DIR from the start? Zeagle Express Tech

[Pullmyfinger]

A couple of other BC's that are similar to the Zeagle are the Dive Rite Transpac and an Oxycheq set up with their soft, padded "plate".
It might be worth checking out if you are in the market for this type of BC. May as well compare them all while you're shopping.

-Mitch

 

[gsk3]

DIR compliant or not, the Express Tech is an awesome choice. I have dove it extensively and have found that the most ardent detractors have never dove one... go figure. :shocked2: Its incredibly stable and has little detectable shift that would hurt your trim or buoyancy. At least it has never affected mine, and while I am often mistaken for a DIR diver I don't buy into the extreme gear regimentation. That such a great BC is automatically rejected by the DIR advocates as not being "not optimal" is a good example of why I don't buy into their mantra.

DIR is not about finding *the* optimal way of doing everything, it's about finding *one* optimal way. It's a system, and all the pieces fit together. The Zeagle may be (and looks like) a perfectly acceptable BC when you dive singles, but what about doubles? What about doubles plus a stage? What about doubles plus a stage plus an argon bottle plus a scooter? The system is about scaling and standardization. There's nothing wrong with borrowing ideas that were developed or promulgated by GUE and adopting them in other uses--just about everyone does it. But the OP asked a specific question ("is the Z ET compliant with DIR standards") and got a specific recommendation ("no--buy a BP/W for the same or less money").

 

[danvolker]

DIR is not about finding *the* optimal way of doing everything, it's about finding *one* optimal way. It's a system, and all the pieces fit together. The Zeagle may be (and looks like) a perfectly acceptable BC when you dive singles, but what about doubles? What about doubles plus a stage? What about doubles plus a stage plus an argon bottle plus a scooter? The system is about scaling and standardization. There's nothing wrong with borrowing ideas that were developed or promulgated by GUE and adopting them in other uses--just about everyone does it. But the OP asked a specific question ("is the Z ET compliant with DIR standards") and got a specific recommendation ("no--buy a BP/W for the same or less money").

Let me take a shot at defining this

DIR Was the result of several thousand divers and their collective experience over close to 2 decades.....in this collective experience, the goal was pure function, with absolute and total disregard for any thing coming out of the Dive industry advertising (in the 90's, typically "looks" will rule, function is not relevant).

DIR was the common sense collective, of how to do every conceivable aspect of "adventure diving" or "Cave diving", and included how to maintain this set of behaviors, even during your recreational dives.

So while DIR may not be the ONLY system claiming an "Optimal" way for doing things and for choosing gear, it is likely to be the one with the largest non-advertising based reasoning, most function based choices, of the greatest number of really exceptional divers, trying to achieve huge dives in very challenging conditions.

Another great plus to DIR, is should you decide to pursue this course, and become a DIR diver, it becomes much simpler to find safe buddies to do challenging dives with, as you then look for DIR divers in the area you want to dive, and automatically you eliminate "many" of the huge problems in choosing buddies for a challenging dive.... GUE has taken this another step beyond, in that if the person has done Fundamentals or beyond this, there is spectacular certainty that you can know prior to diving with them, what to expect, how you can expect them to be a team with you on the challenging dive.....With DIR alone, you may still need to do a dive or two with another DIR-ish diver, to determine if in fact, they are close enough to the core DIR principles, and skilled to the degree you are expecting. GUE is kind of like a "quality control" on this .... But this is not to say that you can not be a spectacular DIR diver, without GUE.... George Irvine, the guy that was responsible for the collective known as DIR diving, and who took the WKPP deep cave diving team to one world record after another, all with a zero death record for tens of thousands of man hours, was not GUE trained. George learned from the collective knowledge, and by mentoring from Parker Turner, another awesome diver that had been working on developing this collective knowledge and unprecedented level of bouyancy control, trim, and propulsive perfection in all directions.

As you dive with your "new" DIR buddy, on a big trip you have been dreaming about, it is very cool that you know everything about their gear there is to know, and they know everything about yours--because you are both configured exactly the same way---any problem you could have, your buddy knows how to fix it, just as if it had happened to them

You also know your "new" buddy will not dissappear on you....they keep you in their peripherol awareness and the instant you make a turn, they make a turn...and vice versa. The list could go on for pages, so for now I think I will stop here

 

[gsk3]

So while DIR may not be the ONLY system claiming an "Optimal" way for doing things and for choosing gear, it is likely to be the one with the largest non-advertising based reasoning, most function based choices, of the greatest number of really exceptional divers, trying to achieve huge dives in very challenging conditions.

Dan - I agree that DIR is great. That was not my point. Mine was a response to the common criticism that DIR is not open-minded about gear choices because it rejects gear that works perfectly fine.

DIR does reject gear that is perfectly acceptable to dive with. No one is going to die from diving a Zeagle Express Tech BC instead of a BP/W. But it's simply not DIR, because it doesn't fit perfectly into the system.

 

[The Chairman]

DIR is not about finding *the* optimal way of doing everything, it's about finding *one* optimal way.

Given the definition of optimal, it's either optimal or sub-optimal. IOW, "the"="one".

It's a highly regimented system, and all the pieces fit together.

There, I fixed it for you. All my pieces fit together as well. But this thread is not a debate about which system is better. Its about the BC.

The Zeagle may be (and looks like) a perfectly acceptable BC when you dive singles, but what about doubles? What about doubles plus a stage? What about doubles plus a stage plus an argon bottle plus a scooter? The system is about scaling and standardization.

