Bp/w Recommendations

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I am with tbone here. I think DSS has the best STA-less design. Their wing has very nice stabilizer, in my experience, better than Oxycheq wing pillows. The wing is attach to the plate with the rubber piece, so wing stay in place without permanent attachement. Wing can be easily taken off without messing with bands. Sure you can take care of all of these with some after market mod, but with someone design it properly at the first place, IMO it is worth the additional cost. If you care about fit, finish, workmanship, DSS metal plate is one level above HOG or DR plate.
 
Wouldn't it be more correct to say the DSS wing has tank stabilizers integrated into the single tank wing design? If you want to use a BP with no tank strap slots, you still need an actual STA, whether you are using a DSS wing or some other brand.

Er, ah, *what* exactly would a tank stabilizer do in a doubles wing? Are you actually concerned that participants in a thread concerning a single tank BP&W might think DSS doubles wings have a built in STA? Really??

Any wing can do this if you use ScubaPro-style quick release tank straps.

True, but the DSS design works with any tanks straps.

Tobin
 
Er, ah, *what* exactly would a tank stabilizer do in a doubles wing? Are you actually concerned that participants in a thread concerning a single tank BP&W might think DSS doubles wings have a built in STA? Really??

This post from you is the first mention I've seen of doubles wings in this thread?
 
I am with tbone here. I think DSS has the best STA-less design.

I would definitely go along with that, too. But, there are tradeoffs. The DSS wings have the best STA-less design, but you can't get a donut wing from DSS that is field-repairable. If you could, then I suspect that would be my singles wing of choice, hands down.

I prefer SP-style QR straps anyway. I don't really consider using them to be an aftermarket fix for anything - well, except as a "fix" for the cam band style straps that DSS and other brands come with that are more difficult to slide on and off a tank - especially a galvanized tank when everything is wet. And if you happen to also be one who prefers the QR straps, then the DSS design permitting easy wing removal becomes moot. At that point, for me, it's comparing a tank stabilizer design that is nicer in theory but has not shown any practical benefit to me (meaning, my Hog wing has been just as stable for me as my DSS wing) versus having a donut wing that is field repairable or not. And being field repairable has been a practical benefit to me, so that's what I choose.
 
I would definitely go along with that, too. But, there are tradeoffs. The DSS wings have the best STA-less design, but you can't get a donut wing from DSS that is field-repairable. If you could, then I suspect that would be my singles wing of choice, hands down.

Stuart, You have apparently made it your life's work to warn people about the horrors of donut wings without zippers, and never miss a chance to relate how you managed to repeatedly pinch the bladder in your 10+ year old DSS wing, the one with a obsolete 12 mil bladder that you purchased used.

To the best of my knowledge you do not own and have never owned a DSS wing, donut or horseshoe, that uses the 30 mil bladders we have provided for the last 7-8 years. Correct?

How exactly does your experience with a 10 year old wing of a super-ceded design qualify you to speak to the fitness of goods you have zero experience with?

Please do be specific.

Oh, BTW the rig the OP ordered last week shipped last week.

Tobin
 
Last edited:
My own experience is obviously very limited and purely anecdotal. But, I have the idea that the ability to do a field repair on a wing is something worth considering for any buyer of a wing, mostly based on posts I have seen here on SB like this one:

Pinch flats are easily 95+% of all failures, with rest being associated with hoses or fittings.


Wing failures are, I think, pretty darn rare. But, I have had and repaired a pinch flat myself. That's the only wing problem (I am reluctant to call it a failure as it was clearly user error) I have personally experienced. Of the 5 wings that I own, I have not personally experienced any downside that I (in my admittedly limited experience) could discern from having a zipper on each of them. So, from my perspective, even though failures are rare, if there is no downside to having the potential to self-repair the far and away most common failure, why would I, as a consumer, not choose to afford myself that option (presuming, of course, that other factors balance out)?

I think it would be pretty obvious that anyone considering buying a wing would have to make their own decision about the priority of being able to do certain types of repairs in the field versus the other factors that are relevant to buying a wing. Obviously, you think being able to do a field repair is very low priority. But, shouldn't the consumer have all the information and make their own decision about that?

I also think that is appropriate to point this consideration out to anyone who asks for recommendations on wings, as it is often not pointed out when the recommendation is given, and, since every other wing I know of (in my admittedly limited experience) does allow for the possibility of field repair, I could easily imagine that a shopper coming here to ask for recommendations might not realize that not ALL wings offer this capability and thus not realize that the recommendation they've just received failed to disclose this point which may or may not be important to the shopper.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I note that not only have I not personally experienced a down side to having a zipper on any of my wings, I have not seen any posts here on SB from anyone that could be described as "darn it! Having this darn zipper on my wing caused me a problem! I would have been just fine if this wing didn't have a zipper at all." But, I have not done anything like an exhaustive search, so those posts could certainly be out there.
 
My own experience is obviously very limited and purely anecdotal. But, I have the idea that the ability to do a field repair on a wing is something worth considering for any buyer of a wing, mostly based on posts I have seen here on SB like this one:




Wing failures are, I think, pretty darn rare. But, I have had and repaired a pinch flat myself. That's the only wing problem (I am reluctant to call it a failure as it was clearly user error) I have personally experienced. Of the 5 wings that I own, I have not personally experienced any downside that I (in my admittedly limited experience) could discern from having a zipper on each of them. So, from my perspective, even though failures are rare, if there is no downside to having the potential to self-repair the far and away most common failure, why would I, as a consumer, not choose to afford myself that option (presuming, of course, that other factors balance out)?

I think it would be pretty obvious that anyone considering buying a wing would have to make their own decision about the priority of being able to do certain types of repairs in the field versus the other factors that are relevant to buying a wing. Obviously, you think being able to do a field repair is very low priority. But, shouldn't the consumer have all the information and make their own decision about that?

I also think that is appropriate to point this consideration out to anyone who asks for recommendations on wings, as it is often not pointed out when the recommendation is given, and, since every other wing I know of (in my admittedly limited experience) does allow for the possibility of field repair, I could easily imagine that a shopper coming here to ask for recommendations might not realize that not ALL wings offer this capability and thus not realize that the recommendation they've just received failed to disclose this point which may or may not be important to the shopper.
We have never sold zipperless wings with the thin 12 mil bladder you have in your 10 or maybe 12 year old used DSS wing. Not one.

Why? Because we learned that 12 mil urethane commonly used for scuba inflatables was too easy for the end user to damage.

That lead us to seek a more robust material, and ultimately to have 30 mil urethane custom made. Our experience with this 30 ml material was dramatically fewer pinch flats, not zero, but far far fewer.

This gave us the confidence to offer zipperless wings. They have proven quite successful. The vast majority of users, with a modicum of attention to how they treat their gear seldom have any issues.

Tobin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
************************MOD POST**********************************

A gentle reminder: let's keep the comments in this thread focused on the topic, and not on the posters.

***********************************************************************
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom