TigerGear Tank mounts

[TSandM]

Since I cannot figure out what the device is doing, and you don't seem to want to elaborate at all, I would have to say that it has no value to the diver "aspiring or following DIR principles". It's not needed. I don't know what it is supposed to do.

 

[SparticleBrane]

They're $265 to make a set of "doubles" (that you can easily take apart), minus a manifold, which would cancel out the "easy to take apart" aspect.

 

[Adobo]

I am wondering if anyone on this board is using one: https://tigergear.com/

On the other hand, the biggest question is could this be considered DIR compliant? For both single and double tank operation. (forget the Pony part though)

I saw a couple of guys using it for single tank operation when one piece of the bracket is bolted to the backplate and the second piece is permanently attached to the tank. One of the guys also uses one for the doubles.

Seems like a great approach to mount your tanks to a BP, besides it gives you the same tank position every time you use it.

Thanks!

For the life of me, I cannot figure out what this thing is meant to do.

 

[TSandM]

Okay, I got irritated enough to go to the product website and look around. As far as I can tell, this is a method of connecting tanks to a BC without using cambands, but for a single tank, you have to put bands on the tank and one half of the mounting bracket; the other half gets attached to the BC (they don't seem to specify how or what kind) and you can attach the tank to the BC by mating the two with a type of linch pin. This might be a nice setup for a single tank, but it requires installing bands, and it would mean that if you traveled, you couldn't just stick a rental Al80 on your BC, unless it's a lot easier to install the bands and brackets on a tank than I think it is.

I see absolutely no advantage to this system for doubles over what I currently use.

The added complication is definitely not DIR.

 

[lamont]

This seems to only solve problems that DIR divers don't have, while introducing possible failure points underwater, increasing cost, overcomplicating the problem, and catering to "personal preferences".

Locking this thread, since there's only downside risk from here...