 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / April 2005Bungied wings a hazard? Cite.
Can anyone cite a documented case where a diver has gotten into trouble *because* of bungied wings? > Can anyone cite a documented case where a diver has gotten into trouble > *because* of bungied wings? Fact is, it is very difficult - usually impossible - to document any single cause for most scuba incidents. There is, of course, the infamous tech training deaths locally that appear to have been the result of a grossly overweighted student that is said to have been using a bungied wing. m > Can anyone cite a documented case where a diver has gotten into trouble > *because* of bungied wings? No. -- If Ward Churchill can be a college professor, what's David Duke waiting for? - Coulter > Can anyone cite a documented case where a diver has gotten into trouble > *because* of bungied wings? Not that I am aware of. People with a vested interest in making and selling dive gear ran lots of innuendo and outright fabrications down about bungied wings, but their motives were far from pure. Some of that still lingers in different places. The trim is horrible, and the bungies are simply 100% unneccessary, but other than that I dont think they will kill you. > Can anyone cite a documented case where a diver has gotten into trouble > *because* of bungied wings? Yes, A friend got something vital for the dive stuck in the bungee when trying to get it, in a cave. Don't remember wether it was the gauge, or inflator, or stage reg. She quit using them. Matthias > A friend got something vital for the dive stuck in the bungee when > trying to get it, in a cave. Don't remember wether it was the gauge, or > inflator, or stage reg. > > She quit using them. Since you say that she quit using them, I infer that you think that she thinks the bungies were somehow "at fault." Is it possible for you to find out from your friend exactly what happened? I'm interested to know whether something forced its way between a bungie and the wing or whether it happened as part of the action of "trying to get it." My bungies are quite tight and I can't visualize how an object as large as a gauge (or inflator or reg) could get between the bungie and the wing. In fact, I think it would be somewhat difficult to purposely do that, let alone have it happen accidentally. Thanks MV. >>A friend got something vital for the dive stuck in the bungee when >>trying to get it, in a cave. Don't remember wether it was the gauge, or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > thinks the bungies were somehow "at fault." Is it possible for you to find > out from your friend exactly what happened? May take some time... > I'm interested to know whether something forced its way between a bungie and > the wing or whether it happened as part of the action of "trying to get it." She did some strange hose routing, by attaching the gauge to something else,to be able to better read it; involving a pistol clip, which I believe got stuck between. Without that, it probably would not have happened. > My bungies are quite tight and I can't visualize how an object as large as a > gauge (or inflator or reg) could get between the bungie and the wing. I use a soniform lightly bungeed ladder as well, they allow oral inflation, but still keep the lift momentum's center close to the center of mass. Which is sometimes the disadvantage of the Explorer bladder ( that is does not). Matthias In > fact, I think it would be somewhat difficult to purposely do that, let alone > have it happen accidentally. > > Thanks MV. > > A friend got something vital for the dive stuck in the bungee when > > trying to get it, in a cave. Don't remember wether it was the gauge, or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > My bungies are quite tight and I can't visualize how an object as large as a > gauge (or inflator or reg) could get between the bungie and the wing. There's a reason for that. > In fact, I think it would be somewhat difficult to purposely do that, let alone > have it happen accidentally. > > Thanks MV. -- If Ward Churchill can be a college professor, what's David Duke waiting for? - Coulter >> A friend got something vital for the dive stuck in the bungee when >> trying to get it, in a cave. Don't remember wether it was the gauge, or [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > alone > have it happen accidentally. You probably should have started a new thread with this one, but since you didn't, I'll chip in my $.02 in this one. It need not be the bungie's fault for them to be a problem. It's sufficient that they create the opportunity for a mistake that might become a serious problem. While I'm not rabidly against bungied wings, your statement that your's are tight enough to make it difficult to get an object the size of a gauge between the wing and bungie certainly makes it sound like you have your drawn tight enough that even a small hole in the wing would result in a complete and fairly rapid loss of all buoyancy. Your configuration sounds a bit risky even if your configuration isn't. Lee "Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message news:SwV9e.13399 > [...] > It need not be the bungie's fault for them to be a problem. It's sufficient > that they create the opportunity for a mistake that might become a serious > problem. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I'm not quite convinced that they create much of an opportunity for mistakes that wouldn't be present with practically any SCUBA contraption. For example, the bungies *aren't* there to provide somewhere to stuff a long hose, but because the bungies *are* there, some people use them for purposes other than their intended use. > While I'm not rabidly against bungied wings, your statement that your's are > tight enough to make it difficult to get an object the size of a gauge [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Lee Good points Lee. I actually found it very difficult to attach the bungies in the way the manufacturer (OMS in my case) documents. Going from memory, I believe they instruct you to fully inflate the wing before tying the bungies. I just don't have the strength to do that given the length of the bungies provided with the kit. So, at least for parts of the wing, I deflated it slightly so that I could attach the bungies. The result is generally *very* tight bungies all around, with virtually no chance of anything getting caught up in there on less it's placed there on purpose by the diver. Also, good point about rapid loss of buoyancy control on a bladder puncture, but that of course should be planned for by each diver. In my particular case, I have a dual-bladdered wing. And a drysuit that I could inflate if need be. > > Can anyone cite a documented case where a diver has gotten into trouble > > *because* of bungied wings? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > She quit using them. Sounds like operator error to me. -- If Ward Churchill can be a college professor, what's David Duke waiting for? - Coulter >> A friend got something vital for the dive stuck in the bungee when >> trying to get it, in a cave. Don't remember wether it was the gauge, or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sounds like operator error to me. I'm sure it was, but if she hadn't been using bungeed wings, her error would have had no consequence. Nobody's perfect. The one effect of bungee wings that has not been mentioned is entanglement hazard. For those of us who dive wrecks, piers and other places where loops create an opportunity to get caught on something, bungles would seem to offer multiple opportunities. Lee PS: Popeye, I don't consider your wings to be bungee wings. > The one effect of bungee wings that has not been mentioned is entanglement > hazard. For those of us who dive wrecks, piers and other places where loops > create an opportunity to get caught on something, bungles would seem to > offer multiple opportunities. As with anything else, there is always the opportunity for failure of some sort. While the bungee might be a cause for entanglement, during the 12 years for wreck diving here in NY with several that have these wings, no one has mentioned they were ever snagged. Not that it couldn't happen. > As with anything else, there is always the opportunity for failure of some > sort. While the bungee might be a cause for entanglement, during the 12 > years for wreck diving here in NY with several that have these wings, no > one has mentioned they were ever snagged. Not that it couldn't happen. While the opportunity for a failure exists in all configurations, the key is to balance how much opportunity to accept with the benefits of accepting it. From the start, I've said that my only objection is that there doesn't appear to me that there is sufficient benefit to a bondage wing to justify the added risks. As for anybody mentioning they were ever snagged, that's hardly evidence one way or the other. You have to know that people have gotten snagged on wrecks, even those that weren't using bungeed wings. They just didn't talk about it. Lee >>As with anything else, there is always the opportunity for failure of some >>sort. While the bungee might be a cause for entanglement, during the 12 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > appear to me that there is sufficient benefit to a bondage wing to justify > the added risks. right. > As for anybody mentioning they were ever snagged, that's hardly evidence one > way or the other. You have to know that people have gotten snagged on > wrecks, even those that weren't using bungeed wings. They just didn't talk > about it. right. I don't think I've ever done a wreck dive without getting snagged. It's part of the routine. And every thing ya add to yer kit is one more thing to get snagged. m > right. I don't think I've ever done a wreck dive without getting > snagged. It's part of the routine. And every thing ya add to yer > kit is one more thing to get snagged. so when do we get to see the ESG MK1 super-streamlined-no-regulator- never-snag-fully-integrated rig? >>right. I don't think I've ever done a wreck dive without getting >>snagged. It's part of the routine. And every thing ya add to yer >>kit is one more thing to get snagged. > > so when do we get to see the ESG MK1 super-streamlined-no-regulator- > never-snag-fully-integrated rig? My life is just a jumble of almost-finished projects. Possibly this summer. All that's left to do is fabricate the mouthpiece. m >>As with anything else, there is always the opportunity for failure of some >>sort. While the bungee might be a cause for entanglement, during the 12 >>years for wreck diving here in NY with several that have these wings, no >>one has mentioned they were ever snagged. Not that it couldn't happen. > While the opportunity for a failure exists in all configurations, the key is > to balance how much opportunity to accept with the benefits of accepting it. > From the start, I've said that my only objection is that there doesn't > appear to me that there is sufficient benefit to a bondage wing to justify > the added risks. I guess OMS has a reason for the bungees. From their website: 3. POWER DEFLATION / ORAL INFLATION: The unique elastomeric bands (use is optional) assist in deflation, but still allow the diver to orally inflate the BC. 4. ELIMINATION OF AIR SHIFT: The OMS ® elastomeric bands evenly compress the BC, eliminating the massive airshift associated with non-banded BCs that typically occurs when changing body plane. 5. LOW DRAG / LOW SNAG: The OMS ® bands typically retract the BC to a width less than the divers shoulders, greatly reducing Drag and Snag potential. 6. TRIM ADJUSTABILITY: By adding or eliminating bands in different parts of the BC, the diver can adjust: a) lateral trim to compensate for stage bottles, cameras, etc. b) Horizontal trim e.g. head up, down or level. > As for anybody mentioning they were ever snagged, that's hardly evidence one > way or the other. You have to know that people have gotten snagged on > wrecks, even those that weren't using bungeed wings. They just didn't talk > about it. The guys I dive with have no problem telling of the dumb stuff that goes on underwater. You should hear some of the stories.... Without any kind of evidence either way, I would guess the point is mote. As like you, I don't dive with them. Never saw the need to. The wings I use are DiveRite's. > 3. POWER DEFLATION / ORAL INFLATION: The unique elastomeric bands (use 4. > ELIMINATION OF AIR SHIFT: The OMS ® elastomeric bands evenly compress 5. > LOW DRAG / LOW SNAG: The OMS ® bands typically retract the BC to a 6. TRIM > ADJUSTABILITY: By adding or eliminating bands in different parts > Without any kind of evidence either way, I would guess the point is mote. > As like you, I don't dive with them. Never saw the need to. The wings I > use are DiveRite's. If you truly had faith, you'd bungee. > I guess OMS has a reason for the bungees. > From their website: Just like others have good reason for not making them. You're going to quote OMS advertising to prove that OMS advertising is correct? > 3. POWER DEFLATION / ORAL INFLATION: The unique elastomeric bands (use is > optional) assist in deflation, but still allow the diver to orally inflate > the BC. Do you have a lot of trouble deflating your BCD? Is this a major benefit to you? How much risk are you ready to take to have help deflating your BCD? If the wing deflates easily, do you suppose it's possible, let alone likely, that they inflate orally as easily as a non bungeed model? > 4. ELIMINATION OF AIR SHIFT: The OMS ® elastomeric bands evenly compress > the BC, eliminating the massive airshift associated with non-banded BCs > that typically occurs when changing body plane. Bullshit. If the wing is inflated, it's offsetting some of the tension of some of the bungees. If you change position, the gas is going to move to the higest point. The pressure of one bungee is the same as the presure of next. > W DRAG / LOW SNAG: The OMS ® bands typically retract the BC to a width > less than the divers shoulders, greatly reducing Drag and Snag potential. Guess what? The right sized wing does the same thing. > 6. TRIM ADJUSTABILITY: By adding or eliminating bands in different parts > of the BC, the diver can adjust: a) lateral trim to compensate for stage > bottles, cameras, etc. b) Horizontal trim e.g. head up, down or level. Right. How many times have you adjusted trim by adjusting the bands? Have you ever heard anyone mention this except the