Yes, at the time I bought the wing there was the option of getting an extra bladder with it. I don't see the option available now but I'm sure if you asked @Bryan@Vintage Double Hose he would be happy to order one for you.
Deep Sea Supply status, May 2019 edition
- Thread starter 2airishuman
- 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
Eric Sedletzky
Contributor
How did he not have the ability?
Every other manufacturer has a 360 loop zipper on their donut wings (that I’m aware of). It’s not like it’s top secret information.
All he would have had to do was order a wing from anybody, examine it to see how it was done, and send it back for a refund. As industrious as Tobin was, the sewn shut wing baffled me. How could that ever be a good idea?
It’s cheaper not to have a zipper?
I was always baffled by Tobin and his advocates who thought building/buying a sewn in bladder instead of one with a zipper was a good idea. When I was looking at bp/ws to replace my jacket bcd a couple of years ago, I considered, and then discarded the DSS concept because even a smallish hole in the bladder would render the wing useless, and force me to rent what would likely be a jacket bcd for the duration of the trip, if not longer. I wound up buying a Zeagle Covert, because it had the items I wanted on a travel bcd, and it had a zippered bladder that I could field repair if necessary. Maybe I missed something on the sewn in bladder concept, but I still do not see any advantage. For me, no zipper was a non-starter.
I really like the the square openings in the center panel of the DSS torus wings...it was an interesting design that made it possible to pop the wing on and off without having to unbuckle/unthread tank cam straps. I don't know how well it worked in reality as I don't own one, but I imagine it worked well.
On the other hand, as I mentioned in an early post in this thread...the zipperless design was, in my opinion, a very poor design choice.
I recall reading a thread that was a back and forth between Tobin and a customer who sent in his wing for evaluation and repair...apparently the customer became frustrated and requested his wing be returned. According to Tobin, the customer rescinded his authorization for repair after the work had started...the customer received a box with a totally dismantled wing.
The interesting thing about the story above is that Tobin commented in the ensuing discussion that taking apart the wing to inspect the bladder was a time consuming task and rhetorically asked the customer in one post something to the effect of "why would we spend the time to open up the wing if you did not authorize us to inspect and repair the wing"....
...the fact that opening up the wing took any substantial amount of time and which Tobin explained in a further post required replacement of the square rubber gaskets that make up the center panel, is indicative of a poor design choice. It is well known that the number 1 cause of wing failure is a rupture of the bladder due to "pinching" the wing between the plate and another hard object, and this type of accidental/negligent damage is/was perhaps common, more especially so with urethane bladders....why then would one design their product so that it is difficult to inspect, repair, and/or replace the most vulnerable and important aspect of the wing?...just poor design.
-Z
On the other hand, as I mentioned in an early post in this thread...the zipperless design was, in my opinion, a very poor design choice.
I recall reading a thread that was a back and forth between Tobin and a customer who sent in his wing for evaluation and repair...apparently the customer became frustrated and requested his wing be returned. According to Tobin, the customer rescinded his authorization for repair after the work had started...the customer received a box with a totally dismantled wing.
The interesting thing about the story above is that Tobin commented in the ensuing discussion that taking apart the wing to inspect the bladder was a time consuming task and rhetorically asked the customer in one post something to the effect of "why would we spend the time to open up the wing if you did not authorize us to inspect and repair the wing"....
...the fact that opening up the wing took any substantial amount of time and which Tobin explained in a further post required replacement of the square rubber gaskets that make up the center panel, is indicative of a poor design choice. It is well known that the number 1 cause of wing failure is a rupture of the bladder due to "pinching" the wing between the plate and another hard object, and this type of accidental/negligent damage is/was perhaps common, more especially so with urethane bladders....why then would one design their product so that it is difficult to inspect, repair, and/or replace the most vulnerable and important aspect of the wing?...just poor design.
-Z
Many years ago I purchased an oceanographic instrument, which was a 1m steel sphere full of batteries, an accelerometer, a system to double-integrate the signal to convert the vertical acceleration into vertical displacement, and a radio to transmit the result to shore or a nearby ship. It worked great. However, the two halves of the sphere were welded together after the batteries were connected and the radio was turned on. The owner/engineer said it would last a year then would need to be factory serviced to replace the batteries. I asked how much the annual service was. He said he didn't know, he'd never had to do it, because the buoys were run down by ships or broke free from their mooring before a year was up. He was terribly upset that people refused to buy his wave buoys unless he made them user-friendly, because he was smarter than everybody else and you couldn't trust people to service things right so his buoys might get a bad reputation. Just sayin'
Perhaps, but I don't believe it was significantly cheaper...and those costs are passed on to the customer....find me one person who legitimately appreciates/appreciated the fact that their wing must be destructively taken apart just to inspect the condition of the most important part?
-Z
Ha. Yes, it survived at least 4 years, then I left the organization that bought it. It was one that was NOT welded, by the way. He had designed it for use near-shore off Holland (he was Dutch) but I was using it in the Mediterranean, in mid-ocean. Rather different shipping environments!
ams511
Contributor
I would assume sewing a 360 loop zipper would require equipment or personnel that DSS did not have for whatever reason.
Because Tobin said so and if you disagreed then he would argue with you until you get threatened by the mods. His reasoning was that it makes the wing thinner (His LCD wing is pretty thin already) and that the if you have a hole in the bladder then you could just send it back to DSS for a fix. You do not want to patch because no vendor recommends patching (Zeagle sells a patch kit) a wing.
Similar threads
