yet another LeisurePro thread (Atomic)

[ReefHound]

It's totally up to the buyer, I just think it's important clarify the warranty policy that's all.

I think it's important too. And I think in the long run manufacturers/LDS would be better off delivering this information in a factual and unemotional manner rather than engaging in scare tactics and making baseless allegations.

For instance...

It's fair to say that LP is not an authorized dealer and if you buy your Atomic reg from LP you will not be covered under manufacturer warranty. To suggest the buyer will not be covered under any warranty (by omitting the term "manufacturer") is ignorance at best and possibly deceitful. LP stands behind it's sales and offers their own warranty.

It's fair to say that LP is not an authorized dealer and therefore cannot buy service parts kits from the factory, it's not fair to say they cannot "get" the parts. It's not fair to suggest that they will use "another manufacturers parts in your expensive regulator" unless you know for a fact this is the case.

It's not fair to make value judgments about who will take better care of whom. It's not fair to speculate about where LP gets it's products or how long they have sat on a shelf unless you have hard evidence. It's fair to say that LP techs are not authorized to repair your regs, it's not fair to speculate on their past training and experience and competence.

Finally, I would caution you against scaring the customer too much over the warranty issue as it may backfire, leading the customer to question the quality and reliability and safety of your products. Think about it. Do you really want a buyer to think it's highly likely that he will need a warranty repair to replace a major metal component? Do you really want to suggest that your regs are so fragile that they become unsafe if they sit on the shelf and are sold by an "unauthorized" dealer? Why buy such a regulator in the first place? Don't you think it would inspire more buyer confidence if you said something like "while we back our products with a comprehensive warranty, we adhere to a standard of quality that means you will likely never need it"?

 

[vladimir]

A little insight into the pros and cons of price fixing by manufacturers. I cut and paste this (perhaps a little too liberally-sorry Rupert) from the Wall Street Journal's Econoblog:

http://online.wsj.com/public/articl..._43vis6PHo_20080417.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court seemed divided when they heard arguments in late March on a case whose result could overturn a 96-year-old antitrust ruling. Known as "Dr. Miles" for the manufacturer that sought to fix retail prices of its patent medicines, the 1911 ruling was intended to promote competition by barring manufacturers from telling retailers the lowest prices at which they can sell products.

Dr. Miles helped shape the 20th-century marketplace, giving rise to the "manufacturer's suggested retail price," or MSRP, and circulars declaring that a retailer's price was too low to advertise, because manufacturers remained free to restrict retailers from advertising their products below a particular minimum.

The case before the court -- which pits leather-goods maker Leegin Creative against a retailer -- has become a vehicle for free-marketeers seeking to roll back the rigid rules that traditionally have marked antitrust law. They argue that unless a particular activity almost always hurts competition, strict rules should be discarded in favor of a case-by-case analysis of how the practice affects competition. Dr. Miles backers say the only certain result of letting manufacturers set minimum retail prices would be increased consumer costs, and that any such changes should be made by Congress, not the court.

...snip...

Lawrence White writes: Yes, it's a benefit-cost test. But I see the pieces of this test differently. First, the political/economic motives that underlie the state laws and Miller-Tydings were cartel formation. Smaller retailers didn't like the competition that retailing innovations, such as chain stores, presented. Minimum price restraints were a way to inhibit that competition, since they prevented the more efficient retailers from charging lower prices. (Read more about it in this paper.)

Almost no one -- except maybe the "antitrust crazies" who want to repeal of all antitrust laws -- would defend the use of minimum price agreements to form cartels. Even if minimum price agreements were out-and-out legal, the Sherman Act should still be used to prevent groups of retailers or manufacturers from horizontally fixing prices and from using minimum price agreements as a cover for their cartel behavior.

But what if manufacturers want to set minimum prices for retailers? First let's consider why they would want to. The manufacturer, after deciding on its best wholesale price, would tell retailers that they must sell at no lower than a price of "X" -- something that's not allowed under the current Dr. Miles rules. Essentially, the manufacturer would be specifying a minimum retailer margin. But why would manufacturers want to do this? Isn't the manufacturer better off -- once it has figured out the best wholesale price -- letting its retailers compete on prices, thus driving them lower? At lower prices, the manufacturer usually should sell more goods.

The answer -- as Lester Telser explained in 1960 -- is that a manufacturer may want retailers to provide tough-to-monitor, but important, point-of-sale services: For example, advice and demonstration of complex electronics. The problem is that such services can be costly and susceptible to free riding.

In other words, under the current rules "Sam, the Catalog Store" may tell customers to get their demonstrations down the block at "Joe's Full Service Store" and then come back to Sam's to buy the product. He can sell it for 10% less because he doesn't provide any of the costly demonstrations. But, of course, then Joe can't stay in business, the service isn't provided, and the manufacturer's sales suffer. So, if setting minimum prices isn't used to build cartels, where's the harm? It's the manufacturer's judgment that this is the best way to sell the product. Shouldn't the manufacturer's judgment be controlling? Isn't that what a market economy generally relies on to benefit consumers?

The danger of the broad, per se, prohibition on minimum price agreements -- such as the one currently in place -- is that it prevents manufacturers from developing business strategies that work best for them -- and for consumers. Do we want to prevent the Leegins of the world from pursuing their best business strategies, because we think that the dangers of the widespread setting of minimum prices for cartels are so great? I vote for Leegin -- and consumers.

 

[Rzrseg]

Which paperwork? The only paperwork that came with the regulators I bought new (1 B1 and 2 M1's over the years) was I think the Atomic stickers and the user manual. (Maybe a warranty card, I don't remember.)
The user manual does not have the word "upstream".

It was a single piece of paper in the box the reg came in. It told me that it was an upstream reg, what that meant and the way I needed to rinse it because of it. I specifically remember this because as a brand new diver at the time, I had no idea what an upstream reg was and had to ask the dive shop what the paper meant.

Atomic calls the specific feature you mentioned the "seat saver orifice."

I'm not doubting you, but the two tech people I talked to on two different occasions called the regs "upstream".

Are you sure you don't have an old Poseidon?

Quite sure.

 

[zen_man]

This has been a good thread.

 

[paulwlee]

OK, Rzrseg, found your old post.
Sounds like they started putting in that sheet of paper a couple years ago.

It's misleading, because the second stages are downstream designs, where the seat opens downstream. Hence, a higher IP will result in leaking, not closing tighter. (A real upstream second stage doesn't act as an overpressure relief valve and when the HP seat somehow malfunctions and there is no OPV the IP will keep climbing until the hose bursts.)

I guess what they meant is that when the orifice presses towards the LP seat after pressurization it is acting like an upstream valve. So in a way, you have an auxiliary upstream valve, although when the second stage is pressurized and in work-mode, it is a downstream regulator!

 

[Rzrseg]

OK, Rzrseg, found your old post.
Sounds like they started putting in that sheet of paper a couple years ago.

Now that's funny. I didn't remember that I had come here asking about that problem. I do love Forums!!

I guess what they meant is that when the orifice presses towards the LP seat after pressurization it is acting like an upstream valve. So in a way, you have an auxiliary upstream valve, although when the second stage is pressurized and in work-mode, it is a downstream regulator!

Looking at my old post, it seems the letter says it's "like" an upstream reg and doesn't actually call it an upstream reg. I think they only say that in respect to how it's supposed to be washed and not the actual internals. Misleading but I don't think they're trying to pass it off as an upstream reg, just inform the user about proper care (which they left out of the users manual).

The end result, in regards to this thread at least, is that they require special handling to rinse as opposed to how most people normally rinse their gear.

 

[Doctor.Lizardo]

I'm looking at buying a Scubapro Mk17/S600 and the Leisure Pro price is certainly enticing (my LDS can't come close). While I knew that LP provides their own warranty, I was wondering about Scubapro's free parts for life deal which apparently only applies to regs bought through an authorized dealer. I called LP and they say that in addition to a warranty, they will also provide free parts for life. Of course one has to send the reg in to LP for service (they pay for shipping one way). Anyone have experience with LP's service and turnaround time? Assuming it's up to standards, the only downside I see is the cost of shipping the reg to them. Thoughts?

 

[Steve Lawson]

I’ve used an Atomic B2 for years and it’s great. Even at depth (over 200’), it breathes awesome and I’ve never had an experience where I tried to out breathe it.

Atomic is around the corner from me and I once asked them about Leisure Pro. I was flatly told, “Don’t buy from them. We don’t know where they get their regulators.” In short, LP is not an authorized Atomic distributor. I’m lead to believe that they buy up inventory from dive shops and distributors, resulting in an inconsistent supply of equipment. A friend of mine just purchased a Z1 from LP and it arrived without the cover on the face of the regulator. So, he sent it back.

I’ve purchased several items from LP and have had good experiences while saving lots of money.

In regards to rinsing the Atomics, mine has an environmental seal, which contains some expensive sealant which will add a few bucks to its servicing. As described in an earlier post, you must be careful when washing them as water from the second stage may leak into the first. They are best washed mounted on a tank with some pressure in the system. I learned this the hard way when my B2 stuck open at 100’ and free flowed due to a corroded first stage (which was providing too pressure and over powering the second stage). Once serviced, it operated fine.

In regards to the breathing capability, the first line of Atomic regs were manufactured with the same specifications and all had the same breathing capacity. The difference between them was in the materials: monel, brass and titanium. I believe this is still true between the B2 and T2. They now have additional regulators, but I didn’t notice anything about their performance on their site—I suggest digging further see http://www.atomicaquatics.com/.

A number of Z1 regs are being offered on e-Bay in the $200 range. According to Atomic’s site, the Z2 is improved over the Z1, but there’s no specs listed on the Z1. I’m in the market for another Atomic and will likely buy a Z2 or B2.

Steve

 

[paulwlee]

A number of Z1 regs are being offered on e-Bay in the $200 range. According to Atomic’s site, the Z2 is improved over the Z1, but there’s no specs listed on the Z1. I’m in the market for another Atomic and will likely buy a Z2 or B2.

Exact same first stage, if the Z1 has the Jet piston. (Standard on the later Z1's, also available as a ~$70? upgrade for the ones that came before.)
Second stage is supposed to have a new plastic case and lever for even better performance.

 

[RonFrank]

I'm looking at buying a Scubapro Mk17/S600 and the Leisure Pro price is certainly enticing (my LDS can't come close). While I knew that LP provides their own warranty, I was wondering about Scubapro's free parts for life deal which apparently only applies to regs bought through an authorized dealer. I called LP and they say that in addition to a warranty, they will also provide free parts for life. Of course one has to send the reg in to LP for service (they pay for shipping one way). Anyone have experience with LP's service and turnaround time? Assuming it's up to standards, the only downside I see is the cost of shipping the reg to them. Thoughts?

My buddy dives an MK26/S600. ScubaPro regs are more difficult to service, and he discovered that servicing through his LDS from a cost perspective was prohibitive.

His last service was with TDL. I *think* he got the parts under warranty.

I guess my point is that in this area service prices have escalated to the point that paying shipping to a more cost friendly dealer has become a more economical option.

I have no experience with LP from a service perspective, but as the largest scuba retailer in the world, I would think their service is likely very good. Even with shipping costs it would be much less vs. many LDS's.

It's somewhat disheartening to see all this go down because I liked and used my LDS for service in the past. After discovering their alarming price jump in service in 2007 I questioned the LDS service manager, and he said in so many words they are making next to nothing on a reg service.

I don't know how that is remotely possible as I've watched regs serviced from end to end, and I doubt it takes an hour for the regs with issues. I've watched techs service both the first and second stage in 20 minutes. They are basically charging in the area of $100~150 per hour range, and if they can't make money off that something is seriously wrong. Ironically the service manager, who is a great guy, will spend 30 minutes BS'ng with me about diving!