Best BCD recommendation

Adam Helberg <sendspamhere@yahoo.com> wrote:
>With regards to you bicycle example, this demonstrates that one style is not
>"superior" to the other, but each is suited to its own use. You would not take your
>street bike on an unpaved trail, nor would you use the mountain bike in a road race.
>They are for different rides. Thus the two styles survive.

No. Like with SUVs, most MTBs are bought for road use. Some see fire roads.
For that not only is the 2" knobbies overkill, but they lower your riding speed
by 3 or 4 mph for the same effort level. All the rider needs to do is swap out the
tires for flat thread, buy a hard tail instead of a dual, and preferably get some
sort of lockout on the front suspension else they waste much of of their stroke
energy on the shocks.

In a similar manner, people buy lousy BCs - like the Ranger. They don't die for
making a bad choice, hence diveshops can sell just about any POS (see Mares HUB).
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Lee Bell <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:
>"Alan Street" wrote
>> You're implying people by things purely for their functionality. If
>> that were the case, SUVs wouldn't sell at all.
>Not at all. I bought mine with specific uses and needs in mind, needs and
>uses that nothing else would satisfy as well.

Once you eliminated those who don't actually have those needs, you're at sales
numbers that support jeeps and landcruisers, and nothing more.

There aren't *that* many boat owners in Southern California. Hell, they don't
even have rain to deal with, one plausible justification for AWD.


--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

"Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:220620042211180852%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com ...
> In article <tP5Cc.22903$Y3.16758@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>, Lee
> Bell <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > "Alan Street" wrote
> >
> > > You're implying people by things purely for their functionality. If
> > > that were the case, SUVs wouldn't sell at all.
> >
> > Not at all. I bought mine with specific uses and needs in mind, needs
and
> > uses that nothing else would satisfy as well.

> But you're in the minority, Lee. Most people who buy SUVs do so as a
> "lifestyle statement" not because they actually need something to carry
> a few people and some stuff off road. I would guess that 90% of all new
> SUVs sold in the last five years have never been off road.

That I'm an exception has been clear for a good many years. It's not always
clear whether that's good or bad. I bought my first SUV, a 4WD Cherokee, in
1988 to pull my airboat and to get things to and from the swamp. The 4WD
was more for the ramps than for offroad. Here in S. Florida, most places a
4WD will go, a 2WD will go as well. After the Jeep, I needed some
excitement. It's deadly boring to drive. I kept the Jeep for towing, etc.
and bought a Z-28. I kept that when I bought Jayna's Durango, a car I
figured I'd be driving. Boy was I wrong. She loved it. I bought my
Durango for all the reasons I thought I'd bought hers, this time, for me. I
still have the 88 Jeep. I'm considering getting rid of it and buying an
inexpensive truck. The Z is appreciating. I'll keep it as long as the joy
I get from driving it once a month is worth the insurance. The Durangos,
we'll keep until they die. For my money, they're still the best SUV on the
market.

Anyway, I was commenting on the "SUVs wouldn't sell at all." SUVs were
practical before they were chic.

Lee

"Jason O'Rourke" wrote

> There aren't *that* many boat owners in Southern California. Hell, they
don't
> even have rain to deal with, one plausible justification for AWD.

AWD is good for snow, ice, sand and slick boat ramps. With the right tires,
it's OK for reasonably firm mud as well. Traction in the rain is more a
matter of tires and weight distribution than drive design.

Lee

Alan Street <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> (big snip)
> Marketing has surprisingly little to do with functionality.


True, and that's why we have fads.

Clearly, SUV's are a fad. Just like hoola hoops and pet rocks.

I had been undecided on BP/Wings for a long time, but my experience with
getting face-dunked on a long surface float waiting for the pickup boat,
partly because I wasn't quite ready to drop $5K worth of camera
equipment to be more drown-proof has emphasized that "in water
streamlining" ain't the only performance requirement.


In time, the pendulum will swing the other way.


-hh

"Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:220620041440450299%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com ...
<snip>

>
> You're implying people by things purely for their functionality. If
> that were the case, SUVs wouldn't sell at all.

Well, the real SUVs would... but not at the level they do.

"Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:220620042211180852%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com ...
> In article <tP5Cc.22903$Y3.16758@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>, Lee
> Bell <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > "Alan Street" wrote
> >
> > > You're implying people by things purely for their functionality. If
> > > that were the case, SUVs wouldn't sell at all.
> >
> > Not at all. I bought mine with specific uses and needs in mind, needs
and
> > uses that nothing else would satisfy as well.
> >
> >
>
> But you're in the minority, Lee. Most people who buy SUVs do so as a
> "lifestyle statement" not because they actually need something to carry
> a few people and some stuff off road. I would guess that 90% of all new
> SUVs sold in the last five years have never been off road.

you'd guess that low? I'd say more like 95%.

>
> Alan

"Jason O'Rourke" <jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:cbb9q6$517$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Adam Helberg <sendspamhere@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >With regards to you bicycle example, this demonstrates that one style is
not
> >"superior" to the other, but each is suited to its own use. You would not
take your
> >street bike on an unpaved trail, nor would you use the mountain bike in a
road race.
> >They are for different rides. Thus the two styles survive.
>
> No. Like with SUVs, most MTBs are bought for road use. Some see fire
roads.
> For that not only is the 2" knobbies overkill, but they lower your riding
speed
> by 3 or 4 mph for the same effort level. All the rider needs to do is
swap out the
> tires for flat thread, buy a hard tail instead of a dual, and preferably
get some
> sort of lockout on the front suspension else they waste much of of their
stroke
> energy on the shocks.
>
> In a similar manner, people buy lousy BCs - like the Ranger.

Mind if I ask what's wrong with the Ranger?

In article <8J5Cc.22896$Y3.5605@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> writes:
>"mzeitlin" wrote
...
>> Who makes a great BCD with this [backplate/wing] design?
>
>Mine are Halcyon. ...

Mine also. Although I am very satisfied, I would probably not
deal with Halcyon again, due to their business practices.

DiveRite makes very similare gear and is available for a lot less.
Possibly hundreds of dollars less.

> ... I understand Oxycheq is also quite good, but I've not
>seen them in actual use. ...

Ditto. From their web site the look good.

> ... If you're going to dive cold water, or any other
>way that requires a lot of weight, be sure to check their weighted single
>tanks adapters out. They are quite popular with those that need the weight.

I disagree with Lee here -- although you should check them out as he
suggests. I have pockets on my waist belt and tank band for trim weight.
Of course, I prefer to dive in conditions where I don't need a lot of weight.
but when I do, I perfer a separate weight belt that can be handled separately.
Opinions and preferences differ; try both and make your choice.


--
Charlie 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.

"Jason O'Rourke" <jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:cbb9q6$517$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Adam Helberg <sendspamhere@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >With regards to you bicycle example, this demonstrates that one style is not
> >"superior" to the other, but each is suited to its own use. You would not take
your
> >street bike on an unpaved trail, nor would you use the mountain bike in a road
race.
> >They are for different rides. Thus the two styles survive.
>
> No. Like with SUVs, most MTBs are bought for road use. Some see fire roads.
> For that not only is the 2" knobbies overkill, but they lower your riding speed
> by 3 or 4 mph for the same effort level. All the rider needs to do is swap out the
> tires for flat thread, buy a hard tail instead of a dual, and preferably get some
> sort of lockout on the front suspension else they waste much of of their stroke
> energy on the shocks.
>
> In a similar manner, people buy lousy BCs - like the Ranger. They don't die for
> making a bad choice, hence diveshops can sell just about any POS (see Mares HUB).
> --
> Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

I have a front suspension MTB with 1.5" tires for general purpose riding and a second
set of wheels with larger tires for off road riding.