Are can lights still necessary for non-cave tech diving?

[boulderjohn]

I have a friend who is a tech instructor who really likes cordless lights.

The only times I have used one was in a cave. My own canister light was in for repairs, so I had to rent one. The dive shop owner--a cave instructor--strongly suggested I try out the Dive Rite cordless light. It worked well, although it was hard to get used to that much weight on my hand.

I am just starting to get into side mount, and I am finding that my canister light does not have enough cord to work well the way I would prefer to mount it. For that reason, a lot of canister lights are now being made with longer cords. I suspect that in time people may start to prefer cordless.

 

[flots am]

I have an inexpensive can light (a very nice DIY job by a SB member), but I'm having the usual issues getting used to dealing with the cable a times, especially when removing deco bottles, valve drills, etc... I'm sure that I would eventually get used to it, but given the recent improvement in power and burn time with cordless rechargeable LED lights, I was wondering what the thoughts were in this community regarding just using a cordless light as a primary, possibly on a Goodman handle.

I don't do caves, but I do wrecks and the viz is often poor enough that most of my dives require a light even at noon in the middle of July.

Can lights are a solution to a problem that's gone away. With the new lithium batteries, long run-times and super-bright LEDs, I can't really come up with a reason to need a can light.

Back when high-tech was a lead-acid gel cell and a 50 watt halogen lamp, yeah I could see it. But not now.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[PfcAJ]

I haven't really seen an led that compares to a 21w hid in low vis. Almost anything will do when the water is air clear, but best case scenario isn't what I base my choices on.

 

[hroark2112]

Make sure you've got more battery run time than you have air.

 

[Mike.D]

I clip my backup light (cordless) off on my compass bungee so if i did have to drop it, I wouldn't lose it!!!

 

[kwinter]

a seldom mentioned benefit is that you can't drop it. more of an issue in open water tech diving than in caves

I am with LitHedded. I actually like the cord so that if for any reason I need to let go the light head, I won't lose it.

+3 I think.. if my math is right.

I worry about dropping things from time to time and with the cord it is not an emergency since it's attached to you.

Garth


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not so fast, guys. One of the scariest moments (financially) was when my Goodman got caught while I was moving and not only pulled the lighthead off my hand, but also pulled out the E/O connector. Now my lighthead is somewhere in the silt inside a wreck and it is obviously not turned on anymore. I was very lucky to find it. So your advantage of having a corded light doesn't necessarily apply with E/O connectors. A cordless would have still been lit and easier to find.

I've been looking for a locking E/O solution ever since.


Please pardon any typos. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dr. Lecter]

The head-cord-can was itself an equipment solution, though it was to a technical limits problem more than a skills problem. Now that things like the H Eos Mini are starting to make smaller can lights look weak by comparison, I don't think choosing a handheld only is really a matter of "gear solution to technique problem."

The cord is both a retention aid (minus the E/O) and an entanglement hazard. The can is both power for suit heaters (if you have an E/O that guts retention of the light) and an extra piece of crap you have to have stuck to you or in my case my CCR. A non E/O cord will help keep you from losing the light, but good technique (light on, then unsecure it...) and an appropriate handle may be just as good at preventing loss for a can-less light.

Weigh the costs and benefits, and decide based on that...there's no one right answer anymore (unless you're stuck in the GUE twilight zone).

 

[doctormike]

One last point and please do not take this the wrong way. I think that since you are new to the tech. side of diving your view of " but for what I might be doing (wreck penetration), I wouldn't need the burn time to match the run time, like you would in cave diving," is off. Overhead is overhead and you can get lost in a wreck.

I don't take it the wrong way at all! I'm always interested in learning, and as I said technical diving is new to me (although I have been diving for years in the northeast).

