Why did Horse Collar BC's fade away?

[Aura]

Yeah, maybe you should dive it longer to understand that if the flotation is on your back, it WILL turn you over face first into the water if you let it.

I use 12L steel doubles + 1 or 2 stages on most of my dives, I need a wing that can support that. I don't think it would be very nice with a horse collar BC. However, despite being a fairly small person, I have never experienced being pushed forward in the water with my wing sufficiently inflated. I'm sure if that was genuinely an issue, I'd struggle with it since my gear overall weighs more than I do.

It sounds like your own three experiences with a jacket style BC were defined by poor weighting (unless those jacket BCs you tried out were really poorly made). Which is ironic, given how you claim using those are easier. If they're easier to use, then surely you would have no problem using them correctly.
You seem to be rather fanatical about defending your horse collar, so be it. You do you, dive and let dive etc. But there's no reason to furiously attack gear that works perfectly fine for the vast majority of divers, nor to assume they are just too stupid to realize the wonders of the horse collar BC. For the type of diving I do, for example, it would simply be a really poor choice of equipment.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

I use 12L steel doubles + 1 or 2 stages on most of my dives, I need a wing that can support that. I don't think it would be very nice with a horse collar BC. However, despite being a fairly small person, I have never experienced being pushed forward in the water with my wing sufficiently inflated. I'm sure if that was genuinely an issue, I'd struggle with it since my gear overall weighs more than I do.

It sounds like your own three experiences with a jacket style BC were defined by poor weighting (unless those jacket BCs you tried out were really poorly made). Which is ironic, given how you claim using those are easier. If they're easier to use, then surely you would have no problem using them correctly.
You seem to be rather fanatical about defending your horse collar, so be it. You do you, dive and let dive etc. But there's no reason to furiously attack gear that works perfectly fine for the vast majority of divers, nor to assume they are just too stupid to realize the wonders of the horse collar BC. For the type of diving I do, for example, it would simply be a really poor choice of equipment.

Aura,

Realize that some of us have never used these really heavy, 12 liter steel tanks, either as singles or doubles. They were not around when the horse collar BC was being used by many people. The steel tanks we had were 2250 psi steel 71.2 cubic foot tanks, and later the AL 80. The steel tanks of the time were pretty much neutral in the water. (See the photo below of twin 71.2s being used in the U.S. Air Force off Okinawa.) Note that no BCD or weights were being use at all. This was 1968. What we did have on were LPUs, or "Life Preserver, Underarm," which held two bladders in a bundle, folded, with a 25 gram CO2 cartridge for emergencies.

SeaRat

 

[Aura]

Realize that some of us have never used these really heavy, 12 liter steel tanks, either as singles or doubles.

Oh absolutely. My point was just that certain types of diving require certain types of equipment. And that, despite using rather heavy tanks and thus a wing with a large lift capacity, I've never experienced the phenomenon of being pushed forward into the water. Actually, if I totally relax on the surface, I'll end up on my back rather than face down.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

Without really realizing it, I may have had a hand in the development of the back-mounted wing for diving. I wrote two articles and published them in the Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Underwater Education, IQ6, which I attended and spoke on from October 4-6, 1974. The two articles I wrote were, The Life Vest, and Comments on Buoyancy Control and Emergency Procedures.

In the first article on the life vest, I showed that there are actually two stable positions, one face up and one face down, that an unconscious diver can find him/herself in. Wearing a life vest doesn't necessarily ensure a face-up position. In the second article on buoyancy control, I had the diagram shown below.

If you want to see both article and read what I said, which contradicts the U.S. Navy study cited here, you can download it from my Google Drive file (it's too large to import here):


These articles can show what we were discussing in 1974. I also did some demos in the motel pool about the life vest and buoyancy control, including that demo on the buoyancy jacket Bill Herder made and which I'm sure Scubapro saw.

SeaRat

 

[Waterwulf]

I use 12L steel doubles + 1 or 2 stages on most of my dives, I need a wing that can support that. I don't think it would be very nice with a horse collar BC. However, despite being a fairly small person, I have never experienced being pushed forward in the water with my wing sufficiently inflated. I'm sure if that was genuinely an issue, I'd struggle with it since my gear overall weighs more than I do.

It sounds like your own three experiences with a jacket style BC were defined by poor weighting (unless those jacket BCs you tried out were really poorly made). Which is ironic, given how you claim using those are easier. If they're easier to use, then surely you would have no problem using them correctly.
You seem to be rather fanatical about defending your horse collar, so be it. You do you, dive and let dive etc. But there's no reason to furiously attack gear that works perfectly fine for the vast majority of divers, nor to assume they are just too stupid to realize the wonders of the horse collar BC. For the type of diving I do, for example, it would simply be a really poor choice of equipment.

