Pony thoughts (I know prob beaten to death)

[Nemrod]

If your diving a reasonable sized buddy bottle for the depth, usually a 19 to 30 for depths to 130 ish feet, then I see no reason to complicate things and increase failure points by carrying three second stages.

N

 

[ClayJar]

Um, it's an argument against picking too small a pony, not an argument against redundancy. Was that really not clear? Or did you just pick and choose posts to quote in this thread without reading them all?

Actually, I read the thread in its entirety, and as you were the one to mention running out of air twice, I responded to that part of the thread. You did not seem to be saying it in the snide manner in which it is most often mentioned, but as you did bring it into the thread, I considered it reasonable to use that opportunity to ponder something that strikes me as illogic in one of the usual anti-pony comments on ScubaBoard, i.e. that too small a pony is worse than none.

To me it is a difference in philosophy. I would say that it would be far better for Pat to take the small extra step of determining how much air he would need to get to the surface without having to do a CESA at all.
[...]
In this senario, Pat spent the money, and took the time to take the pony (etc), for what in my mind is at best a partial benefit. If I were going to do that, I would rather spend the small amount of time and small amount of extra money to get something that I knew was going to do the whole job.

I certainly agree that if one is going to go through the cost and effort of procuring and diving a pony, it is only logical to determine what amount of gas is sufficient for the purpose for which the diver wanted the pony. I know I analyzed my diving before I settled on an AL19 for my first pony. Anything less would not be sufficient for my diving by my calculations.

My only point in the Tom vs. Pat thought experiment was to consider the implication that running out of air twice is necessarily a bad thing. Sure, never losing access to air is best, and having backup sufficient for an ascent and exit in the event of loss of air is next best (whatever form of redundancy provides it -- buddy, doubles, pony, or whatever). To me, however, it seems that having *some* contingency supply is better than not having any, even if that supply is not sufficient for all possible circumstances.

 

[Rainer]

I considered it reasonable to use that opportunity to ponder something that strikes me as illogic in one of the usual anti-pony comments on ScubaBoard, i.e. that too small a pony is worse than none.

So clearly you did not read the rest of the thread, as it otherwise would have been very clear that the argument is that too small a pony is worse than one that can get you to the surface safely (if you're going to bother carrying one, might as well be one based on the dives you actually do). You're right, the strawman argument you considered *is* illogical. Unfortunately, you seem to be the only one entertaining it.

 

[ClayJar]

So clearly you did not read the rest of the thread

I'll see your trolling and raise you a flippant ignoring.

Okay, seriously. It's hardly my straw man. The "running out of gas twice" thing has a long and glorious tradition here on ScubaBoard, and plus, it was indeed *you* who brought it into this thread. Anyway, if I must include references, here's a selection from the first page of links I dug up via a quick search:

Worthless volume of gas. About all it will do is allow you to run out of gas twice.

When I'm looking for a false sense of security or if I feel like running out of gas twice. . .

your average recreational diver will probably fail to deploy it, or fumble it so badly that they wind up in a worse shape and just run out of gas twice.

Your idea of how you want to use a 13 cft bottle is positively foolish. A 13 cft bottle is completely useless as a pony bottle...really, anything less than 20 ft is silly, as it just doesn't provide enough gas to benefit you in any way beyond extremely shallow depths, except to help you run out of gas twice, rather than just once.

(You see, not only did I read *this* thread, but I've also read a great many other ScubaBoard threads, too. :biggrin

 

[Rick Inman]

IMHO. 6cf is worse than pointless, it's anti-safe, actually making the dive more dangerous, creating a false sense of security.

I stand corrected: LINK

 

[salth2owannabe]

Rick - That one wins the prize!

Is that a miniature spare air I see under his little leg?

Ha-ha.