Question Mares Regulator Performance Data

[Antothoro]

I'm looking to compare the performance of the different Mares regulators to make an informed decision on upgrades etc. Does anybody have the technical performance numbers like inhale work, exhale work, etc. I think I saw them once in the buyers guide\catalog.

Also, are there formal definitions for what's being measured and reported in those numbers? Wanting to make sure that what I think they are measuring is infact what they are measuring.

Thanks

 

[Zef]

What do you have, and what are you thinking about switching to?

My bet is that regardless of the data, in real world diving situations, you would be hard pressed to notice a discernable difference across Mares' offerings when the 1st and 2nf stages are properly setup/tuned.

-Z

 

[Antothoro]

Presently, my dive buddy and I have Mares Prestige 12. Through some lucky aftermarket purchases, we're getting an Prestige NTT 32 and an Abyss 22.

 

[Zef]

The 12, 32 and the 22 all basically function the same with the major difference being the external form factor/apperance. The MR32 was replaced by an update of the MR22 for 2008...the giant heavy block of chromed brass of the older MR22 (Abyss 22) was shaved down identically to the MR32...basically Mares just rebadged the MR32 as the model years 2008+ MR22...the MR32 faded into obscurity not long after the release of the 2008+ MR22.

Performance-wise, you won't see much of a difference between the 3 models. Since the 22 and the 32 are identical, they can be serviced with the same kit. The MR12 was produced for quite a long while and had various iterations...again mostly form factor changes. The MR12 was an industry workhorse used in clubs/schools, and rental fleets. Since there was widespread use of the 12, it should still be possible for shops to obtain service kits as well.

The Abyss 2nd stage is a very good design and although it was discontinue a couple of years ago in all but the Navy certified version, it lives on with a change of face (faceplate) with the introduction of the XR DR 2nd stage a couple of years ago. Older Abyss 2nd stages dating back to the 1990s can be updated to the current look of the XR DR for around $45US +/- with the purchase and installation of the XR DR faceplate.

The Prestige 2nd stage is internally nearly identical to the Abyss 2nd stage...the major difference between the two is the Prestige has a plastic body whereas the Abyss is metal. The metal is said to help reduce drymouth when breathing the dry air from a SCUBA cylinder. Any real-world performance difference between the Prestige and the Abyss, if they are well adjusted/tuned would be nominal. The NTT in the regulator name stands for Nano-Thermoconductive Technology...this is Mares ad-copy for why they made the Prestige out of plastic instead of metal....they state the following:

"The use of thermoconductive nano-technopolymers in constructing the case makes it possible to replace the metal in regulator second stages designed for use in cold water. The external areas of the thermo-conductive case subject to abrasion are protected by overmoulded elastomer."

The newer stuff in the Mares lineup share many of the internal parts that the older stuff has that it is debatable if one would gain anything from spending hard earned money to replace a functioning Mares regulator with another.

-Z

 

[rsingler]

I've asked @lowwall the same question, but if you had your pick of  any Mares reg, AND you wanted to include a TBP add-on just to compare the technology against the diaphragm, which model would you pick?

 

[lowwall]

I'll share my answer here. I'd take the 62X because it's their new standard recreational first stage. It's a lightened evolution of the 22. Along with their other current first stages with the TBP kit, it's EN250A certified and meets NORSOK U-101 requirements at 200m. Both of these are unusual for midrange regs.

OTOH, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a breakdown of the 82X (or 28XR which is the same reg internally). This is their current flagship first stage with LP ports on a turret.

 

[Zef]

OTOH, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a breakdown of the 82X (or 28XR which is the same reg internally). This is their current flagship first stage with LP ports on a turret.

-Z

 

[Zef]

I've asked @lowwall the same question, but if you had your pick of  any Mares reg, AND you wanted to include a TBP add-on just to compare the technology against the diaphragm, which model would you pick?

If I had to choose Mares, and from their current lineup, I guess I would go with the 62X or the 28XR for the following reasons and with the following caveats:

The 62X is nearly identical internally to the 15X, which is nearly identical internally to the discontinued 22X; this makes the 62X a progression of the 22x, BUT despite the 200gram weight savings the 62X has on the 22x, I prefer the form factor of the 22X. I specifically prefer the steeper angle of the HP ports, not that it matters all that much, especially since I have long been diving with an AI transmitter on a short hose.

I like the satin finish of the 62X more than I like the pebbled-like finish of the 15X. To be honest, if money was tight, I would go with the 15X as it cost about $60 to $80 less and shares so many parts with the 62X that I believe the only thing one really gets by going with the 62X is a lighter 1st stage coupled with a lighter wallet. The TBP is available for both the 62X and the 15X.

My preference is for Mares to dump the 15X and bring back the 22X but with the satin like finish of the rest of their line up.

I am not sold on the TBP. I am concerned about the TBP system compared to the older cold water dry kit. If the TBP diaphragm fails, won't water enter the vital areas of the 1st stage? With the older dry kit, the environmental seal and the main diaphragm would have to fail for the ingress of water. The main diaphragm of non-TBP regs are buried in the spring chamber....the TBP puts the only diaphram in the same position as other environmentally sealed 1st stages, where it is exposed which I am not sure is a good idea. Are these a valid concerns of the TBP?

If I was looking for a 1st stage with a rotating turret, I would choose the 28XR. I think it is more compact than the 82X which just looks massive and is aesthetically hiddeous.

I would couple either of the above choices with a pair of XR DR 2nd stages, which we have previously investigated and discussed is just a rebadged Abyss. The Abyss, and its iterations, is tried and true workhorse of a simple and reliable design.

Most of the other stuff in the Mares lineup is just gimmicky to me, such as the dedicated left and right 25XR, the hideous design of the 82X, and the 72x with its ridiculous amount of LP ports that would make anyone concerned with "failure points" cringe.

The main issue that I have with Mares is the availability of service kits to the DIYer in North America. Due to this, I would probably not choose Mares at all if I was starting over....I would lean towards the Deep 6 signature, or the HOG D3 (or HOG D1 if money was tight and a turreted 1st stage was not needed). Currently parts kits for both Deep 6 and HOG are much easier for the DIYer to purchase. I lean a bit more towards Deep 6 than I do towards HOG because the Deep 6 service manual is readily available, and although I have acquired the HOG service manual, it was through an unofficial source and a huge pain in the arse to obtain.

-Z

 

[rsingler]

I am not sold on the TBP. I am concerned about the TBP system compared to the older cold water dry kit. If the TBP diaphragm fails, won't water enter the vital areas of the 1st stage? With the older dry kit, the environmental seal and the main diaphragm would have to fail for the ingress of water. The main diaphragm of non-TBP regs are buried in the spring chamber....the TBP puts the only diaphram in the same position as other environmentally sealed 1st stages, where it is exposed which I am not sure is a good idea. Are these a valid concerns of the TBP?

That's really the essence of my new interest in Mares. Watching a CAD-CAM video of the Twin Balanced Piston in action was fascinating!
While it's anxiety provoking to think of an untethered diaphragm (which is really what the lower piston is) transmitting opening force to the push pin and poppet, it's not much different from how a piston head works in the wet ambient chamber of a Mk25.
I don't think of the environmental diaphragm as the "only" diaphragm. The lower piston is a really novel "main diaphragm" that happens to float. It's quite ingenious.
I was intrigued because of my known dislike for unsealed pistons (e.g., the famous Mk25). Though Mares has not been high on my preference list of brands, this might conceivably check two key boxes:
1) sealed mechanism;
2) diaphragm style poppet and valve, where gas only has to make a 90° turn out of the orifice, compared with a piston's 90° + 180° turns from tank to knife edge and knife edge to piston bore. This means less sandblasting of the sealing surfaces.

If the environmental seal fails, the reg just becomes an unsealed diaphragm, with the floating lower piston taking the place of the tethered diaphragm. The o-ring of the lower piston is a proven seal for the valve mechanism, with decades of piston history to support it. The only thing that's reversed is the position of ambient pressure area vs. IP chamber.

I can't argue with the size and looks of the turreted 82X, but compared to my SP Mk19 EVO, it looks to be a wash. Neither are compact beauties.

In one fashion or another, I think I'm going to give the Twin Balanced Piston a try.

 

[rsingler]

As I look at the form factor, if I'm going to try the TBP, while I wanted to be able to switch back to the standard diaphragm configuration, the 82X TBP is maybe too big.
The 28XR is TBP only (not soft main diaphragm), but is a lot trimmer.