Hogarthian and Jacket BCs?

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!

yes it sounds right.

except that ur bc usually isn't fully or much inflated under water if you're weighted properly, so the michelin effect is only on shore and on surface. right?
 
headhunter:
Interesting question.

Obviously, the feeling here is that you could sort of pick and choose your gear in such a way that "minimalism" would be your guide. Streamlining also seems to play a part.

Could it be that some Jacket Style BCs would be considered Hogarthian while some others would not?

...or would it be said that all traditional Jacket Style BCs would be excluded from a Hogarthian rig because they are not streamlined due to their very form (shape and size)? I'm thinking of the way they wrap around you, making you look a bit like the Michellin Man. I imagine that this would produce quite a bit of drag going through the water and therefore not conform to the minimalist guideline. Additionally, would a back inflate BC be excluded from this criticism?

It seems that further definition is necessary to come up with our baseline definition for what is or is not Hogarthian.

Does anyone here know Bill? I read a statement made by him and a few of his contemporaries that they really don't spend any time in online discussion and only felt compelled to do so on a particular issue where they felt that they needed to (as a group) set the record straight.

I just thought that someone might be able to speak with him and post a short statement on his behalf. Or maybe he himself would be willing to write a simple statement that could be used as a sticky note at the top of the forum. I just feel that since we are going to attach his name to the forum for the whole world to see, that it would be nice to at least try to get his philosophy correctly portrayed, right from the start.

It is not my intent to hijack this thread. It just seems that in order the answer the original question, we also need to attempt to correctly define "Hogarthian". I think they are inextricably related.

Does this sound right to anyone else?

Christian

The way I learned to HOG RIG was to limit the number and placement of D-rings. This leads me to beleave that a true HOG RIG would be bp/w design only. But back in the old days there was no BC at all . Just wetsuit and lead weight, so this would remind me of divers with just a back plate and steal tanks. hope this helps.
 
MechDiver:
Probably a misconception on my part, but I equate Hogarthian with caves, tech, doubles, and the equipment that goes with that style of diving as I believe that was Main's focus at the time?
What's funny is if you were diving in the late 60s/early 70s you would have equated octos, SPGs and BCs with caves, tech, etc. My how times change... :)

Unlike octos, SPGs and BCs that the recreational marketing machine could make money on, and therefore were adopted by recreational manufacturers fairly easily, the recreational marketing machine knows that they're bound to actually *lose* money on BPs and wings, so BPs are pretty slow at making inroads into the recreational marketplace.

Roak
 
underwater daphne:
so the michelin effect is only on shore and on surface. right?

I would tend to disagree. The only jacket style BC's I've seen that I would not consider bulky have been a couple very light tropical softpacks, which most divers don't use. They tend to go with the latest tec wannabe behemoth because they think it looks cool.

MD
 
roakey:
What's funny is if you were diving in the late 60s/early 70s you would have equated octos, SPGs and BCs with caves, tech, etc. My how times change... :)

Unlike octos, SPGs and BCs that the recreational marketing machine could make money on, and therefore were adopted by recreational manufacturers fairly easily, the recreational marketing machine knows that they're bound to actually *lose* money on BPs and wings, so BPs are pretty slow at making inroads into the recreational marketplace.

Roak

You forgot the only computer back then was a watch. and if you didn't have a spg you sure had a J valve. Makes todays divers look like a fashion show , How times change is right !
 
I'd need to recheck with the source, but I believe Bill Main was supposedly going to endorse a particular softpack/wing combination as being "Hogarthian" for advertising purposes. But it was basically a soft backplate. Give me a couple of days.

My impression of a hogarthian rig has always been the backplate / wing / one piece harness / bungeed secondary / long hose primary, everything else after that was personal preference as long as it fitted within the no danglies / streamlining / minimisation / backups etc parameters.
 
I just found an article by Jarrod Jablonski called: The Hogarthian Gear Configuration.
I don't know if people know this one but anyway I thought I'd post the link in case it's of interest:
http://www.sportdiverhq.com/hog.htm
 
Yep, I posted a link to that article in another thread a couple days ago.

Funny thing is that once this thread got started I spent some time searching the Internet for info from other sources (preferably Bill Main himself) ... and there doesn't seem to be any. Everything I found was one way or another tied into DIR or GUE.

Appears as though the founders of DIR have claimed the Hogarthian concept as their own ... at least as regards to online sources.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
 
NWGratefulDiver:
Yep, I posted a link to that article in another thread a couple days ago.

Funny thing is that once this thread got started I spent some time searching the Internet for info from other sources (preferably Bill Main himself) ... and there doesn't seem to be any. Everything I found was one way or another tied into DIR or GUE.

Appears as though the founders of DIR have claimed the Hogarthian concept as their own ... at least as regards to online sources.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
Yes, I noticed the same thing while I was looking. The link we both posted seemed to be the 'cleanest' that I could find. I did find a reference to an article from Bill Main in a diving magazine from a few years ago - but not the article itself. It was in a magazine called Imersed and you could possibly get it as a back issue - the link for that is:
http://www.immersed.com/Issues/Winter1997.htm
 
KimLeece:
Yes, I noticed the same thing while I was looking. The link we both posted seemed to be the 'cleanest' that I could find. I did find a reference to an article from Bill Main in a diving magazine from a few years ago - but not the article itself. It was in a magazine called Imersed and you could possibly get it as a back issue - the link for that is:
http://www.immersed.com/Issues/Winter1997.htm
Here is what appears to be only the first page of an article that I found. Apparently, this is from a Jan '96 copy of DeepTech magazine.

http://www.advanceddivermagazine.com/New Site.data/deeptech/DT4pdf/Hogarth1.pdf

It is archived on the Advanced Diver website, so maybe Curt Bowen will have access to more information for us to fill in some of the gaps in knowledge that we seem to have.

Christian
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/
http://cavediveflorida.com/Rum_House.htm

Back
Top Bottom