Twinsets - same model regulator or not?

[kanonfodr]

Regs work fine (I have MK17/S555 + R295), great actually, just dislike their warranty and servicing policy (it may be different in other regions). Servicing them costs an arm and a leg and you can only take it to an 'authorised Scubapro repairperson'. I also think they are really overpriced when you can get equally good regs for much cheaper. Parts are not covered where I live and I think the requirement to service them yearly or you lose the warranty is overkill (my warranty is long gone by now!). I got Zeagle partly because service kits are available cheaply from the place I got them from and also I am hoping to do a reg servicing course through there at some stage too.

:classic:

I am not the biggest fan of SP's policies either, that is why I bought Hog for my doubles setup, and in time will be switching out all of my regulators with Hog because I like their policies on service. It encourages divers to learn more about their equipment and the way it operates, versus trying to leave them in the dark and make our corporate masters extra money.

Peace,
Greg

 

[Rhone Man]

Here's a similar question though. When setting up doubles does one use two similar first stage regulators or two different models from different manufacturers with different performance outputs? Why/why not?

DaleC asked this question in a different thread, and I thought it was a good one to pick up on.

I have heard it both ways: one wants two high performance regs, because you don't want a low performance reg in an emergency situation; and I have also heard one want one 'bullet proof' low performance reg as a back-up so that it has a much lower chance of failure (I appreciate that 'same model' is not the question as 'high/low performance' for back reg, but they are related ideas).

I dive with a low performance, high reliability backup regulator (a Sherwood Brut), but very few of my dives in a twinset are beyond recreational diving limits (in terms of depth).

What do others do?

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Why would anyone diving doubles choose a low-performance regulator? Reg reliability should not be an issue ... when was the last time you ever heard of an unreliable scuba regulator?

But since most folks diving doubles are going to be contemplating deeper dives, I would for sure want a reg that's going to deliver air at adequate rates as you go deeper. Work of breathing (WOB) should be the determining factor ... working hard to breathe on a deep dive only increases your CO2 buildup ... and that's not going to make your dive very much fun at all.

For diving doubles, I would recommend choosing high-performance regs ... I just don't see a downside ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[stargost]

Rhone Man,
I started the same post seeing your and Dale C...

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ad.../332028-use-different-regs-doubles-setup.html

Seems not a great indea. Only thing I'd consider would be for example:
Apeks DS4 + Apeks XTX 100or 200.
In case you need the 'good' expensive one for single and you use double from time to time only so just buy a cheaper very similar one.

 

[Diver0001]

What do others do?

I don't understand why you started a second thread about the same thing....

My answer is that functionality matters. Looks are for posers.

In my case I have an AL-legend LX supreme as a primary and Titan LX on the other post.

I already had the Titan and didn't see the point in buying two Legends when the Titan is a perfectly good regulator. I guess I could have bought another Titan for balanced looks but who cares..... so it looks funny ... what works works.

R..

 

[PfcAJ]

I used to be in the "same reg for primary and backup" camp, but I have reconsidered and changed me outlook. I now use a lower performance nonadjustable backup, and a high performance adjustable primary (as well as on stages and deco bottles).

That backup reg needs to work, no if ands or buts about it. The less moving parts, orings, seals, and other shenanigans going on inside, the better. Its simply less to break and fail.

 

[Rhone Man]

I don't understand why you started a second thread about the same thing....

Rhone Man,
I started the same post seeing your and Dale C...

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ad.../332028-use-different-regs-doubles-setup.html

My bad... sorry.

 

[Rick Murchison]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

threads merged

---

 

[miketsp]

It all comes down to whether you know what you're buying and your confidence level.
When I got back into diving I wasn't familiar with most of the newer brands on the market so I deliberately bought everything different and across quite a wide price range - with 3 divers in the family buying all top-end outright wasn't an option.
It was an interesting experience as some of the cheap stuff performed just as well as some of the top-end ones. But I started having some difficulties getting service & parts for some of the lesser known ones so I gradually started replacing them with better known brands.
Nowadays I very much favour standardization. It means carrying less spares on a dive trip and facilitates diagnosis of problems. If one second stage is breathing poorly and you have another identical reg set, just swap second stages around to find if it's a 1st or 2nd stage problem.

 

[DaleC]

FWIW, the origin of the question was in regards to concerns of model wide failures re: computers. Someone suggested that they chose different redundant computers in case an inherant model/algorhythm prone failure knocked both computers out at the same time. I then asked if those same people chose different first stages on their doubles in case a model specific failure knocked both out at once too.
I was wondering if the same risk analysis carried throughout the full range of their gear selection.