Scubagaskets getting into the Reg business

[buddhasummer]

I assume you are speaking of the MTX line for the barrel stabilization? I have a dozen or so TX50s and never had issues with those tabs bending or breaking free even with some being 20ish years old.

The MTX seems to be a cheap pile of crap in comparison.

And both XTX models.

 

[rsingler]

Why pay euro 300-400, I can buy these generic "store brand" regs for E 200 in many dive shops in Asia.

Because you may not receive the numerous changes to the HotDive reg that Scubagaskets insisted on before they released their reg. They've been working this for years with that firm.
Because good luck ordering individual replacement parts and getting a reliable supply of service kits. Piston knife edge nick from tank particulates? "Sorry, we don't sell individual parts." (Maybe I'm wrong here.)
Because Scubagaskets has a quality control process that you may not consistently see with the factory reg. CNC milled perfect pieces is one thing. Fit and finish, torque and consistency is entirely another.
Because, warranty.

Because if you wanted to service this reg from the original Hot Dive manual without lots of experience, good luck.

The model numbers are also way too confusing. Surely they can find someone with a bit of marketing sense about them?

Yeah, marketing in American English is "different". I wish I spoke as many languages as the owner of Scubagaskets. Jes' sayin'...

 

[stiebs]

Yeah, marketing in American English is "different". I wish I spoke as many languages as the owner of Scubagaskets. Jes' sayin'...

I'm not talking about "American English" - I'm Australian. I don't care for that monstrosity of a language you American's call English
I'm just saying that it'd be good if SG could name their regs with a little more consistency or purpose than the mismatched jumble of letters than they currently are

On the same webpage, they refer to the SGS2T2 as both a first stage and second stage, and they also refer to the first stage as the SGT2

And then there's the STG3 first and second stages.

I initially thought the "SG" prefix was Scuba Gaskets. But that doesn't hold for the STG3.

For a consumer, that is waaaaay too confusing. The fact that I had to tab back and forth to get the letters right reaffirms the thoughtlessness of their product naming.

Don't get me wrong - I've used SG to buy service kits, and I may very well buy the STG3 when it is released to the public. But if the SG owner is going to through all the time and effort to iterate the reg designs, and get your input for service manuals, surely he can invest a little time in devising a reasonable product name/number scheme?

Edit: Sorry, the webpage refers to it both as STG3 and SGT3. So maybe its more about webpage editing than product naming. Either way, consistency would be good

 

[lowwall]

The model numbers are also way too confusing. Surely they can find someone with a bit of marketing sense about them?

I was e-mailing scubagaskets about another matter, but in the e-mail, I mentioned the model name error on the site and then *got kind of carried away and followed up with:

"Which brings me to a suggestion. Your model names are needlessly confusing. Apparently confusing enough that your own copywriters can't keep them straight.

Now is the time to set up a more meaningful naming system that would also easily accommodate future models.

You could stay with the same general scheme, but use something like SGP1 for the piston first stage and then SGP2, SGP3 etc for subsequent piston models. Even clearer would be to add a hyphen and make it SG-P1.Your upcoming diaphragm first could be SG-D1, followed by SG-D2 and so on.

If you want to indicate they are made of stainless steel (which I think is why you are using the S) then SG-SP1 and SG-SD1. This is probably not necessary, but would let you differentiate between the same design built with different materials if you are thinking about adding brass or titanium versions in the future.

Second stages should have their own designation rather than reflecting whatever first stage they happen to be packaged with. SG-S1 would be the obvious code for the first model. Or SG-A1 to indicate Adjustable if you wanted to reserve the S for Stainless. You could even stick with T for Thermoplastic, but what happens if you ever decide to introduce a second with a metal body?

I do like your combining the stage names to indicate what's in a reg set which would become SG-P1A1 and SG-D1A1 for your current and upcoming models."

A Mr. Nicolaou quickly replied with the following:

THANK you very much for pointing out that typo mistake. I already fixed myself just now. ...

The model name story, is a bit more complicated than what it seems to your eyes. We have to follow the same product name as the EN250/2014 and the CE certificate declared for legal reasons. If we want to change the name of any of the models SGS2 SGT2 SGS3 SGT3 to something else then we have to file another validation application for EN250 and CE certificate which has a significant cost. Thank you again for your suggestions and feedback we will keep in mind your remarks and comments for future use.

Anyway, the current naming scheme is not too bad. The initial SG obviously stands for ScubaGaskets and can thus be ignored. Then think of it as S for Stainless and T for Thermoplastic and you'll know which is a first and which is a second stage.

I'm going to e-mail him again about the SGT3 naming for both the first and second stage. I think that's another typo.

 

[BoltSnap]

future EX friend Burhan

You read the future? Is this in the near or distant future?

 

[happy-diver]

Very very imperceivably distant

 

[buddhasummer]

You read the future? Is this in the near or distant future?

Guess it depends on what you say next

 

[BoltSnap]

Very very imperceivably distant

You know that I have been VERY angry with you the last few months?? Did you notice it?

 

[happy-diver]

No I didn't notice it, I could feel it!

This is me most Sundays 12.00-2.00

I see a bright future full of prosperity and friendship for all, so carry sunglasses a big sack and lots of beer


and only as many parts purchasers for buddhasummer as he is comfortable with

 

[stiebs]

The model name story, is a bit more complicated than what it seems to your eyes. We have to follow the same product name as the EN250/2014 and the CE certificate declared for legal reasons. If we want to change the name of any of the models SGS2 SGT2 SGS3 SGT3 to something else then we have to file another validation application for EN250 and CE certificate which has a significant cost. Thank you again for your suggestions and feedback we will keep in mind your remarks and comments for future use.

Anyway, the current naming scheme is not too bad. The initial SG obviously stands for ScubaGaskets and can thus be ignored. Then think of it as S for Stainless and T for Thermoplastic and you'll know which is a first and which is a second stage.

I'm going to e-mail him again about the SGT3 naming for both the first and second stage. I think that's another typo.

Thanks @lowwall - makes a bit more sense. So the actual naming is somewhat consistent, but it's the website copy that's either unclear, incorrect, or both.

The piston set is listed as "SGS2T2", but the diaphragm set is listed as "SGT3". It should be "SGS3T3".

SGS2 - piston 1st stage (or SGS2-D or SGS2-Y for din/yoke)
SGS3 - diaphragm 1st stage
SGT2 - second stage
SGT3 - a different second stage
(with nothing on the website on the SGT2 vs SGT3)

So a "set" could be any combination of SGSxTx (or arguably SGSxTxTx-{D|Y] )