SparticleBrane
Contributor
This will sound kinda harsh--but personally I think the S650 is rather ugly.
Scubapro X650 recall
- Thread starter DA Aquamaster
- Start date
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
OP
Harsh but true. The D400 was attractive in an elegant understated kind of way while the X650 is just a collection of garish lines, curves and sticky outty protrusions.SparticleBrane:
Of course I think SP's purge covers on the S600 and other new regs really suck too.
evil_xander
Contributor
afhandal:
I have one, without the 'bump' in the series that was recalled.
I breathes perfect, I see no reason why I should be scared of using it, it's a great reg. You aren't scared of driving a car, and accidents happen all the time, right?
It's the same here, plus you have the redundancy either in a form of octo and/or a buddy should the worst happen (which can happen to any reg).
Perhaps SP will take all the problems into consideration and produce a revamped one, preferably in black metal matte finish of the casing.
afhandal:
I don't know about you, but all the regulators recalls were really an eye wide opened experience for me. I'm an engineer myself, every single of the product is tested in a similar manner and they have to passed ALL the tests, starting from the design stage. So when I heard about SP is doing sampling on testing products I was shocked, I mean, regulator is a life supporting system.... how would you like to have elevators failing once a while?
Have you noticed there are a lot of SP supporters talking about before?
From Undercurrent:
Cracked Regulators: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had a first stage Scubapro regulator split in half and ordered all their Scuba Pro Mark 20 models out of the water.). Six weeks after reporting the incident to Scubapro they finally got an explanation "the yoke nut had been tightened too hard - overtorqued" during routine maintenance. NOAA accepted the explanation. The Mark-20 yoke nut can be replaced by a sheathed yoke that inhibits overtorqueing, the standard part for the Mark-25. The MK-20 was replaced by the Mark 25 in 2002.
www.ndc.noaa.gov/pdfs/sb05-01.pdf
Have a look at the crack at.
http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=97804
This year, I read the below sometime ago, it's about cracks happned to MK10:
http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=134750
OP
It's true that the Mk 20 first stage body can crack (split in two is a gross exaggeration) if the yoke retainer is over torqued. And to be fair it was a failure that was found during routine maintence - before a catastohpic loss of gas occurred.
It's possible to say that Scubapro screwed up on the design - but only to the extent that they failed to anticipate a NOAA tech getting ham fisted and totally ignoring the torque specifications for the yoke retainer.
If you expect companies to anticipate all the potential abuse and end user induced failures that could occur - you are asking an awful lot.
In fact the MK 10 and Mk 15 used the same basic design for the yoke retainer and they have been in service decades longer in the case of the Mk 10, so absent one or more NOAA techs getting paranoid about the yoke retainer coming loose and massively over tightening the fitting to the extent the o-ring and fitting bottomed out in the body, the problem never would have been a problem.
Now, it's reasonable to assume that a few SP techs over the years may have been torque wrench impaired but it's also not uncommon for divers and non SP techs to service SP regs on their own with no authority, access to proper specs or in some cases tools. I often get a reg in the shop that has obviously been over torqued by someone in the past and checking for cracks is done when that occurs. But neither I nor Scubapro can babysit a reg 24/7 through it's entire life to protect it from stupidity.
The other issue here is that the problem would not have been a problem for most other companies as they discontinue parts and service support for discontinued models rather than continually providing upgrades, service and warranty support for older models for decades after they are discontinued. If the same design had been produced by anoyther company, it would have been reduced to paperweight status a few years ago when parts for it dried up.
So if you want to bash SP for cracks on Mk 20's, that's fine. But be fair about it and also acknowldege that they provided a fix (to prevent idiots like the NOAA techs from damaging future regs) at no cost to the consumer on a reg that nearly all other companies would not have even supported as it was out of production.
With regard to the X650, it was I think fielded to replace the D400 which was discontinued the summer before the X650 was released. I think this resulted in pressure to get the X650 to market and I think the X650 would have benefitted from another year of development. I also think it's a case of the marketing department driving the engineering department and that was, in my opinion, a major mistake by Scubapro that resulted in the initial X650 recall.
This last recall however was due to an isolated problem with a single batch of cases from one mould affecting about 670 regulators. That's a problem with the production line, not the engineering. SP, like nearly every other scuba manufacturer farms their manufacturing out to a larger production facility (in SP's case Tababata has traditionally manufactured SP's designs to their specifications.)
It's possible to say that Scubapro screwed up on the design - but only to the extent that they failed to anticipate a NOAA tech getting ham fisted and totally ignoring the torque specifications for the yoke retainer.
If you expect companies to anticipate all the potential abuse and end user induced failures that could occur - you are asking an awful lot.
In fact the MK 10 and Mk 15 used the same basic design for the yoke retainer and they have been in service decades longer in the case of the Mk 10, so absent one or more NOAA techs getting paranoid about the yoke retainer coming loose and massively over tightening the fitting to the extent the o-ring and fitting bottomed out in the body, the problem never would have been a problem.
