Dive Magazine Reviewing?

[ben field]

Anyone read Jan 2004 issue yet?
I felt moved to write and this is what I sent to the Editor, I have reposted here only as I see DIVE as our magazine by which we are judged.
(I also wonder if anyone at BSAC monitors DIVE for its performance?)

I realise DIVE is an explosive topic on this forum and I do not wish to start an argument, if you wish to contact me offlist please do so.

Letter to Editor

I believe we have a problem, as BSAC's magazine I would expect a degree of compentance in the review of diving equipment in your magazine and it is usually quite fair.

However page 66 of the January 2004 carries a review of the Halcyon Eclipse MC Wing BC and due to the incorrect reviewing of this product my buddies and I quickly found many, many inaccurate statements.

If the following sounds like a critisim of Pat Morrissey the author than that is not intended, I must assume that he was unaware of the history, function and design of the Backplate/wing combination... Which does make me wonder why he was chosen for this review?

While I have no doubt you will recieve many comments on this article I will explain in full my reason for writing.

Quote and corrections as follows-
"The simplicity of its design, however, means that adjusting this BC is nigh impossible with gloves on or with wet, cold fingers while on a RIB."

Firstly I think it goes without saying that the adjustment of any diving equipment should be conducted long before one is onboard a RIB, however this is not my major gripe. The continuous webbing backplate (known widely as the Hogarthian rigged backplate) is intended to be set up in a certain way and once set not move, hence it is- as you put it, difficult to adjust on a wet, cold RIB. Obviously it is therefore extremely unlikely to become un-adjusted by accident?

I will come to how this rig should have been setup later when explaining one of the later inaccuracies.

"Furthermore, the low-pressure inflator hose is impracticable- its just too short."

Now it should be noted that in the picture shown and I assume as this set was recieved by your office, that the left shoulder restraint for the inflator is missing, no diver using this design of equipment should do so without having the inflator hose run through a loop or bungie on the apex of the left shoulder.
Secondly- the short hose is intended such that it doesn't trail through coral and get hooked up on wrecks, I suspect that the author couldn't reach it because he had the shoulder straps way too tight.

"The plate alone weighs nearly 4Kg,"

The backplate wing system is most often dived without a conventional dumpable weightbelt, as such this weight is integral to the design, obviously having researched such diving systems prior to the review this foolish statment would have been left out.
The author goes on to complain about its use when flying abroad, this has some merit but many backplate/wing divers will have asecond lightweight ali or plastic backplate purchased at very little cost for this purpose.

"However the wingnuts of two of the mounting bolts then projected into the back of my drysuit"

There are simple soplutions to this, regularly used by divers accustomed to such kit-
1. Bend plate so the nuts do not project into suit.
2. Change wingnuts for plain bolt heads.
3. place padding covers over the wingnuts.

"I couldn't adjust the Eclipse at all once it was on me"

I cannot believe this line made it to print, it shows more than anything in this article the lack of research that went into it!
The design of this type of diving equipment is simply not intended to be adjusted when worn, hence the authors struggle is a PLUS point. It also points to the fact that it was obviously set up incorrectly from start to finish.

"and getting it off became a joint effort between the diving officer and cox"
Which only serves to prove that they were ill-informed to assist you test this wing/BC. The contiunously webbed harness should be set such that the shoulders are sufficently "loose" to tuck your left wrist and forearm through the webbing and roll out to the right. The harness should not be worn tight as this leaves no room for suit expansion, correct breathing from the diaphram.
As the informed diver knows the BC should never be tight on the surface or underwater but a fluid part of the system that is truly balanced when horizontal under a neutrally bouyant SCUBA set. The correct use of this is not easily explained but I would be happy to show you how it should be used if necessary.

"I couldn't grasp the string with gloved, wet hands"

The string should have at the very least a knot at the end, the author again fails to point out the designed in reason for this, which is yet again to avoid entanglement, (I'm sure most of us have experienced the big floaty knob usually in such a location get hung up at some point.)


I feel I could go one but would be flogging a dead horse.

PLEASE, please please... review equipment for the use it was intended in the state of mind it was designed. (For example- you correctly tested the Seaquest DIVA LX as a female only BC, it would have been foolish to give it to a 16stone beefcake for review! :-)

Finally I would like to add that this issue is in all other respects good and in my oppinion an improvement on this time last year, I see DIVE as a magazine still growing (slowly) into its role.

I look forward to reading a correction (at least) in the next article, Feb 2004.

regard,
Ben Field

[tommytwohats]

Anyone read Jan 2004 issue yet?
I felt moved to write and this is what I sent to the Editor, I have reposted here only as I see DIVE as our magazine by which we are judged.
(I also wonder if anyone at BSAC monitors DIVE for its performance?)

I realise DIVE is an explosive topic on this forum and I do not wish to start an argument, if you wish to contact me offlist please do so.

Letter to Editor

I believe we have a problem, as BSAC's magazine I would expect a degree of compentance in the review of diving equipment in your magazine and it is usually quite fair.

However page 66 of the January 2004 carries a review of the Halcyon Eclipse MC Wing BC and due to the incorrect reviewing of this product my buddies and I quickly found many, many inaccurate statements.

If the following sounds like a critisim of Pat Morrissey the author than that is not intended, I must assume that he was unaware of the history, function and design of the Backplate/wing combination... Which does make me wonder why he was chosen for this review?

While I have no doubt you will recieve many comments on this article I will explain in full my reason for writing.

Quote and corrections as follows-
"The simplicity of its design, however, means that adjusting this BC is nigh impossible with gloves on or with wet, cold fingers while on a RIB."

Firstly I think it goes without saying that the adjustment of any diving equipment should be conducted long before one is onboard a RIB, however this is not my major gripe. The continuous webbing backplate (known widely as the Hogarthian rigged backplate) is intended to be set up in a certain way and once set not move, hence it is- as you put it, difficult to adjust on a wet, cold RIB. Obviously it is therefore extremely unlikely to become un-adjusted by accident?

I will come to how this rig should have been setup later when explaining one of the later inaccuracies.

"Furthermore, the low-pressure inflator hose is impracticable- its just too short."

