Joined
·
4,427 Posts
Imported post
<font color='#000080'>I am currnetly shopping around and looking at options to introduce redundancy to my rig.
I didn't want to just add a pony to my 15l tanks because of the weight, so I have been considering two options:
1) Swap my 15's for 12's then add a pony,
2) Go to manifolded twin 7's.
The first option is clearly the cheapest of the two as I won't need to change any of the rest of my kit (so a couple of 12's costing £300, a 3 costing £100 and £65 for another first stage, £50 for an attachment system, less say £100 from selling my 15's - £415 all in).
I'd need to ditch my BCD and get a wing and harness to go with the twin 7 route, and that's looking at close to £1250 if I get two sets of twins (ouch!).
There appears to be no contest, but everyone that I've dived with who has twins can't seem to sing their praises enough in terms of trim and comfort when diving.
So I was thinking that twins was my prefered option - I was just going to have to decide to splash out.
However, while I've been going round the shops pricing it all up I've been shown a Y-valve type arrangement.
This is a valve for a single tank with two separate pillars that can be shut off separately, so that DV and octopus can be put onto separate first stages but run off the same tank.
This would appear to run in most respects much like a twin manifold ( ie in enabling the shut down of one first/second stage combination in the event of it's failure), except that it would not provide the option of isolating half the gas in one tank in the event of a failure of a connection between the bottle and the valve. The cost would be £45 for the actual valve (so 2 of those needed, one for each tank) and £65 for another first stage. Only £155!
However, I have NEVER seen them in use. Why is this? Are failures in the bottle/valve connection common? Are there other faults in the system?
My desire for redundancy has little to do with OOA situations. It seems to me that bad gas management is just that, whether you've got your air in one tank or two. I want redundancy to cover for equipment failure. It appears that this Y-valve covers all the angles except failure of the bottle/valve connection and I've never heard of this happening to anyone.
I'm sure someone knows better. Help me out, please.
Mark.
<font color='#000080'>I am currnetly shopping around and looking at options to introduce redundancy to my rig.
I didn't want to just add a pony to my 15l tanks because of the weight, so I have been considering two options:
1) Swap my 15's for 12's then add a pony,
2) Go to manifolded twin 7's.
The first option is clearly the cheapest of the two as I won't need to change any of the rest of my kit (so a couple of 12's costing £300, a 3 costing £100 and £65 for another first stage, £50 for an attachment system, less say £100 from selling my 15's - £415 all in).
I'd need to ditch my BCD and get a wing and harness to go with the twin 7 route, and that's looking at close to £1250 if I get two sets of twins (ouch!).
There appears to be no contest, but everyone that I've dived with who has twins can't seem to sing their praises enough in terms of trim and comfort when diving.
So I was thinking that twins was my prefered option - I was just going to have to decide to splash out.
However, while I've been going round the shops pricing it all up I've been shown a Y-valve type arrangement.
This is a valve for a single tank with two separate pillars that can be shut off separately, so that DV and octopus can be put onto separate first stages but run off the same tank.
This would appear to run in most respects much like a twin manifold ( ie in enabling the shut down of one first/second stage combination in the event of it's failure), except that it would not provide the option of isolating half the gas in one tank in the event of a failure of a connection between the bottle and the valve. The cost would be £45 for the actual valve (so 2 of those needed, one for each tank) and £65 for another first stage. Only £155!
However, I have NEVER seen them in use. Why is this? Are failures in the bottle/valve connection common? Are there other faults in the system?
My desire for redundancy has little to do with OOA situations. It seems to me that bad gas management is just that, whether you've got your air in one tank or two. I want redundancy to cover for equipment failure. It appears that this Y-valve covers all the angles except failure of the bottle/valve connection and I've never heard of this happening to anyone.
I'm sure someone knows better. Help me out, please.
Mark.