GUE and Sidemount position ?

[Darghu]

Funny things - a Sidemount FB group made a poll to tell they are bored to read UTD's publications
Could we stop with the UTD bullcrap?
Patrick Bobbink

 

[Dan_P]

my acceptance of GUE's ratio deco as a basically last minute resort is more of an effort to get my ass to the surface in as least of a bendy was as possible

Dan, I think the difference comes in the paradigm under which Ratio Deco is used.

I don't have a problem with either view, and I'm not pointing fingers regardless.
I'm showing it's all a matter separate from whether one has a personal disliking to the person who made it or not, that's all.

 

[DevonDiver]

I've been a few places (SE Asia included) and could wrangle doubles if I wanted.

Check out the Asian Karst Exploration Project. I don't wanna hear it that it "can't be done".

Spoken like only an American living in Florida.

It's cute you visited SE Asia. Please, do tell me all about it.. LOL

 

[tbone1004]

I don't have a problem with either view, and I'm not pointing fingers regardless.
I'm showing it's all a matter separate from whether one has a personal disliking to the person who made it or not, that's all.

my opinion on ratio deco and UTD's ratio deco has no bearing on my personal opinion of AG. I don't make decisions based on disliking someone or not respecting them. There are plenty in this industry that I don't like and don't respect on a personal level, but you can't argue with the products that they make. Similarly the fact that I really like and respect someone doesn't mean that I will use their equipment. I really don't like Hollis, that is a known fact for the last almost decade. I dive and advocate for the Katana because it is a brilliant piece of gear. I really like Dive Rite and the people that work there, but won't dive their sidemount harnesses because I don't think they are very good.

UTD's ratio deco is not based on science, it has been disproven by experimentation, and is not used or advocated for by any one who actually does DCS science for a living. If you listen to AG explain ratio deco, it gives a cult feel here he's telling you trust him because he's a diving God. That should send anyone with half a brain running in the other direction. Conversely if you listen to basically anyone else advocating for different algorithms they tell you to read up, understand why we do what we do, and do what makes sense to you. This is why RGBM has fallen out of favor, why VPM has fallen out of favor, and why low GF-lo's have fallen out of favor. They don't make sense based on what we currently understand about DCS, with the S being sickness or stress.

If UTD's ratio deco was based on science, and it was adaptable to different ascent curves easily, then I would consider using it. That said, I trust a computer more than I trust my brain in stressful situations to run calculations, and if I can't trust my computer, I trust what was written down in my wetnotes. I don't want to do on the fly mental calculations for ascent profiles and risk cocking it up. The reliability and capability of computers like those from Shearwater, OSTC, etc. are leaps and bounds better than what they were in the 90's when the "don't trust computers, use tables and bottom timers" was in vogue. Welcome to the 21st century where fuel injection actually is more reliable and better performing than carburetors *unlike the 80's where people were scoffing EFI*, where dive computers are better than paper *unlike really up until the mid 2000's*, don't try to beat a square peg into a hole that is becoming round. Accept that the hole is round, and that if you pick up the round peg you will have a better go of it

 

[PfcAJ]

Spoken like only an American living in Florida.

It's cute you visited SE Asia. Please, do tell me all about it.. LOL

So you can get all your dive gear to some far off location but can't toss a manifold and bands into you bag?

Gotta be kidding me.

 

[Darghu]

If I understand right -- this is not today that a valuable Sidemount standardized system will pop up, right ? With a major community diver who agree on the quality / performance of that system.

Better have to choose some talented instructors in Sidemount Tec / Cave / Wreck diving and build experiences from that.

 

[Doby45]

Better have to choose a talented instructor in Sidemount Tec / Cave / Wreck diving that waiting for GUE training ?

That has already been stated by several GUE divers on this board. Just because GUE does not have a specific sanctioned SM course does not mean GUE divers can not get SM training.

 

[Dan_P]

my opinion on ratio deco and UTD's ratio deco has no bearing on my personal opinion of AG. I don't make decisions based on disliking someone or not respecting them. There are plenty in this industry that I don't like and don't respect on a personal level, but you can't argue with the products that they make. Similarly the fact that I really like and respect someone doesn't mean that I will use their equipment. I really don't like Hollis, that is a known fact for the last almost decade. I dive and advocate for the Katana because it is a brilliant piece of gear. I really like Dive Rite and the people that work there, but won't dive their sidemount harnesses because I don't think they are very good.

UTD's ratio deco is not based on science, it has been disproven by experimentation, and is not used or advocated for by any one who actually does DCS science for a living. If you listen to AG explain ratio deco, it gives a cult feel here he's telling you trust him because he's a diving God. That should send anyone with half a brain running in the other direction. Conversely if you listen to basically anyone else advocating for different algorithms they tell you to read up, understand why we do what we do, and do what makes sense to you. This is why RGBM has fallen out of favor, why VPM has fallen out of favor, and why low GF-lo's have fallen out of favor. They don't make sense based on what we currently understand about DCS, with the S being sickness or stress.

If UTD's ratio deco was based on science, and it was adaptable to different ascent curves easily, then I would consider using it. That said, I trust a computer more than I trust my brain in stressful situations to run calculations, and if I can't trust my computer, I trust what was written down in my wetnotes. I don't want to do on the fly mental calculations for ascent profiles and risk cocking it up. The reliability and capability of computers like those from Shearwater, OSTC, etc. are leaps and bounds better than what they were in the 90's when the "don't trust computers, use tables and bottom timers" was in vogue. Welcome to the 21st century where fuel injection actually is more reliable and better performing than carburetors *unlike the 80's where people were scoffing EFI*, where dive computers are better than paper *unlike really up until the mid 2000's*, don't try to beat a square peg into a hole that is becoming round. Accept that the hole is round, and that if you pick up the round peg you will have a better go of it

I don't have any issue with your view. Personally, I got interested in UTD without having ever seen any video of AG, and I never subscribed to cultism.

I too read up as much as my limited capacity for understanding complex hyperbaric physiological mechanisms allow, and understand full well that deep stops seem to generally, by all that we have to work on other than theory, have been overemphasised. I'll openly acknowledge that there's an obvious application to the decompression strategy I use.

That doesn't mean Ratio Deco is dangerous, in my view. It doesn't mean that I'll look at the Italy project report and think "wow, this really shows conclusively and extrapolatively that ratio deco is 100% crap regardless of regardless of whether I see some benefits in having a blueprint approximating some algorithm (whether "optimal" or not) at my disposal or not".

I'm not saying that makes my choices "right".

I'm choosing a solution that is rarely "optimal" in terms of deco, just as I choose gasses that are rarely "optimal" in terms of ppO2 at the max depth. But that does not mean "unsafe", just as it doesn't mean I'm doing it because anybody told me to. It means that I'm making an evaluation and choosing "suboptimal" deco and gas because there are other benefits that I think are worth it.
If you don't think it's worth it, it's only natural we would land on different paths in terms of deco and gas choice. That doesn't mean that neither you or I are any less capable, have any less fun in the water, or are any less reasonable human beings or anything of the sort.

 

[tbone1004]

@Dan_P how is suboptimal not less safe?

what benefits do you think ratio deco has over reliable and robust computers running algorithms that are proven in the field of technical diving that would warrant forgoing that technology and benefits of a more ideal ascent profile?

 

[Patoux01]

a blueprint approximating some algorithm

Huh? UTD RD does not do that afaik?