bp/w harness type and time of use

[on_two_wheels]

I've been out of this conversation for a while. Considering scubaboard DOES attract a wide variety of divers from all walks and that this is in the advanced section (as opposed to a more specialized section) I think to ignore that 82% of bp/w users actually prefer basic webbing harness and only a mere 6% chose to abandon it once they tried it or began using it is just stubbornness. A plain old harness is just too simple to use IF you know what you're doing, how to set it up with what you want (infinite modularity) and infinitely adjustable.

I agree that all types use comfort harnesses but I also agree they simply aren't necessary with a few exceptions, such as due to limited mobility or injury. Hell, that alone could make up a couple/few percent of the ones that gave up on the bare harness. If you love your comfort harness, GREAT!! But to suggest it's easier/better than a basic web harness merely makes it sound like the diver never learned to dive one properly.

As a side note for those that don't care for the poll results: ANY study takes a sampling. This is a sampling of divers in general. I can completely understand thinking Tobin might be biased but there are 96 divers so far that agree with him....that means 95 that you can't say that about (vs the 21 that use a comfort harness, only 7 of which that have tried a web harness.).

 

[cool_hardware52]

Most people HERE, Most people on HERE don't even post and HERE its a small portion of divers world wide

You need to get a grip

Humm,

This thread is poll on........ SB, not a poll of all divers on the planet.

By definition voting in a poll is participatory act.

So we have subset, SB users who actually participate.

75-80% of this subset seems to prefer a single piece harness.

If you have data for the world as a whole I'd love to see it.

Tobin

 

[ucfdiver]

Most people HERE, Most people on HERE don't even post and HERE its a small portion of divers world wide

You need to get a grip

He has sales reports, I'm sure. He knows what the population wants.

 

[tomboyy]

Simply not true. We manufacture and sell both single piece harnesses and adjustable harnesses. Both work well.

I recommend the single piece first simply because that's what most (75-80% based on two recent polls here) eventually end up with.

It benefits our customers and us to educate them about what they actually need, vs what they think they might want. This is particularly true of new BP&W users.

I routinely recommend customers *not* buy something I don't think they need, or they really aren't ready for.

Tobin

And theres the rub Tobin....need vs. want

I have your BP/W and webbing and I have two jacket BCDs and am currently using a diver rite setup that has two seperate shoulder pieces w/ alittle padding, waist strap, and a crotch strap.

Originally I was just posting ananswer to what the OP asked... he wanted to know who stayed with or switched.

 

[tomboyy]

If you have data for the world as a whole I'd love to see it.

Tobin

Nope... I don't . Do you ?

He has sales reports, I'm sure. He knows what the population wants.

Really ? "sales reports" from his company means Tobin knows what the population wants ?

Really ? :shocked2:

 

[DevonDiver]

The topic has gone a bit 'off-track', with the discussion now moving into the realms of technical diving configuration methodologies.

That said, it would be wise for the non-tech diving qualified members of this debate to recognise the limitations of their knowledge and experience in this area.

I don't mean to be rude, but the debate will just endlessly go in circles if Tobin attempts to discuss the merits of 'standardized tech configurations' with an OW diver. The knowledge gap is too different to allow progress. Such a discussions should probably be reserved for the technical diving forum.

It's enough to say that the configuration (hog vs complex / single vs breaks) is not a critical issue for most recreational divers. The risks posed by entanglement, gear failure and excess drag are very minimal in open water (non-decompression / non-penetration) diving. As such, it would be unrealistic to expect a recreational diver to fully appreciate them.

Ignorance is bliss...and, when the risks are that low, it is acceptable.

What causes debate and division is the introduction of tech diving (high risk) concepts into into recreational diving (low risk) consideration.

You end up with a 3-sided debate, with a lot of misunderstanding, comprising the following groups:

1) Tech divers - Qualified and experienced tech divers, who would naturally apply their 'high-risk' procedures into all diving activities, including recreational diving. They won't 'dumb down', just because the risks lower.

