Hose Management - Reducing the number of hoses Vs better routing

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!

bergersau

Contributor
Messages
263
Reaction score
114
Location
Melbourne Australia
# of dives
I just don't log dives
I've recently been browsing "The Octopus Conundrum" thread in the solo divers forum and was struck by the number of divers wanting to reduce clutter by removing hoses from their rig. Some are simply removing octopuses or using air 2 style inflators. From other threads I hear of people buying air integrated computers to "lose a hose". Now streamlining gear is a sensible goal but I can't help but think that removing hoses is not always the best solution to hose clutter.

I dive a single tank Hogarthian rig which has two second stage regs, a HP hose with SPG, low pressure inflator for BCD and low pressure Drysuit inflator hose. That's five hoses altogether. I have no 'clutter' at all - except when I dive a wetsuit and don't bother to remove the drysuit inflator hose - that I secure down alongside the left hand side of the tank behind me so it is retained and not an entanglement issue or even noticeable during the dive.

I can't help but think some people simply don't route their hoses efficiently and that they are not using appropriate length hoses or well thought out configurations. They might well be better off simply changing hose lengths and routing rather than trying to eliminate the problem hose. The only reason I see to remove a hose is to remove a perceived point of failure. Then you need to ask the question "What am I sacrificing in removing this item?".

I'd like to hear other peoples thoughts on this.
 
I've recently been browsing "The Octopus Conundrum" thread in the solo divers forum and was struck by the number of divers wanting to reduce clutter by removing hoses from their rig. Some are simply removing octopuses or using air 2 style inflators. From other threads I hear of people buying air integrated computers to "lose a hose". Now streamlining gear is a sensible goal but I can't help but think that removing hoses is not always the best solution to hose clutter.

I dive a single tank Hogarthian rig which has two second stage regs, a HP hose with SPG, low pressure inflator for BCD and low pressure Drysuit inflator hose. That's five hoses altogether. I have no 'clutter' at all - except when I dive a wetsuit and don't bother to remove the drysuit inflator hose - that I secure down alongside the left hand side of the tank behind me so it is retained and not an entanglement issue or even noticeable during the dive.

I can't help but think some people simply don't route their hoses efficiently and that they are not using appropriate length hoses or well thought out configurations. They might well be better off simply changing hose lengths and routing rather than trying to eliminate the problem hose. The only reason I see to remove a hose is to remove a perceived point of failure. Then you need to ask the question "What am I sacrificing in removing this item?".

I'd like to hear other peoples thoughts on this.

If you are a solo diver (on a single tank) then five (5) hoses by definition is clutter no matter how "efficiently" you route them. There needs only be a primary hose, a BC inflator hose (some consider this un-needed) an SPG and the pony(auxiliary) bottle needs a hose, that is it, three hoses on the primary and one on the auxiliary bottle (spg is a mini type directly on the first stage, no hose required). A solo diver does not need or use an octopus because it is not a redundant system. The solo diver, by both SDI and PADI, need a fully redundant gas supply which means a pony augmented single tank rig, an ID rig or an isolation manifolded twin rig.

I cannot speak for other people but my hoses are efficiently routed, of the correct length and style for the rig I am using and purpose for which I am diving. As a minimalist and often a solo diver, anything I cannot justify is clutter and I do not have it. The SDI manual BTW specifically mentions removal of the octopus as it no longer serves a purpose for a solo diver. Again, they recommend a fully redundant system an to repeat, no matter how efficiently you route and size an octopus (secondary second stage) it is superfluous for the solo diver. And the thread you are referencing is in the solo forum.

As a minimalist diver I sometimes eliminate the BC hose. I have several BC inflators that DO NOT have a power inflator integrated, they are oral inflation only. Since I learned to dive before there were BCs in common or any usage they are really not particularly needed by me much of the time though, I admit, with my camera and other equipment a puff or two into my BC does make things easier on getting weight exact over a dive. Like I said, usually only a puff or two when I first get to depth and then release it later in the dive as my tank is depleted and becomes buoyant leaving me near neutral at the end of the dive. Just like we used to do it before there were BCs. A BC is not life support, is not a life jacket and in many cases is not needed, at least by me and I do not need that hose, YRMV.

N
 
I'm sort of surprised at the recommendation to remove the octo for solo diving. There are things that can go wrong with a second stage -- if you are diving where no one else can help, wouldn't you want the option of another one?

I personally think the Hogarthian setup, especially on double tanks, is amazingly tidy. With a single tank, it really depends on your first stage, how neatly you can configure your rig.
 
I personally think the Hogarthian setup, especially on double tanks, is amazingly tidy. With a single tank, it really depends on your first stage, how neatly you can configure your rig.

I'm of the same mind. I always hated the way 'standard length' hoses route for me, they stick out to the side and drag in current and pull at my mouth. I never did find a way to secure the octo that I was happy with, every method I tried seemed to be a pain to re-stow after a practice deployment.

On the other hand Hogarthian 7 foot hose stays close against my body and does not pull the reg around in my mouth.
Of course I had to learn the hard way to remember to remove the neckaced backup reg before doffing my tank but looking silly once or twice on the surface getting used to the Hog rig was worth it for me.
 
I'm sort of surprised at the recommendation to remove the octo for solo diving. There are things that can go wrong with a second stage -- if you are diving where no one else can help, wouldn't you want the option of another one?

Yes, the one attached to your pony or other redundant air source.

A second stage will generally fail open, so another one attached to the same tank is of little use.
 
Yes, there is, an auxilary tank equipped with a fully redundant regulator. In this case, solo diver, my SDI instructor pointed out what I already knew, the octopus is an un-needed failure point. It serves no purpose for the solo diver other than adding a failure point and does not provide redundancy. We are talking a pony augmented solo diver rig though I would as well be okay with the same configuration with a buddy. The aux tank and regulator in that case serves the same need as an octopus maybe even better.

Extra hoses are simply extra failure points and a conventional octopus for a solo diver is nothing more than a failure point regardless of how it is efficiently routed. So is the BC hose for that matter. No power inflator equals no possibility of a stuck inflator or blown hose.

N
 
Last edited:
Yes, there is, an auxilary tank equipped with a fully redundant regulator. In this case, solo diver, my SDI instructor pointed out what I already knew, the octopus is an un-needed failure point. It serves no purpose for the solo diver other than adding a failure point and does not provide redundancy. We are talking a pony augmented solo diver rig though I would as well be okay with the same configuration with a buddy. The aux tank and regulator in that case serves the same need as an octopus maybe even better.

Extra hoses are simply extra failure points and a conventional octopus for a solo diver is nothing more than a failure point regardless of how it is efficiently routed. So is the BC hose for that matter. No power inflator equals no possibility of a stuck inflator or blown hose.

N

Please, not the dreaded "failure point". I'm fine with "consider this un-needed", "not a redundant system", and "superfluous". It annoys me that some divers will characterize the second second stage hose as a failure point without noticing that the other second stage hose is a failure point as well. I understand the concept of failure points but do not agree with a diver blaming a piece of gear, or it's configuration, for their personal choices and/or maintenance habits. I always thought that relying on mechanical assistance, with it's drawbacks, to increase my time underwater was worth it since I'll never be able to freedive as long as a tank dive. My choice in gear configuration ranges from "well thought out over my years of diving" to "I'm too lazy to change configuration to match the dive" to "grabbed out of the dive locker without looking" but it is my choice, and I've had no failures regardless of the points because the gear is good and well maintained. My luck with other peoples gear and old gear I test is not so good, but I know that going in.

I had a hose "fail" once, ages ago when diving a fairly new [IRONY] Nemrod [/IRONY] Snark II first and second only, as was the custom at the time. The IP went high, the upstream second locked up and I lost a perfectly good hose, and of course the ensuing excitement. The problem (failure point) was the owner, not the gear. I now insure I check my gear more carefully, and have a relief on upstream regs. I haven't had a real failure on my gear in decades.



Bob
------------------------------------------
That's my point, people, by and large, are not taught that diving can be deadly, they are taught how safe it is, and they are not equipped with the skills, taught and trained to the level required to be useful in an emergency.

All my life I've wanted an excuse to wear a knife, and here I have found a sport where it is actually encouraged~ Dave Barry
 
Bob you can get annoyed if you must but it does not change the fact of it, the hose and the second stage is a system failure point and the hose and power inflator are failure points. The solo diver, and this thread came from the solo forum, for the octopus/secondary I am going from the SDI manual, annoyed or not.

And allow me to clarify, when I said hose in this context/conversation I mean the hose itself, all o-rings and the equipment attached to it downstream of the first stage.

N
 
Last edited:
As long as there is a second, second stage, then that's redundancy.

I wasn't thinking of second stage failure, as in freeflow, as much as losing a mouthpiece, or having an exhaust diaphragm get folded or caught so the reg would breathe extremely wet. I've also been in the water with someone whose second stage came loose from the hose.
 
As long as there is a second, second stage, then that's redundancy.

I wasn't thinking of second stage failure, as in freeflow, as much as losing a mouthpiece, or having an exhaust diaphragm get folded or caught so the reg would breathe extremely wet. I've also been in the water with someone whose second stage came loose from the hose.

Not in accordance with SDI training materials. A second stage is definitly not qualifying as a redundant air supply/system.

I have had a second stage come off and on my last trip I borrowed a second stage because mine was free flowing and when I returned it the fitting was nearly undone but by one thread. My fault in this case. And I have had a PI malfunction, a tank was set on it and the housing cracked leading to a stuck on condition upon my initial use.

Sorry Bob for being cranky, you know more about this stuff than me and I would generally defer to your reasoning.

N
 
Last edited:
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom