Diving Resistant to Change?

[gypsyjim]

I appreciate Sam's history of SPG development. However it was my experience that they were rarely used in the 60s and 70s by divers I dove with. We were still using J-valve. Not sure when I got my first SPG but it was probably in the 80s.

My first exposure to both a BCD and the SPG came in the mid 80's when I jumpeed on a chance to dive Monterey Bay, and rented gear at a local op there.
The SPG and K valve were nice upgrades, but that BCD..... THAT piece of equipment is what taught me that periodic retraining is a very, very wise move, if you are dry for long.

 

[Colliam7]

OK, I had to chuckle a bit in reading several posts in this thread. On one hand, I can appreciate the enthusiasm of the OP - newer diver, excited about the sport, and the technology, and the equipment, etc. On the other hand, I was amused at times.

I'm new to the sport of diving, and haven't even so much as been involved with any of the sport in any way prior to May of this year, and never browsed any forums until August-ish. I have a background in IT and technology and thus am used to a fast pace of development in products, and unfortunately change for the sake of change sometimes. But we aren't using computers from the late 90s or early 2000s nor are we using storage technology from the 80s. We learn more, get better materials, create better models, and advance.

Very true, we are not using the same computers from the 90s or 2000s. Heck, a PC made 5 years ago is obsolete from my perspective. I don't believe there has been a revolution in computer fundamentals. Rather the primary changes have been in: 1) miniturization; 2) improvements in processor speed and capacity; and 3) improvements in storage capacity and speed. Plus, the materials are (by and large) rather cheap, and automated manufacturing has allowed us to get 'better, faster, cheaper'. Compare that with recreational, open circuit scuba (putting aside PDCs for the moment). There is at best a limited role for miniturization (unless you somehow know how to make a fin that is 1/4 the size of my JetFins, and provides the same / better propulsion, better control, and the same buoyancy characteristics. There are really no microprocessors to improve upon, and electronic storage capacity is a non-issue. Gas storage capacity is a real issue, but there are trade-offs between storage container size and storage container pressure. However, where the computer innovation factors do apply - PDCs, for example - there has been considerable development and innovation. It would be hard to say that there is 'resistance to change' in PDCs. BUT, there are quite a few PDC manufacturers that have come and gone in the last decade alone, because of the economics of the industry. They could not develop, sell, and continually improve upon a new product at a price that was sufficient to cover their costs - not because divers were 'resistant to change', but because they were unwilling to spend money for something that is an adjunct to diving. I don't dive to play with my computer. The only time I might be interested in gaming, or playing music or videos, underwater is during my (boring) deco stops. As an aside, if a PDC manufacturer comes out with a model that allows me to watch feature films, on my HUD dive mask, while spending 30 boring minutes decompressing at 20 feet, and the cost is not substantially greater than the cost of a Perdix and a SeaDive Carribean mask, sign me up! I will buy two.

Thus I was completely shocked-and I mean shocked-when I found out there are actual regulator designs from 1958 that people still actually spend the better part of a grand buying. This is extremely resistant to change.

Why are you shocked? Seriously. This is not 'extremely resistant to change'. Have you actually looked at how simple, almost bullet-proof, a regulator design is? (Every time I service a regulator - first stage or second stage - I am impressed by how mind-bogglingly simple it really is.) It is a mechanical (not electronic) device, that actually works VERY WELL. And, if something already works VERY WELL, it will be hard to design something that works VERY WELL-ER. There have been changes in materials, but the fundamental designs haven't changed, because they work VERY WELL. But, I am not resistant to change. So, what would YOU specifically change in that 1958 regulator design, to improve performance, reliability, etc.?

I'm not trying to rant about this, I'm just making an observation from a new diver's perspective, there just seems to be a huge resistance to change.

And, I, for one, appreciate the observation. But, honestly, I fail to see any 'huge resistance to change'. In fact, I would suggest that you are 180 degrees off the mark. I suspect that every diver would welcome a new fin that provided SIGNIFICANTLY greater propulsion, or control, for no more than a modest increase in cost. Frankly, I use JetFins - with my drysuit and doubles - because they do what I need them to do. If you can show me a conspicuously better fin, I would buy it in a heartbeat - as long as the cost justified the functional improvement. I suspect every diver would welcome a new regulator that provided SIGNIFICANTLY better performance. Like you, I don't subscribe to change for the sake of change. But, I am happy to pay for real change that is associated with real benefit. Akimbo probably answered it best:

Part of that is human nature, part is the "good enough" and "what works", and part is any change has to justify the functional cost. I don't think it is fair to say we are using 1958, or even 1943 technology exactly... only partly. You can make the same statement about clothing and steam technology. It is fundamentally the same, but much more refined than when it was introduced.

'Any change has to justify the functional cost'. That is figuratively, and literally, the bottom line.

I would ask the OP to do a little introspection. A user in the thread pointed out where there has been considerable technological innovation and development - rebreathers - and the OP's response was classic:

Well, I don't have $10,000 to burn on just the equipment, nor the money for the training.

