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
, i have also used 2 d rings per side one for when the cylinders are full and another for when they're empty but i definitely prefer the sliders. To each their own.
Yes, hence my hesitation!beanojones:
A very good point! I think some practices continue simply because of history and inertia, and evolve into 'standards' because most people seem to be doing them (albeit, simply because of history and inertia). I was watching a Dive Rite video the other day in which Lamar discusses the regulator set up for sidemount. In that video, he discusses putting the long hose on the LEFT bottle and the bungee necklace on the right side. I don't do it that way, never thought of doing it that way, but I also can't think of a reason not to. The use of a long hose / bungeed necklace set-up for SM came out of back-mount, as far as I can tell. Most of the early SM divers started as BM divers, and carried over practices from one configuration to the other. The long hose / bungeed necklace does not necessarily have quite the same utility in independent doubles. At the same time, more than a few SM divers and SM instructors use a long hose on each bottle. Some use a 7 ft hose on each bottle, some use a 5 ft. I am on the fence - stuck in historical inertia to a certain extent. I started SM with the 'traditional' hose configuration (because I came to SM from BM), after a while switched to two 5 ft hoses. Then, I switched back to the 'traditional'. I teach new SM divers that such a configuration is common with BM doubles, that using it in SM is functional (if they balance their gas consumption from each bottle), but they will see other approaches. Most of my OW SM students have come from BM doubles, and they 'get' the set-up.
On one hand, I can see why they went this route - it is 'common', if not 'standard', and the individual who is probably most responsible for PADI's move into sidemount came from a BM background. It was a good starting point. On the other, making it a standard imposes some burdens on instructors and actually has the potential to dampen enthusiasm for innovation. Better that it be a recommendation rather than a standard, in my view. But, that gets right back at the heart of one of Andy's posts in this thread. Is it better to have the configuration as a standard, so that students know that SM is a tangible configuration? There is merit in that. I just don't know how far to go. For example, I use omni-swivels on both second stages. I show students that configuration, and some have adopted it. There are SM divers who use a fixed angle adapter, and would suggest that omni-swivels are dangerous. I would not recommend them as a standard. But, I sure don't want them prohibited because because a fixed angle swivel becomes a 'standard'.beanojones:
In a Hog configuration you donate what you are breathing and switch to your backup. Exactly what I do. SM diving is not hog diving. How is a short hose / long hose combo where you donate at times the reg you are not breathing any closer to hog setups then what I do?
