Question about “balanced rigs” and having all ballast unditchable

[Storker]

When I was trained (which was quite a while ago), the emphasis was that weights should really only be dumped on the surface or in extreme cases at depth.

Still valid. I certified PADI OW in '12, and that's what we were taught as well. Ditching subsurface should be the last resort.

 

[MichaelMc]

It would be hard for tech divers to not have a no-ditch is fine view, as they must live with deco and lots of gas. They must make no-ditch work, but likely also have redundant wing or drysuit. Setting no-ditch necessity aside when looking back at average or new recreational divers may be cognitively hard.

A question might be what would you recommend for a new diver? Who may not be exact in their weighting. As important as not over weighting is! Or the boat hand giving them weight may not help make exactness an option.

Leave some ditchable seems a good safety measure for not so refined rec. diving. Not so much for bolt and go, but maybe for jump in with tank off BC empty. The risk is that leaving some ditchable just accumulates excess lead, which hurts. I think most rec. divers start ditchable as that is what the pockets are. But then they may migrate to non-ditchable for ease, or trim. Its not clear if they bring proper weighting with that change, or decent legs, and a close boat.

There is also a bit of 'refined' rec. divers borrowing 'no-choice' from tech. I read descriptions of rec. divers saying 'I have no choice but no-ditchable, ... with my steel tank and steel plate.' (ahh..., no choice??)

 

[CT-Rich]

A backplate can be steel or Al and is chosen, so wearing steel with no lead is a choice. I dive a steel 120 as my go to tank. I need less lead, but the majority of it is ditchable. Choosing a configuration with no ditchable weights is a choice. Not having it because you are scared of an accidental loss is a gear solution to a skills based problem. Accidental loss of weights does occur, but seldom results in injuries, the most frequent wound is pride.

New divers really need to look at ditchable weight as a back-up for surface buoyancy. Rock solid reliable, very easy to use, extremely cheap compared to other more complex solutions.

 

[Chavodel8en]

No one is asking you to. Balanced rig has nothing to do with ditchable weight or not. It has to do with balance between buoyancy and weight. So keep on diving like you do, no problem at all.

It would however become a problem if took extra weight with you just to be able to ditch it. Being overweighted just to be able to ditch weight is ridiculous.

I read somewhere on this thread that 7mm wetsuits were incompatible with a balanced rig (what the post I copied was responding to), so someone is recommending against my diving it (at least past 18m, which I often do)

I (and everyone everywhere) agree that being overweighted just to be able to ditch weight is quite ridiculous. I also have never heard this particular philosophy advanced by anyone, ever. Its a strawman. If anyone can find an example of someone seriously advocating this, please post it here, so we can all ridicule it.

A lot of divers are overweighted just because they don't know what their proper weight is. Nobody thinks this is good, or the basis of a good diving philosophy. All that extra weight is ditchable because the alternative would be worse.

But I agree that for alot of this thread we are kind of debating semantics on both sides, and arguing past each other.

We should all try to dial in our weighting - to have a "balanced rig." Although I, as well as others, are OK with a couple of extra pounds to make diving easier as opposed to absolute perfect weighting - if that means that Im not balanced, so be it.

I do try to minimize my ditchable weight, although Im not fanatical about it. In cold water, I have about 12 lbs ditchable. Probably could be less, but Im OK with it, as I don't plan to lose it accidentally.

 

[boulderjohn]

I have a 8/7 mm wetsuit and Im diving Monterey/Carmel (and half the folks I see are in wetsuits). At depth, it would be VERY DIFFICULT to swim up if I had a bladder failure. So I'll use some ditchable weight, thank you very much.

And you should. If you cannot get to the surface from depth in that configuration, then you should absolutely carry ditchable weight. Has anyone said otherwise?

They must make no-ditch work, but likely also have redundant wing or drysuit.

In technical dive training, if you are in a configuration that you cannot swim up to the surface, which is quite common, then you must have redundant buoyancy. In PADI tech training, students are required to demonstrate the ability to hold decompression stops and float comfortably on the surface using redundant buoyancy.

A question might be what would you recommend for a new diver?

Most importantly, I will be among the very, very tiny minority of instructors who will make sure they are properly weighted.

 

[boulderjohn]

As I have pointed out several times in this thread, if you are perfectly weighted, you only need to be able to ditch the equivalent weight of the air you might use on the dive. If you are perfectly weighted and end the dive on the surface with an empty tank, you should not be able to descend again. If your tank is near empty during a safety stop, you should have a hard time holding that stop with your BCD perfectly empty--your body will be heading to the surface, and you will be fighting to stay down.

Just to be clear, I am in no way advocating taking a tank down to empty. I am just pointing out the natural consequences of a recreational diver taking a tank to empty when they are properly weighted.

 

[johndiver999]

After all the discussion there is nowhere near a concensus on the meaning of balanced. I have a pretty precise idea in my mind and explained it well enough, but others interpret the word balanced to be so different that the word has little utility and seems to add to confusion or ambiguity - rather than facilitate a discussion. It’s unfortunate and I doubt there is any ultimate authority to which we can refer to for clear definition of the word balanced.

It’s an important discussion that is hindered by a lack of a common nomenclature.

And on another note, if you are wearing a thick wetsuit, you may well need to ditch more than the weight of the air in your tank to reach the surface after a bc failure.

 

[boulderjohn]

And on another note, if you are wearing a thick wetsuit, you may well need to ditch more than the weight of the air in your tank to reach the surface after a bc failure.

Yep, and I suspect someone has said something along those lines at least a dozen times in this thread.

 

[Chavodel8en]

And you should. If you cannot get to the surface from depth in that configuration, then you should absolutely carry ditchable weight. Has anyone said otherwise?

Only tangentially. One poster recommends against using 7mm wetsuits beyond 18m depth bc it is incompatible with a "balanced rig," which I believe in his definition includes the rule that ditchable weight should roughly equal the weight of gas used.

If I misunderstood or misstate that, I apologize.

 

[boulderjohn]

Only tangentially. One poster recommends against using 7mm wetsuits beyond 18m depth bc it is incompatible with a "balanced rig," which I believe in his definition includes the rule that ditchable weight should roughly equal the weight of gas used.

If I misunderstood or misstate that, I apologize.

What that means is that if you use a 7mm wetsuit beyond 18m depth, then you will need either ditchable weight or redundant buoyancy.