Distribution block question.....

[DaleC]

Huh? Can't you retain the fundamental longhose/bungiied B/U technique by simply rigging each tank with those hoses. Why add all the complexity of gas blocks, quick connects and spare second stages when any failure downstream of either first stage means you have to abandon those very same hoses anyways.

It's a very expensive innovation that falls back on the older technology (a regset, attached to a valve, attached to a tank) it attempts to replace whenever a failure occurs. .

 

[Kevrumbo]

Huh? Can't you retain the fundamental longhose/bungiied B/U technique by simply rigging each tank with those hoses. Why add all the complexity of gas blocks, quick connects and spare second stages when any failure downstream of either first stage means you have to abandon those very same hoses anyways.

It's a very expensive innovation that falls back on the older technology (a regset, attached to a valve, attached to a tank) it attempts to replace whenever a failure occurs. .

Fundamental long hose dir/hogarthian technique has you ALWAYS breathing the long hose primary regulator on bottom mix, unless you've just donated to an out-of-gas buddy. In sidemount Z-system, the virtue of the distribution block is that you never have to switch out regs as you alternate breathing off of left & right tanks --i.e. alternating between shutting down one tank valve and opening the other in Z-system sidemount diving, you are always breathing the primary long hose regulator.

Again, contingency training with the "added complexity" of the QC6 connectors is not hard to accommodate at all and can be learned like any new novel skill, technique & task. . .

 

[SuPrBuGmAn]

MOST (Florida)SM divers use a standard long hose on one tank, and usually atleast a 32" "short" hose on the left tank. This most common setup allows for a very DIR type gas donation. Even if you're not currently on the long hose, the short hose is long enough to be donated/taken from a divers mouth and breathed on as its going to be atleast an arms reach worth of hose. Basically, you have two longhoses, if you end up on the shorter of the two, swap out before you proceed out.

Its as simple as that and at most you have to do one extra reg swap once everyone has calmed down(and 50% of the time, zero changes), compared to a traditional BM doubles DIR technique.

The Zsystem simply applies additional gear, additional techniques, and additional failure points all for the 50% possibility of doing an additional regulator swap after an OOA situation.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Maybe you should post in the DIR forum if you don't wish to receive non DIR answers.

... what makes you think the UTD system is DIR? Whatever the merits (or demerits) of the manifold may be, I think it violates at least the basic principle of simplicity and reducing failure points that is fundamental to a DIR approach ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

MOST (Florida)SM divers use a standard long hose on one tank, and usually atleast a 32" "short" hose on the left tank. This most common setup allows for a very DIR type gas donation. Even if you're not currently on the long hose, the short hose is long enough to be donated/taken from a divers mouth and breathed on as its going to be atleast an arms reach worth of hose. Basically, you have two longhoses, if you end up on the shorter of the two, swap out before you proceed out.

I just use a breakaway clip on the long hose ... which is on my right tank. I use a clip that secures the second stage quite easily, is easily detached, and if desireable just as easily reattached ...

Can't imagine a scenario where I wouldn't be able to instantly donate that reg, whether I'm breathing off it or not.

I just don't get what problem the manifold system solves. I can think of several potential problems it introduces ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Unified Team Diving]

... what makes you think the UTD system is DIR? Whatever the merits (or demerits) of the manifold may be, I think it violates at least the basic principle of simplicity and reducing failure points that is fundamental to a DIR approach ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Bob

To be perfectly clear the Z-System is NOT DIR and was never sold that way. A little history will shed some light on this.

Hogarthian was a minimalist approach to a gear configuration in the early 90's but those that followed still kept an ideology of "each diver" should configure their own way. DIR built upon the Hogarthian concept with the approach of Standardization (late 90's till now) - mainly because of a large scale projects such as Wakulla. However, this rigid standardization in itself lead to a narrowing of the available "tool set" as it was designed for open-circuit back-mounted doubles with stages and deco bottles. Any deviation from that configuration such as single tank, side-mount or rebreather, was either excluded or "cobbled" together.

In 2007, UTD decided to take a unique direction, our roots for the previous 13 years were in Hogarthian & DIR, but I wanted to build upon that and evolve it to the next generation. Unification. I wanted to keep our tool of open-circuit back-mount (DIR) but increase the "tool set", venturing into side-mount and CCR. My mission and goal was to unify these three systems (configurations) into one system. I wanted to drive this industry forward, by keeping the mimilist approach (Hogarthian) and standardization (DIR) however I wanted to create a unified approach to the three systems, thus expanding the tool bag from exclusively back-mount open-circuit to Side-Mount and CCR rebreathers. Keep in mind that I needed to do this while maintaining consistency, scalablity and interchangability. This are some of the core elements in our 10 convenants. UTD's 10 Covenants - Unified Team Diving

Now the Z-distribution block may make no sense to you as you may simply dive recreationally with two cylinders in side-mount format and you may not need a consistency, scalable and interchangeable approach, however in UTD it is imperative that we keep to our 10 covenants and most importantly allow for "mixed" team diving. The Z-Side-mount system uses the ideology of being consistent yet scalable between single tank, double tank, multiple tank and/or rebreather. This is something that a traditional Side-Mount configuration does not do. We keep the components of the system interchangeable, so you can use your backplate, harness, wing, light, argon bottle and so on between all the systems (back,side,rb).We even have our wings/trim devices designed that you can easily switch between back-mount, side-mount and rebreather (Delta). These are important things to us.

The addition of the Z-distribution block gives us the above mentioned advantage with "less" risk or disadvantage than an isolator knob on a set of doubles. Unlike back mount doubles which relies on the isolator knob, we do not rely on the Z-manifold, it is simply there to provide us with the ability to have long hose, necklace, bcd, drysuit, diluent and inputs. If it was to fail, our first line of defense is traditional side-mount (independent doubles) and if that has failed then our second line of defense is our UTD/DIR/Hogarthian teammate. This is an additional line of defense from traditional DIR back-mount as if you lost your isolator knob and were unable to shut down the isolator knob you only line of defense is your teammate, as you would loose all your gas.

However, all this banter about "failure" points, detracts from the core and central issue, which is, if you want a system that is consistent with your previous, current or future Hogarthian/DIR/UTD training and skills, that is scalable from single tank to mCCR rebreather, that is capable of mixed team diving, that has interchangeable components and that also allows you to configure and dive a configuration that is best suited for your diving or exploration needs, then the Z-System is the only one that is capable of that.

Andrew

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Thanks for the explanation, Andrew ... it's good to know the logic behind the design ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Kevrumbo]

Look . . .all this talk about Z-system "appl[ying] additional gear, additional techniques, and additional failure points all for the 50% possibility of doing an additional regulator swap after an OOA situation", comes from gross unfamiliarity or a snap judgment after only a single initial pool trial.

The fact I was able to utilize Z-system sidemount "right out-of-the-box", wreck diving in Chuuk & Palau, after only a few days orientation sessions before at UTD headquarters, is a testament to the ease of design, integration and implementation of this system: other than learning the new mechanics of QC6 connections and alternating independent tank switching & gas management, all my previous base knowledge, training and diving experience in long hose tech/deco/wreck overhead was perfectly consistent --quickly, seamlessly, and intuitively applied. . .

kevrumbo's Photos - Unified Team Diving

 

[PfcAJ]

How do you know if a scuba diver went to chuuk?

Dont worry, he'll tell you!

*Ba dum tiss*

 

[SuPrBuGmAn]

The fact I was able to utilize Z-system sidemount "right out-of-the-box", wreck diving in Chuuk & Palau, after only a few days orientation sessions before at UTD headquarters, is a testament to the ease of design, integration and implementation of this system...

I'm not sure thats a testament to anything, to be honest.

I would expect the same if someone were to get Lamar Hires to help them out with a Nomad for a few days, one of the Hollis(Sr/Jr) guys to orient you in the SMS for a few days, Steve B to get you into a Razor for a few days, so on and so forth...

I wanted to drive this industry forward, by keeping the mimilist approach (Hogarthian) and standardization (DIR)...

This is where I'm confused by the direction you went with the Z system. You went away from the minimilist approach by quite a bit with the addition of the gas block - semi - manifold design, in order to keep "scalability" and "interchangability". The problem is the truly minimilistic approach to sidemount would have been a simple harness design thats been around for decades(the Razor wasn't the first) and its every bit as scalable and interchangable as the Z, without the clutter and potential failure points.

Now the Z-distribution block may make no sense to you as you may simply dive recreationally with two cylinders in side-mount format and you may not need a consistency, scalable and interchangeable approach, however in UTD it is imperative that we keep to our 10 covenants and most importantly allow for "mixed" team diving. The Z-Side-mount system uses the ideology of being consistent yet scalable between single tank, double tank, multiple tank and/or rebreather. This is something that a traditional Side-Mount configuration does not do.

Why do you think the traditional sidemount configurations fall short on scalability? Consistancy? Interchangability?

We keep the components of the system interchangeable, so you can use your backplate, harness, wing, light, argon bottle and so on between all the systems (back,side,rb).We even have our wings/trim devices designed that you can easily switch between back-mount, side-mount and rebreather (Delta). These are important things to us.

This is all very easy to do with the Nomad or SMS setups. Strapping a set of doubles or breather to the Razor would obviously require some amount of headaches, but you're getting more away from "adding and additional tool to the bag" for the sake of universal useability.

The addition of the Z-distribution block gives us the above mentioned advantage with "less" risk or disadvantage than an isolator knob on a set of doubles. Unlike back mount doubles which relies on the isolator knob, we do not rely on the Z-manifold, it is simply there to provide us with the ability to have long hose, necklace, bcd, drysuit, diluent and inputs.

You can have all this, aside from inputs(and aren't necessary), with any sidemount setup, without any modifications.

I

f it was to fail, our first line of defense is traditional side-mount (independent doubles) and if that has failed then our second line of defense is our UTD/DIR/Hogarthian teammate. This is an additional line of defense from traditional DIR back-mount as if you lost your isolator knob and were unable to shut down the isolator knob you only line of defense is your teammate, as you would loose all your gas.

Yet is inferior to traditional sidemount where that manifold doesn't exist to fail, you simply go to your other(already open) cylinder. Where you don't have to dick with a valve to get the gas you need, and the regulator is already in place and accessible.

You added the manifold/gasblock, with all its inputs, put it in a place where it would recieve the majority of contact if one were to actually use the sidemount system in a sidemount situation, and created a situation where you cannot make a one step self rescue. You have to find your regulator(stowed, or plug it in), then crank your valve open, then breath. You did all this for the sake of a 50% possibility that you may have to swap regulators(on the assumption you need extra hose) after a perfectly safe, perfectly roomy gas donation to someone else.

However, all this banter about "failure" points, detracts from the core and central issue, which is, if you want a system that is consistent with your previous, current or future Hogarthian/DIR/UTD training and skills, that is scalable from single tank to mCCR rebreather, that is capable of mixed team diving, that has interchangeable components and that also allows you to configure and dive a configuration that is best suited for your diving or exploration needs, then the Z-System is the only one that is capable of that.

Andrew

No, its not.