Scubapro Mk25: To DIN or not to DIN?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Bigbella

Contributor
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
1,429
Location
San Francisco
# of dives
I'm a Fish!
E34B8870-EF2F-4703-9E0F-7CCA994AFD04.jpeg


Why is din the way to go? unless you’re tanks are 300 bar and even then the argument for din is spurious. With yoke you don’t have to worry about removing an insert which I’ve seen impossible to remove and some tanks with pillar valves are not din.

We were recently using 275 bar Nitrox fills; most yoke assemblies are generally rated to a maximum of 200 bar, or thereabouts, while a given regulator (such as the one paired with the yoke in the photo) may actually be rated to 300 bar, with the use of its DIN connection; and I’ve witnessed a high pressure yoke failures, on a couple of occasions, over the years — due, in one case, to metal fatigue, I was later told; another, to a fall, which would not likely have affected a similar DIN arrangement.

DIN is far more compact and far more secure . . .
 

Nemrod

Contributor
Messages
12,347
Reaction score
2,618
Location
Dixie/High Plains
Does anyone have hard data for well maintained regulators, DIN and yoke, for failure rates in use? I hear a lot of I have seen this and I have heard that and so have I seen this and heard that and in my 50 plus years as an active diver and owning both types, my anecdotal opinion based on my experience, I do not see any functional difference in either for rates of failure when used on tanks of appropriate pressure. But I do like the compact nature of a DIN first stage and if I were still cave diving or penetration diving, which I am not, I would certainly prefer a DIN regulator. I like DIN best but I do not dislike yoke, especially for open water diving and travel.

James
 

Bigbella

Contributor
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
1,429
Location
San Francisco
# of dives
I'm a Fish!
[M[y anecdotal opinion based on my experience, I do not see any functional difference in either for rates of failure when used on tanks of appropriate pressure.

That's just it, though -- yoke systems are frequently used well beyond their specifications; and it's far easier to damage or dislodge a yoke in a fall, than with a DIN set-up -- and they were, sadly, all-too common, while working on pitching boats, coupled with the usual contingent of seasick weekend warriors, up at five.

While I was diving off of Jupiter, FLA, pre-covidiocy, in 2019, the local charter was providing 275 bar nitrox fills, paired with standard valves. My yokes were all approved to about 200 bar; but it made me think twice about how truly out of sight, out of mind, they typically are, loose there, at the bottom of my boat bag.

While I know, intellectually, that gear can frequently withstand greater than rated pressures, it still gave me a bit of the willies, opening a valve or two, over that of a more secure DIN fitting . . .
 

Nemrod

Contributor
Messages
12,347
Reaction score
2,618
Location
Dixie/High Plains
I have noticed (an observation) an important difference between a DIN valve and a yoke valve when each is damaged. If a DIN valve is damaged the insert is often stuck or if the insert is not present the regulator cannot be installed, threaded in. With a slightly damaged yoke valve the damage may not be casually evident. In the case of DIN the diver is prevented from mounting up to a damaged valve, in the case of the yoke valve the regulator may mount and may even seal initially but may also leak or worse, extrude and O-ring at the worst possible time. Points to DIN!

James
 

Bigbella

Contributor
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
1,429
Location
San Francisco
# of dives
I'm a Fish!
Time spent threading DIN regs into 300 bar DIN valves is the most boring time spend on SCUBA :) For me at least ...

I honestly never gave it any thought . . .
 

Eric Sedletzky

Contributor
Messages
7,488
Reaction score
6,173
Location
California
# of dives
500 - 999
I never really cared if my tanks or regs were DIN or not.
I started out with a yolk reg, a MK 20 that I bought new. I collected many used tanks of various sizes and bought a few new ones too like E7 series 3442 steels. Eventually I caved into to DIN hype and bought a Hog reg setup because it was the new darling of scubaboard and all the rage. I used it with my 3442 120 and 100 which had the insert. The inserts were a bitch to remove too!
The Hog was OK, nothing earth shattering, but I couldn’t use it on any of my older 72’s with regular valves, and I got tired of having to put in and take out the inserts everytime I wanted to use my older Scubapro stuff on the 120 and 100. So I thought about the last time I had an O-ring blowout on one of my yolk valves or seen a friends O- ring blow out, or any O-ring blow out, and the answer was never. So I sold the Hog reg set because to me it was just meh, and went back to my yolk tanks and vintage yolk Scubapro stuff and lived happily ever after.
The end.
 

Bigbella

Contributor
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
1,429
Location
San Francisco
# of dives
I'm a Fish!
I never really cared if my tanks or regs were DIN or not.
I started out with a yolk reg, a MK 20 that I bought new. I collected many used tanks of various sizes and bought a few new ones too like E7 series 3442 steels. Eventually I caved into to DIN hype and bought a Hog reg setup because it was the new darling of scubaboard and all the rage. I used it with my 3442 120 and 100 which had the insert. The inserts were a bitch to remove too!

I too have had my share of older steel tanks -- 52s and 72s -- from decades ago, which still see some use; though, I am a bit unclear of just when "DIN hype" was to actually have occurred, since my Genesis 100s will have reached thirty years old, come 2022.

Thankfully, I never had any issues with conversions or those stubborn inserts, since Poseidon regulators, were, by default, DIN, sold along with a detachable yoke, whose sizable heft could brain someone -- maybe, even a Philistine . . .
 

Eric Sedletzky

Contributor
Messages
7,488
Reaction score
6,173
Location
California
# of dives
500 - 999
I too have had my share of older steel tanks -- 52s and 72s -- from decades ago, which still see some use; though, I am a bit unclear of just when "DIN hype" was to actually have occurred, since my Genesis 100s will have reached thirty years old, come 2022.

Thankfully, I never had any issues with conversions or those stubborn inserts, since Poseidon regulators, were, by default, DIN, sold along with a detachable yoke, whose sizable heft could brain someone -- maybe, even a Philistine . . .
I’ve seen DIN hype come and go over the years.
There are some new people who think they’re the ones who discovered this new fantastic concept, just like teenagers think they invented sex, you know?
I haven’t been diving very long, only since 1998, but I remember when I was buying my first gear and DIN seemed to be touted as the next big thing that was going to take off and everything was going that way, yolk was going to be discontinued and was gone.
Then I started thinking I should have bought DIN but I was still renting tanks at the time and they were all yolk. Then I bought a few new tanks that were yolk and started finding older steel tanks that were yolk. The dive shop told me if I wanted to convert to DIN I could later, (when it was inevitable).
So here we are 23 years later and I’m still waiting for DIN to take over. Every time I hear it’s going to happen it never happens, kind of like the second coming of Christ or the Earth changing it’s axis, I’m still waiting but it still isn’t happening. I wish they would make up their minds. Is it possible DIN is a solution looking for a problem?

The Hog reg was what I was referring to as all-the-rage and the darling of SB. Now I think they’ve moved on to Deep 6, but I’m not biting this time, no sir!
I have my collection of all that old inferior American stuff.
 

mac64

Contributor
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
763
Location
Ireland
# of dives
5000 - ∞
View attachment 678639



We were recently using 275 bar Nitrox fills; most yoke assemblies are generally rated to a maximum of 200 bar, or thereabouts, while a given regulator (such as the one paired with the yoke in the photo) may actually be rated to 300 bar, with the use of its DIN connection; and I’ve witnessed a high pressure yoke failures, on a couple of occasions, over the years — due, in one case, to metal fatigue, I was later told; another, to a fall, which would not likely have affected a similar DIN arrangement.

DIN is far more compact and far more secure . . .
Has anyone actually tested scubapro yoke valves. I could see treads on din getting damaged far quicker than a yoke. Even a small bang on a valve and you can’t get the inserts out. The force that would be needed the dislodged a pressurised yoke is going to damage any setup. I pump all my tanks to 250 bar and with yoke regs I never as much as blew an oring. As for compact and using din for side mount. When I switched to side mount I found the yoke knob a handy place to sling with the bungee to snug up the tank at times and I was able to use any tank irrespective of what valve it had. The argument for the knob sticking out is ridiculous as the tank is lower.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Top Bottom