...it's REALLY nice to not have to mess with any weights on a warm-water vacation, either. I have a small steel BP (about 5 lbs) and even without a can light, I don't need any additional weight with a 3 mil wetsuit or a skin. I see people about my size shoving 10-16 or more lbs in their integrated weight systems and am very grateful I don't have to manage against that.

 

[rongoodman]

I don't see any reason not to start out with a BP/W and avoid the vest BC entirely. They work for everything from warm water reef dives to doubles in caves or wrecks, are compact to pack for vacations, and get the weight where you need it to be.

 

[CaveMD]

I don't see any reason not to start out with a BP/W and avoid the vest BC entirely. They work for everything from warm water reef dives to doubles in caves or wrecks, are compact to pack for vacations, and get the weight where you need it to be.

It's what I did, and I'm happy I did.

I would go even further and say I see no reason not to start out sidemount from the beginning. I wish I had. it's easier, automatic redundancy, and if he has any hint of caving in his future he will be ahead of the game.

 

[PfcAJ]

Don't bother with ow sidemount. Learn to dive well, then learn to cave dive well, then consider specialized techniques.

SM is the style du jour right now, that's all, but a bp/w works very well for ow diving. Simple and streamlined, without unnecessary complexities.

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

...

So, if I may be direct, why the big hub bub over which is better between the two styles of BC's and how does one go about figuring out what they want to dive with. I figure that I am a long time away from Cavern or even Intro to Cave so should I just go with a vest style BC? Just looking for opinions from veteran divers is all. Thanks.

So, by now you should be getting a better appreciation for my first typing here....

By placing this question in the Cave Diving sub-forum of Technical Diving Specialties, you are pretty much guaranteed to not have a very wide range of opinions, IMHO.

I have been known to be direct. The big hub bub is mostly an internet construction. Double tanks is really the main reason BP/W's exist, IMHO; there are not many doubles divers not using BP/W. Cold water diving is the next biggest reason, but there are more than a few cold water divers not using BP/W.

Perhaps scuba marketing has expanded scuba's appeal beyond the primary constituency that is truly comfortable and competent in the water. Many new scuba enthusiasts are not able to properly control their body position underwater; BP/W controls it for them.

I am a member of the camp that puts most of the blame for new divers not being able to properly control their body position underwater on Dive Instructors, who perhaps come from outside the primary constituency Dive Instructors should come from; divers with a knack for teaching who are truly comfortable and competent in the water.

It may be; easier for an instructor who has limited knack for teaching to teach divers in gear that controls the body position, and by providing a bandwagon to jump on, cave divers get to have more BP/W manufacturers to chose from.

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

... but a bp/w works very well for ow diving. Simple and streamlined, without unnecessary complexities.

The simple seem to fall for the streamlined malarky. No data exists showing a well designed vest is less streamlined than even the most streamlined BP/W.

The work was done, years ago, by someone who occasionally drops by ScubaBoard and was published (if I remember correctly) in one of the IEEE "Oceans" volumes. Going from memory, the lowest drag was the FENZY and the highest drag was a WaterGil (ATPac) wing style, it was thought that the "flapping" of the deflated wing was what raised the drag. This project lead to the design of the ADVi, the progenitor of all the current BCDs and a very low drag design that has since been compromised by hanging on lots of doo-dads,

 

[Cave Diver]

The big hub bub is mostly an internet construction. Double tanks is really the main reason BP/W's exist, IMHO; there are not many doubles divers not using BP/W.

Considering the OP's original question, I'd say there is no big hub bub. Most "tech divers" I know are using double tanks, and as previously stated the reason for using a BPW is stability. You even said you would have used a BP/W under those circumstances.

If I had continued past Intro to Cave, I would have needed to dive double tanks, and would have used BP/W.

The rest of your posts just highlights your bias against BP/W and really have little bearing on the original question.

Why is it that a BP&W is better for tech diving than a jacket/vest style BC?

 

[Cave Diver]

The simple seem to fall for the streamlined malarky. No data exists showing a well designed vest is less streamlined than even the most streamlined BP/W.

Maybe some of us have a different definition of streamlined than you?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/streamlined

stream·lined (strmlnd)
adj.
1.
a. Designed or arranged to offer the least resistance to fluid flow.
b. Reduced to essentials; lacking anything extra.
c. Effectively organized or simplified:
2. Having flowing, graceful lines; sleek:
3. Improved in appearance or efficiency; modernized.