Why not measure objectively?

[Cheizz]

There have been a few gear threads lately that had me thinking about objective, factual measurements of dive gear. And that they’re very hard to find. For example: what are a specific fin’s buoyancy characteristics underwater? How floaty is a certain wetsuit?

These are things a manufacturer or reviewer could easily measure and record, I would say. Sometimes, the dry weight of a product is mentioned (for a reference size), but buoyancy characteristics are rarely mentioned. And they are very relevant in scuba diving. With fins, with suits, with everything really. When you read about products and want to make an informed choice before purchasing, you want to know this stuff, right? I know I do.

So why don’t manufacturers or reviewers measure and report these things (especially these - maybe sponsored - mass reviews in magazines; they apparently have all the stuff right there, they say they measure stuff, but they don’t publish their measurements)?

In your swimsuit, establish your own personal buoyancy (can you float with lungs full of air? Do you get negatively buoyant when you exhale? How much weight does it need to get you under? - this is your reference and something that's nice for you to know, as a diver). Then put on a wetsuit and jump in. How much weight does it take to become negatively buoyant in that suit A? And how much weight does it take to get another suit (B) negatively buoyant? Shouldn’t be too hard, should it?

So why do only some brands measure and publish this kind of information that seems so relevant for people researching gear? Judging by the many gear threads on Scubaboard, many of these new gear purchases are inspired by a need for something else with different characteristics. So why don’t they just measure and list those?

 

[happy-diver]

I jumped into a disgusting "fresh water" cavern, all new, double thickness wetsuit, twins, boots, fins weight, I hadn't dived gear like this, in 20 years, never in muck, followed a line staked in a square ish shape, down across and along and across again, through mud, silt, and rocks, and the crap, the first guy fluffed up, beteween 2 to 6 metres depth

At the start gearing up at the back of the dive mobile I had a moment of clarity and removed 2 kilos of lead

Visibility was one foot, I was less than one foot off the surface I was traversing, and I did not create any dust

these calculations, would not even help another diver person of identical size with the same gear and set up

I can only chalk it up to being a big guy able to physically control the gear and the extra weight I like to dive

and just maybe the moment of clarity gearing up at the back of the dive mobile, objectively speaking, just saying

 

[FishWatcher747]

So why do only some brands measure and publish this kind of information that seems so relevant for people researching gear? Judging by the many gear threads on Scubaboard, many of these new gear purchases are inspired by a need for something else with different characteristics. So why don’t they just measure and list those?

Good question.

I will add another one. For BCDs measure the center of buoyancy of the BCD and note the location, number and weight capacity of weight pockets on the BCD.

Then for all popular weight amounts for the intended purpose of the BCD measure whether the BCD has the capacity to match the center of buoyancy of the BCD with the center of mass of the weights in the pockets.

 

[rob.mwpropane]

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. You'll dive what you have, get something else and just feel whether you're heavy or maybe not right... and maybe switch up again.

I'm constantly tweaking things, but like @happy-diver said, what I do doesn't necessarily mean it will work on the next guy of the same build.

Just a for instance... I dive a DR wing.. some places list it as 50 or 55# of lift.. I've seen others say 60# (I'm not sure the exact numbers, just saying I've seen different posted over the internet). All I know is I like it, and it works for me.

 

[Cheizz]

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. You'll dive what you have, get something else and just feel whether you're heavy or maybe not right... and maybe switch up again.

That's how you keep people spending money on this trial-and-error thing which shouldn't be trial-and-error. That's my point.

what I do doesn't necessarily mean it will work on the next guy of the same build.

The simple fact that wetsuit A in size L would take 2 lb more to sink than wetsuit B in the same size has nothing to do with the diver (since the diver in the suit is the same one). It has everything to do with the wetsuits (if tested in the manner explained in my opening post). This goes for any bit of gear, obviously. Just weigh it in water (with a simple luggage scale) and publish the read-out. This has nothing to do with an individual diver, it is actually as objective as things can be, IMO.

That shops mis-copy specific info on gear has nothing to do with measurements either. Just with lazy marketing departments.

 

[VikingDives]

Just with lazy marketing departments.

Not lazy, smart. The point of marketing is to sell you more (mostly) junk. If they get you to buy "The Best Fin of 2023" or whatever, they've done their job.

Equipment suppliers and marketers both, for the most part, don't care about making good gear. They just need gear that sells.

The average scuba consumer is woefully ignorant of the basics that are bandied around here. For example, locally, my shop is the only shop that teaches in NB/T and there's one other shop that kind of does (their students don't generally look like disasters in the water). Our shops are the most expensive, but the three other shops that teach woefully poor classes are the three that get the most students because they offer cheap training.

 

[Cheizz]

I know how marketing works. It's just an annoyance of mine that reviewers are part of that industry, rather than an actual help to consumers. This goes for all industries by the way. Although in skiing, for example, there are some companies that actually measure the actual width, length, weight etc. of skis and put them against the specifications offered by the brands. That way, you at least know the facts, and don't just have marketing bla bla to base a decision upon.

 

[lexvil]

It’s not a bad idea but I doubt it would stop me from trying different gear but basic figures for some things would be nice maybe as a tie breaker.

foot pocket measurements would be nice for fins along with dimensions and weight but then we need the external dimensions of each type and style of bootie/shoe etc.

new buoyancy for each size wet suit is a good starting point but now what is it after 5 or 10 dives, 2 or 3 years etc. I had a new neoteck suit that took 24 pounds to sink when new, after a few dives it was 18 lb.

in the end we would just end up with mountains of confusing digital data.

how something like a fin feels and performs at the end of MY leg is something only I can determine. Many people here love things like Mares Power Plana, Hollis Bat fins, both fairly well tied as the worst fins I’ve ever used.

some measurements would be nice but only you know what works for you, just don’t get stuck in a data rut because you have to try things for yourself.

 

[Jcp2]

Because a lot that goes into purchasing anything is subjective and emotional. Otherwise we would all be wearing the same clothes, driving the same cars, eating the same food, reading the same books (although I’m not sure how many people still read for fun).

 

[Cheizz]

No one can answer the question 'what do YOU like?'. But if you know yourself if you want a softer or harder fin - for example - some kind of indication as to the stiffness of a fin helps create an individual shortlist.