Are Suunto Zoops super conservative?

[Diver0001]

He participated to that effect briefly (but only briefly) in the deeeiscussion about deep stops on ScubaBoard. After a few comments he was through.

I would think so. He has nothing to gain by engaging in debate about it. Ross Hemingway did debate it and ended up making himself look completely ridiculous in the process. Wienke would have seen that and realized that he didn't want to damage his reputation in the same way.

The debate was waged nonetheless. I don't think there is a serious technical diver on the planet who still believes in RGBM or VPM regardless of whether Wienke engages in the discussion or not. There are still some computer manufacturers out there who are licencing RGBM and he's still making money from it.... It will be interesting to see what those manufacturers decide to do when the duration of the contract has expired. It should be clear to all of them by now that they bet on the wrong horse...

 

[Russoft]

I don't think there is a serious technical diver on the planet who still believes in RGBM or VPM

It should be clear to all of them by now that they bet on the wrong horse.....

for the ignorant among us, what algorithm seems to be "best" at this point?

 

[luscioman]

As others have said sell it and get a computer that fits your needs. Generally speaking it is not difficult to get a more liberal computer and change the conservative settings to meet your needs. I have been on 3 tank trips in the 70-90 foot range and by the 3 tank the Suunto computer barely gives you any bottom time even if on 36%.

 

[Diver0001]

for the ignorant among us, what algorithm seems to be "best" at this point?

Hi Russell. Is that a rhetorical questio

 

[Russoft]

Is that a rhetorical question?

nope. Maybe it's discussed elsewhere and I've just missed it, but it'd fit nicely into this thread.

I assume tech divers use Buhlmann but I base that assumption on nothing more than the algorithm used by Shearwater computers. Is that the way things are moving?

 

[Diver0001]

nope. Maybe it's discussed elsewhere and I've just missed it, but it'd fit nicely into this thread.

I assume tech divers use Buhlmann but I base that assumption on nothing more than the algorithm used by Shearwater computers. Is that the way things are moving?

I think it really depends on context.

RGBM (ie. Mares, Cressi and Suunto computers) are perfectly ok for recreational diving. I'm not talking about how conservative they are... only if they can calculate "safe" dives.

I wouldn't have ANY problems recommending those computers in that context. I would even give one as a gift to my daughter.... All of those computers will calculate safe dives if you are within the NDL's.

For technical diving, however, we have another kettle of fish. The further you go over the NDL the more "drift" there is in the calculations. I spoke to Mark Ellyatt about this after he nearly killed himself with RGBM in 2002 and subsequently set a world record using a variant of buhlmann.... At extreme depths even buhlmann isn't good enough and needs to be padded, which shows us that our deco algorithms are still not 100% but RGBM was bad... beyond bad... it was dangerous... in that context.

Mark told me at the time that all of the "deep" divers were using Buhlmann. Since then NEDU has proven scientifically that Buhlmann is the best bet for technical divers. I think almost all technical divers are now using Buhlmann. We still know from the extreme deep divers that Buhlmann is not 100% effective but we are certain that RGBM is dangerous in that context.

Does that help?

 

[Lorenzoid]

. . . The further you go over the NDL the more "drift" there is in the calculations. . . .

Also--or maybe this is the same thing stated differently--a lot more real-world data has been collected about incidence of DCS for dives within NDLs than dives that exceed them. People have been doing the same sort of patterns of rec diving for years with these computers and, well, only gotten bent in a miniscule percentage of dives. In other words, the algorithms have been pretty thoroughly vetted for dives within NDLs.

 

[Russoft]

I think it really depends on context.

RGBM (ie. Mares, Cressi and Suunto computers) are perfectly ok for recreational diving. I'm not talking about how conservative they are... only if they can calculate "safe" dives.

I wouldn't have ANY problems recommending those computers in that context. I would even give one as a gift to my daughter.... All of those computers will calculate safe dives if you are within the NDL's.

For technical diving, however, we have another kettle of fish. The further you go over the NDL the more "drift" there is in the calculations. I spoke to Mark Ellyatt about this after he nearly killed himself with RGBM in 2002 and subsequently set a world record using a variant of buhlmann.... At extreme depths even buhlmann isn't good enough and needs to be padded, which shows us that our deco algorithms are still not 100% but RGBM was bad... beyond bad... it was dangerous... in that context.

Mark told me at the time that all of the "deep" divers were using Buhlmann. Since then NEDU has proven scientifically that Buhlmann is the best bet for technical divers. I think almost all technical divers are now using Buhlmann. We still know from the extreme deep divers that Buhlmann is not 100% effective but we are certain that RGBM is dangerous in that context.

Does that help?

.

That's exactly what I was looking for! I just assumed there was still a large degree of uncertainty in modeling decompression, thus the various algorithms still in use by computer manufacturers. I had always assumed Buhlmann was "old" and thus did not reflect the best of decompression theory. To be clear, I'm not worried about the safety of my computer (Mares Puck, RGBM), but for my own information I was interested to hear that there were definite winners and losers in the alphabet soup of available algorithms (at least for deep diving as you mentioned).

 

[boulderjohn]

I think almost all technical divers are now using Buhlmann.

I have talked with some in the last year or so, and I have seen some posts on ScubaBoard during that time, that indicate that some people are just not keeping up with the latest research. They are not aware that any recent research has been done. We just had a thread on ScuibaBoard a couple days ago from someone who is insisting on VPM. Somebody is by Suunto's technical computer--the HelO2. There is a large group of technical divers who do not use any computer at all, thinking of them as essentially the spawn of the devil.

In my circle, the overwhelming majority are using Buhlmann, but I do know there is a fair number outside that circle.

 

[boulderjohn]

Algorithms used for technical dives are generally quite different from recreational dives. If you put the profile of a simple recreational dive that is anywhere close to NDLs into a typical technical program, you will get required deco stops.

Let's take, for example, an air dive to 90 feet for 21 minutes. That is well within NDLs on the PADI tables--you do not even have to do a safety stop. If you are using Buhlmann with gradient factors of 30/70, you will have more than 8 minutes of deco, starting at 40 feet. It is the gradient factors that make the difference--go to pure Buhlmann, and you won't have to do any deco.