go back to my first post to this thread (page one, post number two)... there isn't a difference on the fundamental tenets of DIR as developed by WKPP and taught by GUE.
Who is the "final word" as to what is DIR?
- Thread starter WreckWriter
- Start date
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
jhelmuth
Contributor
So I guess I could state this another way:
According to the GUE web site "...the GUE curriculum is structured with the assumption that participants are not threatened by a conviction that one style may be more effective than another"
So how can the final word on DIR come from 2 sources. If DIR is real (and I am certain that it is), then there is only one source - the rest are followers (copy-cats if you will).
I realize I'm NOT DIR - but the DIR posts in reply to other non-DIR divers are (or seem to be) adamant about only one right way.
Two (or more) people could collaborate on a project, yet the final result is only one project. Each can provide ideas and contributions that results in the finished project. Once people have agreed on the final touches, then the project is deemed ready to be shared with the world.
This is NOT to say that DIR evolved this way, just an example to illustrate how there can be more than a single source for something.
jhelmuth
Contributor
Cave - I concede you are correct in your statement. Maybe DIR did in fact happen that way - but I doubt it. Still, technically, only one body could be responsible for a single definition. If 2 different sets of "rules" exist and are under separate groups, then DIR does not in fact have a single source for what is right (an argument that I think is more plausible than what I have interpreted from DIR posts on this board). It is interesting to me that Uncle P has not replied to my earlier post. I give him more than due credit and I respect him greatly (more than most on this board). My loss has been to understand the DIR mentality - or at least it's facade of "one best way" which is counter intuitive to me since any change in conditions would dictate that a different gear configuration/selection may well be warranted. What's more is that this seems to apply right down to BP/Wing v. BCD - and event to which BP/Wing is acceptable (I'm citing the BWoD argument). I assume that in reality, DIR is probably more flexible than those fanatics from this board purport. To me, DIR could embrace their ideals and still have a degree of well defined flexibility. But, that is NOT my place to say until I make a commitment to that organization (and by then maybe I'd only see it their way anyhow). Certainly DIR would benefit from taking a leadership stance in this sport to teach the "strokes" to be better at their skills without spearing them with their cruel and harsh words. Then everyon benefits and our sport is all the better. And us "strokes" would be better off to recognize the DIR folks for their expertise and skills and treat them with the dignity that we'd give to our elders and teachers - they deserve it - but respect is a two-way street without a median.
To attempt to answer your questions:
DIR does indeed support changing gear configurations. A DIR diver does not dive the exact same equipment in OW as they do in a cave (i.e. single tank vs doubles). Nor are stage bottles always carried (no decompression or OHE penetrations). Therefore, there ARE some slightly different gear considerations.
However, the basic components remain the same.
Also, DIR does not specify equipment brands. They favor certain brands because those brands meet basic requirements. A BP and wing setup does NOT have to be Halcyon in order to be DIR. In fact, FredT backplate works just as well.
Nor do you have to use Scubapro Jet fins. They just advocate stiff fins in order to properly execute some of the kicks that split or other types of fins just dont do well.
A lot of the "fanatics" on this board do not have a lot of practical knowledge of DIR as they have never taken a class. A lot of it is based more in "theory" of what they have read here or elsewhere.
If you truly want to know, ask those that have more experience with it:
MHK
Uncle Pug
Mike Ferrara
Roakey
To name a few. I have some knowledge in it, but I have only taken a DIRF class. To me that is just an introduction to DIR. If you truly want to become a "full DIR diver" IMHO a Tech 1 or Cave 1 course is a good place to start.
jhelmuth
Contributor
jhelmuth
Contributor
So let me ask you then... why would a back floatation BCD (like the SeaQuest Balance) not suffice. It accomplishes the same type of bouyancy (Back floatation), but without the seperate BP (it's still a wing design). The only diff is that it would not do double tanks (double duty!) - but you could have another model for that if you wished. (just an example)
In any case, what "strokes" find offensive is the generalization that we are all the same no-account slugs that can't properly maintain their hover/bouyancy control skill. While I conceed this is a problem for many traditional rec divers out there, it is not as epidemic as the DIR fanatics would tell.
As I understand it (I've only taken DIR-F and don't claim to be an expert), there are at least three reasons:
1. The Seaquest uses Quick Disconnects on the shoulders. Quick Disconnects are more likely to fail than the continuous piece of webbing used in a harness.
2. The plate distributes the weight in a manner that makes it easier to achieve horizontal bouyancy.
3. Typically, the BC is less streamlined than a BP/wing.
jhelmuth
Contributor
My answers:
1. OK - maybe... but not by accident on this model. I think that (if this is a real reason) it's not well founded. What if the stiching came un-done (rot or ?) - then I'd make the argument that the only way to eliminate failure is to not dive (an obtuse argument - but that is my point in this case against the QR mechanism on this BC)
2. A subjective answer. We are taught to use what works best for us - fit and our ability to perform to our skills well are the important feature. So IF this is the best choice for me (assume that I've rejected the BP&wing) then that is waht I should use. I've not been able to try the BP/wing - but I'd like to. I am very skilled in the SeaQuest though, and I doubt that my performance would be better (maybe easier - but not better).
3. Red Hering - typically is a generality. This should require that we observe the facts in comparrison. Even so - the efficency will be an issue that will come down to everyone having to wear the same issue. So this seems to be exactly what I think is part of the DIR issue which the fanatics do rave on about.
Recreational diving (I think DIR falls into this catagory - not exclusively, but in this one for sure) is meant to be fun as well as safe. It is really hard for me to think that there can only be one BCD that is "right" in order to be DIR.:bonk:
I'm sorry, I thought that you were asking questions. I didn't realize that you were interested in a debate when I tried to give you information. However:
1. What stitching? The BP/Wing has a continuous piece of webbing that forms the shoulder straps and waist strap. There is nothing to fail.
In the event that the webbing starts to fray, I'll replace it for about $15.00.
You say that the Quick Disconnects might fail "but not by accident on this model." Is there something special about your BC in which failures are not accidental?
The whole point is that quick disconnects are more likely to fail than a piece of webbing.
2. First off, who is this we? I didn't realize that you were the spokesperson for some undefined group.
It is not subjective to state that a back plate puts the weight over the largest air space (the lungs). It is not subjective to state that placing weight on the back places it over the largest source of lift (the lungs), which reduces the moment created when you put the weight on the hips.
My experience supports my statement that achieving horizontal trim is easier in a BP/Wing. When diving doubles, I wear no lead. All of the weight is therefore evenly distributed over my back. It is far easier to acheive horizontal trim with this rig than with my back inflate Zeagle Tech, a single tank and a weight harness (which is only one of the reasons that I'm going to ebay that Zeagle piece of S*** as soon as I get around to taking some pictures).
Do you have the same experience with your BC when you dive doubles?
As to fit, in my experience (using the BP/Wing and fitting BP's and BC's to students), the BP/Wing fits better and is more comfortable than any BC out there. It is particularly comfortable when diving large tanks or doubles as the plate distributes the load.
I'm not saying that horizontal trim cannot be acheived in another rig. Only that it is easier in a BP/Wing.
3. Fine. Delete "typically". A BP/wing has a smaller cross-section than the BC in question because it does not have the extraneous junk dangling off it (large bladder, pockets, etc...). Drag is a function of area. Smaller cross-sectional area means less drag. Less drag means less effort to move means lower air consumption means longer dives.
Your comment regarding gear similarities is misplaced. If your goal is to minimize drag, then you will adapt the configuration that does this. If you have other goals, then you will buy something that fulfills those goals.
There is another benefit to gear standardization that you did not consider. When I dive with my team, we know precisely what each one of us is carrying and where it is stored. We dont' need to look around or waste time looking for a needed piece of equipment.
I can't make sense of your statement regarding recreational diving and therefore cannot respond.
Overall, you sound awfully defensive about your equipment. No one said that your equipment is not acceptable for whatever type of diving your doing. However, you cannot dispute that:
1. it does have more failure points than a BP/Wing; and
2. it is less streamlined than a BP/Wing.
That doesn't mean that it doesn't work or that it isn't appropriate for your type of diving. However, don't bash others who have made other choices.
Similar threads
