Limits of standardization.
- Thread starter kr2y5
- Start date
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
eelnoraa
Contributor
If two things are not the same, then by definitely they are different, or vice versa. What is "either" in this case?
I think you should just take fundamental and see for yourself. If after the class, you don't agree on standardization concept, then probably GUE isn't for you. There is nothing wrong with that. I dive with many people who like individual customized setup. They are perfectly good divers. It is a matter of personal choice
I think you should just take fundamental and see for yourself. If after the class, you don't agree on standardization concept, then probably GUE isn't for you. There is nothing wrong with that. I dive with many people who like individual customized setup. They are perfectly good divers. It is a matter of personal choice
PfcAJ
Contributor
haha - thats an awesome infographic 
DaleC
Contributor
Needs audio
You need to get out more. 99%? No way not in a zillion years. The vast majority of cave dives are sumps or really small things. Caves you can drive a scooter through in backmount are actually quite rare.
They are easier to train for since you can actually fit a class and instructor into them and have some reasonable modicum of space and vis.
---------- Post added March 23rd, 2015 at 08:49 PM ----------
FYI,
Recalculating turn pressures dynamically during a complex dive is actually part of GUE cave2. Its not a static thing.
---------- Post added March 23rd, 2015 at 08:54 PM ----------
I don't think I screwed this up, should watch the rum and cokes before posting in the DIR forum
These should be close enough for gubbbermint work.al13=2L
al19=2.6L
lp19/hp23=3L
lp27=4L
al30=4L
al40= 5L
al63=7L
al80 = 10L
lp85=11L
hp100=10L
lp95/hp119=12L
lp104/hp130=15L
Thanks, I've been looking for this sort of information. Could you also list for the steel tanks which have the 'good' dimensions, ie. close to the tall 12L?
Btw, I'm pretty sure al40=5,5L and al80=11L. I used lp50s on my JJ when visiting FL and they seem to be about 8L, really nice tanks. Wish we had those here, they'd be sweet as doubles for rec stuff, the 7Ls here are slightly too short for most people, and 8,5Ls too tall...
To get back on the thread topic, what people need to realize is that standardization doesn't have any inherent value in itself. It only starts to pay out and becomes necessary when developing courses, teaching them, learning to dive, forming procedures and team diving protocols, diving in a team, not reinventing a wheel and so on. For example, each and every dive training program is standardized. Some are just do it better. Generally the difference in benefits between a perfectly optimized solution to a dive environment/situation/task and a well thought-out standard solution is so small that it doesn't make sense to optimize. Of course there are always edge cases, but using those to discredit standardized solutions in general is just infantile. The GUE backmounted doubles setup probably won't work very well inside a no-mount zero-vis sump full of sharks. So what?
//LN
Richard, I should have been more clear: 99.9% of the diving that is DONE (by normal people) can be done in backmount. The cold, relatively inaccessible places you like aren't dived much
I like to sometimes approach things in a principled way, and I'm trying to approach DIR as a system based on a set of well thought-out principles that are consistently applied... here are some of the principles that have been mentioned:
1) The "standardize first, ask questions later" principle, if you don't mind me being humorous (or "standardize unless there's a NEED to customize", if you do). The idea being that less variation means more predictability, and so on... Applying this principle to backmount vs. sidemount leads some of us to conclusion that we should standardize on backmount, since for X% of the dives people do (be it 99% or whatever), there's no need for other configurations. Regardless of whether one agrees with the latter or not, it's a perfectly fine principle, and if we were to apply this principle to imperial vs. metric, I think we'd standardize on metric... after all, what's the "need" for imperial? You can do 100% of the dives in metric. Even the advocates of standardization acknowledge that it can get confusing. It should be a no-brainer.
2) The "don't standardize unless in self defense" principle (or "don't standardize unless there's a NEED to standardize"). The idea being that some of us don't like standards, or the particular standards feel too restrictive, or we like to exercise our free will, or it's too much PITA to change established habits, or one can't reach consensus, whatever. Applying this principle to metric vs. imperial leads most of us to conclusion that one should just let it be. After all, people have done mixed dives, and it's not a big deal. I wonder, could we apply the same principle to sidemount vs. backmount? I accept that the answer might be "no", but if not, then why not? I am not trying to question that decision, but I do feel the rationale I've heard on occasion is fuzzy.
Both in case of sidemount vs. backmount, and imperial vs. metric, some feel that standardization yields benefits, others feel that it works just fine, the boundary is fuzzy, and different principles seem to apply depending on the situation. I realize there may be a good reason for that difference, yet I do not feel that the reason behind it has been sufficiently well spelled out. I'm willing to buy into those reasons, whatever they may be, but perhaps we could try to make those reasons a bit less obscure?
3) The cost vs. benefit analysis principle. This one pretends to be scientific and rigorous by using important words like "cost", "benefit", and "analysis". It even pretends to be more common-sense and represent a more moderate point of view, so it automatically gains our sympathy. But, unless you try to actually objectively quantify some of that cost and benefit, it's probably much less than what it sounds like. So, what are the costs? How many accidents happened due to a misunderstanding between metric and imperial? How many happened because backmount and sidemount divers happened to be on the same team? If there is no such data, then calling it "analysis" is a stretch.
1) The "standardize first, ask questions later" principle, if you don't mind me being humorous (or "standardize unless there's a NEED to customize", if you do). The idea being that less variation means more predictability, and so on... Applying this principle to backmount vs. sidemount leads some of us to conclusion that we should standardize on backmount, since for X% of the dives people do (be it 99% or whatever), there's no need for other configurations. Regardless of whether one agrees with the latter or not, it's a perfectly fine principle, and if we were to apply this principle to imperial vs. metric, I think we'd standardize on metric... after all, what's the "need" for imperial? You can do 100% of the dives in metric. Even the advocates of standardization acknowledge that it can get confusing. It should be a no-brainer.
2) The "don't standardize unless in self defense" principle (or "don't standardize unless there's a NEED to standardize"). The idea being that some of us don't like standards, or the particular standards feel too restrictive, or we like to exercise our free will, or it's too much PITA to change established habits, or one can't reach consensus, whatever. Applying this principle to metric vs. imperial leads most of us to conclusion that one should just let it be. After all, people have done mixed dives, and it's not a big deal. I wonder, could we apply the same principle to sidemount vs. backmount? I accept that the answer might be "no", but if not, then why not? I am not trying to question that decision, but I do feel the rationale I've heard on occasion is fuzzy.
Both in case of sidemount vs. backmount, and imperial vs. metric, some feel that standardization yields benefits, others feel that it works just fine, the boundary is fuzzy, and different principles seem to apply depending on the situation. I realize there may be a good reason for that difference, yet I do not feel that the reason behind it has been sufficiently well spelled out. I'm willing to buy into those reasons, whatever they may be, but perhaps we could try to make those reasons a bit less obscure?
3) The cost vs. benefit analysis principle. This one pretends to be scientific and rigorous by using important words like "cost", "benefit", and "analysis". It even pretends to be more common-sense and represent a more moderate point of view, so it automatically gains our sympathy. But, unless you try to actually objectively quantify some of that cost and benefit, it's probably much less than what it sounds like. So, what are the costs? How many accidents happened due to a misunderstanding between metric and imperial? How many happened because backmount and sidemount divers happened to be on the same team? If there is no such data, then calling it "analysis" is a stretch.
Last edited:
Similar threads
