Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
On 7/20/98 7:07, Mike Zimmerman, zimmmt@au*.al*.co* posted: >I don't mind holier-than-thou stuff so much when it seems to be >consistent. But this is the first time I've heard of 120 being >"deep air". Shit, now I'm a stroke for diving 120' on air. Actually, that's one of the things I find most comforting about GUE, George, WKPP, and the Doing It Right concept. This system is in evolution, I've seen it change in the relatively short time I've been on these lists. Why does it change? In response to new information. That's actually one of the key, pivotal reasons behind why I believe in what "they" say. Who? WKPP. Why? Because they thought about it, ALL of it, as best they were able. Then they went and did a few thousand man dives deeper than I'll ever go, and they changed the rig in response to what they found out. And they're still changing it. Now they consider 120 deep. I have yet to hear or see of anyone else who can justify all parts of their rig, I have yet to hear anyone else even tell me what deep is! When they make a change, it's for an underwater REASON. I've been listening to you rant, Mike, in your devil's advocate role, demanding an answer to why double wings are bad. It strikes me that you appear to be taking a position that is exactly 180 degrees away from that of logic. The wings the Doing It Right crowd (not to be confused with Hogarthian) are part of their system, and there are several reasons why that configuration was chosen, and why it works. I haven't questioned them, and don't claim to know what the reasons are, but I haven't questioned why my truck has five gears instead of six, either. I've had my hands full driving the damn thing. Can the same be said for bondage wings? Even granting the claim, however off base, that they provide redundant bouyancy, is that all they do? How do they fit into your system? Why are they chosen instead of Zeagles? Why bondage wings instead of jacket BCs? What changes in a bondage wing when you go from doubles to singles? They asked me, they said "Didn't your mother teach you to wash your hands after you take a leak?" I thought about it and answered, "No, but my father taught me not to piss on my hands..." Why carry a backup system for a problem that can be prevented? My point is that the Doing It Right crowd has invested a huge amount of time, money, effort, and heart in perfecting a system, and continues to question it, analyse it, and adjust it as time goes on, and information becomes available. At this late point of development, I have a very hard time justifying why I would listen to an approach that isn't at least comprehensive in approach, hasn't made at least half that investment, and hasn't been through at least a few iterations of improvment. Your efforts here, while commendable in spirit, strike me as 15 to 20 years late. If you really wish to improve a car, why not begin by examining one that runs? Is it really neccessary to begin with determining the best shape for a wheel? Or can we just say that round is good, corners are bad, and turn our attention to more relevent issues? Somtimes, George sees fit to bless us lessor mortals with answers, for instance, the Baker's Dozen reasons why we don't use 80/20. I, for one, would be interested in the Baker's dozen reasons of why we don't use bondage wings, although I can think of reasons one through four all by myself. 1. A fourth system of additional bouyancy is uneccessary. Yes, a fourth. Your wings, your drysuit, and your fins, in that order. A weightbelt makes it four. Dive in a wetsuit, and you still have two, three if you have a drysuit. The word "uneccessary" at the end of that sentance should end the discussion for any true Hogarth right there, but shall we see if we can go farther? 2. The second set of wings never serves any purpose except in an emergency. One of the hallmarks of Doing It Right is equipment that does more than one thing, even if that second thing is as "trivial" as holding a long hose. The weight of the battery is an excellent example. 3. A single set of wings cost less than a double set of wings. 4. Improper installation of the bungees prevent the full inflation of the wings. Why take a chance with an unneccessary gimmick? Now, if you add in 5. Only a STROKE would use bondage wings, and 6. IANTD instuctors, TDI instructors, and dive shop monkees everywhere LOVE bondage wings, and we're half way there! (sorry, I couldn't resist) I leave it to the real tech divers here to flesh out our dozen, I'm sure that the reasons are there. Anyone? -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]