However, the bottom is the bottom.
On some Cayman walls "the bottom" is a L-O-N-G way down.
---------- Post added September 8th, 2015 at 09:48 PM ----------
Or, what am I missing?
The point.
As mentioned, my original comment was about whether a Suunto was too conservative to be an effective back-up computer to something else, based on my own real world experience of doing ~1,000 dives with a Suunto over a period of ten years. During that time it has never - never ever - caused me to thumb a recreational dive earlier than I or my buddy wanted to end the dive.
So the point is that, sure the article is interesting, and people can certainly give some consideration to those numbers. Clearly, someone who wants to use a Lynx as their primary computer would find the Cressi Leonardo to be a very poor choice as a back up. The practical reality is that pretty much everything else in there is about the same. Let's not discount the fact that the article tested ONE each of a handful of computers over four artificial, exquisitely controlled dive simulations. Not ten of each over a large number of real dives done by real divers. Hell, consider the fact that the two Mares computers running the exact same algorithm give different NDLs at all points in time.
The ultimate "real world" implication is that the computer on your wrist has no way of communicating how much remaining NDL it is "giving you" to the nitrogen bubbles in your body, so different computers don't really "give you more NDL time" -- forget that at your own peril.
Using a dive computer is the equivalent of measuring with a laser, marking with chalk, and cutting with an axe.