Spin Off.. Is modern scuba gear more efficient today than 20 years ago?

[Stu S.]

Nitrox, computer, and HP-100 tanks were not part of my diving in the 1980’s. Using these, I now get two 65 minute drift dives from a Boynton Beach boat ride. In 1988, tables would have allowed me two 40 minute air dives.

Is more diving per trip like more miles per gallon? Certainly seems more efficient.

 

[Walter]

Nitrox, computer, and HP-100 tanks were not part of my diving in the 1980’s.

Maybe not, but they were all a part of diving in 1988.

 

[Stu S.]

Maybe not, but they were all a part of diving in 1988.

Hey, Walter. I was living in Maryland in 1988, and don't remember Nitrox being available. Maybe somebody was making it in their garage.

When did Nitrox become available "over the counter" in Florida?

 

[Walter]

1986 .

 

[Teamcasa]

Teamcasa has still to define "efficient" per Nemrod's request. Unless the term is defined, the question and answers are all anecdotal and not related to facts.

So, for my humble opinion, today's SCUBA equipment is not more efficient than equipment made 20 years ago. Some of it may be better, some of it may even be worse.

I use the same regulator set I bought in 1988, a Mk200/G200 with an Air 2 as an octo/power inflator. When these regulators are tuned correctly, there is no reg that is better. There are a lot more expensive, but not better.

My BC (I had to buy a new one two years ago) is a Scubapro Classic Sport, it has two new ways to dump air now than then. I like that, but it doesn't make it more efficient. It doesn't trap air like the few back inflate BC's I have tried, and a Back Plate and Wing is just a back inflate BC, and I am not sure it is better. For my purposes it is worse for several reasons, two being that (1) an unconcious diver on the surface will float face down and (2) it traps air.

I could continue, but I still say in order for the argument to have meaning, the term "efficient" must be defined. Can you tell I'm an Engineer?

Yep, I can tell and my stint at CalTech were not a total waste either.

However, I did say earlier on that I agree with the term “more effective” as opposed to “more efficient”. That said, I still believe many new dive related products are more efficient, specifically computers, fins and both wet and dry suits. Thal, Walter and N disagree but that’s their opinion and they are certainly entitled to them.

 

[24940]

Yep, I can tell and my stint at CalTech were not a total waste either.

However, I did say earlier on that I agree with the term “more effective” as opposed to “more efficient”. That said, I still believe many new dive related products are more efficient, specifically computers, fins and both wet and dry suits. Thal, Walter and N disagree but that’s their opinion and they are certainly entitled to them.

If a piece of gear is more effective or more efficient, I would have to assume I would be able to dive more effectively or more efficiently with that gear than without it.

I used a BP/W and jet fins in the 70's, went to an integrated weight, back inflate BCD and Twin Jets in 2004 and then returned to Jets and BP/W in 2005. The jacket and twin jets were neither more effective nor more efficient.

Some gear is like forks and spoons, they don't need to be improved. Hey, two breasts are fun, let's have three? How do purges and flap traps on snorkels, extra dumps to the BCDs, heart rate monitors to computers, regulators on our inflators or computers running our dives equal more efficient or more effective diving?

Costs have come down quite a ways since to 80's, but I don't see that as having a bearing on efficiency or effectiveness. Sure, there are a few exceptions, but overall, I'm with Thal, Walter and N.

 

[Thalassamania]

It's those exceptions that perhaps I've overlooked that I'm trying to winnow from the chafe.

 

[24940]

I dove my Fusion for the first time last weekend. There is no doubt in my mind that it is more efficient than any other suit I have used. Zero learning curve, slick and required 10lbs less ballast than my crushed neo.

Aside from that.....

 

[DennisW]

I missed the part where you agreed to "effective" rather than "efficient".

I do agree that todays dive computers are "effective". More effective than the Edge? I'm not sure, I never dived an Edge computer, but I did witness Walter diving the Edge back in the late 80's. The Edge is a nice computer and I agree with Walter, the current computers can't even come close as to a more effective display. More efficient? The current computers use batteries more efficiently than the Edge, so in that respect they are more efficient.

I have not found a fin more effective or more efficient than Jet Fins, I have tried a few others, not as many as Walter has, but a few. And, the Jet fin, at about $100 is less expensive, too.

I like my new Henderson Hyperstretch (Jacket and Farmer John 5 mm) better than my old 1/8th inch Jacket and Farmer John wet suit. It is much easier to get in and out of. For that, I will call it more effective and efficient. I still use the old one in Florida and the new one in Virginia, just because it is cold in VA.

And actually, thanks for the thread, I think it has been an interesting read.

 

[Cacia]

GPS has changed diving the most.

I could even argue effciency--time, fuel