The New Atomic TFX

[scubadada]

Thanks @rsingler a very good example. The loop goes from right to left to right. After cracking with a negative pressure, much of the inhalation has a positive pressure, the assist. The entire exhalation requires generating a positive pressure, the contribution to the WOB.

View attachment 786997

Here is a much better illustration of the pressure volume loop along with the associated calculation of the WOB. This is from Pete Wolfinger's wonderful Regulator Savvy, which @rsingler reminded me was a great reference for regulator function and adjustment.

The four standard testing levels are discussed in this older thread.

Latest ScubaLabs reg test - huh?

Is "DACOR" back in business? This is news to me. News to me too. It said the company was West Marine which runs retail stores selling boating items here in the US. They must have bought the name from Mares. From what I remember Dacor was supposed to be Mares budget brand but they really didn't...

scubaboard.com

The example from Regulator Savvy appears to be condition #2. The example supplied by @rsingler might have been condition #3, the European conformance standard.

 

[BoltSnap]

The four standard testing levels are discussed in this older thread
https://scubaboard.com/community/threads/latest-scubalabs-reg-test-huh.549775/post-8070515''

Did you test the link in your post recently? I get the following error message when I clicked on it:

 

[rx7diver]

For the people that dive the D350, D400, D420 etc: Do you use a D-series reg as an octo?

No, I use my D400 with my AIR 2, or, if I am diving my Y-valve, I use my D400 with a G250 or a Balanced Adjustable as my octopus 2nd stage.

rx7diver

 

[scubadada]

Did you test the link in your post recently? I get the following error message when I clicked on it:

View attachment 787262

Thanks, I thought I simply copied the link

Latest ScubaLabs reg test - huh?

Is "DACOR" back in business? This is news to me. News to me too. It said the company was West Marine which runs retail stores selling boating items here in the US. They must have bought the name from Mares. From what I remember Dacor was supposed to be Mares budget brand but they really didn't...

scubaboard.com

This seems to work, will replace in the initial post.

 

[-JD-]

The latest ScubaLabs "Best Regulators of 2023" is out and they include the TFX. Unfortunately (deliberately?) they didn't (or won't admit to) test it but have a subjective report:

The Best Scuba Regulators of 2023 Reviewed

<p>Breathe Easy; ScubaLab tests eight new scuba regulators so you can relax now, dive later.</p>

www.scubadiving.com

While not fully tested, we did have a chance to try this reg in the field.

[SNIP]

Testers felt it breathed very easily and smoothly, especially at lower work rates. “Feels very natural,” is how one diver described it.

 

[stuartv]

The latest ScubaLabs "Best Regulators of 2023" is out and they include the TFX. Unfortunately (deliberately?) they didn't (or won't admit to) test it but have a subjective report:

The Best Scuba Regulators of 2023 Reviewed

<p>Breathe Easy; ScubaLab tests eight new scuba regulators so you can relax now, dive later.</p>

www.scubadiving.com

Their reviews/tests are absolutely worthless. As with all their other "Best of" articles, that is the best of 2023. Meaning, they are not comparing it to anything except other regulators that are new for 2023. The TFX may be the best reg you can buy. But, their article won't say it because it doesn't compare it to the best that are already on the market - only the others that came out this year.

That's the (only) reason why their past Best Of computer articles don't have Shearwater as "best" every single year. If a model didn't come out or have changes in a given year, then even if it really IS the best one on the market, it won't be included in the "Best Of" computer articles.

 

[-JD-]

Their reviews/tests are absolutely worthless. As with all their other "Best of" articles, that is the best of 2023. Meaning, they are not comparing it to anything except other regulators that are new for 2023. The TFX may be the best reg you can buy. But, their article won't say it because it doesn't compare it to the best that are already on the market - only the others that came out this year.

That's the (only) reason why their past Best Of computer articles don't have Shearwater as "best" every single year. If a model didn't come out or have changes in a given year, then even if it really IS the best one on the market, it won't be included in the "Best Of" computer articles.

Yes, I do realize it is basically a marketing shill for "new" products and I am not suggesting that their ratings should be followed as a primary selection factor either. Your point is well taken.

However, they generally run them through instrumentation and give at least rough reports of WOB under different conditions. Therefore I was hopeful we might see some actual test data instead of only Atomic's marketing materials.

 

[BoltSnap]

Their reviews/tests are absolutely worthless. As with all their other "Best of" articles, that is the best of 2023. Meaning, they are not comparing it to anything except other regulators that are new for 2023. The TFX may be the best reg you can buy. But, their article won't say it because it doesn't compare it to the best that are already on the market - only the others that came out this year.

That's the (only) reason why their past Best Of computer articles don't have Shearwater as "best" every single year. If a model didn't come out or have changes in a given year, then even if it really IS the best one on the market, it won't be included in the "Best Of" computer articles.

Their past reviews are available on their website and one can compare the specs and reviews easily. I don't see as an issue at all. I think that it is logical that they review the new products for the current time/year and not rehash the old reviews, that is actually worthless. At most, there can be a "nostalgia" review of the "greats of all times" but that's something that can only be done once every many years but not every year. Same as reviews of new cars, TV's, etc.

With all love, hugs and kisses

 

[stuartv]

Their past reviews are available on their website and one can compare the specs and reviews easily. I don't see as an issue at all. I think that it is logical that they review the new products for the current time/year and not rehash the old reviews, that is actually worthless. At most, there can be a "nostalgia" review of the "greats of all times" but that's something that can only be done once every many years but not every year. Same as reviews of new cars, TV's, etc.

With all love, hugs and kisses

Comparing what they said about Reg A last year and what they said about Reg B this year is just about useless.

If they wanted to be legitimately useful, they would at LEAST have a Best or Top 3 in every category, and then compare their Best of the Year to the overall Best or Top 3.
For example: If 1 new computer comes out this year, it will be the Best of 2023, even if it's rubbish. An unwitting new diver might read that review and buy that computer just based on "it is new and it's the best of 2023". If they would review the new computer and then compare it to the Shearwater Perdix (or whatever computer is rated as The Best), then the unwitting consumer would realize that buying "the best of 2023" is not necessarily what they want to do.

What they do with their reviews is having the effect of pushing manufacturers to constantly make something new every single year - even if the "new" thing is really only a warmed-over version of what they had last year. That increases manufacturer costs, which utlimately increases OUR costs.

Meaningless upgrades every single year, just so ScubaLabs will give them free publicity, is NOT good for the industry or us as divers.

 

[L13]

"The best of 2023" should be the best available to buy new from the manufacturers in 2023 including releases from previous years, not just the best new releases of 2023.