wing for cold water diver.

[mossym]

thanks Mike for the reply

 

[bwerb]

steels are preferable]

Do NOT get sucked in to the rumors and heresay regarding wing types and double wings vs single wings. The Trek wing WILL work perfectly on your single (and let you move into more "tech type" diving if your tastes take you there)!

If you want to dive with your tank looking like a weenie in a bun...go for it!

It's really simple...single tank wings are for single tanks...and double tank wings are for doubles...and never the twain shall meet...

Take the right tool for the job. There are phenomenal single tank wings which are geared to exactly what the poster is currently diving with...he should head that direction.

I think the notion that "I may want to tech dive down the road and get one wing that works" is misguided. If dropping an extra couple hundred bucks on a second wing at a time that you are going to give diving doubles a try is too expensive...then you aren't going to be afford to tech dive...cause the wing is the cheapest part of the set-up.

Again, get a wing which works with what you are currently diving not what you one day hope, perhaps, maybe, to be interested in.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Do NOT get sucked in to the rumors and heresay regarding wing types and double wings vs single wings. The Trek wing WILL work perfectly on your single (and let you move into more "tech type" diving if your tastes take you there)!

Just get the trek or something in the 40+ range (since you dive cold waters) and go diving - it is that simple.

I can't speak about rumors or hearsay ... but I've used the Trek, as well as the Rec and Venture (I used to own the latter and still own the former) ... as well as the Oxycheq 45# wings (I currently own a pair of those, as well as the Oxycheq 70# for my doubles) ... so perhaps I can speak from my personal experience.

Keep in mind that your mileage may vary depending on diving style, cylinder choice, physique, and experience.

For a singles wing, the Trek does not perform as well as any of the other wings I mentioned ... not even its larger counterpart, the Rec. It has a short, wide footprint. As a result, its "head-to-foot" stability isn't as good as any of the other, longer wings ... meaning that it's not as easy to establish and maintain trim with this wing because you have a smaller platform to work with. It's more of a pivot than a platform, in fact.

The shape of the bladder is not conducive to singles diving ... it is very wide at the bottom and very narrow at the top ... far more triangular-shaped than the Rec wing, and not even in the same category (for singles) as either the Venture or Oxycheq wings. I found the wing would trap air more easily due to its shape than either of the singles wings ... or even the Rec wing ... because of the way it "binds" against the cylinder at the top of the wing.

The placement of the inflator valve on the left side of the bladder would not make it the ideal choice for a doubles wing because it would force you to roll in order to dump effectively ... at least once you got shallow with reasonably empty cylinders, and needed to really vent all the air out of your wing. Also, the width of the lower part of the bladder would enhance the taco effect, trapping air in the right side bladder that would force you to break trim as you roll to get it out. A good doubles wing places the inflator valve closer to the center (in front of the manifold, rather than in front of the left post), so that when you do have to roll to transfer the air from the right side to the left it will have to move directly past the valve, where you can dump it efficiently.

For these reasons, the design of the wing is an inherent "compromise" ... as it must be in order to bill itself as good for both singles and doubles. The thing is, diving singles or doubles places different demands on a wing, which makes a wing designed for both not really an ideal choice for either.

If you really only want to invest in one wing, then go for it ... compromise is inherent in any multipurpose tool, and the trade-offs in this case are things you can "live with" once you've practiced and developed some proficiency. However, if your priority is to purchase equipment that's ideally suited to one task or the other, this isn't a good choice. Wings that are designed strictly for diving singles are inherently better performers when diving singles ... and wings that are designed strictly for diving doubles are inherently better performers when diving doubles ... because in both cases they aren't making design "compromises" in order to accommodate a secondary purpose.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[msandler]

cant say I didn't see this coming.

It seems people are inclined to adopt whatever policy or philosophy they first come across, without giving the "big picture" proper consideration and self examination. They lose the ability to make their own diagnosis and simply adopt what they hear from the loudest voice at the time. Also, I think people should be not be intimidated by scrutiny and also be willing to make personal modifications to realize their own effective solution.

One can come up with a very simple solution addressing the breadth of the wing (not unlike what bungies are intended to do - see attachment) by "containing" its tendancy to spread-out. I have always found ways to address set-up concerns (personalize) that do NOT interfere with the proper operation of the component. The point is don't be afraid to customize your gear. Contrary to the intimidating nature of dive gear, it is really incredibly simple stuff.

I can't speak about rumors or hearsay ... but I've used the Trek, as well as the Rec and Venture (I used to own the latter and still own the former) ... as well as the Oxycheq 45# wings (I currently own a pair of those, as well as the Oxycheq 70# for my doubles) ... so perhaps I can speak from my personal experience.

I own; Oxy 18lb, DR trek, OMS 45, OMS 60, and a DR Junior wing (40lbs).

Keep in mind that your mileage may vary depending on diving style, cylinder choice, physique, and experience.

For a singles wing, the Trek does not perform as well as any of the other wings I mentioned ... not even its larger counterpart, the Rec. It has a short, wide footprint. As a result, its "head-to-foot" stability isn't as good as any of the other, longer wings ... meaning that it's not as easy to establish and maintain trim with this wing because you have a smaller platform to work with. It's more of a pivot than a platform, in fact.

Not true, longer wings exhibit a greater air shift and thus the opposite is true. reducing the point of bouyancy will help you maintain trim. Trim is achieved by the position of the wing in relation to the tank and the plate with respect to the diver and other gear. Keep in mind how much air is typically in the wing.

The shape of the bladder is not conducive to singles diving ... it is very wide at the bottom and very narrow at the top ... far more triangular-shaped than the Rec wing, and not even in the same category (for singles) as either the Venture or Oxycheq wings. I found the wing would trap air more easily due to its shape than either of the singles wings ... or even the Rec wing ... because of the way it "binds" against the cylinder at the top of the wing.

The placement of the inflator valve on the left side of the bladder would not make it the ideal choice for a doubles wing because it would force you to roll in order to dump effectively ... at least once you got shallow with reasonably empty cylinders, and needed to really vent all the air out of your wing. Also, the width of the lower part of the bladder would enhance the taco effect, trapping air in the right side bladder that would force you to break trim as you roll to get it out. A good doubles wing places the inflator valve closer to the center (in front of the manifold, rather than in front of the left post), so that when you do have to roll to transfer the air from the right side to the left it will have to move directly past the valve, where you can dump it efficiently.

I partially agree. With that wing, one would best to assume a slightly upright position if you need to dump <read: empty the wing> as you safely indicated "really needed to vert all the air". Typically one would only be venting on ascent, since bouyancy control is achieved at the lungs and through proper weighting. You greatly exagerate issues concerning the exhaust (inflator as you call it) and the "binding condition" which while it looks a little bunched up it causes no noticeable effect.

For these reasons, the design of the wing is an inherent "compromise" ... as it must be in order to bill itself as good for both singles and doubles. The thing is, diving singles or doubles places different demands on a wing, which makes a wing designed for both not really an ideal choice for either.

If you really only want to invest in one wing, then go for it ... compromise is inherent in any multipurpose tool, and the trade-offs in this case are things you can "live with" once you've practiced and developed some proficiency. However, if your priority is to purchase equipment that's ideally suited to one task or the other, this isn't a good choice. Wings that are designed strictly for diving singles are inherently better performers when diving singles ... and wings that are designed strictly for diving doubles are inherently better performers when diving doubles ... because in both cases they aren't making design "compromises" in order to accommodate a secondary purpose.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

There is a fine line between compromise and ideally suited, and splitting hairs and getting too wrapped up in theory.

The truth is, there are products to do two things well. Maybe not the absoltue best, but definitely well enough to be enjoyable and present NO factors that would spoil your time.

Criticize this next point all you want but:

Though I DO have numerous wings for all purposes, I have standardized all my diving (double and single, with and without stages) on my OMS 60 lb wing. [I included a picture showing a little "personalization" I use when I am diving a single tank.] Believe me it dives perfectly with the single. - perfectly!

**If you are not set on DR, get teh OMS 45lb. Cheap at LP

 

[mossym]

buying a second wing is not a problem, not that i'm rich but diving is never something i minded spending money on..

once again Bob thanks, for taking the time to write such a great review!! and bwerb, yup you're right, my wing should be for what i am diving now, but doesn't everyone want to get the best for their money??

deciding on this has turned out a lot more complicated than i thought..

 

[Uncle Pug]

Mossym... don't get yourself all flustered over picking just *the right* wing... there is always ebay. I agree with those who say single tank wing for single tank diving and double tank wing for double tank diving. I can drive my lawn mower to town for a cup of coffee... but why?

today, diving a drysuit in cold water:
single AL80 ~ 18# Halcyon Batwing
single steel lp104 ~ 27# Halcyon Pioneer
ebayed 45# Halcyon Pioneer.

double steel lp72s ~ 40# Seatec
double steel lp104s ~ 70# Halcyon Explorer
ebayed ~ 40# Halcyon Explorer
sold to friend ~ 55# Halcyon Explorer

tomorrow:
?

 

[mossym]

Mossym... don't get yourself all flustered over picking just *the right* wing... there is always ebay.
?

tell me about it, my black diamond is in perfect condition, around 50 dives, and it's going to be looking for a new home soon,

I can drive my lawn mower to town for a cup of coffee.
?

lol..

i'm thinking either the venture wing or a halcyon pioneer wing now...

 

[Uncle Pug]

Well... with ebay in mind... think residual value: if you want a new one, which one can you sell down the road and lose the least?

Of course if you want to buy a used one, which one can you find and buy cheaply on ebay? Probably not a Halcyon... if you do find one it will probably go for a premium.

 

[mossym]

don't see much dive rite or halcyon wings on ebay at the moment, might be buying new!!