• Welcome to ScubaBoard

  1. 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. Login or Register now by clicking on the button

Scubapro naming convention?

Discussion in 'Regulators' started by BassO, Oct 8, 2020.

  1. elmo

    elmo DIR Practitioner

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: Melbourne
    As for the naming convention, when I ordered a pair of MK17s with G260s from my then-local dive shop the attendant couldn't understand my choice of second stage. Her assumption was that a larger number meant a better reg, and that the G260 must fit in the line up somewhere between R195 and R295, yet for similar money I could get the A700. Her comment was, "oh I wouldn't go any lower than an R395 myself for a doubles set". I smiled and let her place the order.
    rsingler, lexvil and Kupu like this.
  2. BassO

    BassO Angel Fish

    I'm just going with the flow on this one :)
  3. Angelo Farina

    Angelo Farina Marine Scientist

    # of Dives: 1,000 - 2,499
    Location: Parma, ITALY
    I am with @halocline. Simplicity always wins.
    I am still using my MK5+109s (modified to BA, of course).
    I also own a MK10+156, I understand that it is slightly better, but the difference is really irrelevant for my usage.
    I suppose that for tech divers a further step above could be a MK10+G250V.
    Everything beyond that is a step back, for me, as they become unnecessarily more complex, and loosing the SPEC environmental protection...
    Sam Miller III and halocline like this.
  4. axxel57

    axxel57 Solo Diver

    Seems in the US they had to wait a couple of years longer than in Europe for the new diaphragm.......:)

    Attached Files:

  5. Angelo Farina

    Angelo Farina Marine Scientist

    # of Dives: 1,000 - 2,499
    Location: Parma, ITALY
    For better documenting what happened....
    Here is the original diaphragm, in black rubber and with SS metal disc, which was equipping my earliest 109:
    Here the second version, in light blue silicon rubber, with the metal disc.
    I covered it which a thin layer of low-friction plastic (my one was not Delrin, as later used by SP, but some sort of PVC), using super-glue for making it to adhere to the stainless still. It is still strongly glued on to it, 40 years later, and having been used for a while diving, as demonstrated by the signs left by the lever...
    Here the version in two parts (black silicon rubber plus Delrin disc) described in the document posted by @axxel57. Note that the Delrin ring is missing, as it was broken:
    And finally the latest incarnation, as used in the latest SP regs, where the plastic disc is moulded together with the crystal-silicon diaphragm:
    Sam Miller III, Kupu and axxel57 like this.
  6. rsingler

    rsingler Scuba Instructor, Tinkerer in Brass Staff Member ScubaBoard Sponsor

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: Napa, California
    I'm sorry, Angelo. I can't let this one go.
    You just disproved your own statement with your parenthetical addition. There's nothing more fault tolerant than a downstream second stage. It doesn't fail shut. If your first stage has a high IP failure, your second is still breathable. Yet, you chose complexity for the improved performance of the BA.
    The same is true in choosing an Atomic or SR-2 second (floating orifice), or a Sherwood first (weird force transmitter and two part piston): some factor that improves performance in special conditions may well be worth the complexity.

    I will concede that simple designs are more tolerant of poor maintenence, which is all too common amongst our peers. But unless there is a flaw which increases risk (usually not discovered until after a mishap, like Aqualung's ACD shutter valve), I'll take design sophistication with its attendant complexity every time. Even if I need more frequent preventive maintenance.
    Sam Miller III and axxel57 like this.
  7. Boston Breakwater

    Boston Breakwater "Outlaw." Solo Diver ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 1,000 - 2,499
    Location: Brunswick, Georgia.
    Hello. And oh soooo beautiful.
    Open Ocean Diver likes this.
  8. jakehbk

    jakehbk Angel Fish

    # of Dives: 1,000 - 2,499
    Location: California
    I've had a brand new Sherwood 9000 1st stage have it's seat collapse into the piston and seen an SR1 seat break apart before it's service interval. Not saying it doesn't happen on other brands, but those two experiences made me a little leery of the newer Sherwood regs
  9. rsingler

    rsingler Scuba Instructor, Tinkerer in Brass Staff Member ScubaBoard Sponsor

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: Napa, California
    Can't argue with that. There's a reason Scubapro and Atomic rule the roost. And Scubapro done good with their latest Mk19/D420! Now if only Atomic would take their superb engineering and design a dry-sealed piston, even the LDS techs would be happy.
  10. BurhanMuntasser

    BurhanMuntasser Dive Charter

    # of Dives: I'm a Fish!
    Location: Nomad
    Sherwood may have had great ideas and dreams of ideal first stages but execution always sucked. SP and Atomic rule indeed.
    axxel57 likes this.

Share This Page