Dry suits for all occasions

[Braunbehrens]

It's unfortunate, because he is right in what he says.

For recreational diving a wetsuit will do, but for anything technical a drysuit is pretty much necessary.

I'd be happy to discuss the pros and cons of wet vs. dry diving for TEK diving only.

However, I think we need a new thread if we're going to do this.

[Rick Murchison]

Braunbehrens once bubbled...
It's unfortunate, because he is right in what he says.

For recreational diving a wetsuit will do, but for anything technical a drysuit is pretty much necessary.

I'd be happy to discuss the pros and cons of wet vs. dry diving for TEK diving only.

However, I think we need a new thread if we're going to do this.
Curious... if the water's warm enough to not require a lot of thermal protection does that make the dive non-technical? Last month I completed (quite comfortably, by the way) a non-technical 1+20 deco schedule in a 3mm shorty then. It must have really been a non-tech deco schedule for my buddy in his bathing suit.
Rick

[Doc Intrepid]

needs a nice tall glass of Kool-Aid!

And to think, it was only last summer at the BAUE lecture that George Irvine gave, where ole George was talking about diving in the ocean with a wetsuit and twin 80s. He's such a non-TEK weenie, that George...

Someone should clue him in. How about you guys do it, ok?

[Braunbehrens]

Like I said, you guys wanna discuss it, let's start a thread. GI dives in 70+ degree water but wears a drysuit. Drysuits have many advantages over wetsuits. Of course you CAN dive wet and do a deco dive. Heck, there is a girl who can dive to 400 ft on a breath of air in a wetsuit. No one is talking about what is possible. I'm sure I CAN dive to 250 ft on air. Doesn't mean it's a great idea, nor that I would do it.

Not interested in a pissing match at all, but we can discuss the pros and cons if anyone is interested.

[FLL Diver]

Well unless these old eyes are failing me, I don't see any arm or chest dumps on this suit that says SeaQuest across the chest.

The caption reads "Michael Kane returns to the Wakulla Beach" (http://www.gue.com/research/wkpp/gallery/gallery10_image09.shtml). :D

What's that about Rule #6 again? :rolleyes:

Where's all the real DIR folks to set these guys straight?

Marc

[bwerb]

Guess I'm gonna have to burn my copy of "Doing it Right"...far too many wetsuits in the photos...guess I didn't get the new revised copy with the color photos.

Sorry guys...your argument is bunk...FISH ON!!!

[Braunbehrens]

for a good analysis of why wetsuits aren't suited for technical diving, read the thread entitled steel tank wetsuit diving.

http://www.scubaboard.com/t9107/s.html

[Genesis]

No, it does not. You can do a deco dive in anything over roughly 30' of water!

Nor does it necessarily equal cold.

If you are diving in 70F water or above, a wetsuit is fine. It cannot be holed catastrophically, it will keep you warm enough, and it will be thin enough not to have a massive buoyancy shift and thus be trouble for you.

I dive wet in water of 70F or above, roughly.

If its colder, I dive dry. Why? Because I can, and I don't get cold that way. That's enough reasons for me.

But diving dry does come with added complexity, more things to break, and more consequences if they do. A catastrophic holing of your drysuit is bad news in cold water. Very bad news. And not just due to the buoyancy issues it can raise - but rather, the hypothemia issues.

If you're diving DEEP then cold becomes more likely, simply because the water tends to be colder the deeper you go. Of course in extreme cases it gets REAL cold, but even in less-extreme cases its typically colder the further down you go. So, if you dive deep, you are more likely to want to dive dry, all other things being equal.

[Rick Murchison]

Braunbehrens once bubbled...
for a good analysis of why wetsuits aren't suited for technical diving, read the thread entitled steel tank wetsuit diving.
http://www.scubaboard.com/t9107/s.html
So now we can't be "TEK" unless we're using steel tanks! My, my... that makes my warm water 3 mil shorty dive mentioned above positively ineligible for "TEK" status on yet another count! What shall I ever doooooo???? It's not the planning... not the site... not the depth... not the gasses... not the deco... no... not even the dive itself! It's the suit and the tanks!
Rick the recreational wetsuit and AL tanks tropical guy...
---------
Think I should open a dry suit store on Bonaire? You'll front the money, right? :)

[Braunbehrens]

I don't mean to be rude, but just because many people say something does not make it true. Most people think that divers use "oxygen tanks". Does that make diving "oxygen tanks" a good idea?

If you are going to do short exposures in shallow water in warm conditions, fine, then a wet suit is ok. However, this is just a nonsense argument. Most tech diving will include depth, and long exposures.

Genesis, why the contradiction? I was mostly referring to your post when I directed people to that thread. Here is the relevant part:




3. For "deep divers" (beyond rec depths) this works out pretty well since in general as you go deeper the water gets colder, and your exposure time increases (since you have deco to take care of). As such drysuits and technical diving work well together, even in what would otherwise be "warm" (at the surface) water. You can become hypothermic in 80 degree water, and you can become dangerously so in 70 degree water. Below 70F water dry suit protection for any deco dive is pretty much mandatory simply due to hypothermia issues.




Rick, no one said anything about needing to dive steel tanks to be tek. I don't know where you get that from. All I'm saying is "dive a balanced rig", and that basically means a drysuit, especially for long or deep exposures. If you can use AL tanks, balance your rig, and maintain proper trim, I don't see a problem with it.

[GreenDiverDown]

Post deleted.

Comment no longer pertinent since the thread was hacked up.

SA

[Doc Intrepid]

Paul,

To characterize or to define a thing not by what it is or what it does, but by how it looks, is to confuse its essence with its cosmetic appearance.

Technical diving is as technical diving does. Plenty of 'technical' diving globally is being done by serious, well-informed technical divers in wetsuits. They seldom argue the point on the boards, however.

The points you have made regarding hypothermia, exposure, and the benefits of drysuits are all correct. I apologize for having fun with you.

Rethink your assumptions, however, and the corollary to your sweeping generalization: ...that 'if the diver is wearing a wetsuit it cannot therefore (by someone's definition) be a technical dive'. The fact that Rick was not wearing a drysuit does not make his recent dive any less technical for it. It is counter-intuitive to claim so.

There are some 'DIR Tec Divers' who are unlikely to perceive the world beyond their boundaries. I don't think you, however, are one of them.

Regards,

Doc

[DIR Tec Diver]

I have been asked and I agree completely to take a less aggressive approach to the posts and information. No problemo. Lets try to be professional and not bash each other that won't lead to anything constructive.

The idea behind my post is this.

A drysuit offers a lot more benefits than a wet suit does, even if you can quite comfortably do decompression and whatever in a wetsuit.

Dry suits offer better buoyancy (not to mention redundant buoyancy), better balance and overall better protection from the elements. This comfort zone allows or helps you to incorporate some better decompression techniques such as decompressing horizontally not veritcally. Something many people (not all) struggle with in a wet suit.

The offset and changes in buoyancy with a wetsuit can alter and affect the dive in many ways. The compression at depth and the resulting insulation drop can have very negative effects such as hypothermia which can be deadly and also lead to serious problems with decompression.

Ok the list of comparisons goes on and on, but you get the general idea. Even in temperatures I mentioned before being 40 celcius and even sometimes higer (Cyprus, Egypt, Turkey) I wear my dry suit. Usually I even keep a thinsulate 200g undergarment on as well, and for waters 20 degrees and lower I wear my 400g) If I am not scootering then I can get by with a thin fleece, but I really prefer the proper thinsulate whole body suits, as do most all the divers I know.

So in short even though a lot of people use and are comfortable with wet suits, there are options and reasons why people should seriously consider and think about the usage of dry suits. When I first started using them, I did not like them, found them to be a bit cumbersome, but after about 10 dives, I got the hang of it, and had some great DIR divers explain how to properly use a dry suit, and my diving experiences have been safe, comfortable and enjoybable ever since.

Now was that a bit better???

[Doc Intrepid]

This comfort zone allows or helps you to incorporate some better decompression techniques such as decompressing horizontally not veritcally. Something many people (not all) struggle with in a wet suit.

Wearing a wetsuit impacts your ability to ascend in a horizontal configuration? :confused:

I think you're slinging smack.

But that's just my professional opinion.

[DIR Tec Diver]

I said most not all have trouble doing this. All you have to do is look around on most dives at all the people swimming up, hanging on to the line etc.

I, probably you and many others have no problems doing this, and good for you and everyone else, horizontal ascents and horizontal decompression is the right way to do it

To think that I or others are so simple minded not to be open, flexible etc. is just not true.

We all start somewhere, and no one is DIR or even a good diver for quite some time. Throught experience, open mindedness and willingness to change we evolve into competent divers.

The benefits of dry suits remain unchanged, the issues with wet suits remain unchanged. What you choose to do with it is your choice and up to you.

[Genesis]

have nothing to do with body position in the water.

If anything, its harder to maintain good trim in a drysuit, as you have a bolus of air that can shift around and play hell with your trim.

A wetsuit doesn't have this handicap.

That claim is a load of horse manure.

[Epinephelus]

Oh, why not...
What we see here is a bunch of backward logic. The decision has been made that a dry suit is the end-all and be-all of exposure suits, a component of the "Right" system for all diving - and now the justification for it must be manufactured to fit scenarios where it's as useful as (with apologies to Tommy Franks) an accordian.
E. itajara

[Braunbehrens]

If you dive your drysuit snug there is no bolus of air going around. There is no question that a drysuit is superior to a wetsuit, but there can be some few scenarios where a wetsuit may be used.

However, someone diving in California will want a drysuit soon enough. I dive in California almost exclusively, have done so for over 10 years, and have done it both wet and dry, so yes, I know what I'm talking about.

To dive comfortably in California you need a thick wetsuit, or a drysuit. Thick wetsuits are not any more comfortable then drysuits, are a pain to don and doff, and don't keep you warm once you are out of the water and in the wind. They also compress at depth, which will seriously screw with your buoyancy and could be quite dangerous.

I sure wish someone had told me when I had 40 dives to get a drysuit.

In terms of technical diving, I think the arguments have been made. In almost all circumstances a drysuit is mandatory. The few times that it isn't, you can still use it without a problem, and it will have some advantages. By keeping your rig the same, you have many advantages, so I would dive a drysuit in all circumstances.

As for the picture of MHK, come on guys! You've never done anything dumb in your life? That picture shows part of the history of DIR, but it is not the current accepted standard. MHK doesn't dive like that anymore....there must be a reason why.

[Epinephelus]

Braunbehrens once bubbled...
If you dive your drysuit snug there is no bolus of air going around. There is no question that a drysuit is superior to a wetsuit, but there can be some few scenarios where a wetsuit may be used.

However, someone diving in California will want a drysuit soon enough. ...

In almost all circumstances a drysuit is mandatory.
"Superior?" "almost all circumstances ... mandatory?"
What planet are you guys on? Dry suits are a pain in the tail. I use mine when I need it, but not when I don't.
The first two popular tech diving sites that pop to mind are Bikini Atoll and Truck Lagoon... nary a dry suit in sight!
You are right about one thing... for diving off the California coast a dry suit is the suit of choice. I would even say it's "mandatory" for me... but not for anyone who doesn't want to use one.
E. itajara

[FLL Diver]

Braunbehrens once bubbled...
As for the picture of MHK, come on guys! You've never done anything dumb in your life? That picture shows part of the history of DIR, but it is not the current accepted standard. MHK doesn't dive like that anymore....there must be a reason why.

Hmmm, OK here's a more recent picture (http://www.pina.us/pages/p_wetsuit_crustacea3_crp_jpg.htm) of someone wearing a wetsuit who if you check out the website shouldn't be wearing one according to you.

And I'm not picking on Mike - I think you should stop speaking for him. Here's a more recent picture (http://www.scubaboard.com/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=7774) and though I may be wrong as it's difficult to see, I don't see any dump valves on the sleeve or chest neoprene where one might expect to see them.

Doubles visible in both shots BTW.

Still think that wetsuits are a poor choice?

Marc

[Braunbehrens]

I don't care how man pictures you trot out. Wearing heavy doubles in a wetsuit makes it almost impossible to dive a balanced rig. Even if Jesus Christ himself dove heavy steel doubles in a wetsuit, it still wouldn't change it. I'm not going to analyze every picture of a diver you show me and try to figure out what's going on or why they are wearing what they are wearing. Why don't you email Pina and Mike and ask them yourself. Maybe those pictures were taken before they knew better, maybe they were drunk, and maybe it was a photo opp....who cares?

You are free to do whatever you want. If you need to justify it somehow...please, be my guest. If you want to discuss the actual consequences of certain gear configurations, then I think we can get somewhere positive.

[Genesis]

Dive twin HP120s. They're -4 to -6ish empty. "Heavy"? Naw.

(On an AL backplate this works with a 3mil full wetsuit for most people, and requires little or no ditchable weight.)

[jeffyjak]

but think I will continue to rent my wetsuit as I need it.. (& I'll almost always need it here in AZ, until I can afford the drysuit)
as I said earlier, I guess I've been lucky enuff to get a good fit the few times I've done so . . .

just wanted to interject here, just ordered my aeris atmos 2 computer..... also, ordered my 'dir - the fundamentals' book from gue yesterday (couldn't find it on amazon, barnes & noble doesnt' have it, got it where i could!!)

can't wait to learn more !!

jeff
(in landlocked #$%^&*@ Arizona !)

[GreenDiverDown]

N/A

SA

[GreenDiverDown]

N/A

SA

[Rick Murchison]

Epinephelus once bubbled...
Oh, why not...
What we see here is a bunch of backward logic. The decision has been made that a dry suit is the end-all and be-all of exposure suits, a component of the "Right" system for all diving - and now the justification for it must be manufactured to fit scenarios where it's as useful as (with apologies to Tommy Franks) an accordian.
E. itajara
Bingo!
Rick

[GreenDiverDown]

N/A

SA

[Genesis]

consider the Bare Nex-Gen.

I now have a full winter of use on mine, spearfishing, and its holding up fine. Its not fancy but it damn sure works to keep me dry and warm, and the lack of suspenders is not a big deal if you're diving it with a BP setup, as the crotch strap keeps everything in place where it belongs.

The exhaust and inlet valves are quite nice, the inlet swivels, and is nice and slow. The exhaust works well and doesn't leak water on you. I haven't holed it, despite being quite a bit less than "nice" to it (grabbing at lobsters in holes and such), and the zipper, while a shoulder entry, works fine. Not much else to say about it other than "it may not be the sexist drysuit out there, but it works."

There's no way you can beat the price - I got mine, with polartec undies that have been fine for water temps down to the mid 50s, for just under $500!

I'm planning on switching back to my 3 mil with a 3 mil hooded vest this weekend, as the water is now reaching the 70F mark at depth around here, which is where I'm willing to get out of the drysuit and lose the extra bulk and lead.

[FLL Diver]

Braunbehrens once bubbled...
I don't care how man pictures you trot out. Wearing heavy doubles in a wetsuit makes it almost impossible to dive a balanced rig.

The posted pictures and testimonials all over this and other threads seem to suggest that it's only impossible for those without the proper skills - DIR or otherwise.

Should I post pictures of Jacques Cousteau in a wetsuit with doubles, or was he and his team just doing the impossible too?

Marc

[Braunbehrens]

FLL Diver once bubbled...


The posted pictures and testimonials all over this and other threads seem to suggest that it's only impossible for those without the proper skills - DIR or otherwise.

Should I post pictures of Jacques Cousteau in a wetsuit with doubles, or was he and his team just doing the impossible too?

Marc


Marc, this is really my fault for not making myself clear. Let me back up.

First of all, let's establish one thing. The vast majority of dives go off without a hitch. Nothing breaks down, nothing bad happens, and the diver has a pleasant experience.

What we are really concerned with is what happens when things go south. I always try to account for two failures. Accounting for more than that would make it impossible to dive, so we have to admit a certain level of risk.

On the subject of wetsuits and heavy tanks, the problem is that it makes it impossible to have a balanced rig.

A balanced rig means that with empty tanks you can still hold a stop at 10 ft. It also means that with full tanks and no buoyancy from your suit or your wing you can swim up your rig from any depth. If this requires ditching weight, then it has to be a small amount of weight so that you can still hold a 10 ft stop.

The reason a balanced rig is paramount, is that we must account for a failure of the main buoyancy device. If you want to account for two failures, you must also account for a failure of the drysuit.

I am sure there are many pictures of people diving unbalanced rigs. This does not mean that it's a good idea. It just means that if nothing goes wrong, diving an unbalanced rig won't kill you.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify this.

[Genesis]

makes it impossible to dive most doubles with any Nitrox mix.



A balanced rig means that with empty tanks you can still hold a stop at 10 ft. It also means that with full tanks and no buoyancy from your suit or your wing you can swim up your rig from any depth.

Simply unrealistic, if you do not permit the ditching of some of the gas.

As I pointed out to you, a pair of 120 cube tanks (LP104s overpumped, or HP120s at rated pressure) will have 18lbs of gas in them when full.

Most people cannot swim up 18lbs of negative buoyancy, yet this is the absolute minimum you will be negative, even if there is zero exposure suit compression, at the beginning of the dive.

It is precisely this kind of stupidity in the GUE/DIR mantra that gets people in trouble and leads to even MORE insanity in attempting to justify the original idiocy.

[Epinephelus]

Interesting... now, if I happen to be diving full steel doubles without a drysuit and am therefore somwhere about 25 pounds negative on the bottom when my wing has a catastrophic failure...
I'll still ride effortlessly back up to the surface, without having to swim a lick.
Reckon how I do that?
E. itajara

[Genesis]

you have an SMB in your kit :)

[Braunbehrens]

You guys aren't reading what I wrote. If you carry that much gas, you need a small amount of ditchable weight. If you think that it is better to dump some gas, fine, dump some gas. However, there are situations where you are better off ditching the weight, therefore you need it. For example, when diving in cold water where the reg could freeze up, in situations where you might need the gas, and in situations where you want to get off the bottom before you start building up a serious deco obligation.


I ask again that we keep it civil, and don't start with "this is idiotic, etc. etc.". Let's just have a nice discussion like civil human beings, and debate on the merits of the sytem and logical argument. Otherwise, we might as well go hang out on techdiver.

[Genesis]

Think it through Braun.

If you ditch ANY weight, you now have imposed an artificial GAS FLOOR on your dive.

Use more than that much gas, and you now have an uncontrollable ascent as you come up. Exactly where it is you cannot compute, but that it will happen is a certainty.

An uncontrollable ascent is one of the most dangerous things you can experience as a diver. It can and will either bend or embolize you, and while a bends hit is "fixable", an AGE hit might not be.

Undertaking an act that will cause such an imbalance in your kit is, IMHO, unwise in virtually all circumstances. I agree that if the alternative is CERTAIN DEATH, you might choose this (e.g. you're in a "no floor" environment, sinking fast, and MUST ditch mass RIGHT NOW to avoid going to the bottom of a 2500 foot trench!)

I would, however, also argue that if you find yourself in that situation you have not correctly planned your dive. In such a dive situation you need redundant buoyancy of SOME kind - whether that "some kind" is a redundant BC, a SMB, a drysuit, or something - you simply must have SOME kind of redundant buoyancy if you are diving a "bottomless pit."

Let's take the more common scenario.

You are diving Nitrox to 100-110', with doubles as this is a planned deco dive, with a cylinder of either 50/50 for deco or perhaps a cylinder of 100% O2 for the final deco at 20', planning to use backgas for your deeper stops. The dive is a wreck, and you plan some penetration. You are in a relatively thin (3 mil) wetsuit and weighted for neutral with empty tanks at the surface, as you should be. The water temp at the bottom is 75F, which is fine, and 80ish above 40' - normal for this part of the country.

With the tanks full, at the surface, you are -18. Why? That's how much the gas weighs. Cool.

(Note that with trimix you shouldn't HAVE a mass-of-gas issue, so this situation should ONLY arise with Nitrox - thus, the depth range I'm referring to here. With 30/30 Trimix on this dive you'd only be -7 or -8 - not a problem.)

Ok.

You get down there to the planned depth, within your MOD, and your wing comes apart. You now have no buoyancy, your gas, nearly all of which is in the tanks still makes you -18, and worse, your suit, which is usually +10, is now +3. Your total negative buoyancy is -25.

You can swim up (which you know, because you've done it to test) a kit of -15, at least for a short distance. You need to ditch 10lbs to be able to get out of this pickle, or have a redundant source of 10lbs of buoyancy.

You have the following options:

Your buddy should have a working BC. If you "link up", you can both use HIS BC to rise from the bottom. This is not a zero-risk game, however, as he is now effectively using his BC as a lift bag - to lift YOU! That's dangerous for him if somehow you become "detached", as HE will rocket to the surface, and YOU will sink like a stone. This option sucks, although its a useful "last ditch" option.

If you have a 50lb bag, you can hook it under your left (useless, remember, as your inflator doesn't do you any good) arm, put in some gas, get back the 10lbs you need, and start to swim up. You do not attempt to use the bag as a BC replacement, because you don't have that fine of control over it! Rather, you use it ONLY to offset enough negative buoyancy to be able to SWIM up, and dump it early and often. When you perceive that you're a few lbs negative (instead of -15!) you dump some of the bag's gas, to avoid IT running away on you. That's option #2.

You probably do not HAVE 10lbs of ditchable weight. That one's out the window.

Your other option, and the one that makes plenty of sense, is to dump 10lbs of GAS. You will still have 8lbs of GAS, which is more than 1/3rd of what you started with - remember, you planned with a "rule of thirds", and you're well within that. You have no deco obligation (remember, this problem only "bites" you if it happens at the start of the dive - when the tanks are full!), and thus, having dumped the gas you have more than enough for a safe, controlled swim-up ascent, a safety stop, and, lo and behold, when you get back to the surface your kit is only -3 or so - easily finned to stay on the surface. If you have a few lbs of lead on your belt you can ditch THAT at the surface to insure you don't sink, and all is well.

Now let's say you were diving a really thick wetsuit and you had enough lead to ditch that instead.

Ok, you ditch the 10lbs of lead. Now you start to kick up. As you do, your suit uncompresses. Also, you now are consuming gas. You MAY find yourself above the "critical depth" - a depth you cannot possibly calculcate accurately "on the fly" - and if you do, you had better have something to hang on to (like an anchor line) or you are going to the surface RIGHT NOW.

That's the risk of this approach, and why I'd only use it as a last, final resort.

[Braunbehrens]

You have a good point about the artificial gas floor. I hadn't thought about that.

I agree that in some cases dumping gas may be the better option. However, the way I look at it, 90% of the time this is going to happen right at the start of the dive. At this point, dumping the weight will get you out before you have any deco obligation, and you'll have enough gas weight to do a slow ascent.

Dumping the gas takes a long time, and could cause the reg to freeze up.

I think that before dumping any gas I'd use my small surface marker as lift. It's only 6 pounds, and would be easy to manage.

The first line of defense though, is diving a balanced rig and having a small amount of ditchable weight. It's simple, and easy, and doesn't require a lot of futzing around.

Linking up with the buddy, is IMO the worst solution and not your call, but your buddies. In that scenario I would link to the diver using double enders, but like I said there is no reason it should ever get to that point.

Just my .02

[Laser]

[QUOTE]Stephen Ash once bubbled...
[B]


That's the wierdest advice that I've seen in awhile. hmm...I guess you can dive in your underwear while you're saving up for that drysuit.


I think the implication was that it appeared that he was renting gear already, hence the 40+ dives logged, and was asking about the order of gear purchasing one would recommend.
I would add to Paul's comments that it's difficult to establish proper weighting and therefore buoyancy without your own suit, it holds true for the BC as well for a relatively new diver. Consistency helps. I would get a BC or suit before regs, if my budget dictated, for that reason

[Laser]

[QUOTE]Braunbehrens once bubbled...
[B]It's unfortunate, because he is right in what he says.

For recreational diving a wetsuit will do, but for anything technical a drysuit is pretty much necessary.

I'd be happy to discuss the pros and cons of wet vs. dry diving for TEK diving only.

However, I think we need a new thread if we're going to do this.


Paul,

The guys at AUE in Fla do it almost every day.

[Braunbehrens]

Unfortunately the fact that a lot of people do something does not make it the best way. Otherwise we cold do away with the discussions, have some polls...and they'd probably be in Chinese.

I think most of the arguments have been covered, anyone interested in the subject can make up their mind. I'm happy to discuss it further if anyone feels the need, but PLEASE start a new thread. This has nothing to do with computers.

Thanks.

[Rick Murchison]

Braunbehrens once bubbled...
You guys aren't reading what I wrote.
Sure we are. You don't want to be confused by all the folks who don't do it "Right" (your way) - even the folks at GUE - or don't agree with you that the dry suit is the only best way to dive in any and all circumstances. You don't want to see pictures, or anecdotal evidence, or testimony from those of us who've been diving both wet and dry in all sorts of conditions and on all sorts of dives for decades... no, you've made up your mind and you're not interested in the facts as seen by the rest of us... and that's fine, because one of the nicest things about diving is that it is, in the end, pretty much an individual sport.
And I agree - you and DIR Tec Diver should wear your dry suits whenever and wherever you dive, because it's the best way to dive... for you two. Wear 'em in 40C water; wear 'em in the car on the way to the dive site if you want.
Wearing a dry suit does not happen to be the best, easiest, or safest way for many of my dives, and I will thank you kindly to graciously accept that and leave me to my folly.
Rick

[Braunbehrens]

Rick, I don't know what your problem is, but no one is forcing you to do anything. I'm debating the use of a drysuit based on the merits, and you keep saying "but so and so was wearing a wetsuit". That's not an argument. No one said you CAN"T dive a wetsuit. All I'm saying is that a drysuit is safer and easier. I have also said WHY it's safer and easier. If you don't want to believe me, then let's discuss the specifics. If you don't want to discuss the specifics, then don't. No one is forcing you.

If you want to discuss it, and I'd be happy to do so, then please do it in a new thread.

Rick, I don't want to be confused with ANYBODY! I'm me, not some generic person, and I'd thank you to remember that. It's only a matter of common curtesy.

As for anecdotes, remember the guy in Florida a few years ago who couldn't get off the bottom and died? To prove that something doesn't work, you really only need one example.

[Epinephelus]

Genesis once bubbled...
you have an SMB in your kit :)
Close... lift bag with dump... with which it is far easier to maintain precise buoyancy control than with a dry suit - for me, anyway - I've tried both.
E. itajara

[Rick Murchison]

Braunbehrens once bubbled...
you keep saying "but so and so was wearing a wetsuit".
Wrong - others have said it, I have not. In one post I said I was wearing a shorty.

That's not an argument.
True - it's a fact.

All I'm saying is that a drysuit is safer and easier.
Sometimes it is safer and easier for me, too. Sometimes it isn't. If it's "safer and easier" for you under all circumstances, have at it! I really would like to see you come down here in August, though, and dive dry all day when it's 95/95 and the water's 85, and still tell us why it's "safer and easier." If you don't expire from heat stroke.

If you don't want to believe me, then let's discuss the specifics.
Which specific would you like to discuss? Thermal protection? got plenty. Redundant lift? I carry a lift bag. Pain in the butt? Dang sure don't need the aggravation of a dry suit on top of the heat and humidity.

I don't want to be confused with ANYBODY!
I'm not sure what you're getting at here - you're the one who said DIR Tec Diver had a good point re:dry suits.

As for anecdotes, remember the guy in Florida a few years ago who couldn't get off the bottom and died?
Yeah, he should have had a lift bag with him, shouldn't he?
Rick

[Braunbehrens]

Genesis, it is true that some steel tanks behave more like AL tanks. Wearing a wetsuit with these is less of a problem. However, in my experience these tanks are hard to trim out. Also, don't believe that tank specs you read on the web, as I'm sure you know. Test the system and make sure it is balanced.

The problems with wetsuits and technical diving are:

1) Tek dives use a lot of gas. Wetsuits compress at depth. As a result, it is very difficult to balance the rig with this combination

2) Wet suits don't have the same exposure protection. If you plan a 1 hour tech dive, but your deco gasses fail and you end up doing a 2 hour exposure, you could run into problems with hypothermia.

3) Tek dives are often deep, and the water gets colder as you get deeper. This again favors a drysuit.

4) If you do a lot of technical diving, you probably will need to wear a drysuit for many of these dives. It makes sense to me to dive the same rig on all dives (if possible) because you get used to the rig and dive it better.

Yes, it is possible to do tech dives with a wetsuit, but most of the time a drysuit makes more sense. It also depends on your definition of "technical". If you call any dive that has overhead or nitrox "technical", then for some of those a wetsuit is probably fine. However, I don't see doing "big" dives with a wetsuit. Long deco, deep dives, lots of gas, etc. all are better done dry than wet.