2) Tech 'infuenced' divers. These are recreational divers who believe that tech diving concepts and principles are valid and beneficial for recreational divers and, consequently, are eager to research and adopt tech methodology for recreational purposes.Basically, they believe that ALL diving should be treated as if it were high-risk, so they are typically motivated a desire to minimise safety risks to the 'zero point'. However, the adoption of tech methods, without a tech background, sometimes leads to mis-appreciation of the thought, requirement or goals behind those methods.

3) Recreational divers. Divers who are predominantly concerned with comfort and function. Generally not concerned with applying any methodology into equipment and procedural development. Unaware of tech diving or does not agree that recreational diving needs tech inspired concepts or equipment. Concern for safety issues matches a lower percieved risk and, consequently, it not the primary motivating factor. Accepts that recreational diving is a low-risk activity.

 

[cool_hardware52]

Nope... I don't . Do you ?



Really ? "sales reports" from his company means Tobin knows what the population wants ?

Really ? :shocked2:

Don't be absurd. I've never made any such claim. I can speak with authority about what my customers want.

With regards to harness choice this happens to match pretty closely the recent polls conducted here.

Any business that fails to learn what their customers want won't be around long.

Tom, if you want something else it's ok, really.

Tobin

 

[Codyjp]

And theres the rub Tobin....need vs. want

I have your BP/W and webbing and I have two jacket BCDs and am currently using a diver rite setup that has two seperate shoulder pieces w/ alittle padding, waist strap, and a crotch strap.

Originally I was just posting ananswer to what the OP asked... he wanted to know who stayed with or switched.

Are you saying you don't use your DSS setup? If so, I might be willing to buy the plate/harness off you.

 

[SherlTheperl]

OK 1 last post on this topic since some are still missing the point.
Regardless of the percentages, if the percent of divers that make a choice is greater than 0 then those divers choices and opinions should be respected. The term majority is largely useless except to create a debate where a debate should not exist.
And using terms like "largely unnecessary" to trivialize the minority opinion is actually what is unnecessary.

 

[tomboyy]

The topic has gone a bit 'off-track', with the discussion now moving into the realms of technical diving configuration methodologies.

That said, it would be wise for the non-tech diving qualified members of this debate to recognise the limitations of their knowledge and experience in this area.

I don't mean to be rude, but the debate will just endlessly go in circles if Tobin attempts to discuss the merits of 'standardized tech configurations' with an OW diver. The knowledge gap is too different to allow progress. Such a discussions should probably be reserved for the technical diving forum.

It's enough to say that the configuration (hog vs complex / single vs breaks) is not a critical issue for most recreational divers. The risks posed by entanglement, gear failure and excess drag are very minimal in open water (non-decompression / non-penetration) diving. As such, it would be unrealistic to expect a recreational diver to fully appreciate them.

Ignorance is bliss...and, when the risks are that low, it is acceptable.

What causes debate and division is the introduction of tech diving (high risk) concepts into into recreational diving (low risk) consideration.

You end up with a 3-sided debate, with a lot of misunderstanding, comprising the following groups:

1) Tech divers - Qualified and experienced tech divers, who would naturally apply their 'high-risk' procedures into all diving activities, including recreational diving. They won't 'dumb down', just because the risks lower.

2) Tech 'infuenced' divers. These are recreational divers who believe that tech diving concepts and principles are valid and beneficial for recreational divers and, consequently, are eager to research and adopt tech methodology for recreational purposes. They are typically motivated a desire to minimise safety risks to the 'zero point'. The adoption of tech methods, without a tech background, sometimes leads to mis-appreciation of the thought, requirement or goals behind those methods.

3) Recreational divers. Divers who are predominantly concerned with comfort and function. Generally not concerned with applying any methodology into equipment and procedural development. Unaware of tech diving or does not agree that recreational diving needs tech inspired concepts or equipment. Concern for safety issues matches a lower percieved risk and, consequently, it not the primary motivating factor.

and exactly what does your reply have to do with with the original poll/question ?

"Another thread got me wondering...how many have switched either to or from a comfort harness. Some say many people eventually get rid of their's (like I did). Others say that they use their harness deep into very advanced diving."

Is this the advanced forum or tech forum ?

I find it disturbing that as SB staff you'll attemp to down grade other SB members when their OPINION doesn't match your own... should I refer to the OP's question/poll again ?

Tired.... gonna go to back to the real world, have a good night.