Internal bladder squished up ok?

[RJP]

I finally found the answer from Oxycheq:
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/oxycheq/250359-oxycheq-mach-v-signature-18-lb.html
"Also, each of the bladders is match for the outer shell. This keeps air from trapping and keep the outer shell from taking the brunt of inflation or over inflation.

There are companies that use a single size inner bladder for various outer shells. This cause trapping of air & premature wear on the outer seams. Once the seams stretch they tend to allow small particulates (sand and other) to get through the holes. Once theses particulates are inside the seams it acts as sand paper overtime... eventually getting in between the shell and inner bladder to cause increased wear on it too."

So I guess I got a blem version......

And so did you. And I will be going diving next month!

Let me know what you hear back from them. It still might be the right size version for the wing. When I inflate mine fully it "fills" the outer shell, but it doesn't "stretch" it to the point of pulling at seams, etc.

 

[TSandM]

We had another maker's wing on the boat in the Red Sea, and the person using it was having a lot of trouble getting it to vent for precisely this reason. The bladder was too big, and got "squished" and trapped air. We switched her to a DSS torus wing, and she had no further difficulties.

 

[RJP]

We had another maker's wing on the boat in the Red Sea, and the person using it was having a lot of trouble getting it to vent for precisely this reason. The bladder was too big, and got "squished" and trapped air. We switched her to a DSS torus wing, and she had no further difficulties.

Ah ha...

"A gear solution to a skill problem!"



Just kidding!

 

[TSandM]

Actually, we were horrible . . . we kept telling her that it was a skill problem, and we thought she was just complaining about the gear because she didn't like the backplate/harness setup -- until somebody actually took a look at the wing. We then changed it out and she had no further issues. I felt awful.

 

[crandf]

So I asked Joe, Joe asked Oxycheq, Oxycheq says:
"I have seen the marks before. The bladders are two dimensional and the shell is three. So, the bladder is going to be larger. If it were the same size, the shell would be too big once the bag was inflated. Urethane that thick does not stretch,

Been using the material for about 7 years now and none have cracked. The bladders have been so durable that we do not even keep spare bladders."

Which is all very well. Yay! Cracks won't form along creases!
However, both materials are flexible, so the 3D vs 2D argument doesn't really hold. Even if the bladder has to be slightly bigger, does it really have to be 10cm longer than the outer cover? Why is it then that the sides of the wing inflate so nicely even though the width of the side of the flattened bladder is about identical to the side of the flattened outer cover?
The flattened outer cover length should be about the same length as the flattened bladder too.

My wing's top and bottom are depicted in these ppt diagrams. Pls do check if yours is like mine or not. The light blue lines represent the excess bladder material. All diagrams are cross-sectional views of the top and bottom ends only

The top part is more troublesome than the bottom part. If I try flattening it, the bladder creases horribly inside and I worry I will strain the seals of the inflator hose and dump valve.

This is so vexing, I don't like my wing anymore. And since Oxycheq says creases are ok, I'm very tempted to not care about it anymore. Maybe flatten it, fold it, roll it to stuff inside my divebag; whatever creases incurred by this treatment can't be worse than what's already going on beyond my control at the top and bottom. It'll still last for at least 7 yrs with no problems right?

 

[crandf]

Actually, we were horrible . . . we kept telling her that it was a skill problem, and we thought she was just complaining about the gear because she didn't like the backplate/harness setup -- until somebody actually took a look at the wing. We then changed it out and she had no further issues. I felt awful.

Now if I can get oxycheq to look at this thread, maybe they'll ship me a replacement bladder free instead of telling me creases are ok and bladders need to be larger (by so much? :shocked2: ) than their outer covers.

 

[RJP]

However, both materials are flexible, so the 3D vs 2D argument doesn't really hold. Even if the bladder has to be slightly bigger, does it really have to be 10cm longer than the outer cover?

Actually the 2D vs 3D argument DOES hold...

When un-inflated the bladder is "flat" or 2D' it only has a front and a back, but not sides, top, or bottom.

The outer cover has a front, back, sides, a top, and a bottom.

Remove the bladder from the outer cover and inflate it. You'll see that it's roughly the size of the outer cover.

When you inflate the bladder it now has a front, back, sides, a top, and a bottom; it's now narrower and shorter than it was when it was uninflated.

 

[Web Monkey]

Pics!

Before making a big deal out of it, you should see if your bladder is a lot bigger than the covering when it's inflated.

The bladder will get shorter and fatter when inflated, and may actually be the right size.

Terry

 

[fisheater]

So many things to worry about, such little time.

 

[crandf]

But as I said, both materials are flexible. So I flatten the outer cover and measure only its flattened length to be about 65cm, roughly 10cm less than the flattened bladder