The New Atomic TFX

[wetb4igetinthewater]

"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.

Comparisons to regs released in the past still make sense as long as they are not discontinued (if the piece is meant to be a buying guide). I don't see how anyone would disagree.

 

[BoltSnap]

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.

That can be an "improvement" suggestion to their comparisons but isn't essential nor does it render their comparisons for the current year useless.

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.

By definition the comparisons are done for the current year, that is very obvious to the reader. It should be noted that they don't review everything under the sun/ocean in their comparisons. the "new diver" reader who is trying to determine what they should buy, they are inevitably going to see many more choices when they go to their dealer(s) to buy their equipment and get a more complete picture.

I still don't see that what you are suggesting is essential or takes away from the comparison articles. In fact, I believe that it will be confusing. Yes, there is room for improvement and more added value, however the comparison you are suggesting should be done in a separate report not in the same report they do for the calendar year.

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.

Manufactures generally had "something new" every year since a very long time, at least in the almost 40 years of my being an instructor, dive shop owner and in my 23 trips to DEMA. They aren't driven by a single article, Atomic isn't for example. Scubapro updates products as needed.



Annual reports of comparisons between the top 5 regulators of the prior 5 years, reports of evolution of a particular regulator line for a particular manufacturer over several years/decades, etc. will be great and interesting articles to read indeed.

 

[OMyMyOHellYes]

Well, picking from this year's models is not a new concept.

A certain literary publication used to name a PMOY from one of 12 entrants from the year, not comparing them to the older models. Seemed reasonable to me at the time. Wouldn't expect it to be fair to the older versions to throw them into that mix ...

 

[buddhasummer]

They did a review on the A700 one year giving it perfect simulator scores, they tested it the following year and it no longer had perfect simulator scores

IIRC the only difference was one was black tec and the other chrome.

 

[L13]

They did a review on the A700 one year giving it perfect simulator scores, they tested it the following year and it no longer had perfect simulator scores

IIRC the only difference was one was black tec and the other chrome.

Someone else paid for the perfect scores the next year.

 

[buddhasummer]

I only like that magazine for the pictures, I like pictures.

 

[Pressurehead]

I only like that magazine for the pictures

Yes, nice photos, they lost me some time ago with their "Testers Choice" bollocks [to use a British term that fits].

Nice photos: Six Best Places for Scuba Diving in Australia

 

[buddhasummer]

Yes, nice photos, they lost me some time ago with their "Testers Choice" bollocks [to use a British term that fits].

Totally. If I want a review or to know something about a regs performance I ask here.

 

[rsingler]

Seeing their "diver" evaluations - "it's very smooth" and an entire ANSTI loop reduced to a 5 point scale (where a score of 1 or 2 is the kiss of death) is as close to meaningless as is humanly possible.
But as Simon says, they have nice pictures. It's nice to see the new pictures.
But Atomic is probably apoplectic over Scubalab's evaluator's use of the adjective "peculiar" in describing the TFX.

 

[buddhasummer]

There is only one review I'm interested in and it's from our good Dr.