Question about “balanced rigs” and having all ballast unditchable

[rsingler]

Would any of the proponents like to take a stab at a formal definition of what they are espousing, even though I might have missed it earlier? I think I agree with most of it anyway, although I carry ditchable weight. This thread is getting reeeeaaallly long, and even though I've read each and every post, I don't have the heart to reread it looking for a definition of what we're truly arguing about.
The very first posts all had definitions of a sort, but they all seemed to start with, "I think a balanced rig is..."

A balanced rig is:

 

[CT-Rich]

You could turn this around: dive the gear you need for the dive. I know this is more of a technical mindset than a rec mindset, but it's the choice everyone has to make. For me, if my rig won't allow me to do the dive I want to do I would change my rig or do not do the dive. If ditchable weight would make my dive safe I might consider doing that dive as long as it does not give me other issues like being out of trim (due to constricted position to put the weight). Personally I prefer to adjust my rig for the dive or don't dive at all.

Reading all those threads it seems to me there are divers who adjust their gear to the dive planned with no compromises (tech style?), while others do all their diving with the same gear they have (Rec style?). Nothing wrong with either as long as it's safe.

By the way, not turning it around, what was your answer to the original question. What happens to a “balanced” diver who finds himself on an elevator to the bottom? Even though he never intended to go that deep how does he get back to the surface?

 

[PfcAJ]

Would any of the proponents like to take a stab at a formal definition of what they are espousing, even though I might have missed it earlier? I think I agree with most of it anyway, although I carry ditchable weight. This thread is getting reeeeaaallly long, and even though I've read each and every post, I don't have the heart to reread it looking for a definition of what we're truly arguing about.
The very first posts all had definitions of a sort, but they all seemed to start with, "I think a balanced rig is..."

A balanced rig is:

A) Weighted so that you're neutral at 15' with no gas in your BC and near empty tanks
B) Light enough to allow you to swim to the surface in event of a BC failure with full tanks

If you need to add so much weight to accomplish A that you can no longer do B, some of that weight needs to be ditchable so that you can accomplish B.

If your tank choice precludes you from doing B (heavy steel doubles), then you need a way to *immediately* establish positive buoyancy (drysuit). Fiddling with lift bags and trying to orally inflate a double bladder wing is *not* a viable solution when you're plunging toward the bottom.

 

[boulderjohn]

A) Weighted so that you're neutral at 15' with no gas in your BC and near empty tanks
B) Light enough to allow you to swim to the surface in event of a BC failure with full tanks

If you need to add so much weight to accomplish A that you can no longer do B, some of that weight needs to be ditchable so that you can accomplish B.

If your tank choice precludes you from doing B (heavy steel doubles), then you need a way to *immediately* establish positive buoyancy (drysuit). Fiddling with lift bags and trying to orally inflate a double bladder wing is *not* a viable solution when you're plunging toward the bottom.

Folks, please read the above carefully. It contradicts some assumptions some people have made in this thread. Notice, for example, that it does not say that you can be heavily overweighted as long as you can somehow struggle to the surface before passing out from exhaustion and plummeting into the abyss.

 

[CT-Rich]

A) Weighted so that you're neutral at 15' with no gas in your BC and near empty tanks
B) Light enough to allow you to swim to the surface in event of a BC failure with full tanks

If you need to add so much weight to accomplish A that you can no longer do B, some of that weight needs to be ditchable so that you can accomplish B.

If your tank choice precludes you from doing B (heavy steel doubles), then you need a way to *immediately* establish positive buoyancy (drysuit). Fiddling with lift bags and trying to orally inflate a double bladder wing is *not* a viable solution when you're plunging toward the bottom.

This is perfectly okay to me. No where does it preclude ditchable weight. The only question would be how much lead would you need to have as ditchable.
A 7mm wetsuit, would require more to offset suit compression.

 

[MichaelMc]

A) Weighted so that you're neutral at 15' with no gas in your BC and near empty tanks
B) Light enough to allow you to swim to the surface in event of a BC failure with full tanks

If you need to add so much weight to accomplish A that you can no longer do B, some of that weight needs to be ditchable so that you can accomplish B.

If your tank choice precludes you from doing B (heavy steel doubles), then you need a way to *immediately* establish positive buoyancy (drysuit). Fiddling with lift bags and trying to orally inflate a double bladder wing is *not* a viable solution when you're plunging toward the bottom.

This looks like a nice description. Such clarity is good.

Folks, please read the above carefully. It contradicts some assumptions some people have made in this thread. Notice, for example, that it does not say that you can be heavily overweighted as long as you can somehow struggle to the surface before passing out from exhaustion and plummeting into the abyss.

It also removes the ditching is always bad that people have been using balanced as an argument to support. So the lack of clarity was not one sided. I'd note that weighted for 15', is not satisfied by heavy tech divers, but we are in basic, and this is not a conversation about tech necessity, but rather about rec. guidelines. So weighted neutral is good.

 

[boulderjohn]

This is perfectly okay to me. No where does it preclude ditchable weight. The only question would be how much lead would you need to have as ditchable.
A 7mm wetsuit, would require more to offset suit compression.

I struggled to understand where people got the idea that ditchable weights were forbidden in a balanced rig. Someone posted a while back that ditchable weights are not allowed in tech diving, but that was a new one on me. When I do a tech dive with AL 80 doubles, I have some ditchable weight. When I do a tech dive with LP 108s, I don't. You have to make a sensible decision for whatever you are doing.

 

[boulderjohn]

It also removes the ditching is always bad that people have been using balanced as an argument to support.

I think a lot of people said that ditching CAN be bad; I missed where someone said it is ALWAYS bad. Can you link to that?

 

[MichaelMc]

I think a lot of people said that ditching CAN be bad; I missed where someone said it is ALWAYS bad. Can you link to that?

My bad, your are correct. There was extensive discussion that *ditchable* was bad, and that balanced removes the need. Thought on clarification that became excess ditchable, due to panic ditching, and that plan of swimming up, balanced, was a far better plan than a ditch to go up plan. That *ditchable* is a prudent safety measure has been a key aspect of this thread, with balanced as a counter and better solution proposed, by some. (Edit: I can go back and start quoting Dan_P's posts if you want.)

Early in the thread someone dug up some original history for wet suits deep and some origin of balanced swim it up, the exact version of that history included a clause of, or including having ditchable if needed to do the swim up. Yes, that ditchable within balanced option has been lost in the discussion. Not being a balanced expert, I'm glad that part of the exact description got resurrected.

 

[johndiver999]

A) Weighted so that you're neutral at 15' with no gas in your BC and near empty tanks
B) Light enough to allow you to swim to the surface in event of a BC failure with full tanks

If you need to add so much weight to accomplish A that you can no longer do B, some of that weight needs to be ditchable so that you can accomplish B.

... .

Good definition, some might add another criterion: that the diver can maintain themselves on the surface with a failed BC via dropping lead or not.

However, if the diver is neutral at 15 feet, they should be reasonably good on the surface.

Although if a diver is wearing no ditchable lead and no compressible wetsuit, it is conceivable that they could be neutral at 15 ft and still have trouble on the surface for an extended stay with no BC and no air in tank.

So maybe the B criteria could be amended to include being able to swim to the surface and comfortably STAY there (with failed BC).