why did GUE , DIR take so long to adopt sidemount.

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!

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, this is just not true. Being able to identify a problem quicker AND being able to feather pretty comfortablely for a while is a MAJOR advantage that SM has over independent doubles. I'm surprised that people still bring this up even though it's obliously not true.

I agree with almost every SM diver on the planet that this Z-System is a horrible idea. How wants to keep open and close their tanks? That's MORE taskload than just switching regs. And that's not even the only issue with that thing.
In sidemount Z-system, the virtue of the distribution block [or the new isofold/manifold] is that you never have to switch out regs as you alternate breathing off of left & right tanks --i.e. alternating between shutting down one tank valve and opening the other in Z-system sidemount diving, you are always breathing the primary long hose regulator. No "task loading" as you claim above.

With the above in mind, here is the simple process of switching tanks on Z-sidemount to trim balance them, while on-the-fly-scootering (Right Tank Valve currently open to start):

--Turn on Left Tank valve with your left hand;
--Take your left hand and replace your right hand that was operating the scooter trigger, continue trigger operation with left hand;
--Turn off your Right Tank with your right hand.
--Replace left hand trigger with your right hand as needed. . .

No exchanging one regulator for the other as you would have to do if you were diving conventionally independent, normally open tank valve sidemount gas cylinders each with its own regulator & second stage. It would be inconvenient to say the least, to exchange & stow a regulator while scootering on-the-fly, and then have that just stowed 2nd Stage Reg start free-flowing. . .

Again, Fundamental long hose DIR/Hogarthian technique has you ALWAYS breathing the long hose primary regulator on bottom mix, unless you've just donated to an out-of-gas buddy --that's the best practice Scuba Diving paradigm I first learned ten years ago and still choose to retain. Contingency training with the "added complexity" of the QC6 connectors [Z-distribution block or Z-isofold/manifold] is not hard to accommodate at all and can be learned like any new novel skill, technique & task.
 
With the above in mind, here is the simple process of switching tanks on Z-sidemount to trim balance them, while on-the-fly-scootering (Right Tank Valve currently open to start):

--Turn on Left Tank valve with your left hand;
--Take your left hand and replace your right hand that was operating the scooter trigger, continue trigger operation with left hand;
--Turn off your Right Tank with your right hand.
--Replace left hand trigger with your right hand as needed. . .

Wow.

In standard sidemount, here is the process of balancing the tanks:

-> switch regs every 500psi / 30 bar (or whatever interval you deem safe)

:rofl3:

That manifold monstrosity you described is snake oil peddler grade merchandise.
 
Wow.

In standard sidemount, here is the process of balancing the tanks:

-> switch regs every 500psi / 30 bar (or whatever interval you deem safe)

:rofl3:

That manifold monstrosity you described is snake oil peddler grade merchandise.
Z-Isofold isn't anymore "monstrous" than your hyperbole & bullscat rhetoric, or objectively not even any more complicated or failure prone than a conventional backmount doubles manifold. It works for me. . .
 
the biggest issue I have with the UTD manifold is that it removes the independence of being able to do bubble checks and all that from the diver. It forces you into a team scenario which removes a big perk from sidemount which is being truly self reliant. If you have a bubble coming from the back, you'll never know until it fails completely unless your buddy spots it. If he spots it, he then has to figure out which side it's coming from and then you can isolate, or you have to bail out to a second stage which removes all power inflation. Definitely an equipment solution to a non-existant problem. Great in theory, and if there was a good way to put it on the front of the diver, then i'd be much more for it. but it's not practical
 
the biggest issue I have with the UTD manifold is that it removes the independence of being able to do bubble checks and all that from the diver. It forces you into a team scenario which removes a big perk from sidemount which is being truly self reliant. If you have a bubble coming from the back, you'll never know until it fails completely unless your buddy spots it. If he spots it, he then has to figure out which side it's coming from and then you can isolate, or you have to bail out to a second stage which removes all power inflation. Definitely an equipment solution to a non-existant problem. Great in theory, and if there was a good way to put it on the front of the diver, then i'd be much more for it. but it's not practical

Traditional SM is a bajillion times better that that z system contraption.
Ok fair enough . . .simplicity & practicality of usage are the virtues of Classic Independent Doubles Sidemount. It works for you and that's all that matters. . .
 
mine wasn't bashing, just commenting. I think it would legitimately be an option if they could make it much smaller and put it on the chest, but then you don't have traditional long house routing and have a big ass manifold block on the front.... UTD is dedicated to Team Diving, kind of the whole naming convention, so my objection to it isn't an issue for them, but would be a huge issue for me
 
mine wasn't bashing, just commenting. I think it would legitimately be an option if they could make it much smaller and put it on the chest, but then you don't have traditional long house routing and have a big ass manifold block on the front.... UTD is dedicated to Team Diving, kind of the whole naming convention, so my objection to it isn't an issue for them, but would be a huge issue for me
Perfectly understandable from a self-reliant or solo application. Keep it simple, streamlined and take only what you need.

I dove with mixed team GUE JJ CCR, and conventional backmounted OC doubles divers in Truk Lagoon 2013, so I had to remain consistent with the "Long Hose Paradigm". The Z-system Sidemount was the only configuration demonstrated to be compatible.
 
Last edited:
UTD is dedicated to Team Diving, kind of the whole naming convention,...

I thought they were dedicated to more than just team diving. But the key 'DIR' (and UTD stated) principles ignore by the Z-manifold system seem to bely that notion...


But it'd be a shame to ruin a potentially interesting thread by letting it become dragged into just another migraine inducing rant vs denial on UTD's system.

IMHO, the GUE approach to sidemount is far more interesting (and not a sellout).

Sidemount is progressing towards a greater level of standardization nowadays. There are common concepts and configurations now settling as standard... the approaches of Steve Bogearts, Steve Martin etc show this....

So... if sidemount were to go 'DIR'.... do we yet have a singular set of principles for it, as GUE and Hogarthian approaches did for backmount doubles? Opinions?
 
I thought they were dedicated to more than just team diving. But the key 'DIR' (and UTD stated) principles ignore by the Z-manifold system seem to bely that notion...


But it'd be a shame to ruin a potentially interesting thread by letting it become dragged into just another migraine inducing rant vs denial on UTD's system.

IMHO, the GUE approach to sidemount is far more interesting (and not a sellout).

Sidemount is progressing towards a greater level of standardization nowadays. There are common concepts and configurations now settling as standard... the approaches of Steve Bogearts, Steve Martin etc show this....

So... if sidemount were to go 'DIR'.... do we yet have a singular set of principles for it, as GUE and Hogarthian approaches did for backmount doubles? Opinions?

Now that's a good topic.....

I think the original concept of DIR has evolved, shifted from regimented doctrine to placing weight to what matters most and less priority to others.

I was indoctrinated many years ago by DIR but had issues with the standardization when it just didn't make sense. Since the creation of UTD and now adaptation by other agencies (not just an instructor or two) that are more inline with how I want to dive and teach I see the progress.

Some of the original frame work can apply to SM, but it can't be rigid, certainly not yet. It will have to flow and develop and unlike original DIR it can't resist the bending of applications.

My core GUE group are still very far away from SM, and I know nothing of GUE's "approach" to sidemount. Do they have a course yet?

The applications of SM are far to varied to even consider an all encompassing standard. The old cave exploration guys can't understand that it can actually be useful for something other than that. The recently converted don't see the reasoning behind some of the protocols and configurations of the SM dinosaurs. The east coast doesn't believe there is water anywhere else in the world and Mexico is just for tourist cavers.

In the end.....it's a tool, use it as you would a large wrench (spanner) and pound a screw in with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom