You always seem to confuse observations and anecdotes with data.
How so? One data point is still data. A story about other divers using "more" weight that doesn't say how much weight you're using, the gear configuration, and the water temp is, at best, part of what would be needed to qualify as even one data point.
When you said "carry less weight" I assumed you meant ...
Well, at least we both agree you're the one making unfounded assumptions.
Locally I dive steel 119s and an AL backplate. With my DUI TLS-350 I wear zero lead. Hard to imagine I could dive with less than that by switching to a crushed neoprene suit. So your assertion that I would carry less weight would "seem likely to be totally false."
And while you can't typically generalize from one diver to another, everyone I know who dives a crushed neoprene suit (and similar steel tanks) also dives with a weightbelt or weight harness with lead on it.
Feel free to consider that "data" if you like.
:d
I said that your statement that you are diving with "none" for weight is most likely totally false. Thank you for vindicating me. Well, unless your AL backplate somehow weighs 0.
And you still haven't said what water temperature you're talking about. If you have no additional ballast beyond an AL back plate, and you're diving a single tank in warm water, I'm not surprised. Your post implies that you are diving double 119s (inferred from the 's'). If that's in water in the 30s, and you're using no additional ballast beyond an AL BP, well I am surprised. OTOH, if you are talking about diving in warm water, how do you feel like that really relates to the topic of this thread (being a dry suit for use in cold water)?
My earlier point that you chose to fixate on was related to the actual OP and his actual question. It was regarding the relative weighting requirements of a crushed neoprene suit versus a tri-lam IN COLD WATER. Are you asserting that the relative weighting requirements are the same, between the two types of suits, whether you are diving in warm water or cold water? This could just be my inexperience and ignorance talking, but it seems to me that with little or no undergarments (i.e. warm water), you might need little or no weight in a tri-lam and need several pounds more in a crushed neoprene suit. But, if you take the same diver, rigs, etc, and go get in 38 degree water, and add suitable undergarmetns under each suit, then it seems like you might need less ballast for the crushed neoprene suit as compared to what you'd need in the tri-lam. Which is just what I said earlier, that you chose to refute.
And thank you to Bob (@NWGratefulDiver) for his insights. I am still a little unclear, though. At first I interpret you to say that the XCS2 might need a couple pounds more than a tri-lam. But then you say that the buoyancy of the XCS2 seems to be offset by needing less undergarments (which is what my first post alluded to) - making them sound equal (neo vs tri-lam) and then, finally, you say that the ballast required is really just a function of the undergarments. That last part implies (to me) that in truly cold water, where you are going to definitely need more undergarment in a tri-lam than in a neo, you would actually need more ballast for the tri-lam (which is what my first post actually said).
