What's with the UTD haters?

[Reg Braithwaite]

I'm late to this party, but here's my perspective on "Why all the UTD Haters." It is not based on twenty years of diving experience, in fact it is based on observing similar social dynamics around choices in other areas. It may be some kind of universal behaviour of people, or I may be way off base.

Certain systems are inherently complex. Programming, running a professional football team, diving, they all involve making a lot of choices, and the choices are all interrelated. You don't choose singles vs. doubles independently of choosing wreck penetration vs. blue water, for example. Such complex systems generally don't have one perfect optimum solution. Instead, there are a number of "local maxima" that represent sets of complementary choices.

Local maxima have an interesting property: If you make small changes to them, you make them worse. For example, the "standard" choice of poodle jacket, short hose, split fins, back mounted single, &c. &c. is a local maximum. For a certain type of casual diver, this is a local maximum. If you stick a long hose on this arrangement, it is worse, not better. You have to make a big change to another local maximum for the long hose to work, you need a different harness arrangement, you need new training, and so forth.

Speaking as a fairly naïve observer, I see the anti-UTD thing as a classic local maximum problem. The Hogarthian setup has been optimized over time into a local maximum. The sidemount setup seems to be still evolving somewhat, but some aspects appear to be stabilizing, and the concept of independent doubles seems to be part of that. So if a diver perceives that they are in a local maximum and you ask them to make one change, like adopting an isolator manifold for their sidemounted doubles, it appears to be worse, not better.

I am not saying that the Z-manifold is junk. It could be that if you make a large change, you jump to a different local maximum. That sounds like what the UTD folks are saying, that it makes sense when you also adopt special training for it, when you integrate it with training on other systems from singles to CCRs, and what-not. I may be misinterpreting what I have read, so I am loathe to argue whether they are right or not.

But my conjecture is that UTD "hate" is going to be 100% natural and normal when you consider that most non-UTD divers are sitting in a local maximum and thinking about making just one change. Local maxima are intolerant of small changes, it's always worse to make a small change.

 

[victorzamora]

I understand your local maxima point, and (using that paradigm) I'm not sure that training is sufficient to make it a disctinct local maximum. Once combined with the NEED for CCR, surface-supplied air, and sidemount, then a more positive argument can be made. However, the ability to switch between them with slightly less hassle (not no hassle, mind you) is insufficient, in my mind, to provide sufficient distinction.

I'm sure that what you're saying has some validity. I hadn't thought about it that way, but it's a good way of looking at it and I'm now sure it applies to part of the problem. The other part of the problem is the views expressed by those supporting said local maximum. I continually hear habitually regurgitated replies, yet no cogent answers to simple questions can be made. The same verbiage is continually spouted, with no in-depth thought. Most recently, the mention of "the same 9 failure modes as in backmount" while in other threads, the biggest proponent of that admitted there were 4 more failure points using the Z-Manifold than with traditional backmounted doubles, and (if I recall correctly) 9 more than with independent sidemount.

Most importantly, a lot of the "hatred" is self-inflicted. I'm a great example of one of the "haters" yet I don't hate anybody or anything solely for how they choose to dive. The perception of disapproval and fundamental disagreement as hatred is one of the biggest failings. My disagreement with "their" system is from a logical, not emotional, level. If this conversation could be had on a purely LOGICAL level it would be a much shorter, simpler conversation. But who am I kidding?? Seperating emotions from online arguments?? Not on this planet!

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

I'm not qualified to state whether the UTD system is itself a local maximum or not, I'm just trying to suggest that hogarthian + independent doubles + side mount is a local maximum (or close to it), and when you're sitting in that local maximum, UTD sidemount is going to look pessimum regardless of its merits.

Since I'm getting away with talking tommyrot, I'll go further: It would probably be easier to accept if it were a lot different than existing practices. Minds being what they are, I suspect it would be easier to "sell" if the proposition was that it was a completely new paradigm rather than a change to things that people feel already work just fine.

 

[bada3003]

You're simplifying things a tad too much. Most phenomena we observe, in nature or man-made (scuba being one), are stable configurations. Local or global. That's by definition and what we call a tautology. So not much information in that unless you want to say: people are used to things and they tend to be initially skeptic of differences. Well, that's in most cases again a general tendency.

IMO, one of the main reasons for the criticism is based on logic and diving practice. Their rig was just a questionable design, given the general reasons folks like to dive SM. What is a good/bad design is inherently subjective, but in the real world we have general agreed upon standards based on empirical evidence and practice. The UTD folks went off on an irrational tangent. And the resultant reaction one can get on the web.

I'm not qualified to state whether the UTD system is itself a local maximum or not, I'm just trying to suggest that hogarthian + independent doubles + side mount is a local maximum (or close to it), and when you're sitting in that local maximum, UTD sidemount is going to look pessimum regardless of its merits.

Since I'm getting away with talking tommyrot, I'll go further: It would probably be easier to accept if it were a lot different than existing practices. Minds being what they are, I suspect it would be easier to "sell" if the proposition was that it was a completely new paradigm rather than a change to things that people feel already work just fine.

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

You're simplifying things a tad too much. Most phenomena we observe, in nature or man-made (scuba being one), are stable configurations. Local or global. That's by definition and what we call a tautology. So not much information in that unless you want to say: people are used to things and they tend to be initially skeptic of differences. Well, that's in most cases again a general tendency

Yes, local or global maxima can be stable, my observation is that UTD may not have changed enough to find a different local maximum. It's ok to try making changes to the stable configuration, but you're unlikely to win unless you're prepared to make big changes, like from backmounted manifolded doubles to sidemounted independent doubles. The Z-block isn't enough of a change.

And thus, people hate it because it's worse than what they know works, and they call BS on the rationale. But what do I know?

 

[arturojgt]

I have a full cave z-system and I use it for recreational diving and I don't have any problems with it. It's super comfortable, easy to use and adjust. Is not cheap but it worth any dollar I spend on it.

Enviado desde mi iPhone con Tapatalk

 

[Kevrumbo]

You're simplifying things a tad too much. Most phenomena we observe, in nature or man-made (scuba being one), are stable configurations. Local or global. That's by definition and what we call a tautology. So not much information in that unless you want to say: people are used to things and they tend to be initially skeptic of differences. Well, that's in most cases again a general tendency.

IMO, one of the main reasons for the criticism is based on logic and diving practice. Their rig was just a questionable design, given the general reasons folks like to dive SM. What is a good/bad design is inherently subjective, but in the real world we have general agreed upon standards based on empirical evidence and practice. The UTD folks went off on an irrational tangent. And the resultant reaction one can get on the web.

Re:

We [UTD] took a slightly different take on it, in designing a comprehensive side mount system and a training program at the same time. So every UTD instructor teaches the same configuration in the same way. It's a system that works with single or double side mount, is completely compatible with single or double back mount long hose configurations, and it maintains the most critical part of the system, which is always be able to donate a working regulator on a long hose from your mouth. . .

A low pressure distribution block, either with or without an isolator, sits behind your head in the same position as the isolator manifold on a set of doubles. Gas from one or two side mount cylinders goes into the block. Long hose, necklace, BC, dry suit comes out of the block. So just like back gas, the long hose and necklace are always on and you can always donate the long hose and go to the necklace. Simple.

Advantages [Z-System Sidemount]:
1. Scaleable - use one, two, three, four cylinders and plug in underwater as necessary. Switching from single side mount to double side mount only involves leaving one tank on the boat.
2. Mixed team diving - exact same emergency procedures as back gas singles and doubles (in long hose config).
3. Gas reserve - with doubles, one cylinder is always off, so in the event of a failure, rock bottom for one person is always protected.
4. Weighting - designed around aluminum cylinders, so the tanks are not part of the weighting system, so switching from singles to doubles doesn't change the weighting. With steel cylinders, if you take off or pass someone a tank that is part of your weighting system, you become positively buoyant, requiring weight to compensate for that, causing you to go into the water overweighted.
5. The failure point argument - Gas distribution blocks have been used in commercial and rebreather diving for decades. They have either no moving parts of far fewer moving parts than a first stage and are far less prone to any kind of failure than a first stage.
6. Training - agency wide training teaches consistency within the community.
There's a ton of info on the UTD website.

. . . (there) is no standard, so we created one, along with agency-wide training, within our community of (UTD) instructors and students, and it integrates with the standard back gas config.

On the long hose question, the Z-System is set up exactly like back gas doubles, so the long hose is always in your mouth and that's the donatable regulator. Then you (the donor) go to the necklace. Both second stages are both always on. The clipping and unclipping in Basic-6 is a drill to be able to stow the long hose in the event it's not needed (right side failure). The only time we would ever donate something that's clipped is in the MX Rebreathrer config (but please everyone, that's not for this thread).

As side mount moves away from solo diving and more into the hands of team divers, the trap, as I see it, is a zero-viz out-of-gas scenario. If your muscle memory is from backgas doubles, you find your teammate, tap tap tap on the reg that's in his mouth, and take it. He goes to his necklace, and you sort out your problems. I don't know how to resolve the situation where you go tap tap tap and the donor is breathing a necklace.

In any case. . . DIR --which is based in consistency-- With back gas doubles, we could dive with pretty much anyone trained by one of the DIR agencies or instructors and everything was pretty consistent.

I look forward to seeing where it all goes in the next few years.
Cheers,
Jeff_S

Sounds to me like a very rational Pedagogy ("the science and art of education, specifically instructional theory"). . . that UTD haters themselves go off on irrational reactionary tangents and at best, very specious rebutting rhetoric.

 

[Razorista]

rational

??
To me this just sounds like someone selling a 'sugar and water based cold-remedy' to the gullible.

There are rational standards. UTD just chooses to continuously ignore them.

In spite of proof that the system is (mostly) useless and failure prone in special circumstances, it is still promoted as a solution to problems that do not exist!

The system is useable and might also have advantages in very special situations, but it also shows that the most significant letter in the acronym KISS is the last one.

---------- Post added April 7th, 2014 at 06:34 PM ----------

btw: Seeing the picture above I am reminded of the Mares HUB concept - sleek, but: all-in-one = nothing done properly.

As a side-note:
I really dislike the idea of putting hoses on the harness instead of the tanks.
I sometimes use the harness when surface-swimming in a drysuit (happens to me at least 2 times a year on festivals at lakes and rivers carrying torches or similar things).
Living in a cold water country I have never entered open water without harness and drysuit since I bought them and avoided enclosed and heated water most of the time.
When doing any kind of manual work in more than ankle-deep water I also always put on both.
I just leave the tanks in the car but change nothing else - I could even freedive with my drysuit in that config (not very deep, but I am bad at it anyway).
Harness, BCD and hoses should not be mixed or connected more than necessary, in my opinion - sacrifices flexibility.

Most divers do not need this of course, but it could conceivably prove useful in emergency-situations, too.
Throw any tank to me with any kind of regulator-configuration (excluding UTD) on it and I am good to go, by just putting one of my hose retainers on it and connecting one double-ender while clipping my empty tank to something or someone, or just dropping it if the emergency warrants something like that.
Mind you, the UTD diver could do the same, but it might require some thinking and could leave him with a lot of unconnected hoses and unusable regulators and very expensive hardware to drop.

 

[Kevrumbo]

??
To me this just sounds like someone selling a 'sugar and water based cold-remedy' to the gullible.

There are rational standards. UTD just chooses to continuously ignore them.

In spite of proof that the system is (mostly) useless and failure prone in special circumstances, it is still promoted as a solution to problems that do not exist!

The system is useable and might also have advantages in very special situations, but it also shows that the most significant letter in the acronym KISS is the last one.

---------- Post added April 7th, 2014 at 06:34 PM ----------

btw: Seeing the picture above I am reminded of the Mares HUB concept - sleek, but: all-in-one = nothing done properly.

As a side-note:
I really dislike the idea of putting hoses on the harness instead of the tanks.
I sometimes use the harness when surface-swimming in a drysuit (happens to me at least 2 times a year on festivals at lakes and rivers carrying torches or similar things).
Living in a cold water country I have never entered open water without harness and drysuit since I bought them and avoided enclosed and heated water most of the time.
When doing any kind of manual work in more than ankle-deep water I also always put on both.
I just leave the tanks in the car but change nothing else - I could even freedive with my drysuit in that config (not very deep, but I am bad at it anyway).
Harness, BCD and hoses should not be mixed or connected more than necessary, in my opinion - sacrifices flexibility.

Most divers do not need this of course, but it could conceivably prove useful in emergency-situations, too.
Throw any tank to me with any kind of regulator-configuration (excluding UTD) on it and I am good to go, by just putting one of my hose retainers on it and connecting one double-ender while clipping my empty tank to something or someone, or just dropping it if the emergency warrants something like that.
Mind you, the UTD diver could do the same, but it might require some thinking and could leave him with a lot of unconnected hoses and unusable regulators and very expensive hardware to drop.

. . .So is this thread below a discussion of an alternative set of "rational standards?" Y'all haters are showing yourselves to be the truly gullible. QED:

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/si...gear-configuration-practices-4-questions.html

From a training agency perspective (UTD) it's fascinating to read these posts and see the massive inconsistency in current side mount gear configurations...long hose on the left, long hose on the right, long hose stuffed, long hose wrapped, short hose too long, too short, on the necklace, not on the necklace, etc.Jeff

 

[Razorista]

Y'all haters

I think you are wrong in believing there are many UTD haters. In backmount they actually seem to have quite a good reputation.

For myself I always have to remind myself when watching the UTD z-system videos on youtube that this is not meant satirically.
I simply cannot believe what I am shown there

The mentioned thread seems to me like a misunderstanding.
All the questions are about things that do not require strict standardization.
Speaking for myself I am mostly uninteressed in the hose lengths of fellow divers that do not use exactly identical first and second stages.
Its like standardizing octopus hose length or first stage placement on y-valves, impossible and in my opinion unreasonable.