Re: Ditchable -v- Non Ditchable weights

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Kendall Raine on November 20, 2000 at 12:24:23:

In Reply to: Re: Ditchable -v- Non Ditchable weights posted by Gerry on November 18, 2000 at 10:10:40:

I generally don't post during the weekends or when I travel for business. Keeps me out of the turgid vortex...

As for ascent rates versus trim, I have stated the advantage of slower ascent rates in prior posts. Such was also implicit in my response to you. Ascent rates and trim are both good reasons to have non-ditchable weights. The difference is you can control ascent rates by only dumping a portion of your ditachable weight, so this is a sub set. Just so we're clear, ascent rates and trim are not contradictory reasons. As to your remark about trim weights, your're right, systems have been around for a long time. The problem is to be ditchable, they have to be in the waiste area. I thought I made this point clear in my response before. Please take more time reading what I write so we don't continue these redundant exchanges.

As to your second point about letting others do ones thinking, I'm not sure what you're driving at. I trust you're not inferring that someone is doing my thinking for me. Blindly following someone's else's dicta is a risk in any endeavor. You only have to look to any PADI Course Director for the penultimate example of that. Evidence of the sincerity of GUE's interest in educating rather than dictating extends from its president on down. I bet you haven't asked Jarrod to explain his thinking on methods. If you did, you would get a prompt and reasoned reply which is devoid of economic motivations. Do you think you could expect the same from John Cronin?

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]