Now it should be noted that in the picture shown and I assume as this set was recieved by your office, that the left shoulder restraint for the inflator is missing, no diver using this design of equipment should do so without having the inflator hose run through a loop or bungie on the apex of the left shoulder.
Secondly- the short hose is intended such that it doesn't trail through coral and get hooked up on wrecks, I suspect that the author couldn't reach it because he had the shoulder straps way too tight.

"The plate alone weighs nearly 4Kg,"

The backplate wing system is most often dived without a conventional dumpable weightbelt, as such this weight is integral to the design, obviously having researched such diving systems prior to the review this foolish statment would have been left out.
The author goes on to complain about its use when flying abroad, this has some merit but many backplate/wing divers will have asecond lightweight ali or plastic backplate purchased at very little cost for this purpose.

"However the wingnuts of two of the mounting bolts then projected into the back of my drysuit"

There are simple soplutions to this, regularly used by divers accustomed to such kit-
1. Bend plate so the nuts do not project into suit.
2. Change wingnuts for plain bolt heads.
3. place padding covers over the wingnuts.

"I couldn't adjust the Eclipse at all once it was on me"

I cannot believe this line made it to print, it shows more than anything in this article the lack of research that went into it!
The design of this type of diving equipment is simply not intended to be adjusted when worn, hence the authors struggle is a PLUS point. It also points to the fact that it was obviously set up incorrectly from start to finish.

"and getting it off became a joint effort between the diving officer and cox"
Which only serves to prove that they were ill-informed to assist you test this wing/BC. The contiunously webbed harness should be set such that the shoulders are sufficently "loose" to tuck your left wrist and forearm through the webbing and roll out to the right. The harness should not be worn tight as this leaves no room for suit expansion, correct breathing from the diaphram.
As the informed diver knows the BC should never be tight on the surface or underwater but a fluid part of the system that is truly balanced when horizontal under a neutrally bouyant SCUBA set. The correct use of this is not easily explained but I would be happy to show you how it should be used if necessary.

"I couldn't grasp the string with gloved, wet hands"

The string should have at the very least a knot at the end, the author again fails to point out the designed in reason for this, which is yet again to avoid entanglement, (I'm sure most of us have experienced the big floaty knob usually in such a location get hung up at some point.)


I feel I could go one but would be flogging a dead horse.

PLEASE, please please... review equipment for the use it was intended in the state of mind it was designed. (For example- you correctly tested the Seaquest DIVA LX as a female only BC, it would have been foolish to give it to a 16stone beefcake for review! :-)

Finally I would like to add that this issue is in all other respects good and in my oppinion an improvement on this time last year, I see DIVE as a magazine still growing (slowly) into its role.

I look forward to reading a correction (at least) in the next article, Feb 2004.

regard,
Ben Field


Wow Ben he got your back up! Maybe the autor thougt he may get a product he could use straigt out of the box! Any way I thougt you should have ditchable lead in case the wing failed and you had to try and make yourself positive bouyant From other reviews of the wing it is a stop gap others in the range are more suitable

[Vic]

> Wow Ben he got your back up!

Hardly surprising, though, is it? Ben's spot-on with his comments.

> Maybe the autor thougt he may get a product he could use straigt
> out of the box!

Would he have tested a torch "straight out of the box", or would he have put batteries in first? Would he have dived a cylinder "straight out of the box", or would he have filled it first?

Most kit needs some sort of preparation; with a Hog harness, that means adjusting it so it's the right length. That takes less time than filling a cylinder...

> Any way I thougt you should have ditchable lead in case the
> wing failed and you had to try and make yourself positive
> bouyant

You need some way of sorting out your buoyancy; for most of us, that means changing the air cell being used (e.g. swap to/from using the suit for buoyancy). If this wing is the only buoyancy source available, then some ditchable weight is required - which may or may not be lead. But many (most?) divers have so much lead on their belt that dropping it would create quite a serious ascent risk; reducing the weight on the belt by putting it on a plate is a better idea from the perspective of an emergency ascent, and is more comfortable as a fortunate side-effect.

> From other reviews of the wing it is a stop gap others in the
> range are more suitable

Nevertheless, all the criticisms of the plate and harness are independent of the actual wing fitted, so should be countered anyway.

Vic.

[Ben Field]

> Wow Ben he got your back up! Maybe the autor thougt he may
> get a product he could use straigt out of the box!

Maybe he did and yes, he could have done if it had been used properly... Its not so much the equipment he's testing or the author himself, I'm sure he is a top diver or he wouldn't have the job at DIVE? My problem is with the way in which this test was conducted and presented, I find it embarrasing.

That it passed all the editors and made print is amazing to me.

> Any way I thougt you should have ditchable lead in case the
> wing failed and you had to try and make yourself positive
> bouyant

This is a technical issue, one which is at odds to the point of the posting, but yes- ditchable lead is a good idea for the recreational SCUBA diver diving a system that relys on ditching weight to make an emergancy ascent. Personally I would never dive a weightbelt with a single quick release (I use two!)having suffered a lost weightbelt from 35mtrs with 18mins of stops due! But thats not the position of the BSAC so I don't think this is the time and place to discuss it.

> From other reviews of the wing it is a stop gap others in the > range are more suitable

Possibly, if you wanted a single tank only BC this may not be the best choice, I am not a trained journolist, fully in touch with the wide range of BC's available, so I'll leave that to the experts?

Also the author made no mention of the price- ?424!!! Oh my GOD! You could buy the same thing twice over from other manufacturers or make it yourself. Have you noticed how much more expensive "techie" looking stuff has become now it is popular? My wing cost ?135 4 years ago, now it is over ?220.

BEN

[Mark Emery]

Ben,

well done! I'm glad I'm not the only one that saw red when reading the offending article. I see the review as a massive injustice to what is unquestionably (IMO) the best BC ever to grace the mags pages.

I don't understand what Halcyon are trying to achieve by giving their great gear in for review by people without the first clue of how it works, how to set it up and/or any training in it's use.

Regards,

Mark.

[Steve Walker]

Hmmm.... if Halcyon gear is so temperamental you need "training in it's use" then perhaps it deserves a bad review, personally I found my OMS wing/harness setup worked "straight out of the box" without anyone having to tell me how to put it together.

