Zeagle comparisions

[crpntr133]

Because most of my diving is warm water travel I bought the Scout (the stripped down model) as a way around the size and weight of the Ranger with full intent on diving the Ranger when I was driving to a site but as I got use to the Scout I found I prefered it as I did not need the extra padding or lift (35lb vs 44 lb). The Ranger weights in at around 9 lbs, the Scout is 4. Another "problem" with the Ranger is it is close to 4 lbs positive, the Scout (and I suspect the Escape) it pretty close to neutral. If I were to do it all over again, I think I would buy the Escape to start with. Unless you have a need for the extra lift of the Ranger, are going to dive doubles or intend to hang heavy items like stage bottles off the D rings, I see no reason to upgrade past the Escape. Last I heard, the Scout was no longer in production so the Escape is the next logical choice and it has the Ripcord weight system which my Scout doesn't .

I thought I saw someplace that Chad Carney (a factory rep) said that the Ranger was NOT positive? What would make it positive? Even the LTD padding is suppose to be neutral.

Personally I would just get a smaller bladder. I dive the Brigade, Ranger with the 34lb bladder, and love it. I can pack it pretty easily. You can put any Zeagle bladder on the Ranger harness. Not sure that you can do this on other harnesses.

 

[Parrothead_Diver]

Is it possible to just buy the brigade bladder and attach it to the Ranger?

Yes, Because the Brigade is essentually a Ranger Harness with an Escape Bladder attached. I also believe that the Ranger can take almost any bladder in the Zeagle line.

You can buy an Escape Bladder at any Zeagle Dealer, or better yet at ScubaToys.com.

 

[agilis]

I use a Scout when I travel. It weighs almost nothing, packs easily in less than 1/4 of my carry-on, has functioned flawlessly during more than 30 Caribbean dives over the past 3 years. It still looks like new. I added a utility pocket, use a two pound weight in each rear weight pocket. Very, very comfortable, sleek, perfect for light travel to tropical destinations. It takes up very little space, and you are hardly aware that it's there when you wear it.

 

[herman]

I thought I saw someplace that Chad Carney (a factory rep) said that the Ranger was NOT positive? What would make it positive? Even the LTD padding is suppose to be neutral.

Personally I would just get a smaller bladder. I dive the Brigade, Ranger with the 34lb bladder, and love it. I can pack it pretty easily. You can put any Zeagle bladder on the Ranger harness. Not sure that you can do this on other harnesses.

The new ones may be but I know for fact mine (around 5 yrs old) was positive. I tested it one day after a quarry dive. It was plenty wet, I made sure all the air was out of it and added weights in 1lb increments until it sank. It took 4 lbs. Unless someone can point out something I missed, I would say it had to be 4lbs positive.

 

[Ron Brandt]

I use a Ranger as well as a Wing/BP with the 33Lb wing and weight pockets....This unit kicks *** AND is very compact. This wing will interchange with the Ranger but I see no need.
I knocked alot of weight off using the wing and BP.

Ron

 

[Chad Carney]

I just went swimming with three BCs in my pool.

2005 Stiletto... sleeps with the fishes with zero weight!

2005 Ranger LTD... with 1 lbs of weight, smallest I have, down for the count!
Also note the big cushy lumbar pad on the LTD, the add on pockets, and the yellow weight pouches had no positive buoyancy, they were all onboard.

2001 Ranger, no rear weight system. It took over a minute, but it did rise and hang just below the surface with a 1 lbs weight. (With a two lbs weight it plummeted for the bottom.) The LTD has two additional 2" D-rings and the two additional 1.5" d-rings... and that's the difference.

Scuba Diving Magazine reported that Zeagle BCs have no relevant inherent buoyancy, but I thought I'd run my own test.

I have to agree with them!

Chad

 

[crpntr133]

I just went swimming with three BCs in my pool.

2005 Stiletto... sleeps with the fishes with zero weight!

2005 Ranger LTD... with 1 lbs of weight, smallest I have, down for the count!
Also note the big cushy lumbar pad on the LTD, the add on pockets, and the yellow weight pouches had no positive buoyancy, they were all onboard.

2001 Ranger, no rear weight system. It took over a minute, but it did rise and hang just below the surface with a 1 lbs weight. (With a two lbs weight it plummeted for the bottom.) The LTD has two additional 2" D-rings and the two additional 1.5" d-rings... and that's the difference.

Scuba Diving Magazine reported that Zeagle BCs have no relevant inherent buoyancy, but I thought I'd run my own test.

I have to agree with them!

Chad

So in salt water it would be 4lbs positive...makes sense.

 

[Chad Carney]

So in salt water it would be 4lbs positive...makes sense.

Wally,

It doesn't make sense to triple the weight for a BC alone when moving from fresh to salt water. The Ranger probably needed about 1.3 lbs in the pool. The BC displaces very little water, so it will not require much change when going from fresh to salt. My bet is that 2 lbs will sink it in salt water too.

I only need 3 lbs more weight for salt water, and I displace a huge amount compared to an empty Ranger BC.

Chad

 

[crpntr133]

I was thinking maybe two but probably three, maybe four. Didn't think about the water displacement. I knew I should have taken physics instead of anatomy/physiology.

I am off see about a gill implant so I don't have to buy a Flathead this winter.