Now, it's reasonable to assume that a few SP techs over the years may have been torque wrench impaired but it's also not uncommon for divers and non SP techs to service SP regs on their own with no authority, access to proper specs or in some cases tools. I often get a reg in the shop that has obviously been over torqued by someone in the past and checking for cracks is done when that occurs. But neither I nor Scubapro can babysit a reg 24/7 through it's entire life to protect it from stupidity.
The other issue here is that the problem would not have been a problem for most other companies as they discontinue parts and service support for discontinued models rather than continually providing upgrades, service and warranty support for older models for decades after they are discontinued. If the same design had been produced by anoyther company, it would have been reduced to paperweight status a few years ago when parts for it dried up.
So if you want to bash SP for cracks on Mk 20's, that's fine. But be fair about it and also acknowldege that they provided a fix (to prevent idiots like the NOAA techs from damaging future regs) at no cost to the consumer on a reg that nearly all other companies would not have even supported as it was out of production.
With regard to the X650, it was I think fielded to replace the D400 which was discontinued the summer before the X650 was released. I think this resulted in pressure to get the X650 to market and I think the X650 would have benefitted from another year of development. I also think it's a case of the marketing department driving the engineering department and that was, in my opinion, a major mistake by Scubapro that resulted in the initial X650 recall.
This last recall however was due to an isolated problem with a single batch of cases from one mould affecting about 670 regulators. That's a problem with the production line, not the engineering. SP, like nearly every other scuba manufacturer farms their manufacturing out to a larger production facility (in SP's case Tababata has traditionally manufactured SP's designs to their specifications.)
xiSkiGuy
Contributor
According to the factory technician that taught my SP Technician class last weekend, the current problem with the selected X650 cases resulted from a supplier monkeying with the chemical ingredients that they use to make the cases (in a few batches) and not telling SP about it. He also indicated that a new X650 case was forthcoming. He used the words "matte" and "orange peel" to describe the new cases appearance.[FONT="][/FONT]DA Aquamaster:
I don't know what is too much to ask for...
let me give an example, the first design project I worked on lasted for 4+ years, we have switched 3 project managers, 2 stepped down, not because of politics, pure business.
I won't call it a bach, it's not about that at all.
Something which is a standard for one industry may not be a standard for another, possible. But my question is, why not?
I spell out my concern in a very clear way, in my profession, design must be tested by design tests, the designer is generally not the person who verify his design, the task for the person who is doing verification is to break the design until he sees that there is no way to break it, of course by providing tests which makes sense. Prototype comes back, another team for another set of tests, passed, now ready for manufacturing, another set of test + the functional test from the design stage. Every single piece of product.
Costing a lot of money to do that, aweful lot of times and effort. Very high stress. 24 hrs on call for the whole team for bug fixing when the design is ready to have a snap shot for production.
I wouldn't be surprise if this is a misunderstood about my intention, is it possible that it is just a very different world I am talking about, maybe?
let me give an example, the first design project I worked on lasted for 4+ years, we have switched 3 project managers, 2 stepped down, not because of politics, pure business.
I won't call it a bach, it's not about that at all.
Something which is a standard for one industry may not be a standard for another, possible. But my question is, why not?
I spell out my concern in a very clear way, in my profession, design must be tested by design tests, the designer is generally not the person who verify his design, the task for the person who is doing verification is to break the design until he sees that there is no way to break it, of course by providing tests which makes sense. Prototype comes back, another team for another set of tests, passed, now ready for manufacturing, another set of test + the functional test from the design stage. Every single piece of product.
Costing a lot of money to do that, aweful lot of times and effort. Very high stress. 24 hrs on call for the whole team for bug fixing when the design is ready to have a snap shot for production.
I wouldn't be surprise if this is a misunderstood about my intention, is it possible that it is just a very different world I am talking about, maybe?
cool_hardware52
Contributor
xiSkiGuy:
I have no specific information about the SP reg cases, but I have a bit of injection molding experience.
Much can go wrong:
Wrong temperatures for the melted resin
Wrong mold temps
Wrong Processing Setting, times, pressures etc.
Incorrect / inadequate drying of the resins
Incorrect resin, or use of regrind, or too much regrind
The weather can affect the condition of the resin, and required drying.
Unfortunately when a part is not molding correctly machine operators some times start to alter the process settings in an attempt to compensate. You might end up with parts that are correctly dimensioned, but the resin has been overheated etc.
QC of engineered plastic parts can be a real challenge. That's why many parts bear a date code. That in theory allows problematic parts to be tracked, and allows examination of the process used to produce them.
Toin
- Messages
- 1,410
- Reaction score
- 2
- # of dives
Tobin,
I spoke with the midwest rep last week and he in fact confirmed the manufacturer altered the mix (or what ever the technical term is - I beleive regrind was the term used) for the batch. The manufacturer initially did not notify SP about the change but were at least smart enough to add the dimple to identify the batch that was changed.
I spoke with the midwest rep last week and he in fact confirmed the manufacturer altered the mix (or what ever the technical term is - I beleive regrind was the term used) for the batch. The manufacturer initially did not notify SP about the change but were at least smart enough to add the dimple to identify the batch that was changed.
cool_hardware52:
Similar threads