[Ben Field]

> Hmmm.... if Halcyon gear is so temperamental you
> need "training in it's use" then perhaps it deserves a bad
> review, personally I found my OMS wing/harness setup
> worked "straight out of the box" without anyone having to
> tell me how to put it together.

I bet your OMS harness and wing are practically no different from this Halcyon one they have reviewed. Obviously you spent a few minutes adjusting the fit of your harness before trying to put it on on a "cold wet RIB" as in the article- as any diver would.

My point has nothing to do with the good/bad points of the wing, I am more interested in the apparent lack of knowledge/research undertaken before testing this product... like reading the manual? (Do wings come with Manuals, mine didn't, I had to ask someone how to set it up.)

[Ben Field]

> Hmmm.... if Halcyon gear is so temperamental you
> need "training in it's use" then perhaps it deserves a bad
> review, personally I found my OMS wing/harness setup
> worked "straight out of the box" without anyone having to
> tell me how to put it together.

I bet your OMS harness and wing are practically no different from this Halcyon one they have reviewed. Obviously you spent a few minutes adjusting the fit of your harness before trying to put it on on a "cold wet RIB" as in the article- as any diver would.

My point has nothing to do with the good/bad points of the wing, I am more interested in the apparent lack of knowledge/research undertaken before testing this product... like reading the manual? (Do wings come with Manuals, mine didn't, I had to ask someone how to set it up.)

[TUE]

Yes I am also glad I was not the only one.

I myself use a Pioneer wing and have done since I started diving, and I think it is the best. I note the price, but I think this also includes the price of having the backplate and harness aswell. My Pioneer and Explorer wings were both ?280

[Steve Walker]

My point has nothing to do with the good/bad points of the wing, I am more interested in the apparent lack of knowledge/research undertaken before testing this product...

Fair point, perhaps Dive could in the future do a comparison of a variety of divers getting to grips with a variety of wings, seeing as this topic crops up with some regularity?

like reading the manual? (Do wings come with Manuals, mine didn't, I had to ask someone how to set it up.)

Actually, the OMS ones do have some "blurb" they call a "manual" which comes with the kit (pretty much like what you can see via the link), but it's not that much different to the "destructions" you might expect to get with an Ikea wardrobe so I think it's be glorifying it to call it a manual.

[Chris Cherrington]

Anyone read Jan 2004 issue yet?
I felt moved to write and this is what I sent to the Editor, I have reposted here only as I see DIVE as our magazine by

Just got my copy...

I think you have a point here Ben. Althought the mag is a great laugh - a rant by some guy about why a pony is the only acceptable AAS and octopus should not be taught and another deep air narcosis incident to match the one in the last issue..

Yup, the Halcyon wing is a DIR wing and the review slags it off for having a continuous webbing strap..

I liked the wreck review though..

Chris.

[Ben Field]

> I think you have a point here Ben. Althought the mag is a
> great laugh - a rant by some guy about why a pony is the only > acceptable AAS and octopus should not be taught and another
> deep air narcosis incident to match the one in the last
> issue..

I like to think they are included to show us how not to dive, perhaps I am reading to much into it?

> I liked the wreck review though..

As did I, great photography, although it started much debate in our club- Can't say I agree with the Coln being the best Scapa wreck and those who've been to Truk/Chuuk rated several others over the one mentioned.

BEN

[terryh]

It's the watch article that got me.

By far the most popular watch for divers is the Citizen
Promaster 2 (Another 2 of our club has just purchased them on
there hols - only ?130 in Lanzarote).

Absolute dogs danglies with so many features and even a new
version with altitude.

So where is the mention of this stunning performer?

Well the best they can do is stick in the basic citizen.

Note to editor. If you are going to do an article on watches,
might it be a good idea to have the number 1 watch there
somewhere!

It is a benchmark after all.

TerryH

[Rob Taylor]

Well it turned up eventually...

You need to ask yourself what the purpose of a kit review is.
Should it be to flatter those who already own a particular item,
or to inform those people who don't?

If the former - it was a rotten review, otherwise it was very
interesting.

As a potential customer I'm pleased to know that the fixing bolts will stab you in the back, that the inflator hose is too short, that it weighs 4Kg and that there's no toggle on the dump string.

Oh, and that it will only cost ?424.

I look forward to Pat Morrissey's critique of the Emperor's new
(dry) suit.


Merry Christmas to you all.

Rob.

[PeteM]

As a potential customer I'm pleased to know that the fixing bolts will stab you in the back, that the inflator hose is too short, that it weighs 4Kg and that there's no toggle on the dump string.

The problem is that you need to review anything within the context of what it designed to do in the first place.

-This Ferrari is rubbish there is no room in the boot for my two labradors
-The motorbike had very poor stability, when you pulled up at the traffic lights you were forced to put you feet down or you fell over
-Whilst this radio had good reception on Radio 4 it simply failed to allow me to check in with the coast guard as it had no transmit function.

Out of context thing get very silly....

Personally I felt John Bantin's review of the same unit in Diver was far more balanced.

Pete

[Rob Taylor]

The problem is that you need to review anything within the context of what it designed to do in the first place.



and I agree. But it's appropriate for a reviewer to point out
shortcomings as he sees them. Otherwise the magazine may as well
ask the dealer to provide a review.

Incidentally, while I don't expect a BCD to be fitted with a
side-stand or to walk the dogs, if an enterprising manufacturer
could find a way of providing Radio 4...

Regards

Rob.

[David Humm]

"But it's appropriate for a reviewer to point out
shortcomings as he sees them"

lol.. What Ben IS saying is that the person doing the review wasn't 'qualified' to present what he thought were "shortcomings" in a fair and accurate way and, that past the editor and any other proofing in place before it went to print.

Dave Humm

[Rob Taylor]

the person doing the review wasn't 'qualified'


ffs.. it's a BCD. If you're qualified to dive, you're qualified to use it. If there's something wrong with it, the magazine is right to say so.
It's not a precision instrument, it's a nylon bag you fill with air.


Rob.

[Dominic Humphries]

ffs.. it's a BCD. If you're qualified to dive, you're qualified to use it. If there's something wrong with it, the magazine is right to say so.

That's like saying that if you're qualified to drive then of COURSE you can use a mororbike as well - they're both just vehicles that get you from A to B on the road.

I wrote a guide to how to sucessfully set up a wing a while ago - since it was one of those things that crops up regularly on forums. (It even got quoted in Dive mag, matter of fact...)

In it, I make the point that the worst mistake you can make is to put on a wing and try to use it the same way as you've always used a stab jacket. It doesn't work.

A wing BCD is not a jacket BCD. The author of the article clearly has no idea of the difference. Most of his complaints were issues anybody would have with any wing if they didn't know how to use it. The entire article therefore was not about "This wing has these problems" but instead was "I had these problems with a wing". That's a big difference.

[Ben Field]

> ffs.. it's a BCD.

...that was setup wrong hence didn't work as designed hence received bad press and more importantly made the magazine look ignorant.

> If you're qualified to dive, you're qualified to use it.

Are you? Did you receive instruction on a wing BCD during your BSAC training? Where you shown how to configure a continuously webbed harness? Did your instructor show you how to assembly a wing BCD and backplate onto a single tank?
If so I am impressed by the completeness of the training your received, also I should point out those things are not in OD, SD or DL, so if you know them- you have learnt them elsewhere and it was not something you needed to know to dive.

> If there's something wrong with it, the magazine is right to > say so.

Yes, it does. (If it knows what it is talking about)

> It's not a precision instrument, it's a nylon bag you fill
> with air.

Which when used incorrectly makes diving difficult if not dangerous. Struggling (as the author did) to get out of a poorly fitted harness post dive is a source of sub-clinical DCI if ever I heard one.

Rob, it isn't hard to do these things properly, it requires very minor research, obviously missed in this case, as was any sanity checking by the editing team- IMHO.

BEN

[james parrott]

Not qualified to comment on the use of a wing, but a comparrison to Bantin`s review in diver must be made.
The review that got my goat was for Chris Holden`s dive guide for North Wales. The review was nothing more than lifting a couple of articles out of the book and slaping them in the mag, no comment or review!

Was this shear bloody laziness or does that pass as journalisim?

I was annoyed because I have known of Chris`s book since I started diving and have been waiting for it to be published, what was in the mag did no justice to the effort that Chris Holden had done in the twenty years to compile the book!

Personally the only reason I read Dive is that it falls on the mat with my BSAC subs, Diver is a far better and more competant magazine.

[David Humm]

Oh dear,

"ffs" I didn't expect that lol anyway, I agree with Ben's comments.

Yes wings are BCD's but unless you use them, have been taught how to set them up with the associated kit etc, how can one expect to present an unbiased, fair and importantly ACCURATE review of said equipment ? If I were a manufacturer, i'd expect my equipment to be reviewed by someone with experiences of similar kit.

Dave

ps
HO HO HO

[siltmonkey]

Not qualified to comment on the use of a wing, but a comparrison to Bantin`s review in diver must be made.

Did I miss this? Was the wing reviewed in Diver, or just mentioned breifly in the "new-kit" secion?

Spot on comments, Mr Humphries, as ever.

cheers

r

[Nigel Hewitt]

Personally the only reason I read Dive is that it falls on the mat with my BSAC subs, Diver is a far better and more competant magazine.

But that's not what you want in a club 'official' magazine. You want something that toes the party line and doesn't notice the new and the changed until the edict is passed down from on high so it knows whether to approve or disapprove. This saves endless sacks of letters complaining that "It wasn't like this when I did my 3rd Class Diver Training".

Dive's staid, know nothing new, style perfectly suits the role we have placed it in. We can hardly complain if the editor strives to deliver the sort of content his biggest customer needs.

nigelH

[Mark Emery]

Halcyon do supply a very good quality manual with their wings (and other products). The manual is also available on their website.

Hth

Mark

[Ben Field]

> Dive's staid, know nothing new, style perfectly suits the
> role we have placed it in. We can hardly complain if the
> editor strives to deliver the sort of content his biggest
> customer needs.

Well thats not what I want, maybe I'm too demanding Nigel? :)

DIVE proudly states that it is "editorially independant" supposedly so it isn't "staid" and can be more dynamic than we know the BSAC to be? I do think that DIVE has improved since it was first introduced so they must be listening.

Anyway, I sent the original note to DIVE and have briefly exchanged e-mails with the editor who seemed quiet reasonable. I occasionally read stuff in magazines that I feel is incorrect but rarely have any grounds for speaking my mind- however DIVE is a diving magazine and I know a little bit about diving so thought I'd say my piece- if nothing comes of it I will at least have shared my viewpoint with the Editor and that can't be a bad thing.

Happy Christmas Folks
BEN

[Ben Field]

> Halcyon do supply a very good quality manual with their wings > (and other products). The manual is also available on their > website.

Having read the manual I am at a loss to explain the review, it explains the setup very well IMO.

[Steve Walker]

Hmmm.... would this issue have been so contentious if it had been some other brand of wing which had been criticised?
Just a thought...

[Nigel Hewitt]

Hmmm.... would this issue have been so contentious if it had been some other brand of wing which had been criticised?

Well if they'd slagged off a Diverite Classic on a Combro backplate I'd have laughed my socks off.

nigelH

[Melanopterus]

There have been a few items that have been reviewed at the same time by both mags. eg the Scubapro X650 and Olympus mju were others.
It gives us a good opportunity to compare and see what we are really getting.
I cannot belive Bantin said something good about a product that Dive chose to slag. He must be losing his edge!!!
However, what I want to see in mags is something more than I can get from the manufacturers website.

[Rob Kelly]

Hmmm.... would this issue have been so contentious if it had been some other brand of wing which had been criticised?
Just a thought...

I think it would have been just as contentious if it had been an Oxycheq wing or a Diverite etc, etc. Most of the people who think the review is daft are not particularly huge fans of Halcyon after all.

IIRC the DIVE review on wings was not recieved too well either and that wasn't specific to just one manufacturer.

Basically bad journalism IMO.

Still no surprise really. They'll be telling us that primary donation is dangerous next ;-)

Cheers,
Rob.

[Dominic Humphries]

Still no surprise really. They'll be telling us that primary donation is dangerous next ;-)

They already did - check the letters page for the one about AAS's
:o)

[Chris Cherrington]

Hmmm.... would this issue have been so contentious if it had been some other brand of wing which had been criticised?
Just a thought...

It seems to me that the wing is designed for DIR diving and the comments about it were ignorant of the DIR requirements - no clips, short inflator etc. This demonstrates an unforgivable lack of knowledge of the DIR viewpoint. BSAC is not DIR and therefore a BSAC review is entitled to question the DIR thing, but to review a DIR wing without mentioning why it is designed that way is at best an oversight. Many magazine readers will be unaware of DIR, so they will read the article and think the wing is badly designed. The wing meets its design requirements.

My query would be why they (Halcyon) submitted it for review - surely any non-DIR agency would make the same comments?

Chris

[Vic]

> It seems to me that the wing is designed for DIR diving

I strongly disagree with this.

I have been diving wings for some years now. I am not a DIR diver, nor will I ever be.

Vic.

[Dominic Humphries]

Hmmm.... would this issue have been so contentious if it had been some other brand of wing which had been criticised?

Probably - because very few of his comments were Halcyon-specific. The article basically said "A wing with a steel backplate and one-piece harness is unsuitable for travelling, difficult to use and generally inferior to a good jacket BCD"

Considering how many of us Strokes use wings, OPHs, and the like, he's managed to criticise the gear choices of virtually everybody with a half-decent wing setup.

[Ben Field]

> Hmmm.... would this issue have been so contentious if it had > been some other brand of wing which had been criticised?
> Just a thought...

Well- In my experience Halcyon make overpriced kit and trade on DIR as a way of flogging it to victims blinded by fashion, something that diving could do well without.

[Nigel Hewitt]

I cannot belive Bantin said something good about a product that Dive chose to slag. He must be losing his edge!!!

LOL. I have a lot of time for Bantin. I may disagree with him at times but he's always worth reading.

nigelH

[Mark Emery]

> Hmmm.... would this issue have been so contentious if it had > been some other brand of wing which had been criticised?
> Just a thought...

Well- In my experience Halcyon make overpriced kit and trade on DIR as a way of flogging it to victims blinded by fashion, something that diving could do well without.

Well, in my experience Halcyon not only make the best kit available but also make the only kit that meets the requirements of the DIR system. That's what the gear is for after all. You gets what you pay for.

I think you will find that the 'fasion victim' diver is far more likely to spend his or her money on a VR3 than Halcyon kit.

regards,

Mark.

[Rob Taylor]

Well Ben, let's have a look at the manufacturer's view
(www.halcyon.net) which is...


Q: "Is the Halcyon MC system appropriate for recreational open
water diving?"

A: "Halcyon's DIR approach is suitable for beginning divers
whether or not they want to progress to technical diving."


In short, if you've got ?400+ you can have one.

No mention anywhere of the specialised training required to
use their product. And no explanation of how Archimedes' Principle is changed by a wing either. Interestingly, I note that PADI (who are not slow to spot a marketing opportunity) do not offer a course in wing use. Read into that what you may.

The problem remains that this equipment suffers from poor design
- the fixing bolts stick into your back etc. This is not true of all wings, there are better types available elsewhere.

As a consumer, I want to know what's wrong with a product. Anodyne reviews are useless to me.

The cost of producing a magazine is high, and only advertising revenue keeps the cover price below double figures. The editing team must tread a fine line to keep both readers informed and advertisers happy.

I'm pleased that, on this occasion, honest criticism has won the day. Let's hope that Halcyon are big enough to take it on board.

Rob.


PS: "That's like saying that if you're qualified to drive then of COURSE you can use a mororbike as well - they're both just
vehicles that get you from A to B on the road."

Now were being silly. You mean motorbike...

[Dominic Humphries]

Well, in my experience Halcyon not only make the best kit available but also make the only kit that meets the requirements of the DIR system.

The DR Classic is just for strokes then, is it? The S'pro manifold is only used by the clueless? Uwatec brass&glass SPGs only for holiday divers?

Well, that's me convinced. Let's hope I get an ACB weight system and inflatable liferaft for christmas. And then I can look into replacing my silly Oceanic mask with a proper Halcyon one...

You gets what you pay for.

Oh, if only that were true..

[Vic]

> As a consumer, I want to know what's wrong with a product.

As do I. But this review singularly fails to determine what *is* wrong with this wing, coming up instead with a series of problems which are down to the reviewer, not the product.

So this review is completely failing to provide what you and I both want. And that's why it's taking some flak here.

Vic.

[Melanopterus]

So Bantin got it right in his opening paragraphs...
Some people see DIR as the work of the devil while others see it as a sign of all things good...

Bring back Diver mag...all is forgiven!
Hey, I have just had a great idea. Why not let BSAC members choose to receive either Dive or Diver as part of their subscription. After all Diver runs BSAC LIDS and Dive is putting on another show to oppose it, so they are both equally tied up with BSAC and both are equally not.

[Mark Emery]

Well, in my experience Halcyon not only make the best kit available but also make the only kit that meets the requirements of the DIR system.


I should have said 'in most cases'.

The DR Classic is just for strokes then, is it? The S'pro manifold is only used by the clueless? Uwatec brass&glass SPGs only for holiday divers?


The DR Classic wing requires a few mods to be a DIR wing. The other things are good though (I have both) as are S/Pro jetfins etc..

Well, that's me convinced. Let's hope I get an ACB weight system and inflatable liferaft for christmas. And then I can look into replacing my silly Oceanic mask with a proper Halcyon one...


I have an ACB system for sale if you really want one!


Mark.

[Dominic Humphries]

:=Well, in my experience Halcyon not only make the best kit available but also make the only kit that meets the requirements of the DIR system.
:=

I should have said 'in most cases'.

Yep ;o)

I have an ACB system for sale if you really want one!

No thanks, I'll stick to my V&P weights. I can recommend Ebay for selling it tho - I once got twice what I paid for a secondhand drysuit..

[Nigel Hewitt]

>>Well- In my experience Halcyon make overpriced kit and trade on DIR as a way of flogging it to victims blinded by fashion, something that diving could do well without.

>Well, in my experience Halcyon not only make the best kit available but also make the only kit that meets the requirements of the DIR system. That's what the gear is for after all. You gets what you pay for.

That's what Steve said. It's the only equipment that matches the 'system'. I doubt that that makes it 'the best' but if you are a dedicated follower of brand names it is either the one to have or the one to avoid. When your kids must have Nike only Nike will do.

I think you will find that the 'fasion victim' diver is far more likely to spend his or her money on a VR3 than Halcyon kit.

Wonderful! I knew there was a reason I didn't fancy a Nexus.

nigelh
fasion victim

[Matt]

I think you will find that the 'fasion victim' diver is far more likely to spend his or her money on a VR3 than Halcyon kit.

Ahha. Ill-informed generalisations just what the DIR debate needs!

I am sure there are plenty of fashion victims out there with VR3s and Halcyon kit. But you may want to read this <a href="http://www.vr3.co.uk/vr3_testimonials.htm" >http://www.vr3.co.uk/vr3_testimonials.htm</a>
Don't think many of those people use Halcyon stuff though!

Going back to Ben's letter. I think his last couple paragraphs sum it up. It's not really fair to review a bit of DIR kit without mentioning DIR.

[Mark Emery]

I am sure there are plenty of fashion victims out there with VR3s and Halcyon kit. But you may want to read this <a href="http://www.vr3.co.uk/vr3_testimonials.htm" >http://www.vr3.co.uk/vr3_testimonials.htm</a>
Don't think many of those people use Halcyon stuff though!

Hmmm...this is far more impressive... <a href="http://www.gue.com/research/britannic/index.shtml" >http://www.gue.com/research/britannic/index.shtml</a> and this <a href="http://www.wkpp.org/articles/Exploration/18grand1.htm" >http://www.wkpp.org/articles/Exploration/18grand1.htm</a> and not a single fancy dive computer in sight.


Going back to Ben's letter. I think his last couple paragraphs sum it up. It's not really fair to review a bit of DIR kit without mentioning DIR.

Yes indeed.

[Ben Field]

Hi All,

Thanks to everyone who's beed reading this thread and replied (both pro and con) its refreshing to see that people do care about these things (either that or your all as petty as me! :-)

At the bottom of this thread its in danger of going into DIR land, which is so far off the point it isn't worth mentioning. The thread was and is about the review rather than the wing, it might as well have been about a torch or fancy fin.

Having the "club" magazine contracted out is a good idea as it releases BSAC from the hassle of producing our own and finding content with which to fill it (anyone who produces their own branch newsletter will know this to their pain IME)

While I applaud the independant postion of the magazine which allows it to provide critical analysis of the BSAC, it does seem to allow the occasional herring through.

Anyway- we'll see what Feburary's issue brings?

Merry Christmas and Happy New year to you all!
(Go get slaughtered and we'll revive this thread next year as and when its necessary)

regards,
Ben Field

[Rob Taylor]

..this review singularly fails to determine what *is* wrong with this wing, coming up instead with a series of problems which are down to the reviewer, not the product.

So this review is completely failing to provide what you and I both want.


I have to disagree. With the greatest respect to all the views
expressed so far, this review provided exactly what I want - an
honest opinion.
I can then decide for myself if I think that the reviewer or the equipment is at fault. I don't want reviews to be censored on the basis of what someone else may think.

Rob.

[Dominic Humphries]

Thanks to everyone who's beed reading this thread and replied (both pro and con) its refreshing to see that people do care about these things (either that or your all as petty as me! :-)

I suspect pre-Christmas stress has been well and truly vented on this particular thread :o)

[Vic]

&gt; this review provided exactly what I want - an honest opinion.

That's not what you said you wanted - you said you wanted to know what's wrong with a product. An "honest opinion" only succeeds in telling you that when the source of the opinion knows what he's talking about.

&gt; I can then decide for myself if I think that the reviewer or the
&gt; equipment is at fault.

Maybe you can. Well done. But that doesn't help those who are less knowledgeable, and therefore less able to determine why the reviewer had problems. And TBH it doesn't help me - when I want to know how a car performs, for example, I want to read a review written by someone who knows how to press teh accelerator pedal...

&gt; I don't want reviews to be censored on the basis of what
&gt; someone else may think.

No-one mentioned censorship! All anyone wants is for a reviewer to make his comments from a position of knowing what he's talking about. This guy clearly doesn't.

Vic.

[Philip Smith]

&gt; It seems to me that the wing is designed for DIR diving

I strongly disagree with this.

I have been diving wings for some years now. I am not a DIR diver, nor will I ever be.

Vic, I read that as "the wing in question was designed for DIR diving", rather than "wings in general".

Phil.

[Nigel Hewitt]

Hmmm...this is far more impressive... <a href="http://www.gue.com/research/britannic/index.shtml" >http://www.gue.com/research/britannic/index.shtml</a> and this <a href="http://www.wkpp.org/articles/Exploration/18grand1.htm" >http://www.wkpp.org/articles/Exploration/18grand1.htm</a> and not a single fancy dive computer in sight.

Hang on the GUE Britannic expedition was 1999. There weren't many 'fancy dive computers' available then. The 2003 expedition was Rebreathers and (oh bother) VR3s because technology moves on.

nigelH

[Nigel Hewitt]

I suspect pre-Christmas stress has been well and truly vented on this particular thread :o)

My excuse is toothache. But after having a 25 year old filling reworked life is begining again. Another couple of days and I'll be almost human again.

nigelH

[Chris Cherrington]

:=&gt; It seems to me that the wing is designed for DIR diving
:=
:=I strongly disagree with this.
:=
:=I have been diving wings for some years now. I am not a DIR diver, nor will I ever be.

Vic, I read that as "the wing in question was designed for DIR diving", rather than "wings in general".

Phil.

You read it right Phil

Diving with a wing does not require or imply DIR - the Halycon wing reviewed is a DIR wing. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Chris

[Chris Cherrington]

:=I suspect pre-Christmas stress has been well and truly vented on this particular thread :o)

My excuse is toothache. But after having a 25 year old filling reworked life is begining again. Another couple of days and I'll be almost human again.

nigelH

Come on - everyone is at work with nothing to do.....

One serious point - are the reviewers paid for their submissions or should we view Dive as a sort of up-market photocopied newsletter? If the latter then Christmas forgiveness may be in my heart after all.....

Chris

[Mark Chase]

Well, in my experience Halcyon not only make the best kit available but also make the only kit that meets the requirements of the DIR system. That's what the gear is for after all. You gets what you pay for.

I think you will find that the 'fasion victim' diver is far more likely to spend his or her money on a VR3 than Halcyon kit.

regards,

Mark.


Which computer would you recommend for a diver who wishes to have a real time deco track of his Trimix dive or CCR mix dive?
The VR3 is the cheepest and has the best track record with a couple record dives to its name and dives like the Britanic. So its the one most mix divers use.

Please dont mention tables bottom timers etc. They are for divers who dont trust computers, or if you dive like me, for bail out. A VR3 is a tool not a fashon statement.

Halcion make good kit but its too expensive and other manufacturors also make good kit. Dive rite has been mentioned but I beleive OMS are doing a DIR range and there is Agir whos stuff looks just like the Halcyon product.

One thing for sure Halcyon manifolds are rubbish. MDE are better made 100 times easier to isolate and not prone to jamming like the Halcyon one. (I have both) That stupid little tooth pic they call a knife is a joke as well. The RB80 is hilarious when viewed in conjunction with its price tag.

You dont need any Halcyon kit to be a DIR diver but a lot of DIR wannabys have all the right badges on display on their kit and only dive Stony cove :)

ATB

Mark Chase

[Matt]

:=I am sure there are plenty of fashion victims out there with VR3s and Halcyon kit. But you may want to read this <a href="http://www.vr3.co.uk/vr3_testimonials.htm" >http://www.vr3.co.uk/vr3_testimonials.htm</a>
:=Don't think many of those people use Halcyon stuff though!

Hmmm...this is far more impressive... <a href="http://www.gue.com/research/britannic/index.shtml" >http://www.gue.com/research/britannic/index.shtml</a>

I just love this bit from the GUE site;

"Success of the project is promoted by the fact that Britannic '99 will be the first project conducted by an active exploration team accustomed to deep diving excursions."

Now hang on a minute there were 5 expeds prior to GUE's jaunt;
Cousteau 76
Ballard 95 (but he used a submarine)
Kostos Thoktardis team in 95
Kevin Gurr's team in 97 (Hold on didn't he invent the VR3. The irony of it)
Starfish Enterprise 98

and this <a href="http://www.wkpp.org/articles/Exploration/18grand1.htm" >http://www.wkpp.org/articles/Exploration/18grand1.htm</a> and not a single fancy dive computer in sight.

Have a read of the account by Dr Jerome Meynie. I was talking to the DeltaP guys about this a few weeks ago. Technical divers and particularly cave divers are starting to use the VR3 for profiles they would previously not have dived because they would be impossible to calculate.

It seems to me that your doing the exact same thing that Ben is complaining about. You might not like the VR3 because you are attempting to be DIR, same as the reviewer did not like the Eclipse because he appears not to know anything about DIR. However both products are quite possibly still the best available for what they are intended to be.

I hope no one has bought you a VR3 for Christmas!










:=
:=Going back to Ben's letter. I think his last couple paragraphs sum it up. It's not really fair to review a bit of DIR kit without mentioning DIR.
:=
Yes indeed.

[Mark Emery]

Which computer would you recommend for a diver who wishes to have a real time deco track of his Trimix dive?


The one between his ears. I wouldn't have one if you gave it to me. I'd sell it pronto.

I think you will find that the DIR wannabes that dive at Stoney Cove go there to practice skills and drills in order to be able to dive their way out of a wet paper bag and perform big style on real dives. Not for sight seeing or showing their cool looking kit off.

[janos]

:=Which computer would you recommend for a diver who wishes to have a real time deco track of his Trimix dive?
:=

The one between his ears. I wouldn't have one if you gave it to me. I'd sell it pronto.

Hi there, how do you calculate deco during the dive? I use a computer (and tables for backup) but always interested in new ways.

Laters,
Janos

[andycarroll]

You dont need any Halcyon kit to be a DIR diver but a lot of DIR wannabys have all the right badges on display on their kit and only dive Stony cove

ATB

Mark Chase

Yes, but lets not forget the APV Box divers who spend even more time at Stoney Cove, and rightly so as it is an excellent training facility.

YBOD's on your shopping list isn't it Mark? I wonder where you'll learn to dive yours?

Calm down guys. Its Christmas.

Andy

[Mark Chase]

:=
:=Which computer would you recommend for a diver who wishes to have a real time deco track of his Trimix dive?
:=

The one between his ears. I wouldn't have one if you gave it to me. I'd sell it pronto.

I think you will find that the DIR wannabes that dive at Stoney Cove go there to practice skills and drills in order to be able to dive their way out of a wet paper bag and perform big style on real dives. Not for sight seeing or showing their cool looking kit off.

Mmmmmmmm ask WL how many puddle dives he did this year.

The computer between your ears is outragiously expensive. It requires you to dive a very limited range of back gas and deco gas to allow for on the fly calcs. The cost of diving somthing like 21/35 on a 35m dive or 18/45 on a 50m dive is ridiclous. Thats ignoring the cost of using 35/25 as a deco gas. However you have to use these compleetly inapropriate gas mixes to enable you to stick within a set range of dive peramiters that alow for on the fly calculation.

Using the brain as a computer is way too restrictive. Also the brain can be impaired during a dive. I recently suffered a migrane on a 60m dive and that was extreemly debilitating.

I use the right gas for the job and let the desk top computer do the profiles and the VR3 moniter the dive with tha slagging that the VR3 gets from table divers and DIR divers its hardly cooool but it works for me.

Each to his / her own

Mark Chase

[Steve Walker]

:=:=Which computer would you recommend for a diver who wishes to have a real time deco track of his Trimix dive?
:=:=
:=
:=The one between his ears. I wouldn't have one if you gave it to me. I'd sell it pronto.

Hi there, how do you calculate deco during the dive? I use a computer (and tables for backup) but always interested in new ways.

Laters,
Janos

Don't ask, they won't tell, it's a secret apparently but it will be revealed upon parting with a large sum of money for a GUE course ; )

Personally, I don't like the idea one bit, if I'm going to do something that requires actual deco rather than safety stops I want my stops calculated _before_ the dive, as we're all encouraged to do with the dive conduct slate format.

[David Humm]

Anyone care to tell me what DIR and GUE stand for ? Pardon my ignorance but it was never like this when I did my 3rd Class Diver.

Dave

[Nigel Hewitt]

Anyone care to tell me what DIR and GUE stand for ? Pardon my ignorance but it was never like this when I did my 3rd Class Diver.

HTH
nigelH

[Mark Chase]

YBOD's on your shopping list isn't it Mark? I wonder where you'll learn to dive yours?

Calm down guys. Its Christmas.

Andy

Hopfulley it will be a KISS but I havent dived the KISS yet so I reserve judgement. Done two dives on the YBOD one without ADV which I hated and one with ADV which I loved.

And Stony is too far away so it will be Wraysbury and Dover

ATB

Mark Chase

[Nigel Hewitt]

Hopfulley it will be a KISS but I havent dived the KISS yet so I reserve judgement. Done two dives on the YBOD one without ADV which I hated and one with ADV which I loved.

The ADV is nice but I'm glad I trained on standard. There again most of the training was on defective (simulated).

And Stony is too far away so it will be Wraysbury and Dover

*shrug* I started to do the 5 days at Plymouth but was wildly seasick so finished off at Stoney. Holding at one meter with a duck paddling round my head was a novel end to the last dive.

[Andy Wade]

Anyone care to tell me what DIR and GUE stand for ? Pardon my ignorance but it was never like this when I did my 3rd Class Diver.


Hello Dave,
There are lists of diving and other abbreviations here:

[David Humm]

Nigel...

I just wanted to express just how much I appreciated your reply, It was without doubt the BEST belly laff I've had for a while. :o)

Respect !

Dave

[TUE]

Anyone care to tell me what DIR and GUE stand for ? Pardon my ignorance but it was never like this when I did my 3rd Class Diver.

DIR:- Doing It Right
GUE:- Global Underwater Explorers
TUE:- Torbay Underwater Explorers :-)

[Chris Tibble]

:=Hmmm.... would this issue have been so contentious if it had been some other brand of wing which had been criticised?

Probably - because very few of his comments were Halcyon-specific. The article basically said "A wing with a steel backplate and one-piece harness is unsuitable for travelling, difficult to use and generally inferior to a good jacket BCD"

Considering how many of us Strokes use wings, OPHs, and the like, he's managed to criticise the gear choices of virtually everybody with a half-decent wing setup.

I've just come back from Egypt and had a great week with my one piece harness, steel backplate and 27lb wing. But then again I know how to set one up...

Chris

[rob taylor]

Who will determine which reviewers "know what they are talking about" ? Senior officers of the Thought Police perhaps ?

Pat Morrissey wrote a review of a BCD. You, and others, disagree
with some of his opinions. Fair enough, and all you need do is to rebut them with reasoned arguements of your own. Then we all benefit.

But no, it's far easier to criticise his qualifications, his skills and his experience. None of which we know anything about.

All those "other divers", less knowledgeable than you, may well
be grateful for your intention to protect them from Pat's views.
Personally, I think people are able to reach their own conclusions.

Regards
Rob.

[Vic]

&gt; Who will determine which reviewers "know what they are talking
&gt; about" ? Senior officers of the Thought Police perhaps ?

The Editor, one would hope.

&gt; Fair enough, and all you need do is to rebut them with
&gt; reasoned arguements of your own. Then we all benefit.

That's been done; if it was indeed all we needed to do, then this argument would have stopped by now...

&gt; But no, it's far easier to criticise his qualifications

I don't remember mentioning his qualifications. I'll check. Maybe I did. Or feel free to point a link at where I did, since you've already performed that search...

&gt; his skills and his experience. None of which we know anything
&gt; about.

We do know about his inability to set up the harness. And that's what we're complaining about. The bloke did not start with the knowledge necessary to use this kit. This is a failure of research. It might be worth mentioning in the review that anyone this negligent will suffer from these problems, but that does not make for a review of the kit in the same way that a motoring journalist writing 3 pages on how he lost the key and couldn't drive the car would make for a poor review of that.

&gt; All those "other divers", less knowledgeable than you

There aren't many of them.

&gt; may well be grateful for your intention to protect them from
&gt; Pat's views.
? Personally, I think people are able to reach their own
&gt; conclusions.

Most people seem to have done so. There are few people in this thread supporting the review...

Vic.

[Nigel Hewitt]

Pat Morrissey wrote a review of a BCD. You, and others, disagree
with some of his opinions. Fair enough, and all you need do is to rebut them with reasoned arguements of your own. Then we all benefit.

But no, it's far easier to criticise his qualifications, his skills and his experience. None of which we know anything about.

All we have to go on is what he wrote. It was wonderful. I'd have missed it if this thread hadn't pointed it out. I will look out for the reviews in future.

It's Buster Lung I feel sorry for. How is he going to keep up with stuff like this when all he gets is three frames to make us laugh?

nigelH

[rob taylor]

Ahh, it's the Editor's job to purge those opinions
which you don't agree with.

There's a man at News International with
a similar outlook.

I'll settle for an editor who simply checks
factual accuracy.

Regards
Rob.

[Vic]

&gt; Ahh, it's the Editor's job to purge those opinions
&gt; which you don't agree with.

No - it's the Editor's job to get reviews that actually review the kit in question, not the diver's inability to use that kit.

&gt; I'll settle for an editor who simply checks
&gt; factual accuracy.

Which, in this case, he appears not to have done too well.

Vic.

[rob taylor]

Which takes us back to...

[Vic]

&gt; Which takes us back to...

&gt; As a potential customer I'm pleased to know that the fixing
&gt; bolts will stab you in the back

If you set it up right, they won't.

&gt; that the inflator hose is too short

If you set it up right, it's not.

&gt; that it weighs 4Kg and that there's no toggle on the dump
&gt; string.

Which you could have discovered by reading the spec & looking at the picture.

So this "review" has added precisely nothing to common knowledge about the product. See if you can work out why some of us feel it wasn't exactly a wonderful piece of work...

Vic.