Tec Diving BCD

[JohnnyC]

You appear to be conflating "technical" with the DIR style. Technical does not equal DIR. There are many technical courses that do not require a DIR compliant rig and there are many technical divers that do not use a DIR compliant rig.

Ayisha in the post immediately below yours drew a distinction that was appropriate, in essence IF you want DIR this won't work.

I did no such thing. I conflate technical with optimal, because suboptimal has consequences. QD's and jacked shoulder straps are not optimal. There are potential real world consequences with these two modifications that a "really competent instructor" should have addressed before accepting this type of configuration. Try doing a valve drill with your shoulder straps pulled tight like a jacket. Try doing a controlled, staged decompression ascent with your shoulder straps disconnected because your buckles broke.

Note the OP specifically mentioned backmounted twins. While technical diving encompasses several various configurations, backmounted doubles has pretty well gone through the entire evolutionary process and literally the entire technical diving industry has settled on this configuration as being optimal. You want to deviate from that, you should have a good reason that outweighs the negative attributes those deviations create.

BTW, I'm not a Gooey, Hogarthian is not DIR, and there are solid reasons that the Hogarthian concepts have survived through the years to what we have now, and solid reasons why things like quick releases and adjustable shoulder straps have been thrown out, amongst other compromises put forth by clueless manufacturers (like ScubaPro) and people who aren't experienced enough to know better (most brand new tech divers taking a PADI technical course).

 

[Jeremy Williams]

May I ask your reason? I have one, came with a Halcyon wing I bought used. I serviced it myself. I don't see how it is balanced. The basic function mechanism is same as regular inflator, no balanced chamber I can see. It is smaller for sure.

I don’t know why they call it a balanced power inflator but I called it that because that’s what ScubaPro calls it. Perhaps someone else can comment?

In terms of why I like it... size is certainly a factor. It is smaller. The buttons are different shapes so they are easy to differentiate by touch and they are both on the same side so you don’t have to re-orient your grip based on what you want to do. It just has better ergonomics. I’ve also been diving with one for so long that it really messed me up when I tried to switch to a K-style inflator. Maybe that is bias but don’t underestimate the value of familiarity.

Ultimately the biggest reason in my new rig that I switched back to it is because the dil mav and the inflator add button were too similar by touch.

 

[doctormike]

I did no such thing. I conflate technical with optimal, because suboptimal has consequences. QD's and jacked shoulder straps are not optimal. There are potential real world consequences with these two modifications that a "really competent instructor" should have addressed before accepting this type of configuration. Try doing a valve drill with your shoulder straps pulled tight like a jacket. Try doing a controlled, staged decompression ascent with your shoulder straps disconnected because your buckles broke.

Note the OP specifically mentioned backmounted twins. While technical diving encompasses several various configurations, backmounted doubles has pretty well gone through the entire evolutionary process and literally the entire technical diving industry has settled on this configuration as being optimal. You want to deviate from that, you should have a good reason that outweighs the negative attributes those deviations create.

BTW, I'm not a Gooey, Hogarthian is not DIR, and there are solid reasons that the Hogarthian concepts have survived through the years to what we have now, and solid reasons why things like quick releases and adjustable shoulder straps have been thrown out, amongst other compromises put forth by clueless manufacturers (like ScubaPro) and people who aren't experienced enough to know better (most brand new tech divers taking a PADI technical course).

Exactly.

Optimal gear configuration for backmounted doubles has been worked out over the years based on hard won experience and a lot of tragedies. I understand that in the recreational diving world, "dive and let dive, do whatever works for you" is a common opinion. But pretty much all of the tech divers that I know in OC BM adhere to the same basic concepts.

This is not restricted to GUE or DIR. These are not arbitrary choices dictated by any specific manufacturer. They are good practices. And if you want to be a pioneer and change things, you shouldn't do that at the beginning of your tech training.

 

[Jeremy Williams]

Or... the angst and authority with which some rail against anything other than the one-true-harness-of-continuous-webbing is disproportionate to the actual risks posed by a modern adjustable harness in good repair.

 

[loosenit2]

.... backmounted doubles has pretty well gone through the entire evolutionary process and literally the entire technical diving industry has settled on this configuration as being optimal. You want to deviate from that, you should have a good reason that outweighs the negative attributes those deviations create.

