Welcome to ScubaBoard, an online scuba diving forum community where you can join over 205,000 divers from around the world discussing all things related to Scuba Diving. To gain full access to ScubaBoard (and make this large box go away) you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
Participate in over 500 dive topic forums and browse from over 5,500,000 posts.
Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
Post your own photos or view from well over 100,000 user submitted images.
Gain access to our free classifieds marketplace to buy, sell and trade gear, travel and services.
Use the calendar to organize your events and enroll in other members' events.
All this and much more is available to you absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact the ScubaBoard Support Team.
It's my understanding that the rationale behind the single strap in a Hog harness, as opposed to multiple straps, is that there are fewer "failure points".
Is that correct?
I guess the idea is that the most likely point of failure would be the attachment point, like a buckle or sewn loop. In other words, it's more likely that the buckle would release than that the strap itself would rip all the way through.
I started thinking about this recently when I rigged up my home-made slate and my computer mount with bungee cords. At first my slate had one continuous loop of bungee that was threaded through and around to make two loops that my arm goes through. It occurred to me that if the bungee breaks, there goes the slate! I've since re-rigged it with two independent loops, so if one breaks I still have one in reserve.
Why wouldn't that same logic work for the harness?
It's my understanding that the rationale behind the single strap in a Hog harness, as opposed to multiple straps, is that there are fewer "failure points".
Why wouldn't that same logic work for the harness?
The objection, as I understand it, was mostly with quick release buckles. The thought being that webbing is stronger than plastic quick releases. While this is no doubt true it is mostly an out of the water issue since there is little to no load on the harness while in the water. Overloading quick releases is more of an issues with doubles.
To answer your question about why is is not an issue with a Hog harness friction and a few tri-glides keep the webbing from moving with respect to the backplate so even if one side broke the other would be intact. But I have never heard of backplate webbing breaking, not once.
Of course my guess would be that properly sized quick releases could be strong enough too. But apparently enough have broken that some people prefer a Hog harness. For what it's worth that is what I dive and it works for me.
The logic behind the single-piece harness is that it eliminates failure points and that it is unnecessary to have quick releases to don or doff the unit.
However, for comfort and/or ease, some divers do prefer to put a single release into one of the shoulder straps. Plastic quick-release buckles are prone to failure and require stitching (also prone to failure). The better option, if you need a quick release, is to use a spare metal weight belt buckle.
It makes me simile when I hear that "sewing" is a failure point, and therefore has to be avoided at all cost in a harness.
Easy the most highly loaded components in the typical singles rig are the cambands. The buckles on cambands are always sewn to the webbing. The same diver who is quick to announce that "your gonna die" if there's any sewing in a harness will happily ratchet and snap shut their stainless buckle cambands, blissfully ignorant of the loads involved.
The "NO SEWING" edict is most likely a reflection of the largely unnecessary items typically sewn into a harness, and the fact that with no sewn elements in a "Hog" harness one can build or repair their harness out in the "sticks" at the edge of the spring where there is seldom a commercial sewing machine.
As with many things in Scuba, the original sound reasoning has been lost, and replaced with flawed logic that is endlessly argued.
I'm not advocating complex harnesses, just pointing out that sewing can be executed so that it's very reliable.
The logic behind the single-piece harness is that it eliminates failure points and that it is unnecessary to have quick releases to don or doff the unit.
However, for comfort and/or ease, some divers do prefer to put a single release into one of the shoulder straps. Plastic quick-release buckles are prone to failure and require stitching (also prone to failure). The better option, if you need a quick release, is to use a spare metal weight belt buckle.
I agree w/ Tobin... no reason why you can't have a sewn loop or anything else for that matter on the harness. And the failure point arguments don't really hold a lot of water anymore. I've never heard of a single account of a diver dying or being injured due to a plastic quick release failure. The chances of a QR buckle "failing" underwater are very minimal. It can happen on the boat pretty easily, but not underwater.
To me, it's more about streamlining and minimizing opportunities for quick release buckles to "work" as designed! Piling on stages, using a scooter, etc., increases the importance of maintaining a solid platform. All that equipment hanging off of you and clipping/unclipping introduces opportunities to release a buckle at a very inconvenient moment and that can cause some serious issues when you are hauling lots of gear. Not to mention the hogarthian harness is clean, simple, less drag, and less snag. All very good things in the realm of technical diving.
It makes me simile when I hear that "sewing" is a failure point, and therefore has to be avoided at all cost in a harness.
Easy the most highly loaded components in the typical singles rig are the cambands. The buckles on cambands are always sewn to the webbing. The same diver who is quick to announce that "your gonna die" if there's any sewing in a harness will happily ratchet and snap shut their stainless buckle cambands, blissfully ignorant of the loads involved.
The "NO SEWING" edict is most likely a reflection of the largely unnecessary items typically sewn into a harness, and the fact that with no sewn elements in a "Hog" harness one can build or repair their harness out in the "sticks" at the edge of the spring where there is seldom a commercial sewing machine.
As with many things in Scuba, the original sound reasoning has been lost, and replaced with flawed logic that is endlessly argued.
I'm not advocating complex harnesses, just pointing out that sewing can be executed so that it's very reliable.
Tobin
My logic is simply that something that is never cut is going to be stronger and more reliable than something that is cut and sewn back together.
I agree that high quality stitching is not really likely to fail - but then, in a salt water environment, over time...stitching tends to be the first thing to perish.
My wetsuit is fine... but I had to have the stitching re-done in several places. My Halcyon wing is excellent, but heavy use meant the outer bladder stitching failed in several place. Neither of these items is load bearing.
Besides, why go to the time and expense of stitching in a feeble plastic quick release, when you can just fit a sturdy metal weight belt buckle? (comment is directed to people adding a quick release DIY - not to manufacturers designing and building harnesses from scratch). I have seen plentyof feeble plastic quick release buckles break. Mostly from pre-dive/transportation damage. When they do, they leave the BCD unusable and unrepairable at the scene. Nice way to screw your day's diving or holiday.
You make a fair point about cambands. It would be ideal to have cylinders banded and bolted.... but that would be too impractical for most single cylinder divers. So...we have the option of redundancy...and twin-cam bands. I, personally, think that all BCDs (wing or jacket) should have double cam-bands.
It makes me simile when I hear that "sewing" is a failure point, and therefore has to be avoided at all cost in a harness.
I'm not advocating complex harnesses, just pointing out that sewing can be executed so that it's very reliable.
Tobin
Climbing harnesses are pretty solid and they tend to have a lot of bar tacks. They see forces that a SCUBA harness will never see. Cams, climbing gear, have sewn loops on them, Lowe Tri-Cams as well, daisy chains, porta ledges, haul bags, slings, the Yates screamer has some stitching designed to fail. I was up at Wild Things once and I got a lesson in bar tacks. Two bar tacks are all that are necessary for strength, but no one would buy anything. They tried three and ultimately had to go to four.
In the climbing and rescue world, it's usual in testing for the webbing to break before the sewing. The Fastex buckles often used in dive harnesses, however, don't appear all that reliable, especially when you consider that somebody might set a pair of doubles down on them. The stainless steel buckles on the new Golem G2 harness are the same as used on my favorite high angle rescue harness and look to be bombproof. I read something the other day about a prototype adjustable harness made by Halcyon--I'm looking forward to seeing it.
Last edited by rongoodman; July 22nd, 2009 at 06:43 AM.
My logic is simply that something that is never cut is going to be stronger and more reliable than something that is cut and sewn back together.
Wrong, but you can of course continue to use whatever logic makes you happy.
Originally Posted by DevonDiver
I agree that high quality stitching is not really likely to fail - but then, in a salt water environment, over time...stitching tends to be the first thing to perish.
My wetsuit is fine... but I had to have the stitching re-done in several places.
Comparing sewing on neoprene, which is almost like trying to sew thick pudding, to sewing resin reinforced webbing is just laughable.
When's the last time you saw or even heard of a camband failing at the stitching?
I never have. Buckles do occasionally break. (See a trend here?)
As I have said before, I advocate simple harnesses. That's what I always suggest first, but the issue with sewn harnesses is not the reliability of the sewing.
The issue is an operational one. If any problem is encountered in the field with a sewn harness, broken buckle etc. you need access to a commercial sewing machine to repair it. These problems simply do not arise with a single piece harness.
The problem with buckles and releases is that they may let go even when you did not intend them to let go. While that problem may be quite small, if they are unnecessary, then there is no reason to incur the problem. I have added a QR and a buckle to a continuous harness without cutting the webbing and it can give you extra room for doffing if you need it. (After quite a bit I work, I quickly discovered I did not need it.)
Another consideration is the production costs. Sewing and additional hardware also drive up the cost with no benefit for most divers.
BTW, I do have a couple tank straps that have no sewing. I had some old Scubapro metal hardware and rebuilt the straps using SS triglides (weight keepers) to attach the cam hardware and neoprene cement to attach the velcro patches. It seems to be hiolding just fine.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by sambolino44
