UTD Z-side mount with isolatable manifold

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I'm guessing you have never been cave diving before...

In ALOT of caves there are only occasional places to turn around. There is no way to remotely (like a body length and a bit away) hear "excessive bubbles". Normal bubbles on the roof can make a ton of noise while an actual failure like a leaking 2nd stage can only make a modest amount of noise.

I have no interest in caves but have been in my fair share of tight spots. Yes it is certainly true that bubbles may not be heard or felt, but my point was; if the cave is that tight you're never going to be able to get your hands on the donor's 22" hose anyhow so the benefit of the z-system is what again?
 
Kev: Could you explain to me what part of "I'm donating my long hose" conflicts with the fundamental long hose diving paradigm, technique, and protocol?
Originally Posted by Kevrumbo. . . another one of the reasons why I went with the Z-system SM is that you always breath the long hose primary in normal diving situations on bottom mix . . .I don't have to swap/deploy/stow regulators if I went with a traditional/conventional independent SM set-up.
If that doesn't answer your question, kindly re-state your premise, context and specific point requiring clarification please. . .
In the last 12 months, I've suffered two cylinder valve handle failures - using rental cylinders the thread had stripped and the cylinder couldn't be turned off/on.

If diving with a z-manifold, with regs being turned off during the dive, that could easily have meant I was unable to access gas from one tank. A critical failure.

However, I don't use the manifold, so enjoy the logical state of having both of my cylinders on and accessible throughout the dive.
Andy, you risk free-flowing your unused regulator by leaving the tank valve on --especially while scootering. Of course this can be remedied by using an Omni In-line On/Off sliding check valve at your 2nd Stage.

And I always bring Left & Right handed tank valves on my sidemount tech travels to swap out the rental valves if needed. . .
 
Unlike AG, I have actually been in caves which are too small vertically to reach back and put a hand between my shoulder blades. I might have been able to intermittently, but the added depth would have depressed my drysuit inflator. And I have been in systems where there's not room for my elbows to move around to turn valves in my armpits on/off, at least consistently. I will happily dive a "mixed team" with a back mounted doubles and mCCR divers in there. But alas for some reason they aren't interested? Hence I've found the need to be setup with a looped long hose across my chest and around my head and a remote isolatable manifold to be a bit of a marketing ploy. What do you think? Is it worth perfecting a mixed "DIR" equipment configuration if nobody wants to dive there?

This makes sense. If with side mount, you have to squeeze through, then reaching isolatable manifold may not be possibe at all.
 
This makes sense. If with side mount, you have to squeeze through, then reaching isolatable manifold may not be possibe at all.
FWIW, that Z-isofold is reachable in a tight restriction (the valve knob is at its lowest level around C-7/T-1, and flush & jabbing against the vertebra --which is why I don't like it).

The only time you might not be able to reach it is if you happen to have both arms physically pinned-down at your sides by an extreme restriction (like momentarily getting stuck inside the I-169 submarine in my last month's trip to Truk --those of you who have gone inside the pressure hull traversing forward through the conning tower bulkhead hatch know what I mean). . .
 
If that doesn't answer your question, kindly re-state your premise, context and specific point requiring clarification please. . .
Andy, you risk free-flowing your unused regulator by leaving the tank valve on --especially while scootering. Of course this can be remedied by using an Omni In-line On/Off sliding check valve at your 2nd Stage.

And I always bring Left & Right handed tank valves on my sidemount tech travels to swap out the rental valves if needed. . .

Kev, the UTD approach just seems to encourage one half-cocked solution to remedy another half-cocked solution.... to remedy another half-cocked solution. All because of a flawed initial premise.

This is BS. Do you you shut down your back-up reg on backmount because of the risk of free-flow when scootering? No? Of course not....

Does UTD endorse shutting down the short-hose, as a precaution against scootering free-flow, on all configurations?

1185544_10151770443227510_1617223931_n.jpg

UTD want to sell expensive equipment. Fair enough. Everyone has a right to make a buck, or thousands. It's a flawed premise... but it's a cash cow. Nice for those that want to do things the UTD way. Nice for George's accountants. Nice for the rest of us too, because seeing z-manifold fans tie themselves in procedural knots gives us a rich laugh... :wink:
 
Kev, the UTD approach just seems to encourage one half-cocked solution to remedy another half-cocked solution.... to remedy another half-cocked solution. All because of a flawed initial premise.

This is BS. Do you you shut down your back-up reg on backmount because of the risk of free-flow when scootering? No? Of course not....

Does UTD endorse shutting down the short-hose, as a precaution against scootering free-flow, on all configurations?

View attachment 164384

UTD want to sell expensive equipment. Fair enough. Everyone has a right to make a buck, or thousands. It's a flawed premise... but it's a cash cow. Nice for those that want to do things the UTD way. Nice for George's accountants. Nice for the rest of us too, because seeing z-manifold fans tie themselves in procedural knots gives us a rich laugh... :wink:
Of course not Andy -don't surmise into absurdities . . .only if you cannot stop an actual free-flow, you shut down the appropriate backmount valve feeding that regulator.

The in-line Omni shut-off valve is FOR YOU!!! -since you like to keep both your source tanks' valves on - it is submitted above as your solution to prevent free-flow of your unused regulator while scootering on conventional/independent tank sidemount.
 
Of course not Andy -don't surmise into absurdities . . .only if you cannot stop an actual free-flow, you shut down the appropriate backmount valve feeding that regulator.

Of course, which has no relevance upon any defense for diving with a primary cylinder shut-down, just because an ill-thought manifold was being used.

The in-line Omni shut-off valve is FOR YOU!!! -

not for me... I wouldn't use such a device. It's contrary to KISS principles and presents a threat of inaccessible gas.

It's funny... I have to keep reminding myself that this debate is ALL because UTD can't get their heads around long-hose donation... and, of course, making money at the expense of common sense..
 
Of course, which has no relevance upon any defense for diving with a primary cylinder shut-down, just because an ill-thought manifold was being used.



not for me... I wouldn't use such a device. It's contrary to KISS principles and presents a threat of inaccessible gas.

It's funny... I have to keep reminding myself that this debate is ALL because UTD can't get their heads around long-hose donation... and, of course, making money at the expense of common sense..
And Andy, don't degenerate into useless dismissive rhetoric. . .

Hash that point in bold above with your "brethren" sidemounters in the thread below --that is exactly the same solution to the free-flow problem that they're alluding to regarding a 2nd stage shut-off valve while on scooter.


quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by SuPrBuGmAn
This comment right here proves that either you don't understand the most common SM configurations; or that you've been fed alot of bull**** when being sold on the Z-system.

There is no deploying and stowing, you simply swap regulators. Easier and quicker than cranking valves on two seperate tanks even with one hand, on the fly, on the trigger.

That being said, if you're position on ideal is staying on a longhose without it ever leaving your mouth, no matter what additional steps are required to keep your tanks balanced and no matter what additional steps and time are required to keep breathable gas available to you in an emergency, then so be it.

IMO, thats the wrong reason, but whatever.
Originally Posted by Kevrumbo
And free-flow problems with conventional SM independent tanks on the now swapped-out un-used tank & regulator while scootering on-the-fly/on trigger, against current because you didn't shut it down??? (In open water --not a cave or a swimming pool-- in the busiest shipping lanes in the world with a Super Tanker bearing down on you. . .?)
iginally Posted by Kevin Carlisle
A.J you better turn off your secondary next time you scooter so you dont freefliw and lose all your gas. Oh wait, you know how to keep that from happening without all that other stuff
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/si...stribution-block-question-12.html#post6249799
 
If that doesn't answer your question, kindly re-state your premise, context and specific point requiring clarification please. . .

Kev, I'm not the one needing clarification. You continue to ignore the main point brought up. Let's say we're in a cave and you go out of air. Understood? I have air, you don't. Still with me? You should instantly start signalling an emergency. I see your emergency and extend my long hose. You swim to me, I swim to you. I give you my long hose. Do you know if I had to switch to my shorthose? HOW would you know? Most importantly, do you care? If I were the OOA diver, and I got a 2nd stage that had a breathable gas coming out of it, I wouldn't care if it was JUST in his mouth or had been in his mouth several minutes ago. I'm just glad I have air. In ALL PRACTICAL TERMS, it's the same procedure: Buddy goes OOA, you donate longhose to buddy.

The point I'm getting at and the point you (and all other proponents) have consistently avoided is: Why add the cost, complication, workload, and failure points of the "manifold" just so you can be breathing off of your longhose when your buddy goes OOA?

(Note: running totally out of air despite good planning and proper execution is attributable ONLY to manifolded tanks.)
(Note 2: I think you've made like 3 posts total without mentioning SEA/Truk/Chuuk. You might want to increase that number)

---------- Post added August 27th, 2013 at 10:21 AM ----------

the UTD approach just seems to encourage one half-cocked solution to remedy another half-cocked solution.... to remedy another half-cocked solution. All because of a flawed initial premise.

This. Always this. Forever this. Andy, you're clearly onto something. Every procedure involved with this "manifold" is a bandaid to fix a problem caused by trying to fix a problem caused by trying to fix a problem.....while the root problem simply isn't there.

I can't envision a scenario where a properly planned and even semi-properly executed dive (even including equipment failure) would POSSIBLY benefit from this system. I also can't envision a scenario in which the millisecond it takes to unclip a longhose would cause the OOA diver to be able to attack a vigilant buddy. I also can't envision a scenario where any human being would be upset that the working second stage they receive in an emergency came from a buddy's shoulder instead of a buddy's mouth.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom