Modified "Z" system

[Dirtdevil]

So, I've gone through the "what's with the Z haters" thread and I've been thinking and would really appreciate your input on this. Please understand, I'm not looking for trouble here. Genuinely want your views.

Considering the setup of having the breathing gas going to a manifold block via qc6 quick disconnects, wouldn't it be a lot safer to have a spare 2nd stage regulator rigged up directly onto the 1st stage on the bottle/s? In an O ring blow out scenario on the manifold or anywhere on the Z system, one would immediately switch to the 2nd stage regulator with the bottle thats turned on and disconnect the QC6 connectors and thumb the dive?

Please share your views.


DD

 

[Kevrumbo]

Yes, that's currently my doubles Z-system set-up . . .with sidemount bottom mix source tanks each configured with auxiliary 40" hose length 2nd Stages enclosed in Dive Rite 2nd stage Reg Pocket protectors (click link & scroll down some: Cylinder Stage/Deco/Sidemount Straps and Hose Retainers - Dive Gear Express), and gas flow controlled by Omni inline slider valves in normally shut-off position at the 2nd stage --all in lieu of the back-up/emergency QC6 female plug-in 2nd Stage Regulator normally stored in the left thigh pocket.

Also re-configured 1st stage regs & hose routings to fit standard left hand DIN Tank Valves (i.e. -no need to carry & install dedicated left and right tank valves --and just go ahead & use the regular standard single cylinder left hand DIN valves that the Dive-Operators provide): this means the Right Hand Tank Valve and attached 1st stage will now be facing downward with valve wheel facing outward laterally. Possibly might expose the 1st stage to impact damage by it now facing downwards, but haven't had any problems "banging" it around inside a wreck when tank is unclipped/dismounted/no-mounted.

Finally, still electing to use the original Distribution Block as trained, and not planning on upgrading to the Z Iso-Fold (Z-Isolatable Manifold) yet . . .so the procedure in a Distribution Block leak/failure would be to disconnect both QC6's to the source tanks, and then deploy auxiliary reg configured as described above from either source tank.

 

[Razorista]

...wouldn't it be a lot safer to have a spare 2nd stage regulator rigged up directly onto the 1st stage...

No, it would not.
You introduce even more additional failure points and clutter your 'valve area'.
Makes more sense to get rid of every piece of tank connected UTD hardware, or use the UTD recommended method of having an unconnected quick-connect spare with you.

The whole hose system is very expensive for something that has no practical use, increasing cost by one additional second stage will not help.

Just do not use it at all, and while you are at it, get a system developed by someone who did not prove that they do not know what they are doing.
___________________________________________________________________
Even after the new UTD threads I do not understand this horrible device any better.

From my point of view this is a failed attempt to have something on their system they did not 'steal' during a (much to short, it seems) cave course with Steve Bogaerts.
They wanted to improve sidemount while making money from new items - not a good idea if you simply do not understand what you are doing.
I only had to watch a single video by this strange fellow to hate it on principle - seeing it in real life did not help for me, having UTD salespeople try to explain it made me shudder and walk away as fast as I could.

If they had at least tried to develop a useful wing they would have had a decent system and the first one that was to be had commercially.
But instead they tried to bring something new to sidemount without any significant experience of their own and they failed completely and got stuck in their own marketing arguments to prove it's usefulness.

They did not concentrate on the important things - like wing attachment, for example.
Look at one of the systems in comparison to any of the more recent systems - touch it, hate it, forget it.

(If you have one, it can be improved, the harness is a good copy at least, but first get rid of every default piece of hose on it!)

 

[Subcooled]

wouldn't it be a lot safer to have a spare 2nd stage regulator rigged up directly onto the 1st stage on the bottle/s?

Different systems have different features. With one system you can do one thing. With another system you can do another thing. Choose an appropriate system. Then plan redundancy for that. A blown o-ring should not be a big deal. Really, it should not. Procedures are more important, and the equipment must support the procedures.

If you insist on not having independent cylinders, but need to dive sidemount, then you have only one option - the Z-system. On the other hand, pushing the quick connects through cave mud may not be the most clever choice ever made

---------- Post added February 23rd, 2014 at 03:55 PM ----------

They did not concentrate on the important things - like wing attachment, for example.

My old UTD Z-trim wing met a carpet knife and a weight belt and now it stays where it should. I now have a two inch chest belt Newer versions may be better. I don't have a Z-system. I only have the wing. It was the best I could find a couple years back.

touch it, hate it, forget it.

Hey, that's a familiar feeling. I got it when I first touched DiveRite sidemount gear

Personal preference... is not a fact.

 

[Dirtdevil]

Different systems have different features. With one system you can do one thing. With another system you can do another thing. Choose an appropriate system. Then plan redundancy for that. A blown o-ring should not be a big deal. Really, it should not. Procedures are more important, and the equipment must support the procedures.

If you insist on not having independent cylinders, but need to dive sidemount, then you have only one option - the Z-system. On the other hand, pushing the quick connects through cave mud may not be the most clever choice ever made

---------- Post added February 23rd, 2014 at 03:55 PM ----------



My old UTD Z-trim wing met a carpet knife and a weight belt and now it stays where it should. I now have a two inch chest belt Newer versions may be better. I don't have a Z-system. I only have the wing. It was the best I could find a couple years back.



Hey, that's a familiar feeling. I got it when I first touched DiveRite sidemount gear

Personal preference... is not a fact.

Hey subcooled. Yeah that makes most sense. Every body have different preferences and we should plan for what we go for. Thanks for your input.


Ps, I got that same "touch it and hate it" with diverite too! An inverted trancpac. Lol!


DD

 

[SanDiegoSidemount]

Considering the setup of having the breathing gas going to a manifold block via qc6 quick disconnects, wouldn't it be a lot safer to have a spare 2nd stage regulator rigged up directly onto the 1st stage on the bottle/s? In an O ring blow out scenario on the manifold or anywhere on the Z system, one would immediately switch to the 2nd stage regulator with the bottle thats turned on and disconnect the QC6 connectors and thumb the dive?

Speaking as a fan of the Z, I think doing this would defeat some of its benefits, and create a hybrid that's worse than either the Z or independent SM.

By doing this, you no longer have the always-available long hose and necklace, regardless of gas source (single, doubles, stage/deco, or surface supplied). You also create a confusing configuration for failure cases. You'd have to develop your own valve failure drills that are non-standard with either UTD procedures or independent SM procedures.

If you believe in the philosophy of the Z, and use the iso manifold (not the distribution block, which all agree is not appropriate for doubles), then at least you are being consistent with the design and intended use of the system. All your valve failure, gas switch and safety procedures are clearly defined for you in the UTD Student and Diver Procedures book.

If the safety of the Z concerns you, then you should probably pursue independent SM in a "standard" configuration, rather than creating a new configuration that's not really consistent with anyone else's.

Say what you will about the Z, love it or hate it. At least if you dive the Z System as intended, you have the support of UTD's training and procedures to back you up. If you go "off the reservation", then you're really on your own.

 

[Kevrumbo]

So, I've gone through the "what's with the Z haters" thread and I've been thinking and would really appreciate your input on this. Please understand, I'm not looking for trouble here. Genuinely want your views.

Considering the setup of having the breathing gas going to a manifold block via qc6 quick disconnects, wouldn't it be a lot safer to have a spare 2nd stage regulator rigged up directly onto the 1st stage on the bottle/s? In an O ring blow out scenario on the manifold or anywhere on the Z system, one would immediately switch to the 2nd stage regulator with the bottle thats turned on and disconnect the QC6 connectors and thumb the dive?

Please share your views.


DD

Another way of objectively conceptualizing & looking at this particular "hybrid" configuration --all it is independent doubles sidemount connected via Disribution Block to implement the UTD Z-system & Long-Hose Paradigm. You still have the option to either donate the Long Hose or QC6 disconnect and pass a cylinder to an OOG diver. (And again you don't have to rely on that spare QC6 plug-in 2nd stage regulator if you have to isolate from a leaking or failed Distribution Block).

 

[SanDiegoSidemount]

Another way of objectively conceptualizing & looking at this particular "hybrid" configuration --all it is independent doubles sidemount connected via Disribution Block to implement the UTD Z-system & Long-Hose Paradigm. You still have the option to either donate the Long Hose or QC6 disconnect and pass a cylinder to an OOG diver. (And again you don't have to rely on that spare QC6 plug-in 2nd stage regulator if you have to isolate from a leaking or failed Distribution Block).

I suppose you could view at it as an "extension" of the Z System, but it also makes the system even more complex, with more failure points. The Z gets enough flak for complexity as it is.

If you feel it helps your own diving and comfort level, then by all means, go right ahead.

I just think it's important to realize when you do so, that you're "off the reservation" regarding standard protocols or procedures, UTD or otherwise. If you accept the extra burden that goes with that (and your buddies do as well) then great.

---------- Post added February 28th, 2014 at 09:39 PM ----------

I would also add that the iso manifold was UTD's solution to allow us to eliminate the spare reg with QC-6. The only failure not covered by an "isolate, then breathe off the good side" procedure is a complete manifold failure. Pretty unlikely, but in this case your buddy would be your backup.

Is there a particular reason you haven't upgraded this piece of your rig?

 

[Kevrumbo]

It's not an extension per se, but this "hybrid" configuration was an option first profferred by AG and Jeff when I first received & trained on the original Distribution Block (DB) Z-system over three years ago. I prefer this original configuration and don't feel the need to purchase & re-config my Z-harness gear set-up for an Isofold upgrade.

And using a stage/deco bottle with a QC6 male plug-in along with a conventional auxiliary 2nd stage regulator is a similar scalable example (a "hybrid" config): nothing more complex than or "departing from" the precepts of the Z-system. . .

 

[SanDiegoSidemount]

It's not an extension per se, but this "hybrid" configuration was an option first profferred by AG and Jeff when I first received & trained on the original Distribution Block (DB) Z-system over three years ago. I prefer this original configuration and don't feel the need to purchase & re-config my Z-harness gear set-up for an Isofold upgrade.

And using a stage/deco bottle with a QC6 male plug-in along with a conventional auxiliary 2nd stage regulator is a similar scalable example (a "hybrid" config): nothing more complex than or "departing from" the precepts of the Z-system. . .

What this points out to me are the positives and negatives of the "progressive" nature of UTD. As an agency, they are devoted to constantly updating their best practices to match new knowledge or gear designs. (A cynic would say this allows them to keep selling gear and manuals to their divers.)

As most UTD divers know, AG and Jeff are always kicking around new ideas, gear and techniques. But the point is, only a few of these get as far as the Standards & Procedures book.

After the Z distribution block was released to much scorn and criticism, AG spent a long time working out the concept and design of the iso manifold. One of his criteria was to be able to get rid all the weird "bailout regulator" configurations they had been tinkering with, mitigating some of the failure risks that the distribution block introduced.

So current UTD best practice is to always use an iso manifold with sidemount doubles. This supersedes their previous best practice of distribution block + bailout reg.

I'm not saying your configuration is dangerous, only that it's non-standard. In fact, there's probably a lot of peace of mind in knowing that AG and Jeff liked the idea at some point in the past. It's just not part of the most up to date UTD recommendations or procedures.