Z-system advantages

[Dan_P]

You do realize these are all spurious assumptions... and that you actually have NO IDEA what, or how, I teach. Right?

Untill short ago, you've advertised what you do in your signature and webpage.
Hardly a far-fetched assumption

Is this the propaganda that UTD teaches you?

See now, it's statements like this that spurs on lack of sympathy and response.

Actually, all I did was draw attention to the state of Z-system across the broader sidemount community...

No, what you've done to far extend and on a range of occasions, is take what you think and present it as how things are in a fashion often extremely derogatory.

Your attitude towards various solutions and apparently an agency as a whole, takes on the form of downright slandering sometimes, and in fairness, that's to a large extend what I'm responding to with this - you speak of dogma, so I point out that the courses you've advertised do deep air (dogma).

 

[DevonDiver]

Untill short ago, you've advertised what you do in your signature and webpage.
Hardly a far-fetched assumption

As I said... an assumption. And you know what they say about assumptions?

So basically, you know a 'little' about PADI programs and you've made broad, sweeping generalizations about how things are done.... because that suits your own-self image, garnered through a perceived superiority in the agency that you use.

For the record, normoxic trimix has been available via PADI for some time now. That's also been reflected on my website for some time now.

Also for the record, PADI isn't the only agency I am qualified to teach for, as a full trimix instructor. Neither is it the only agency that I am qualified as a technical diver through. Neither does PADI 'force' me to do deep air diving in training... and certainly (laughably) in my own diving.

 

[DevonDiver]

Your attitude towards various solutions and apparently an agency as a whole, takes on the form of downright slandering sometimes, ...

Find me examples of 10 divers in the whole world that use Z-system, who aren't, or haven't UTD members or instructors....

Slander is an untruth. There is nothing in-factual or untruthful in stating that., as an active and very connected member of the sidemount community, I have noticed for many years that the Z-system garnered zero support, popularity or usage outside of the UTD niche.

Neither is there any slander in proposing that this niche usage is logically a result of dogma-adherence, rather than practical problem.

However, slander WOULD BE, for example..... stating as fact that another diver was forced, or limited to, deep air diving.

I don't have any sort of 'bee in my bonnet' over UTD... or the Z-system.... but I do waste an inordinate amount of time readdressing the vainglorious claims made by UTD representatives; and responding to discussions with UTD representatives who point-blank refuse to accept any external critique or alternative perceptions of their sidemount approach.

If someone chooses to live in a protective bubble, they shouldn't be surprised when people poke it...

 

[Dan_P]

So basically, you know a 'little' about PADI programs and you've made broad, sweeping generalizations about how things are done.... because that suits your own-self image, garnered through a perceived superiority in the agency that you use.

Neither does PADI 'force' me to do deep air diving in training...

Hardly - I did the course and recall that air/nitrox were called for in the standards, as were diving to 44m-50m.
I abandoned it because I thought it didn't make sense to me to carry on with that line of diving.
I'm saying deep air is a dogma imposed because you come out swinging with such terms. Not to flatter myself.

Slander is an untruth. There is nothing in-factual or untruthful in stating that., as an active and very connected member of the sidemount community, I have noticed for many years that the Z-system garnered zero support, popularity or usage outside of the UTD niche.

Neither is there any slander in proposing that this niche usage is logically a result of dogma-adherence, rather than practical problem.

But you're not proposing a notion. You're stating.
And not just that, you're hurling around terms like spoonfed drone, cultism, mass-suicide, drawing on analogies of meth amphetamine use, and the like.
That's what's at the heart of the issue. Not how you dive.

I don't have any sort of 'bee in my bonnet' over UTD... or the Z-system.... but I do waste an inordinate amount of time readdressing the vainglorious claims made by UTD representatives; and responding to discussions with UTD representatives who point-blank refuse to accept any external critique or alternative perceptions of their sidemount approach.

I can only speak for myself when I say that plenty of divers and users on this forum have expressed critique that I've accepted or discussed in an orderly fashion.
If someone says "it's not for me", "I think it's an unwarranted solution for my diving", "it costs more than I'm willing to pay to reconfigure the rig I already have", or anything to that effect, I have zero problem with that.
Where I do take issue is when someone (in this case, you, Andy), come out with bombastic derogatory statements, or present your deductions as ultimative truths.

