Just for laughs...

[DevonDiver]

No, given no failures it's fine.......but one free flowing reg and it's a different story, and to me feathering a valve to use the gas while ascending on schedule and dealing with whatever else may come up is not a viable solution.

To be fair, feathering valves and/or moving regulators is really a last ditch option. Whilst they remain credible options (a matter of training) the issue of aborting a dive should be covered initially by proper dive planning and gas management, especially in open water environments. Technical divers (sidemount) are trained to cover eventualities just as comprehensively as back-mounted technical divers - and that includes cognition that their tanks are not manifolded. Recreational sidemount divers tend to have a surplus of gas compared to their NDLs (planned dives), but even still are given strategies for ensuring they'd never have to 'CESA' - such as applying rule of thirds.

Of course, this does support the argument for 'proper training'. That said, diving backmounted doubles without proper training and/or application of proper procedures would be just as failure prone...

 

[Razorista]

It is a lot of fun to read all of this, so I cannot resist commenting again.

Actually most instructors (even sidemount instructors) here in my area would agree with Ragnar. They just saw a demand from the customers and are good businesspeople, but they are not convinced and do not always look convincing.
Those people in the criticized vids sometimes have had hundreds (or even thousands) of backmount dives before becoming sidemount instructors on a weekend.

Some of the discussions developing from that are instructive, some are only frustrating and repetitive.
But I can count on a few things. One of them: nobody here will underestimate the importance of proper gas management.
Most overestimate it!

Even in those monkey diving classes 'rule of thirds' is often taught as the lowest safety margin acceptable.
Most sidemounters share dives with single tank backmounters calculating on '50 Bar is enough'.

__________________________________

On the other hand the ideas that backmounters have about sidemount safety sometimes seem hilarious.
While sidemounters learn to finish any dive with significant gas losses (that could never happen on normal recreational dives), backmounted doubles are mostly thought of as 'failure proof'.

The unrealistic option of really having to resort to tank feathering is often turned into a problem by people - who have next to no experience in sidemount and seem to me to have never used stages properly in backmount.
I have seen people doing 40 minute shallow water dives with 20 minutes of tank feathering on one side without me even realizing it and did the same thing myself with a purposefully disabled regulator.

But this is a totally unrealistic training option for a recreational diver, nothing but a funny game with 'other peoples risks'.

The option of tank feathering is something from the backmount world, where you cannot see what is happening with your first stages, that is still influencing sidemount.
Most situations that would lead to shutting off one regulator in backmount will only make you shrug and grumble a bit in a sidemount configuration (e.g. broken regulator hose o-ring, etc...).

You can always switch to the other side to abort the dive and if you really miscalculated that much and have to use that to its limit, you still have the option of using most of the gas from the failing side (even if you are not trained to use tank feathering, breathing from a failing regulator (with a nearly turned off valve) is not that hard, if you have to and since there is no need to panic there is a good chance to cover a few vertical meters without damaging your ears or worse).

Of course one can only think about making challenging dives sidemounted if he is much better controlled than seen in the videos. But most seem to be after couple of training dives and a bit of equipment tweaking.

 

[Ragnar]

I guess to really compare both systems on their own merit the type of diving has to be defined, deep, overhead, deco, or simply "recreational". For recreational it doesn't really matter, and I agree, in that case sidemount would be a lot of redundancy and additional gas that you wouldn't have using a single tank of course. The problem is, for all the others, unless one is actually going through a restriction requiring it, doubles would be a better weapon of choice. The manifold isn't failure proof for sure, but starting a dive with one has a very high chance of negating all the problems you describe above. Regulator problems are much more common than manifold problems.

If not going through a restriction requiring it, why wouldn't someone want a piece of equipment that makes a reg failure/free-flow almost a non event? I hear a lot of answers about why people dive sidemount, but based on the equipment itself, especially for deco dives in open water, it's at a big disadvantage and I'm having a hard time getting why people are so into it for most types of diving honestly.

 

[Razorista]

Of course your are right in your assumptions, they are assumptions however and seem ridiculous from my point of view as a sidemount-only open water diver.
Sidemount is useful for restrictions, that is only a very small part of its potential, however.

In my opinion 'open-water' is much better suited for sidemount diving.
Restrictions require an enormous amount of skill in any config, but in sidemount it can be more challenging mastering the necessary skills and there is a far greater range of possible restrictions that can be overcome.
__________________

In reality a freeflow is nearly always a non event in sidemount anyway, as most problems can be easily solved by turning of the valve and waiting for a few minutes or do not pose a problem at all, because the diver can see for himself that the problem producing all the noise and bubbles is a minor one, that can be safely ignored (e.g. the mentioned burst o-ring).

A manifold only moves a potential problem to the high pressure part of the system, but turns the redundant system into something that technically is only a single connected system (granted, it has several valves).
Problems there will occur only rarely, but some could be completely unsolvable. Ripping of large parts of the manifold system has never been documented, as far as I know, but it is possible - in contrast it is completely impossible in a sidemount config.

Sidemount Systems minimize potential problems there by reducing this high pressure part with several o-rings and moving parts to only the necessary elements, that have to come with the cylinder and are irreplaceable to get the air out of it.

In addition everything important in manifolded doubles happens where the diver cannot see it and make him dependent on other people's decisions.
There have been a significant number of cases escalated by divepartners turning of the wrong valve or diagnosing problems in a way that lead to unnecessary panic actions.
So the better redundancy and safety of manifolded doubles is an illusion at best. It is different, but when you really analyze it, sidemount gets a clear win in (almost) every single aspect, except 'tried and tested'.

 

[DevonDiver]

If not going through a restriction requiring it, why wouldn't someone want a piece of equipment that makes a reg failure/free-flow almost a non event? I hear a lot of answers about why people dive sidemount, but based on the equipment itself, especially for deco dives in open water, it's at a big disadvantage and I'm having a hard time getting why people are so into it for most types of diving honestly.

Firstly, for those who do go into restricted area (cavers and wreckers), you want to build equipment familiarization. So you dive sidemount all the time. It's unwise to preserve using the equipment "only for dives in confined environments"; because you'd be placing yourself under equipment task-loading right when you wanted the most experience to come into play. The same principle is applied by backmount divers too (i.e. diving single-tank BP&W on recreational dives to preserve muscle memory with two-tank backmount etc).

Secondly, it just feels nice. It is a lot less cumbersome and unwieldy in the water. Sidemount is a pleasure to dive - assuming a solid foundation of expert instruction from the outset. No rig is a pleasure to dive if it badly configured etc etc (that's kinda the topic of this thread in the first place). In the last few years, I've had absolutely zero inclination to drag my backmount rigs (singles or doubles) out of the wardrobe... not once... every single dive I've done (baring only entry-level confined water with a student who is in backmount) has been in sidemount.

Let's not drag this (or every) thread off-topic with a 'sidemount-versus-backmount' debate. There's a currently active thread that's debating that exact issue right now: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/cave-diving/471941-sidemount-backmount-6.html

 

[Razorista]

Sorry, did not want to talk off topic.
Just wanted to point out that those divers know about gas planning and other theoretical aspects that influence sidemount diving.
On the practical side they are 'monkey divers' (and sometimes proud of it).

But as NetDoc wrote, monkey diving also has some merits.

Do you want so see a video from a humble student of those monkey divers after a few hundred dives? (and a bit of extended training, admittedly)
I do not know if you would consider that to be off topic and I do not want to open video threads myself here.

