We all know that doubles are tried and tested DIR setup.
I wonder if it clearer at this point to refer to 'backmount doubles' and 'sidemount doubles', rather than 'doubles' and 'sidemount'. Although sidemount can refer to either a single or double cylinder configuration, the more common configuration is double cylinder. And, with 'backmount doubles' you should probably distinguish between 'backmount manifolded doubles' and 'backmount independent doubles'. I am not trying to be picky or obnoxious about it, rather your post caused me to come to that conclusion. I presume you are referring to backmount, manifolded doubles when you say, 'doubles'.
azhar:
So what people out there think about side mounts? are they gonna replace doubles?
At one point several years ago, I would have said, 'Yes, they will eventually replace them'. But, now, I see a more likely scenario of a growing preference for sidemount double cylinders, but a continuing appeal of backmount, manifolded doubles. As several have noted, each configuration has its place in diving, and strengths and drawbacks. Right now, many people who are using sidemount double cylinders started out using backmount, manifolded double cylinders, and still use the backmount double cylinder configuration at times, as well as the sidemount, double cylinder configuration. I am one of those - I have multiple sets of backmount, manifolded doubles, so I may as well use them. But, as more and more divers are first introduced to double cylinder diving using a sidemount system, I see the pendulum shifting to sidemount. I have broken down two sets of backmount, manifolded doubles for use in sidemount diving. But, I will probably hold onto the others.
azhar:
Will there be any standard procedures for side mounts any time soon?
I suspect the primary standardization that will occur will be in training. The gear configuration itself does, as Lynne and other have pointed out, appeal to the 'independents, who like to tweak and personalize their gear rigging (I am definitely in that camp).
What is really 'standard' about backmount, manifolded doubles? That the cam band bolts are spaced 11" OC apart? Or, that the right post / first stage is usually the attachment point for the primary second stage, which is usually on a long (suitable for donation) hose, while the left post is usually the attachment point for the alternate second stage, which is usually on a short hose, bungeed around the neck / head? Is there a 'standard' for which post supports the primary buoyancy hose? Well, yes, but I see more than a few people diving backmount, manifolded doubles who connect their BCD to the left post inflator hose, and their drysuit to the right post inflator hose, irrespective of what is 'DIR'. Certainly, hose lengths used with sidemount, double cylinders are not standardized. But, I dare say that the majority of divers using sidemount double cylinders use the left cylinder for their primary buoyancy (BCD) and their right cylinder for back-up (dual bladder or drysuit), although that is by no means universal. In general, I would say that most divers using sidemount double cylinders use some form of elastic cord (bungee) to pull the tank valves in toward their armpit / body, although that is not universal, either. So, there is already some level of standardization in sidemount double cylinder diving. I am not trying to dismiss what we do with backmount, manifolded double cylinder diving, just broadening the definition of 'standard'..
TSandM:
And one thing I think I'm SURE of is that sidemount won't standardize . . . it seems to appeal to the sorts of folks who love to tweak and personalize their setups
While I agree with the general sentiment, it is also apparent from several recent threads that at least a few people are pushing for an even greater level of standardization.