I never "furiously attacked" any gear and am kind of surprised at being accused of it! I agreed that the modern BCD is better for most divers in today's world. Nor did I accuse anyone of being stupid! If you're not being drowned by your BCD, good for you! You already stated the reason though. It's because the gear on your back weighs more than you do.

No, I was probably not correctly using the jacket type BCD's that I tried out. I didn't really get any training on it but did ask a PADI instructor about it. He observed what mine was doing and stated that that's normal. He did not see any problem with weighting or anything else. The next two times, I got help from a friend. It didn't work for me for several reasons. But I never said they were bad or that nobody should use them! So don't accuse me of "furiously attacking" anything!

I was trained by men in a different era on equipment different from today's. That training was tough, repetitive and it stuck. To me, a Horse Collar is "normal". Honestly, I feel freer in it than I did in the jacket type. I know where everything is. I know how it reacts to a little air and where it's going to end up in the bladder. All of that is probably the reason why a jacket type wouldn't work for me. I was flying an F-18 but trying to do it like a P-47.

I really don't care what people use as long as they''re proficient with it. I asked a simple question: "Why did the Horse Collar BC fade away". I also stated along the way that old fashioned Horse Collar BC's would not drown an unconscious diver while modern BCD's will. (You're an exception, not the rule) It's simple logic and physics. I even provided official test results to back up that statement. (Even if they are 43 years old!)

I'm really not sure what persons are arguing about! I've agreed with most everything that most everybody has said. Modern BCD's are better for most divers but once on and in the water, don't do anything better than the old Horse Collar except carry more gear. On the surface, a Horse Collar is better because it won't try to drown you. I showed tests supporting my statement. What's the problem?

 

[jadairiii]

Without really realizing it, I may have had a hand in the development of the back-mounted wing for diving.

SeaRat

Watergill was already selling the At-Pac in 1972. Skin Diver mag did an article on this "new" BC pack that year. And they had already received a patent on the balance box/back pack in '72.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

Watergill was already selling the At-Pac in 1972. Skin Diver mag did an article on this "new" BC pack that year. And they had already received a patent on the balance box/back pack in '72.

Yes, and I was already wearing a wetsuit with a built-in bladder. But I helped explain the physics behind these different mountings of buoyancy on the diver's body to a broad range of diving instructors.

SeaRat

 

[John C. Ratliff]

Sometimes it is interesting to look at the patents and see what they say. Here's what I think is the At-Pak patent, and an explanation of how to go through surf:

...In operation, the flotation apparatus of FIGS. 8-17 is extremely straightforward. The diver operates the valve 62a to inflate the bag 34a at the water's edge. He can then either don the apparatus, as seen in FIG. 16, to swim through the surf, or he can ride the equipment packgage through the surf, as best seen in FIG. 17, thereafter donning the equipment by an over-the-head motion while simultaneously slipping his arms through the harness staps...

US4016616A - Diver flotation apparatus - Google Patents

Diver flotation apparatus including buoyancy compensation apparatus in the back pack over the diver's back, and including an inflatable portion connected to the diver's air supply through a diver operated valve for filling the inflatable portion to achieve buoyancy compensation. The back pack...

patents.google.com

Below are the drawings.

Note that the patent does say to use the At-Pak as a float to ride on when going through surf. Note also the date of the patent (Filing date, 1972, patent date, 1975). If you scroll down, you can get all the subsequent patents which referenced this patent, and it provides quite a history of buoyancy compensation through various patents, world-wide.

SeaRat

 

[jadairiii]

Sometimes it is interesting to look at the patents and see what they say. Here's what I think is the At-Pak patent, and an explanation of how to go through surf:

Below are the drawings.

Note that the patent does say to use the At-Pak as a float to ride on when going through surf. Note also the date of the patent (Filing date, 1972, patent date, 1975). If you scroll down, you can get all the subsequent patents which referenced this patent, and it provides quite a history of buoyancy compensation through various patents, world-wide.

SeaRat

I've seen those patents. I did a history on WaterGill. What is interesting is that they were selling, and in production of the At-Pac prior to filing for the patent. yikes

 

[jadairiii]

• 90% died with their weight belt on.
• 50% did not inflate their buoyancy compensator.
• 25% first got into difficulty on the surface
• 50% died on the surface.

Interesting, 90% never dumped their weight belt. and of those 90%, half never even inflated any sort of inflation device.

I see a training problem here.