I dive independent doubles with my Express Tech and would suggest that side mounting with a back plate & wings is not only less than optimal, but defeats the intent. How does that fit in with your concept of scalability? As for doubles, I have been asked to try them with the ET, but am reluctant. Who knows if he'll ever dive doubles, a stage or use a scooter. Most divers don't. I was a mechanic for 30+ years and found that you should use the right tool for the job. In order to make a single wing set up work for doubles, you'll need to at least buy a different bladder, most of which are more expensive than the Express Tech. I have opted to have one dedicated rig for singles/side mount and another for doubles. As for stages and/or scooter: piece of cake. But then, I don't think you would know as you have probably not dove one. How do I come up with that? This previous comment of yours is false in regards to the Express Tech:

Finally, you can get a BP/W for less money than a fancy BC in most cases.

Statements that are so off the mark as this, indicate that you have never dove one and quite possibly have never even held one. The Express Tech is in fact cheaper than ANY BP&Wing system or about the same as any wing and it's anything but "fancy". I think that having an Express Tech for a singles tank is a great idea and I don't see how it violates any tenets of the DIR code in regards to simplicity, danglies, setup etc. That being said, it does violate the "Thou shalt only worship the BP&Wing and have no other BC before it!" catechism that some seem to adhere to. For those who don't know any better: there is no such rule in the mythical DIR handbook. In fact, I have seen and heard of peeps who took fundies in any number of different back inflate BCs. Not all people who are DIR advocates are nearly this regimented. In fact, I would suggest that most DIR divers aren't.

There's nothing wrong with borrowing ideas that were developed or promulgated by GUE and adopting them in other uses--just about everyone does it. But the OP asked a specific question ("is the Z ET compliant with DIR standards") and got a specific recommendation ("no--buy a BP/W for the same or less money").

Which is great, since many of those ideas were similarly adopted from others by DIR. I have often been marked as a DIR diver because you can find me sporting a BP&Wing with a long hose. You can be sure that I have never taken a fundies course or was mentored in any way by a DIR diver. My standard answer is that rather than being DIR, I simply dive a modified Hogarthian Rig. But then again, this thread isn't about DIR as a way of diving. In my opinion, its as valid as any other way of diving including mine. Since the OP cited my thread on the Express Tech, I thought it appropriate to interject my actual hands on experience with the equipment into the discussion and relate it to my understanding of DIR. You have taken the opposite route, interjecting your hands on experience as a DIR diver with your impression of the Express Tech. Which is the more optimal approach? The OP will decide on his own, I am certain.

 

[The Chairman]

Mine was a response to the common criticism that DIR is not open-minded about gear choices because it rejects gear that works perfectly fine.

DIR as a system is neither closed or open minded. The comment was about some of the DIR divers who are obviously way more regimented than the system dictates. There were a number of inaccuracies bandied about the Express Tech that were nothing short of being hypothetical. Tanks shifting more than a BP&Wing, its fancy and its expensive are but three of the many fallacious statements that were made by those who have probably never had one on in the water. There's a lot of passion in diving and for good reason. Often, passion is "less than optimal" in any internet discussion. Its easy to bash what you haven't dove or tried. Its even easier to invent defects that just aren't there and to speculate about the suitability of any piece of gear. There's inherently nothing wrong with that speculation, just as there is nothing wrong with an opposing view point, especially when it is based on actual experience with the gear in question. Don't take it so personal! If we all agreed, there wouldn't be a need for ScubaBoard, and I have a HUGE problem with that!

 

[gsk3]

Pete,

Fundamentally, I answered the OP's question (is the ET compatible with DIR standards). You did not.

Sidemount is irrelevant--if you're recommending the ET as the optimal solution for sidemount you're the first person I've heard of to do so.

There is a rule in the GUE standards that states that backplates must be metal. I suspect it is there precisely because some people have claimed that the Transplate and its derivatives were fine for class and they wanted to clarify.

I think you believe this thread is a discussion about the ET. I'm sure it's a perfectly fine piece of kit, but the OP had a very specific question:

As I understand, Express Tech is not exactly a BP&W as it has a soft plate instead of SS or AL. Any shortcomings to the DIR standards because of that? The feature that puzzled me most is the elastic retractor. Would it create the same problems why the DIR sites advise not to use bungied wings: rugged surface that causes more drag; trapping the air; difficulty to inflate the bladder orally; dificulty to use the BC as a "third regulator"? Any other advise?

The answer is that the ET does not meet the standards of either of the two DIR-exclusive training agencies for their core curriculum.

 

[danvolker]

 

[Insta-Gator]

Green Zone boys and girls.

 

[The Chairman]

There is a rule in the GUE standards that states that backplates must be metal.

Does GUE claim to even teach DIR anymore? It was my understanding that they have distanced themselves from the use of that term. Certainly, GUE has its roots in DIR, but are we overstepping the bounds by saying that only GUE divers can be called DIR? What about the Unified Team divers from the West Coast? I realize that Dan suggested that GUE is "quality control" and he was there at pretty much the outset. But really: who defines what is DIR? George? Jared? Andrew? I am not trying to piss off anyone or start a turf war, but its hard to keep up with all the players who are going in slightly different directions.

I am glad that this thread is not in the DIR forum, where we can't ask WHY backplates must be metal to be GUE compliant. Consider this question asked!

I think you believe this thread is a discussion about the ET.

Silly me! It must be about some other BC!

As it is, some outlandish statements were made about the Express Tech. If peeps had avoided such misrepresentation, I would not have felt the need to post. When you post inaccuracies based on mere speculation you can find me as well as others pointing them out. Do you feel that I should allow such statements to go unchallenged just because I am not DIR? As it is, I don't find you disagreeing with my assertions that you are wrong... you just seem upset that I am not DIR and had the temerity to add my point of view.

This kind of reminds me of the discussions from early on with a few DIR divers. We were discussing why they said you had to be horizontal at all times, even during ascent. After we cut all the BS theories having to do with better off gassing and other such nonsense we were left with the ultimate reason: Because! It was like I was talking with my mother.