Innovation In Recreational Scuba Diving?

[chillyinCanada]

Great thread RJP! Though I'm not sure what you've expected, inasmuch as in your profession, nothing has changed in 50 years. :biggrin:

 

[Storker]

The YMCA favored working through local clubs, a design that is still working for BSAC but really nowhere else.

I'd like to (respectfully) differ on just that point. In Scandinavia, at least, that's the MO of CMAS as well.

 

[RJP]

Great thread RJP! Though I'm not sure what you've expected, inasmuch as in your profession, nothing has changed in 50 years. :biggrin:

It's the "never hold your breath" of marketing.

 

[MaxBottomtime]

LED lights. If you wanted anything close to the brightness you get from a dive light these days you needed to haul around a light that weighed as much as a tank.

 

[fbk]

What percent of ALL recreational divers are using rebreathers these days, do you suppose? I would guess you'd need some significant rounding to get it up to even 1%. Sure, that's up 1000% from .01% five years ago. But I wouldn't consider that "lighting it up" just yet. I'm thinking a product with a $5000 price tag targeted to a customer base that buys a $3 bottle of defog from an online seller in order to save the sales tax still has a little way to go on the adoption spectrum.

Again, you're looking at what something IS. I will agree that the technology is innovative (though it's been around for decades, so...) and of anything currently out there rebreathers have the greatest shot but they haven't come close to innovating the sport yet

Rebreathers even at a recreational level are IMO far more "innovative" than anything else that has come before them in the last 70 years, in terms of changing what someone can do underwater by strapping something on their back and breathing out of it, by hugely increasing the underwater time available. Nitrox was a stepping stone, rebreathers are portable nitrox blending machines at least eCCR. The fact that market penetration is currently limited by the cost investment is irrelevant, at some point in the future open circuit will be to diving what the hot air balloon is to air travel.

 

[Wookie]

Well, helium doubled the amount of dive depth open to recreational divers in the late 70's. Before helium folks were limited to about 130 feet, now I run charters regularly to 300 feet.

Liveaboards opened up places that were not accessible to the regular person before. Not the milquetoast T&C boats, but true explorers like the Sea Fever and the Nimrod and the Nautilus Explorer.

I know that none of these were gear innovations, but then, the gear is pretty good. These were adventure innovations, taking reliable gear and visiting places that would have taken an expedition (in the true sense of the word) 20 years earlier.

 

[RJP]

Well, helium doubled the amount of dive depth open to recreational divers in the late 70's. Before helium folks were limited to about 130 feet, now I run charters regularly to 300 feet.

Liveaboards opened up places that were not accessible to the regular person before. Not the milquetoast T&C boats, but true explorers like the Sea Fever and the Nimrod and the Nautilus Explorer.

I know that none of these were gear innovations, but then, the gear is pretty good. These were adventure innovations, taking reliable gear and visiting places that would have taken an expedition (in the true sense of the word) 20 years earlier.

I never constrained "innovation in recreational diving" to gear; in fact my original post suggested that I thought that the way that instruction/certification changed was about the ONLY innovation. It's interesting that most everyone automatically constrains their thinking vis-a-vis "innovation" to consideration of "new gear." In almost any area of discussion. Innovative "thinking" or a re-application of existing technology is usually discounted in favor of shiny buttons and blinking lights.

I like the liveaboard example. Not sure I'd limit it to just expedition types either.

PS - I don't think I'd consider 300ft dives to be recreational diving.

 

[redacted]

The pee valve. I guess you could add shiny buttons and blinking lights if you must.

 

[Storker]

I don't think I'd consider 300ft dives to be recreational diving.

It all depends on your definition of 'recreational'. Rec vs tec - I agree. OTOH, 'recreational' can also mean 'not-for-pay'. The tec divers I know are all diving without being paid and for the sheer fun of it, while a DM, guide or instructor is doing it for money while still staying within rec (i.e. non-tec) limits

rec-re-a-tion-al [rek-ree-ey-shuh-nl]
adjective
1. of or pertaining to recreation

 

[RJP]

It all depends on your definition of 'recreational'. Rec vs tec - I agree. OTOH, 'recreational' can also mean 'not-for-pay'. The tec divers I know are all diving without being paid and for the sheer fun of it, while a DM, guide or instructor is doing it for money while still staying within rec (i.e. non-tec) limits

rec-re-a-tion-al [rek-ree-ey-shuh-nl]
adjective
1. of or pertaining to recreation

I'm meaning recreational dive in the connotative sense of the average diver doing a "pretty fishies" or "santitized wreck" dive as well as the denotative sense of being within the generally accepted recreational limits with respect to depth and no-deco time.

ScubaBoard may overindex for tec... the real world, not so much.