I think it's fair game to say something about it when you overstep the mark, and honest to high heaven, I think you have.

You can say that I should just uncritically on-board your insults because you think I have them coming for choosing a certain configuration, but certainly, that would defy the very purpose of individual thought.
I don't dive Z because someone, anyone, told me to. I dive it because I sat down, rolled things over and decided it made more sense to me than the configuration I used to employ - which, might I add, was backmounted doubles, not sidemount indies (so if as a sidemount indies user you're offended by my choice, there is literally zero reason to be).

 

[decompression]

vainglorious.......I had to look this one up..........lol.

 

[Dan_P]

 

[intothemurk]

Hi All -- I'm late to this conversation and apologize for reopening this debate. I'm new to sidemount but not to diving and in the latter always have used the donate the in-mouth longhose approach. I have been been diving (<10) a Stealth with two 1 m hoses (no overheads) which is working okay, but I like the z idea for keeping a longer hose in my mouth and not having to switch. However, I cannot see how it is superior to running a four-way manifold block (two in, two out) with QDC bolts on the in ports, bolt snapped on your front. You alternate gas by the tank valve on/off. It's mechanically simple and its on your front so you can see it. Am I missing something? I obviously haven't tried either, so quite likely I have. Thanks, I appreciate your experience and willingness to share knowledge.

 

[rddvet]

Hi All -- I'm late to this conversation and apologize for reopening this debate. I'm new to sidemount but not to diving and in the latter always have used the donate the in-mouth longhose approach. I have been been diving (<10) a Stealth with two 1 m hoses (no overheads) which is working okay, but I like the z idea for keeping a longer hose in my mouth and not having to switch. However, I cannot see how it is superior to running a four-way manifold block (two in, two out) with QDC bolts on the in ports, bolt snapped on your front. You alternate gas by the tank valve on/off. It's mechanically simple and its on your front so you can see it. Am I missing something? I obviously haven't tried either, so quite likely I have. Thanks, I appreciate your experience and willingness to share knowledge.

Yes, you're missing the simplicity of sidemount, which is made less simple with the introduction of the z manifold or manifold blocks. You're also integrating more places for an oring leak. On top of that, why would you ever want to control your gas by shutting off a tank. Now when there's an emergency not only do you have to donate, but you need to turn on a tank.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

Hi All -- I'm late to this conversation and apologize for reopening this debate. I'm new to sidemount but not to diving and in the latter always have used the donate the in-mouth longhose approach. I have been been diving (<10) a Stealth with two 1 m hoses (no overheads) which is working okay, but I like the z idea for keeping a longer hose in my mouth and not having to switch. However, I cannot see how it is superior to running a four-way manifold block (two in, two out) with QDC bolts on the in ports, bolt snapped on your front. You alternate gas by the tank valve on/off. It's mechanically simple and its on your front so you can see it. Am I missing something? I obviously haven't tried either, so quite likely I have. Thanks, I appreciate your experience and willingness to share knowledge.

rddvet hit it more or less on the nose, but I'll add a bit more.

In order to have a degree of redundancy you have to have an isolator on the manifold - one of the things AG added when it went from an alternative to single tank monkey diving to an alternative for technical diving.

As noted above you manage the tank volumes by turning tanks on an off, rather than switching second stages. The problem is that turning tank valves on and off is actually a slower and more complicated process than just switching regulators.

When you add the isolator, the tank knob spinning, and the extra maintenance and potential failure points introduced by the quick disconnects, it's a much more complex system.

 

[intothemurk]

Thanks -- I take your point over additional failure points (although its fewer I guess them a z system), but unless I misunderstand the mechanics of a four-way block, at any given moment one tank is feeding both second stages. Sharing doesn't require opening a tank. But I might be missing a step in logic here. For now I'm sticking with independent sides, but I'm curious over the use of a block to enable long plus short as I'm used to. What is the advantage of the z over a block?