Are Suunto Zoops super conservative?

[tursiops]

But the exact correlation between repeat dives and within NDLs says something..

Not necessarily. It could be an entirely different 41% of the DCI cases. You are confusing correlation with the coincidence of two numbers being the same.

 

[yle]

What is implied is that those DCs which produce super-liberal repeat dive NDLs are the ones most suspect in those 41% of DCI incidents within NDL limits.

Sorry, you can interpret the data any way you like and suggest any implications you want to. But it doesn't make your conclusions scientifically valid.

Maybe those divers that choose to take greater risks are attracted to a more "liberal" dive computer. Maybe those risk-takers would be more likely to adjust their computers to a more liberal setting. Maybe those risk-takers would be more likely to ignore personal secondary factors that increase their risk of DCS.

In other words, correlation isn't causation. So even if you find that liberal dive computers are more prevalent in the statistics you posted, you can't conclude that the dive computers are the cause of the DCI.

Divers need to understand what their computers can and cannot do. Divers must be responsible for their own decisions. And they must know the limitations of their dive computer, however liberal or conservation, to provide them information to help them make those decisions.

 

[Umuntu]

Agreed, that is often true. So do a series of multi-level profiles; my point is to do a series of repetitive dives, not just a single dive, if you are going to show the differences between algorithms/computers.


Seriously? So you feel all dive tables are nonsense, since you view see-saw profiles as nonsense?
I hope you are just being contentious for the fun of it, and don't really mean what you said.

It seems you are criticising their graph simply because you cannot reproduce it using planning mode on your DC ... ?

Square dive tables were a worst case conservative estimate of NDLs in the absence of multi-level capable DCs. It is a totally inappropriate way of comparing multi-level capable DCs.

.

 

[tursiops]

It seems you are criticising their graph simply because you cannot reproduce it using planning mode on your DC ... ?

Squsre dive tables were a worst case conservative estimate of NDLs in the absence of multi-level capable DCs. It is a totally inappropriate way of comparing multi-level capable DCs.

.

My comments stand as written. You are welcome to use multi-level profiles to compare the computers, but if you don't do a series of repetitive dives you cannot tease out the real differences between the algorithms.

 

[Umuntu]

Sorry, you can interpret the data any way you like and suggest any implications you want to. But it doesn't make your conclusions scientifically valid.

Maybe those divers that choose to take greater risks are attracted to a more "liberal" dive computer. Maybe those risk-takers would be more likely to adjust their computers to a more liberal setting. Maybe those risk-takers would be more likely to ignore personal secondary factors that increase their risk of DCS.

In other words, correlation isn't causation. So even if you find that liberal dive computers are more prevalent in the statistics you posted, you can't conclude that the dive computers are the cause of the DCI.

Divers need to understand what their computers can and cannot do. Divers must be responsible for their own decisions. And they must know the limitations of their dive computer, however liberal or conservation, to provide them information to help them make those decisions.

I agree with the points you make. I am forced to interpret and draw implications.

But on the basis of Oceanic's own published data, I choose not to use their DCs.

.

 

[yle]

1. Read the Report. It breaks down lung over expansion issues separately.

2. I agree on the individual risk factors. But the exact correlation between repeat dives and within NDLs says something.

Yes. It says that people need to understand the limitations of the information provided by their dive computer. It would be one thing if users of a particular brand of DC were bent on every other dive. But that's not happening. The vast majority of dives, as you observed, are incident free. And if you want a thorough and fair analysis, you would have to consider what DCs are used on all the millions of incident free dives, as well as considering which DCs are used on the dives where an incident occurred.

And after all the effort you would likely find there is no statistical significance in the variation of DCI from the use of one dive computer to another.

My best advice for you: use what kind of computer you think serves you best. And everyone else will do the same. Happy diving!

 

[Umuntu]

Yes. It says that people need to understand the limitations of the information provided by their dive computer. It would be one thing if users of a particular brand of DC were bent on every other dive. But that's not happening. The vast majority of dives, as you observed, are incident free. And if you want a thorough and fair analysis, you would have to consider what DCs are used on all the millions of incident free dives, as well as considering which DCs are used on the dives where an incident occurred.

And after all the effort you would likely find there is no statistical significance in the variation of DCI from the use of one dive computer to another.

My best advice for you: use what kind of computer you think serves you best. And everyone else will do the same. Happy diving!

No, I think the best advice is to not push your DC to the limits ... and a conservative DC is not a bad choice

 

[tursiops]

But on the basis of Oceanic's own published data, I choose not to use their DCs..

I guess you mean you do not want to use DSAT. The graph doesn't show much difference between the various Buhlmann algorithms (the red zone) with or without bubble mods, nor would you expect it to. You'd have to get to repetitive dives to begin to see the differences. I infer you want maximal conservatism? Then setting your own extreme Gradient Factors would seem to be the way to go.

 

[Umuntu]

I guess you mean you do not want to use DSAT. The graph doesn't show much difference between the various Buhlmann algorithms (the red zone) with or without bubble mods, nor would you expect it to. You'd have to get to repetitive dives to begin to see the differences. I infer you want maximal conservatism? Then setting your own extreme Gradient Factors would seem to be the way to go.

Assuming that your typical diver understands these things. My experience both in diving and on SB is that they do not.

The best advice I've had, from the perspective of a sub-tropical resort guide diving daily with one day off each week, is to use a conservative computer. When things go wrong, help is too far away.

.

 

[tursiops]

Assuming that your typical diver understands these things. My experience both in diving and on SB is that they do not.

The best advice I've had, from the perspective of a sub-tropical resort guide diving daily with one day off each week, is to use a conservative computer. When things go wrong, help is too far away.

.

Understood.
So, after all that, what computer do you use?