Diving Resistant to Change?

[Ioncloud9]

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.

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. I am also an avid snow skiier but there is no way I would use snow skis from the 50s and 60s. The technology has improved dramatically. Even MOST dive computers (with the exception of the Shearwater line) look like casio watches from the mid 90s, or giant hockey pucks that have CPUs worst than the TI-83 but still somehow cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars. I get it that the diving market just isn't that big and niche items tend to fetch high prices due to economies of scale.

And I know Jet fins are considered "the best" but the design is from the 1960s. Just because its old doesn't mean its not good. With vastly improved materials science and computer modelling I find it hard to believe that they got it perfect in 1965 without any of that and the rest of the time has just been wasted since it cant get any better. I think some of it comes from a resistance to change, some comes from mistrust from brands that have made and sold useless crap at high prices for decades without the diver's best interest, relying on marketing gimmicks to push as much product as possible.

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.

 

[Akimbo]

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.

There have been substantial refinements all along the way but are much more subtle than a change in operating systems and Moore's Law level game changers. Interesting post.

 

[KatieMac]

or giant hockey pucks

My favorite design. Being over 40 and having eyes that aren't the best, I like my big display with little distraction. Can't improve on perfection.

And on IT technology terms - UNIX and SQL have both been around for decades. Why are they still in use? Seems like a reluctance to change

 

[gypsyjim]

As someone who began diving when there was no bcd, no spg, no such thing as an alternate air source, no dive computers, masks that were like looking through a long rubber pipe compared to today's low volume beauties, J valves as your only "reserve", and only stiff, thick wetsuits, I have seen a great deal change in this sport.

We do have folks regularly jumping on the newest, improved...fill in the blank. Every few months some new product is offered up as the next, best....

We also have folks that demand that new technology prove itself before giving up on the life preserving devices that have already proven themselves durable and reliable.

Your new, just released I-thingy decides to self ignite, all you are out is your wasted $.

Your new fangled, just released life support equipment suddenly has a previously inexperienced catastrophic failure at 120+', it may cost you more than your $.

Our sport does evolve and adapt, but chasing the latest fads, just because they are "new", in a hostile environment can prove costly

 

[Captain Swoop]

Regulators are safety critical. Old and tested designs are trusted, their failure modes and limitations are well understood.

For example look at aircraft. Most designs of piston engined aircraft use a Magneto to produce their spark. It is very old but very reliable technology.

Also some technologies mature and development is minor after a certain stage being related to materials rather than overall design.

 

[EastEndDiver]

I think the 4 above posts said it all.



Posted from my Nokia Flip Phone.

 

[Schwob]

Diving is absolutely very resistant to change.
According to the "experts" about 12 times more resistant than anything you do in air.

Resistance and Viscosity

Great lift so!

 

[2airishuman]

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.

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. I am also an avid snow skiier but there is no way I would use snow skis from the 50s and 60s. The technology has improved dramatically.

Regulator technology has been mature since the late 1970s with only some very minor improvements in materials and configurations. They work great. There isn't much room for improvement. As for the 1950s double-hose designs, they're not my cup of tea but there are some design tradeoffs between those and the newer single-hose designs, and some people prefer them for reasons that make sense.

Even MOST dive computers (with the exception of the Shearwater line) look like casio watches from the mid 90s, or giant hockey pucks that have CPUs worst than the TI-83 but still somehow cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars. I get it that the diving market just isn't that big and niche items tend to fetch high prices due to economies of scale.

I keep waiting for the market to deliver a dive computer that I like and it just doesn't happen. As you point out, though, this is a small market. DEMA estimates 6 million active scuba divers worldwide. Of these probably only one in ten ever buys a computer and gets an average of ten years out of it (I'm guessing) so it's a market of 60,000 computers per year. Doesn't leave much money for R&D and isn't nearly a lucrative enough business for someone to come in and try to beat Shearwater at their own game. The new Scubapro computer has a nice visual design and a lot of good ideas but reviews haven't been especially positive, at least on Scubaboard, not because people are resistant to change but because it's a product with specific weaknesses in areas that some people consider important.

And I know Jet fins are considered "the best" but the design is from the 1960s. Just because its old doesn't mean its not good. With vastly improved materials science and computer modelling I find it hard to believe that they got it perfect in 1965 without any of that and the rest of the time has just been wasted since it cant get any better. I think some of it comes from a resistance to change, some comes from mistrust from brands that have made and sold useless crap at high prices for decades without the diver's best interest, relying on marketing gimmicks to push as much product as possible.

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.

Diver's tastes in fins varies widely. Yes, some people like Jet fins but some like F1s or freediving fins or some other favorite. The thing is that it's not a race and there's not the motivation to wring the last 10% of performance out of them.

 

[runsongas]

I could say that software hasn't changed much since the 50s as we still process in binary. Shouldn't we have moved to quantum computing by now already with multiple superposition states?

scuba gear has a different set of challenges than terrestrial equipment, namely it has to take into account being watertight, pressure resistant, corrosion resistant, and account for buoyancy rather than just dry weight. Combined with the small market and you have limited options for improvement along with lengthy payback periods for product lines.
a jetfin is still popular because of its weight, rigidity, and ruggedness. you may be able to make a carbon fiber fin that is really lightweight, but it will be too light for use with a drysuit and may be fragile so that it breaks in two years. so why should a diver pay for something that is unsuitable for their use and would not last as long.

but if you think have a "disruptive" idea that will totally change the way people dive, by all means feel free to start your own dive gear company. you may find your point of view changing a bit.

as for old regs, just because something is a classic doesn't mean it can't be great. i would rather drive a restored boss 302 or z28 from the 60s than a prius any day.

 

[jlcnuke]

I'll approach this from a different perspective, that of a someone who had an even more pronounced understanding of what "Safety at depth" really entails: a nuclear submariner.

When it comes to critical systems, especially critical systems where failures could meant death, it is appropriate to be very wary of changes and very cautious of adopting "new" technologies until such technologies are very, very, well tested (the boat I was on a little over a decade ago had most of it's critical systems with designs from the 70's or earlier for instance). If it's worked for decades, chances are the design is solid. Any "new" design needs to be researched, developed, and implemented in a very rigorous fashion. When I take that, while taking into account the relatively low volume of sales such new design will incur (especially in the short run), the "business major" part of me sees "tweaks" to designs as much more likely than complete redesigns or new technology implementations due to their practicality and higher profit potential.

Then there's the "how do we get people to pay more for the new stuff" question? Does this weight belt hold weight better? Does that fancy new regulator give Joe Diver anything other than "the same amount of air just as comfortably as he's been breathing with his current 1958 regulator"? Sure, there are improvements, but like a bow and arrow: once the initial work in figuring out how to make them work properly and safely was done, there's only so much tweaking you can convince people to pay for regularly.