LOL! Maybe, you aren't the only one. I think that rebreather technology is one area of diving in which there has been some substantive change. That change is associated with not insignificant costs. But, the OP, who is lamenting 'resistance to change', is also the very one who says they are are not willing to pay for that change. What makes you think others are? I am not, and I do a lot of diving, and have been doing a lot of diving over a number of years. I haven't found a cost proposition that shows me where the added expense of a rebreather, and associated training, and maintenance, justifies the benefit, be it greater enjoyment, longer / deeper diving, greater safety, whatever. And, I think rebreathers are cool. I LOVE the idea of the technology. And, if the acquisition cost of a rebreather was equivalent to that of a scuba cylinder and regulator (or even 25% more), and the training costs were modest, and the consequences of technology failure were no greater than those associated with the inconvenience of failure of a personal computer or an operating system, or with the annoyance of a broken snow ski, I would be lined up to buy one.

Look more closely at the scuba marketplace. Diving is a recreational activity. People are going to spend a certain amount of money on the activity, but not an enormous amount. And, whatever their scuba spending might be, that allocation must 'compete' with other interests. The majority of divers are reasonably intelligent, reasonably informed, and reasonably financially comfortable people. And, they will readily spend money for technology that materially advances their diving. But, only to a point. So, what is the incentive for a manufacturer to invest considerable capital, to develop products that may be marginally better ( at best), for a limited marketplace?

Now, none of my comments should be taken to mean that anyone is prohibited from changing that investment paradigm. Find the best engineers, pay them to substantively improve scuba equipment designs, and materials usage, spend the required money on manufacturing, and put that new and improved product on the (limited size) market. If you can develop, manufacture and market, a SIGNIFICANTLY better fin, a better wetsuit, a better regulator, a better BCD, for the same, or at most a reasonable increase in, price, I will be there to buy it. I am not resistant to change, I am enthusiastic about change! I am more than willing to pay for change, that benefits me. But, I am also intelligent enough, and experienced enough to recognize real change when I see it.

 

[gypsyjim]

I was chuckling, thinking of this thread as I was sorting dive and camera gear for an upcoming trip.

I am sure that I am not alone in having an accumulation of gear, fins, masks, regulators, etc, that are the result of years of experiments, upgrades and, yes, changes.

 

[drbill]

My first exposure to both a BCD and the SPG came in the mid 80's when I jumpeed on a chance to dive Monterey Bay, and rented gear at a local op there.
The SPG and K valve were nice upgrades, but that BCD..... THAT piece of equipment is what taught me that periodic retraining is a very, very wise move, if you are dry for long.

First time I used a BCD it was required equipment on a dive with a Cousteau team back in the late 80s. I tried to descend three times, but it kept autoinflating! I told the DAM who didn't believe it initially so I said "watch." It did it again.The DAM said what are we going to do now. I said disconnect the inflator and I'll dive the way I have for the last 27 years.

 

[tbone1004]

I understand why reg technology as a whole is where it is. Its a very mature technology, just like car engines, with over 50 years of refinement. There isn't much room for it to go anywhere else. You did pick up on my point about Poseidon haha. Other than the novelty of it, I don't understand why its desired enough to warrant production and that was my point. I guess like a classic car.

I dive Poseidon almost exclusively. I have a Dacor from the early 80's that I inherited from my dad that I use as an O2 second stage, I have a few prototype regulators that are obviously new, and I have a bunch of Scubapro 109's that I use for deco bottles. Most all of my regulators are older than I am, but the technology hasn't changed to allow any major breakthrough, so what is there to change?

 

[Akimbo]

But, I would ask the OP to do a little introspection. A user in the thread pointed out where there has been considerable technological innovation and development - rebreathers - and the OP's response was classic:

Well, I don't have $10,000 to burn on just the equipment, nor the money for the training.

LOL!

I wonder how many Scubabaord readers understand that basic rebreather technology is many times older than open-circuit demand-valve technology? And that it took 80 to 100 years to refine that technology enough to be practical when Cousteau successfully tested it underwater for the first time in 1943.

The title of this thread instantly made me think of how difficult it was for Kirby-Morgan to convince the US Navy to finally replace their Mark V heavy gear rigs, which had roots going back to 1830. Talk about resistance to change!

Bev Morgan, Diving Industry Pioneer

A Brief History of Diving (before 1943)

US Navy Experimental Diving Unit

 

[JohnnyC]

I wonder how many Scubabaord readers understand that basic rebreather technology is many times older than open-circuit demand-valve technology? And that it took 80 to 100 years to refine that technology enough to be practical when Cousteau successfully tested it underwater for the first time in 1943.

The title of this thread instantly made me think of how difficult it was for Kirby-Morgan to convince the US Navy to finally replace their Mark V heavy gear rigs, which had roots going back to 1830. Talk about resistance to change!

Man, I would love to have an old surplus Mark V hat. If for no other reason than to save a little piece of history from the scrap pile.

 

[arew+4]

I'm still waiting on Marine Boy's Oxy-Gum and jet boots!

That and my flying car!

Man, the future has turned out to be a real bummer!

 

[dmaziuk]

we aren't using computers from the late 90s or early 2000s nor are we using storage technology from the 80s

Speak for yourself. We have boxes of DLT cartridges and an SGI Octane still doing useful work.

Truly, I think UNIX is still in use because geeks like me won't let go of vi

Them's fighting words. Everyone knows EMACS Makes A Computer uSable.

 

[Roger Hobden]

One of the problems of Dive Computers is that they don't behave like the computers most of us are accustomed to. No way to change the operating system. No way to add other software, nor other applications. There is no "universal dive computer" that would let you add as many algorithms (based on the vast assay of existing research-based decompression models) as you like. Naturally, such freedom would obviously come with the price of needing to know exactly what you are doing, or face the consequences. But such a choice does not exist, for the moment.