Swivel Regs

[reubencahn]

Before I say anything else, I want it known that I do not intend this comment to be sarcastic, rude or pointed at anyone. I say this because things can get taken the wrong way and life get ugly...

That being said, if swivel regulators are not DIR, why does the GUE manual for the fundamentals course show ScubaPro Mk18/Mk20/Mk25 regulators -all of which are swivel first stages- throughout?

I don't think Brandon said turret swivels are not DIR. I think he just said, he doesn't see the use of them and thinks they are a failure point to be eliminated. I think there are personal equipment preferences. My instructor uses MK-25s as does pretty much everybody else around here. That's the overwhelming s. fla. preference. I love my MK-25, and it's never failed me----yet.

 

[cortez]

You are correct, he doesn't say that. He does however imply it

<quote>As it is an unnecessary addition of o-rings and joints, sure I would have to say that it only complicates the matter by adding greater potential of an equipment problem when it fails. Anything that makes diving more complicated and complex to cure an imaginary problem is definitely not "DIR" as I understand our philosophy. </quote>

but the question wasn't aimed solely at BSC, but in fact at all of the non-swivel advocates on this board. I was simply interested in people's opinions about why swivel regulators are not DIR when they are the primary regulator shown in the Jablonski's fundamentals book?

 

[reubencahn]

You are correct, he doesn't say that. He does however imply it

<quote>As it is an unnecessary addition of o-rings and joints, sure I would have to say that it only complicates the matter by adding greater potential of an equipment problem when it fails. Anything that makes diving more complicated and complex to cure an imaginary problem is definitely not "DIR" as I understand our philosophy. </quote>

but the question wasn't aimed solely at BSC, but in fact at all of the non-swivel advocates on this board. I was simply interested in people's opinions about why swivel regulators are not DIR when they are the primary regulator shown in the Jablonski's fundamentals book?

I see your point. I guess I should also clarify my post by saying that I was referring to a GUE instructor and to DIR divers.

 

[ElectricZombie]

Quite a few GUE Instructors use MK25s and I don't think anyone will dispute their commitment to DIR. I have been using them for years with ZERO problems.

Turret style regs such as the Mk10 and Mk25 have been around a while and have a good track record. If properly maintained, you should not have any problems. I think that turret failure is really a non issue.

 

[BCS]

Quite a few GUE Instructors use MK25s and I don't think anyone will dispute their commitment to DIR. I have been using them for years with ZERO problems....
I think that turret failure is really a non issue.

Hi Gang,
I'd agree w/this and add that whether a diver chooses a swivel reg or a non swivel reg is not going to make one "DIR" or disclude one from being "DIR". Any of the equipment isn't going to do that for a diver in any way, shape, or form. The equipment choice is only one part of this system and does not in itself make one "DIR". As we continually reiterate in all of the GUE classes, selection of equipment is based on criteria, not brand names. Certain brands have a good reputation for proven performance. They have also met the other criteria of simplicity, standardization, and reliabilty. My recommendation for a non-swivel 1st stage is based on my education w/GUE combined w/my experience behind the bench and in the field. It's also in line with my own belief that DIR is a minimalist approach and that includes minimizing the unnecessary o-ring/failure point in the turret of a 1st stage. As to the question:

I was simply interested in people's opinions about why swivel regulators are not DIR when they are the primary regulator shown in the Jablonski's fundamentals book?

Again, I think you'll find both reg types meet the criteria that a good diver would hold equipment choices to and both have been used in the field w/success. If you subscribe to a minimalist approach (as I do), then you must address the necessity of the turret and weigh it's risk vs. benefit. And, IMHO, the swivel can fail (although admittedly, it's rare) and I can eliminate that possibility w/only slight impact on routing and no impact on performance, so I will.
Divers facing this decision can do there homework, ask other divers w/experience, and perhaps even try them out (if that's an option),but it all comes down to a decision weighing the above mentioned risk vs. benefit (as well as factors of finances and availability).
Good luck!

take care and dive safe!---brandon

 

[Shovelbum]

Thinking on this I regret my unfortunate phrasing. I should have rather asked "Do regs with a turret meet the standards of GUE classes, provided they are of good manufacture and the brand has a good reputation for proven performance?" Lke I said before, I have a somewhat dim recollection of George Irvine recomending regs without turrets, so I wondered if this recommendation had reached the point of being a set GUE standard. I see now that regs are acceptable with or without a turret in the GUE course standards, based on the fact that turret style regs are featured heavily in the GUE DIRf book. I tend to agree with BCS that the fewer failure points one has the better, based on experience with non-SCUBA equipment in the past, but also conceed that turrets have not caused consistant problems in the past.

Sorry for any confusion or havoc I have caused, you've all been helpful.
Tom

 

[filtered]

Thinking on this I regret my unfortunate phrasing. I should have rather asked "Do regs with a turret meet the standards of GUE classes, provided they are of good manufacture and the brand has a good reputation for proven performance?" Lke I said before, I have a somewhat dim recollection of George Irvine recomending regs without turrets, so I wondered if this recommendation had reached the point of being a set GUE standard. I see now that regs are acceptable with or without a turret in the GUE course standards, based on the fact that turret style regs are featured heavily in the GUE DIRf book. I tend to agree with BCS that the fewer failure points one has the better, based on experience with non-SCUBA equipment in the past, but also conceed that turrets have not caused consistant problems in the past.

Sorry for any confusion or havoc I have caused, you've all been helpful.
Tom

I don't see any reason why they should not meet the standards for a GUE class. I took mine with swivel regs.

I would say that the equipment portion is but a small portion of what DIR is about. Swivel or non-swivel, 'DIR' approved etc. Sure these are what we call the 'fluff' bits, or nice to have. If u were looking at purchasing new regs, it would be good to get non-swivel ones. But if u've already got swivel regs, then u don't have to get rid of them and get non-swivel ones specially. There are much more important things to DIR than worrying about whether it swivels or not.

There's no use worrying whether the additional o-ring will fail or not if the diver can't even do the stops properly.

Cheers