I truly question your assertion that the DIR/Hogarthian set-up has been settled as optimal. One has only to look at your typical LDS or online store (DGX, Leisurepro, Divers Direct etc) to see the proliferation of non Hogarthaian harnesses for sale to come to the conclusion that the “dive community” has not settled that matter. If you want more evidence do a search of SB for debates on DIR/Hogarthian set-ups vs the use of “deluxe” harnesses...there are many. You treat something as factual that is not.

 

[JohnnyC]

I truly question your assertion that the DIR/Hogarthian set-up has been settled as optimal. One has only to look at your typical LDS or online store (DGX, Leisurepro, Divers Direct etc) to see the proliferation of non Hogarthaian harnesses for sale to come to the conclusion that the “dive community” has not settled that matter. If you want more evidence do a search of SB for debates on DIR/Hogarthian set-ups vs the use of “deluxe” harnesses...there are many. You treat something as factual that is not.

And you have evidence of this vast amount of non-standard configurations in use because you have years of technical diving experience all over the world with untold numbers of different technical divers?

Making the assertion that because products are available through retailers trying to carve out their little piece of the profits, that the industry standard is not actually the industry standard is about the single most ignorant argument I've ever heard.

I can't even have an actual discussion with you because your opinion is so ridiculously unqualified. Literally your argument is so invalid it's laughable, the least valid argument for alternative gear configurations that I have ever heard.

 

[doctormike]

Or... the angst and authority with which some rail against anything other than the one-true-harness-of-continuous-webbing is disproportionate to the actual risks posed by a modern adjustable harness in good repair.

I didn't see the angst or the railing. The OP asked a question on a social media forum in hopes of getting opinions from people with more experience. That's what he got. If you have contrary opinions, it's fine to share them too (which you have been doing).

Or should we just go with "dive and let dive"...?

 

[loosenit2]

Unfortunately this post is too full of logical fallacies to respond to in any meaningful way. You are unfortunately personifying the stereotypical DIR/GUE crusader that so many say does not exist yet puts so many folks off.

And you have evidence of this vast amount of non-standard configurations in use because you have years of technical diving experience all over the world with untold numbers of different technical divers?.

Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam); Ad Hominem Fallacy

Making the assertion that because products are available through retailers trying to carve out their little piece of the profits, that the industry standard is not actually the industry standard is about the single most ignorant argument I've ever heard..

Ad Hominem Falacy; Strawman Argument

I can't even have an actual discussion with you because your opinion is so ridiculously unqualified. Literally your argument is so invalid it's laughable, the least valid argument for alternative gear configurations that I have ever heard.

Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam); Ad Hominem Fallacy

 

[JohnnyC]

Unfortunately this post is too full of logical fallacies to respond to in any meaningful way. You are unfortunately personifying the stereotypical DIR/GUE crusader that so many say does not exist yet puts so many folks off.



Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam); Ad Hominem Fallacy



Ad Hominem Falacy; Strawman Argument



Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam); Ad Hominem Fallacy

I asked you to present evidence of your ridiculous claim. You have repeatedly demonstrated zero credibility. And your assumption that I am some "DIR/GUE crusader" when I am, in fact, neither. I hold zero GUE certifications, recreationally dive a double hose regulator, dive sidemount, and none of my rebreathers are remotely related to anything GUE uses.

A logical fallacy only exists if there's a fallacy. So let's break them down.

Are you qualified to give your opinion based on your experience as a technical diver? If you cannot prove that you are not ignorant, we must assume that you are ignorant. I'm not sure why you would avoid providing evidence that you are actual qualified to promote your opinion.

You literally stated that my assertion that the standard technical diving configuration is not standardized because retailers sell alternatives. That's argument has absolutely zero basis in reality. You refuse, or are incapable of presenting evidence supporting this assertion. You make an assumption that again demonstrates significant ignorance of the subject at hand.

You have refused or are incapable of qualifying your opinion, and my estimation is because you are not qualified to give a valid opinion because you are neither educated in the matter at hand, nor experienced enough on the subject. Again, feel free to prove me wrong. I'd love to hear what qualifies you to put forth your opinion.

If you want to make ridiculous statements, prepare to be challenged and prepare to defend them.

 

[Lorenzoid]

Unfortunately this post is too full of logical fallacies to respond to in any meaningful way. . . .

Is there a Latin term for an argument based on pointing out logical fallacies in the opponent's argument? Argumentus pompous?