company trying to sell you their product? Did you believe them? >> As for anybody mentioning they were ever snagged, that's hardly evidence >> one way or the other. You have to know that people have gotten snagged >> on wrecks, even those that weren't using bungeed wings. They just didn't >> talk about it. Hey, it was evidence when somebody was claiming nobody had been snagged. Now that we've established that statement isn't true, it's no longer evidence. Sorry, but if it's evidence when it supports the company's claims, it's still evidence when it doesn't. > The guys I dive with have no problem telling of the dumb stuff that goes > on underwater. You should hear some of the stories.... > Without any kind of evidence either way, I would guess the point is mote. > As like you, I don't dive with them. Never saw the need to. The wings I > use are DiveRite's. I happen to have Halcyon wings. When I got them, I still bought into the religion. I just didn't buy into the leader of the religion. Later, I relearned to think for myself, something I recommend to everybody. If I were to do it over again, I have no clue what wings I might have. Popeye's elastic cover wing appeals to me because of its versatility, a point I notice you didn't stress for the OMS wings. You probably should have. It's their best point. At any rate, Popeye's wing is not much larger than my 18 lb lift Halcyon until it's fully inflated. Then it's much larger. it does not, however, use bungees that involve a bunch of loops, each of which might hook on something when diving where there are lots of somethings to hook on. Lee >>6. TRIM ADJUSTABILITY: By adding or eliminating bands in different parts >>of the BC, the diver can adjust: a) lateral trim to compensate for stage [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you ever heard anyone mention this except the company trying to sell you > their product? Did you believe them? Even if you do adjust them for stage bottles, what happens if your stage bottles change weight for some mysterious reason, or you get rid of them altogether? Maybe you're supposed to stop and reconfigure the wing. I suppose that some people distribute their gear to get the trim they want, but OMS must think it makes more sense to loosely control where in the BC the unknown amount of air required for neutral buoyancy at any given depth will be. Or maybe they're just developing products for a niche market. Gullible people, for instance.  SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. >>4. ELIMINATION OF AIR SHIFT: The OMS ® elastomeric bands evenly compress >>the BC, eliminating the massive airshift associated with non-banded BCs [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the higest point. The pressure of one bungee is the same as the presure of > next. Hardly. The local bungee just needs so much pressure as to overcome the static pressure differential needed to shift the air pocket to another point of equilibrations. This will most probably be the highest point, right, but this point's center will be located nearer to the diver, minimizing leverage. > Popeye's > elastic cover wing appeals to me because of its versatility, a point I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not, however, use bungees that involve a bunch of loops, each of which might > hook on something when diving where there are lots of somethings to hook on. Popeyes Oceanic ( guess that's what it is) combines the advantages claimed by OMS in a more SOTA design, that's all. Matthias > >>4. ELIMINATION OF AIR SHIFT: The OMS ® elastomeric bands evenly compress > >>the BC, eliminating the massive airshift associated with non-banded BCs [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > the higest point. The pressure of one bungee is the same as the presure of > > next. > Hardly. > The local bungee just needs so much pressure as to overcome the static > pressure differential needed to shift the air pocket to another point of > equilibrations. This will most probably be the highest point, right, but > this point's center will be located nearer to the diver, minimizing > leverage. The "local bungee"? Now there's a scientific sounding term. If all bungies are drawn equally tight, then expansion of the non local bungee is directly offset by contraction of the local one. The gas will move. Lee >>>>4. ELIMINATION OF AIR SHIFT: The OMS ® elastomeric bands evenly compress >>>>the BC, eliminating the massive airshift associated with non-banded BCs >>>>that typically occurs when changing body plane. >>>Bullshit. If the wing is inflated, it's offsetting some of the tension of >>>some of the bungees. If you change position, the gas is going to move to >>>the higest point. The pressure of one bungee is the same as the presure of >>>next. >>Hardly. >>The local bungee just needs so much pressure as to overcome the static [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The "local bungee"? Now there's a scientific sounding term. Ain't it ;-) >If all bungies are drawn equally tight, then expansion of the non local bungee > is directly offset by contraction of the local one. The gas will move. Yes, that is why I refferred to "local", provided that each "turn" of the bungees can be adjusted in tension without afflicting the next one's. The volume and degree of shift can be influenced then somewaht, but apparently mostly when you have more air in it than you should have anyway... Matthias >> > Can anyone cite a documented case where a diver has gotten into trouble >> > *because* of bungied wings? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sounds like operator error to me. Eliminating unnecessary equipment would eliminate any error in operating it. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > >> > Can anyone cite a documented case where a diver has gotten into trouble > >> > *because* of bungied wings? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Eliminating unnecessary equipment would eliminate any error in > operating it. Sure. Make it fooooool proof. Of course, the majority of the scuba world, -and- manufacturers, disagree with your "necessity" assessment. -- If Ward Churchill can be a college professor, what's David Duke waiting for? - Coulter > Can anyone cite a documented case where a diver has gotten into trouble > *because* of bungied wings? I believe the answer is no, but I also have to ask why you would want to have a solution for a non-existant problem. > ? Can anyone cite a documented case where a diver has gotten into trouble > ? *because* of bungied wings? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I believe the answer is no, but I also have to ask why you would want > to have a solution for a non-existant problem The bungies help keep the deflated wing from flopping around and may reduce drag. Under what conditions would the bungie pose a hazard? Adam > > ? Can anyone cite a documented case where a diver has gotten into trouble > > ? *because* of bungied wings? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The bungies help keep the deflated wing from flopping around and may reduce > drag. I see you've been reading OMS brochures (either directly, or via proxy). > Under what conditions would the bungie pose a hazard? I never said they did. I said they solve a problem that doesn't exist. To do this, they add complexity and I'm not a fan of adding complexity simply for the sake of adding complexity. (I should also point out that I have a bungee wing. I didn't find anything wrong with it, except being oversized for a single tank, but I also didn't find any advantage to the bungees). > Adam > I never said they did. I said they solve a problem that doesn't exist. > To do this, they add complexity and I'm not a fan of adding complexity > simply for the sake of adding complexity. Hmmm... You are familiar with shoe laces? Matthias > ? "Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message > ? news:210420051110540853%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com... > ? > In article <d48e2j$8sm$1@news.ryerson.ca>, Larry Anta > ? > <lanta@ryerson.ca> wrote: > ? > > ? > ? Can anyone cite a documented case where a diver has gotten into trouble > ? > ? *because* of bungied wings? > ? > ? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ? > ? The bungies help keep the deflated wing from flopping around and may reduce > ? drag. > > I see you've been reading OMS brochures (either directly, or via proxy). As much as I loathe it, I'd have to agree with Adam. > ? Under what conditions would the bungie pose a hazard? > ? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > anything wrong with it, except being oversized for a single tank, but I > also didn't find any advantage to the bungees). -- If Ward Churchill can be a college professor, what's David Duke waiting for? - Coulter > > ? "Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message > > ? news:210420051110540853%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > As much as I loathe it, I'd have to agree with Adam. Why? (the disagree part, not the loathing part). I've never had a problem with a wing "flopping around," and the convoluted surface created by the bungees increase drag, not reduces it. I'm not one of those people blaming deaths on "bondage wings" but I still don't see where they solve a real-life problems. They look pretty on the showroom floor, but I didn't see that they add any functionality underwater. > > ? Under what conditions would the bungie pose a hazard? > > ? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If Ward Churchill can be a college professor, what's David Duke waiting > for? - Coulter > I've never had a problem with a wing "flopping around," and the > convoluted surface created by the bungees increase drag, not reduces > it. I'm not one of those people blaming deaths on "bondage wings" but I > still don't see where they solve a real-life problems. They look pretty > on the showroom floor, but I didn't see that they add any functionality > underwater. Actually, studies show that the convulutions channel the water and provide additional thrust much in the way that a golf ball flies further with little dimples or a sports car looks hotter with a little spoiler. Why do all solved problems have to be real-life? Good engineers design for the potential as well. Stop thinking so small. > Actually, studies show that the convulutions channel the water and provide > additional thrust much in the way that a golf ball flies further with > little dimples or a sports car looks hotter with a little spoiler. Why do > all solved problems have to be real-life? Good engineers design for the > potential as well. Stop thinking so small. The fact that I had my feet up on the desk when I read this is the only thing that saved you from receiving a bill for cleaning BS off my new sneakers. Lee > I've never had a problem with a wing "flopping around," I have, like a manta ray. Someone else described it in this thread. >and the convoluted surface created by the bungees increase drag, not reduces > it. On an F-22 maybe, but I doubt even a measurable amount as far as humanoid diving aquadynamics. Although I'm sure you and hugh could devise a way to measure it. :-) We just had this discussion in RSE, and it's easier to count the companies that -don't- make some form of bondage wing than those that do. >I'm not one of those people blaming deaths on "bondage wings" but I > still don't see where they solve a real-life problems. They look pretty > on the showroom floor, but I didn't see that they add any functionality > underwater. -- If Ward Churchill can be a college professor, what's David Duke waiting for? - Coulter Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote >>and the convoluted surface created by the bungees increase drag, not > reduces >> it. > > On an F-22 maybe, but I doubt even a measurable amount as far as humanoid > diving aquadynamics. I don't know. I've never used a bungee wing. I've was never tempted to purchase any kind of constrained wing until I saw yours and even then, the only reason I am considering it is that it may have the lift needed for twins without being too big for a single. I have, however, made the transition from jacket style bcd to wing style. I don't know that the wing is entirely responsible, but I can tell you that I'm 100% certain that my drag decreased with the change. Personally, I think that a bungie wing would create some additional drag and I also thing that, single elements might not make a noticable difference, the combination of elements does. That, however, is still not my reason for chosing something other than a bungee wing. My primary reasons are: 1. They include something behind me that can get caught on things. 2. They don't give me anything worth the additional risk that I can't get some other way without it. > We just had this discussion in RSE, and it's easier to count the > companies > that -don't- make some form of bondage wing than those that do. Yeah, well an otherwise reasonable company makes the HUB too. The fact that manufacturers are willing to sell gimmicks to the public, even combined with the public's willingness to buy them, doesn't make them good. Lee > Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote > Yeah, well an otherwise reasonable company makes the HUB too. The fact that > manufacturers are willing to sell gimmicks to the public, even combined with > the public's willingness to buy them, doesn't make them good. I think the HUB was a great idea poorly functionalized. -- If Ward Churchill can be a college professor, what's David Duke waiting for? - Coulter Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote >> Yeah, well an otherwise reasonable company makes the HUB too. The fact >> that >> manufacturers are willing to sell gimmicks to the public, even combined >> with >> the public's willingness to buy them, doesn't make them good. > I think the HUB was a great idea poorly functionalized. I think you need to take your moonshine supply to a lab to be checked for lead content. Lee > Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Lee :-) Centralized scuba unit. Not much different ergonomically than how a rebreather is set up. -- If Ward Churchill can be a college professor, what's David Duke waiting for? - Coulter > Centralized scuba unit. > > Not much different ergonomically than how a rebreather is set up. But the rebreather practically has to be that way. Confining a tank or several, a couple breathing bags, an absorbent cannister, a regulator or several, possibly some electronics, and myriad interconnected hoses into one case makes sense and protects the fragile stuff. Once you have that big case, it makes sense to just sting a wing on it. Open circuit, however, is just a wing and a tank and a regulator. There's no need for the big box. Otherwise, why not go the rest of the way and integrate the tank. No need for a valve as the regulator will be welded in place right on the cylinder. The integrated wing will alleviate the need for bolts and bands or straps since it's permanently affixed to the tank. No inflator hose since the integrated regulator is connected directly to the integrated wing. In fact, the hoseless regulator/BC direct connection means you can also have a pressure gauge integrated into the BC and both second stages coming out of the BC at optimal locations instead of from behind the head. I gotta talk to Mares about this. >> Centralized scuba unit. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the BC at optimal locations instead of from behind the head. I gotta talk > to Mares about this. No need to. It's called "sub". Matthias need for the big box. > Otherwise, why not go the rest of the way and integrate the tank. No need > for a valve as the regulator will be welded in place right on the cylinder. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the BC at optimal locations instead of from behind the head. I gotta talk > to Mares about this. I agree. -- If Ward Churchill can be a college professor, what's David Duke waiting for? - Coulter > I believe the answer is no, but I also have to ask why you would want > to have a solution for a non-existant problem I believe the answer is yes. It was not all that long ago that we had a discussion of a Broward County tech student that died due at last partly to buoyancy issues related to her bondage wing. While it is not clear that the bondage system was a primary cause, it does appear that it may have been one of several causes. Dead people don't write incident reports. > The bungies help keep the deflated wing from flopping around and may > reduce drag. Under what conditions would the bungie pose a hazard? 1. Should your power inflator malfunction, you have to orally inflate the BCD against the pressure of the bungies. 2. Should you, for some reason, need all available lift from your BCD, bungies might make it difficult, if not impossible to get it. 3. Should you puncture your wing, a bungied wing will force the wing to deflate Like I said in a previous post, I'm not a rabid anti bungie diver. Still, I do not find sufficient benefit from the system to warrant even the most likely minor risks indicated above. Having said that, Popeye has a wing with an elastic cover. While it would make it harder to get full inflation orally and would partially deflate if punctured, I would not be hard to partially inflate and would not deflate completely. If i were to chose a wing constriction system I would chose his over a true bungie one. Others are free to chose otherwise. Lee >> I believe the answer is no, but I also have to ask why you would want >> to have a solution for a non-existant problem [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Lee I like the thin bungee on the wing of my Zeagle Escape. It's a compromise that folds the wing down on one side. Most of the time I dive with little air in the wing and the Pioneer 36lb wing flops passively like the wings of a ray. I probably would have been better off with a smaller wing. Adam > > I believe the answer is no, but I also have to ask why you would want > > to have a solution for a non-existant problem [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bondage system was a primary cause, it does appear that it may have been one > of several causes. Dead people don't write incident reports. True. Dead people don't write incident reports. But if bungies are inherently dangerous, you would think that there would be enough accidents that at least one of them would point at the bungies as either the sole factor or a contributing cause. I have not been able to find such a case. > 1. Should your power inflator malfunction, you have to orally inflate the > BCD against the pressure of the bungies. Agreed, but that isn't difficult in my particular case, and that's with very tight bungies. > 2. Should you, for some reason, need all available lift from your BCD, > bungies might make it difficult, if not impossible to get it. In that case, the bungies could be construed as a contributing factor to the accident I suppose, but the primary problem would not be the bungies themselves, but something else, like the inflator mechanism. > 3. Should you puncture your wing, a bungied wing will force the wing to > deflate Yes. But a punctured non-bungied wing will also deflate if happens to be providing buoyancy when it gets punctured, though I admit, somewhat more slowly. > Like I said in a previous post, I'm not a rabid anti bungie diver. Still, I > do not find sufficient benefit from the system to warrant even the most > likely minor risks indicated above. I guess I would agree somewhat, if I was currently facing a wing purchase, but I don't think the above risks are all that worrisome. Others may consider them otherwise of course. > True. Dead people don't write incident reports. But if bungies are > inherently dangerous, you would think that there would be enough accidents > that at least one of them would point at the bungies as either the sole > factor or a contributing cause. I have not been able to find such a case. I don't think it's a matter of inherently dangerous, but rather, a case of posing a particular risk when the right combination of factors occurs. As rare as those factors might be, the fewer opportunities there are for a problem, the fewer problems will occur. Even a 1 in a 1,000 event is too many if you happen to be the 1. 3. Should you puncture your wing, a bungied wing will force the wing to >> deflate > > Yes. But a punctured non-bungied wing will also deflate if happens to be > providing buoyancy when it gets punctured, though I admit, somewhat more > slowly. Yes and no. A non bungeed wing will lose gas below a puncture, but retain it above the puncture. If you are vertical and puncture one at the bottom, you probably won't lose any buoyancy at all. All things told, I am unlikely to buy a bungee wing, but I don't think I'd replace one I already had. On the other hand, so far, I've been a fan of using the right wing for the planned dive. That's easy to be when you dive the same configuration every time. Lee > ? Can anyone cite a documented case where a diver has gotten into trouble > ? *because* of bungied wings? > > I believe the answer is no, but I also have to ask why you would want > to have a solution for a non-existant problem. Hehe! :) I guess I just heard one too many "bungies of death" comment (not here, but elsewhere). In my case, I already own a bungied wing (used, OMS, dual bladder, 100# lift), so it isn't that I'm deciding whether to buy one. I just started to get a bit annoyed at people who look at my config and mutter, "Ooo, bungies of death," when, as we're seeing here (at least so far), there really are few if any documented cases of problems that can be attributed solely to bungies. I'm not afraid of my bungies at all and I don't think I would be afraid to use them should I take up caving one day. I like the ease with which the bladder deflates. I have no difficulty orally-inflating the bladder against the pressure of the bungies. I like the way it looks. I *sense* that there would be more thrust resistance with an unbungied wing but I haven't actually tried one. But I'm biased! :) I already spent the money so I may be deluding myself into thinking that they're safe, which is what prompted my initial post. :) > I guess I just heard one too many "bungies of death" comment (not here, but > elsewhere). Borg divers. Tell 'em: Free your mind, your a.s will follow. The entire BWOD movement is built on lies and fabrication, as a marketing ploy. > In my case, I already own a bungied wing (used, OMS, dual bladder, 100# > lift), so it isn't that I'm deciding whether to buy one. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > far), there really are few if any documented cases of problems that can be > attributed solely to bungies. None. But from what you say in other posts, your bungies sound -awfully- tight. One would ass-ume that the wing should be able to inflate to it's maximum volume while under restriction. > I'm not afraid of my bungies at all and I don't think I would be afraid to > use them should I take up caving one day. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > into thinking that they're safe, which is what prompted my initial post. :) Thousands in use world wide with no documentable safety issues. > But from what you say in other posts, your bungies sound -awfully- tight. > > One would ass-ume that the wing should be able to inflate to it's maximum > volume while under restriction. Oh, it can inflate fully now. I just had a hell of a time tying the bungies *while* it was fully inflated. All the OMS bungies (that came in the "kit" I bought) were the same length, but the diameter of the (fully-inflated) wing is much larger at the sides of the wings than at the shoulders. Stronger men (or women!) might not have experienced this problem. > > But from what you say in other posts, your bungies sound -awfully- > tight. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Stronger men (or women!) might not have experienced this problem. Cool. -- If Ward Churchill can be a college professor, what's David Duke waiting for? - Coulter |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.