This is me today however and what I am doing there is essentially shallow water monkey diving on a day with absolutely superb visibility at our house lake, depth 7 Meter, 5.5 deg C in average, fun and a small entanglement to spice everything up.
Sidemount Boesi - YouTube

I have to admit I have my deficits as a diver, but the things made possible by using a Razor (or comparable system) are just incredible.
I find it quite hard to balance the camera on the monopod, so I cannot really 'show-off' that way.
But I think - while being far from the proficiency I intend to reach someday - it is good enough to survive in any situation ;-)

By the way:
Razor2, 8 liter steel cylinders (only 8,2kg), Mares Proton ICE MR42, Mares Avanti Quattro+ and Whites Fusion Sport, XSScuba 5mm Gloves and Waterprove 10mm hood covered by Lavacore, lots of thermal layers (my heatwest is broken and replacement will arrive on monday), so its 9kg of lead on the harness.
In the background a backmounter and a Diamond with 80cft and Apeks regulators (self taught and on the way to become an instructor someday - I do not have that ambition myself).

 

[The Chairman]

That looks more like sidemount to me and you look fine in the part I saw. Monkey diving is clipping your tanks off like they are stages. I don't know if it has any merits for me personally as I prefer and practice side mounting. Expecting a monkey diver to be able to stow their tanks like a side mounter defeats the whole purpose of monkey diving. You might as well criticize a back mounted diver for the very same thing.

The point of my diving is to have fun. Anything that contributes to that fun is acceptable to me. I don't need anyone to validate my diving and I don't appreciate people mocking it either. Have I been mocked for side mounting? Sure. It doesn't feel good and so I refrain from mocking other types of diving. As long as there is no safety issue or impact on the environment, I'm happy to just let people dive any way they see fit. I just don't get the mentality that demands you do things their way or you're a stroke, etc. I'll be glad to tell you how I dive and why. I'll be damned if I'm going to act like a prick and pick apart everyone who dives a bit different than me. I find it counterproductive to good communications and the ability to evolve as a diver. Again, put yourself or others in danger or impact the environment in a negative way, and then I'll probably feel compelled to post my indignation. Other than that, I feel it's a matter of dive and let dive.

 

[Razorista]

Monkey diving is clipping your tanks off like they are stages.

Started like that, loved it, evolved

That looks more like sidemount to me and you look fine in the part I saw.

Thank you! :cool2:
But I do not want to look like I am fishing for compliments there. From my point of view this is adequate and a lot of fun, but still needs a few years of improvement, before I can start going any further.

But I think I can stop 'defending' my instructors now (and they actually do not need defending and probably would not appreciate it if they knew).

I think everyone will agree that good instructors solve a lot of problems.
But with experience 'everyone' can master the basics and is able to select good instructors without outside help from that viewpoint easily.

I have to repeat myself and totally agree with you, NetDoc :cool2: and I think I have said everything I could contribute, so have a nice week everybody and have a great time (diving or in any other environment).

 

[Ragnar]

Let's not drag this (or every) thread off-topic with a 'sidemount-versus-backmount' debate. There's a currently active thread that's debating that exact issue right now: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/cave-diving/471941-sidemount-backmount-6.html

I agree with that and appreciate the tolerance, just happened on this since it was staring at me while poking around for the DIR forum, and I've learned something from it despite not agreeing with all of it. Beyond this I'll just have to give it a go sometime to have the experience of what you're talking about, is there gear for rent in Subic? Cheers.

 

[DevonDiver]

Monkey diving is clipping your tanks off like they are stages. I don't know if it has any merits for me personally as I prefer and practice side mounting. Expecting a monkey diver to be able to stow their tanks like a side mounter defeats the whole purpose of monkey diving. You might as well criticize a back mounted diver for the very same thing.

Pete, I think some of the objection to the video (the initial one posted) was that it was monkey diving, but was being done in relation to the issuance of Sidemount Diver certifications...

...which could easily be interpreted as fraudulent. Of course, no specific description exists in an encyclopedia (not counting Wikipedia), so it probably wouldn't be actionable. Nonetheless, it is certainly not sidemount diving...