However, I would respectfully stand by my original statement. Yes, you can certainly get lost in a wreck, but the same would go for any penetration, even one that did not incur a deco obligation. So as far as a planned profile goes, I do think that the need for very long burn times is more of a cave thing (where you may be with no ambient light for the majority of the profile) than a wreck thing (where even with a significant planned penetration, your deco obligation is most likely being paid on an ascent line or under an SMB).

I have a standard Hogarthian rig with manifolded double 119s on a backplate, can light on the right hip.

With no intention at all of being offensive, the original posts reads to me as someone seeking an equipment solution to a technique problem. All of us have had to struggle with light heads and light cords while figuring out how to move around equipment, cameras, etc., and enough practice makes one facile.

Yes, I have heard that "equipment solution to a technique problem" point made many times, and to be sure, that is one of the reasons why I wrote this post. You know how much I respect your opinions, and I don’t want to seem dismissive.

But a problem with that characterization is that pretty much any type of gear optimization or improvement that has happened in diving over the years could be considered to an equipment solution to a technique problem. That is, many of the things that we now consider standard good technique (e.g. equipment streamlining, long hose primary, slung bottles, manifolds, etc…) were solutions to problems that were previously dealt with by other earlier techniques. So I don’t think that just because I can get better and better with a can light, it means that I should use a can light because they were state of the art 20 years ago.

I guess here’s a better way of rephrasing my question. If I have two lights, one cordless and one canister - with equivalent burn times, power and pattern - should I always choose the can light? So far, the only reason that I can see why is because I’m less likely to drop it. That’s reasonable, I guess, but it’s a function of technology, right? If I can buy three cordless lights that are all adequate for my needs in terms of burn time and penetration for a reasonable price, is that good enough to compensate for the lack of a tether?

The thing about a piece of gear that has the potential to be a hazard is that you may become very slick with it in optimal (training and practice) circumstances. But as the Dave Shaw case implies to me, when conditions deteriorate (e.g. CO2 toxicity), having an extra long dangly cord can be a liability.

Can lights are a solution to a problem that's gone away. With the new lithium batteries, long run-times and super-bright LEDs, I can't really come up with a reason to need a can light.

Yes, this is sort of what I was getting at. I guess the devil is in the details, but if a 2014 cordless light is as good in terms of burn time and strength as a 2008 can light, then that means something to me. And I don’t know that I need to spend the time perfecting my cord wrangling abilities if it’s no longer a necessary skill.

 

[boulderjohn]

Yes, I have heard that "equipment solution to a technique problem" point made many times, and to be sure, that is one of the reasons why I wrote this post. ....But a problem with that characterization is that pretty much any type of gear optimization or improvement that has happened in diving over the years could be considered to an equipment solution to a technique problem.

I have made the same comment several times in the past. Taken to an absurd degree, that sentence could apply to almost anything. If we were skilled enough, we could carry our tanks under our arms and breathe from the valve as we feather it. Everything else we use is thus an equipment solution to a skill problem. I know that is absurd, but please note that the phrase could apply to that situation.

I have too often seen people use that slogan in a manner that pre-empts thinking. If Equipment B offers some sort of advantage over Equipment A, why not use it? The only reason I can think of not to use it is that it offers some sort of disadvantage that outweighs its advantage. The potential disadvantages could be anything--safety, cost, reliability, clutter, etc. We are seeing just such a discussion in this thread, and I think that's great. In too many other threads in the past, I have seen slogans like this one interfere with such a reasoned consideration of the pros and cons.

 

[TSandM]

I guess I was just trying to say that ditching a working canister light that you already have because you are having difficulty managing it with deco bottles or scooters is not a good reason to do it. If you want a different light because you want it -- because it's brighter, more adjustable, has a longer burn time, or some other quality -- then I think the only real reason not to go with a cordless is the dropping issue (and again, the possibility of using a canister for more than one purpose).

I've used cordless lights a couple of times. I didn't feel terribly comfortable with them, and they were very heavy and large on my hand compared with my remote ballast 21W HID.