Gear Improvements

[Ryan Antenucci]

Hello! My name is Ryan and I am an undergraduate studying product design. For our semester long design project we were asked to choose a category of products and work with consumers of those products to address key issues and work to understand what could be improved. I chose to focus on outdoor gear and am really excited about the oppurtunity to learn what products can be improved, added to, or completely re-designed in this space. I am hoping to address serious consumers of outdoor products that are using their gear in extreme environments and conditions in order to get the most reliable information on the needs of these products. I am an outdoor enthusiast and have gotten into spearfishing and that is a huge area of interest for this project. I was wondering if you would be willing to share with me what gear you absolutely love, hate, or think could be improved on. If you have constant issues with certain gear or find using it to be frustrating and have ideas of what would need to be changed to make it more suited to its job, I’d love to know! I really want to design based on exactly what you need, so the more information you can share about how you use the product and the needs you have for it, the better. I would really appreciate it if you’d be willing to help me out with this project and I am eager to hear any insights you are willing to share! Thank you!

 

[Mr. X]

Welcome Ryan.

Carbon fibre speargun barrels
I love my superlight, super-slim, rail-less, 25mm carbon fibre barrelled spearguns (Omer XXVs) They are so light and easy to carry and use.

I've modified the factory configuration to use an open muzzle, single bulk rubber and Dyneema wishbone. This makes it simpler, lighter, quieter and cheaper/easier to maintain.

The nearest current model seems to be the Cayman Carbone. It adds the desirable Cayman reverse-trigger mech (rather than the impressively slim T10 mechanism) but the 25mm carbon barrel includes a rail - more weight and drag but perhaps useful for longer barrels (100cm+) where it adds stiffness and support to the spear.

 

[cdavis]

Hello! My name is Ryan and I am an undergraduate studying product design. For our semester long design project we were asked to choose a category of products and work with consumers of those products to address key issues and work to understand what could be improved. I chose to focus on outdoor gear and am really excited about the oppurtunity to learn what products can be improved, added to, or completely re-designed in this space. I am hoping to address serious consumers of outdoor products that are using their gear in extreme environments and conditions in order to get the most reliable information on the needs of these products. I am an outdoor enthusiast and have gotten into spearfishing and that is a huge area of interest for this project. I was wondering if you would be willing to share with me what gear you absolutely love, hate, or think could be improved on. If you have constant issues with certain gear or find using it to be frustrating and have ideas of what would need to be changed to make it more suited to its job, I’d love to know! I really want to design based on exactly what you need, so the more information you can share about how you use the product and the needs you have for it, the better. I would really appreciate it if you’d be willing to help me out with this project and I am eager to hear any insights you are willing to share! Thank you!

Hi Ryan,

One area to look at, snorkels. Mass marketing has produced a wide variety of bad snorkels. Not much research into what makes a good one. Farallon's snorkel was the best I've ever used and would make a good start toward a modern design. There is a market for a good one, but I suspect its small. When you can find'em, Farallons in good condition go for as much as $100 on ebay.

 

[Ryan Antenucci]

Welcome Ryan.

Carbon fibre speargun barrels
I love my superlight, super-slim, rail-less, 25mm carbon fibre barrelled spearguns (Omer XXVs) They are so light and easy to carry and use.

I've modified the factory configuration to use an open muzzle, single bulk rubber and Dyneema wishbone. This makes it simpler, lighter, quieter and cheaper/easier to maintain.

The nearest current model seems to be the Cayman Carbone. It adds the desirable Cayman reverse-trigger mech (rather than the impressively slim T10 mechanism) but the 25mm carbon barrel includes a rail - more weight and drag but perhaps useful for longer barrels (100cm+) where it adds stiffness and support to the spear.

Okay thats very interesting, I definitely need to do some research on those different models. Were the modifications fairly costly?

 

[Ryan Antenucci]

Hi Ryan,

One area to look at, snorkels. Mass marketing has produced a wide variety of bad snorkels. Not much research into what makes a good one. Farallon's snorkel was the best I've ever used and would make a good start toward a modern design. There is a market for a good one, but I suspect its small. When you can find'em, Farallons in good condition go for as much as $100 on ebay.

I 100% agree on this, they are bulky and uncomfortable. Do you have problems mainly with the look or functionality? It may be my paranoia but whenever I have to clear mine I feel like I may be scaring away potential fish. I'll look into Farallons and see what they have done to make it better but I would be curious to know why people pay so much for them. Are there any other problems specific to the snorkel design and use that are especially annoying like clearing, tilting, bulk, or anything else that you may have noticed?

 

[cdavis]

Serious divers value functionality. Most care less about look. The Farallon has a very large barrel and no purge valve. It takes a bit to learn how to clear it. Otherwise, the barrel can be adjusted to fit your head, the mouthpiece can be customized to your bite and the general shape of the snorkel puts it close to and behind the head, minimizing drag. Most snorkels get impossible when towing. The Farallon never gives a problem. Divers pay for it because it is by far the best they ever used. One negative, the seals that are used in the adjustable joints begin to leak after a lot of use. Eventually, mine failed because I could no longer stop the leaks.

I think the advantages of adjustability, custom mouthpiece, and close fit combine to create a snorkel that you don't know you are wearing. Far less jaw strain and drag than most snorkels and better than the copies I now use.

 

[cdavis]

For another "out of the box "idea on snorkels, check out Smith Aerospaces's prototype.

 

[Ryan Antenucci]

Serious divers value functionality. Most care less about look. The Farallon has a very large barrel and no purge valve. It takes a bit to learn how to clear it. Otherwise, the barrel can be adjusted to fit your head, the mouthpiece can be customized to your bite and the general shape of the snorkel puts it close to and behind the head, minimizing drag. Most snorkels get impossible when towing. The Farallon never gives a problem. Divers pay for it because it is by far the best they ever used. One negative, the seals that are used in the adjustable joints begin to leak after a lot of use. Eventually, mine failed because I could no longer stop the leaks.

I think the advantages of adjustability, custom mouthpiece, and close fit combine to create a snorkel that you don't know you are wearing. Far less jaw strain and drag than most snorkels and better than the copies I now use.

Very helpful insights, I really appreciate you spending the time to respond and go through all of the features. Ill definitely keep your insights in mind while designing and hopefully create something that maximizing those features. I'll let you know what I come up with! Thanks - Ryan

 

[Mr. X]

Okay thats very interesting, I definitely need to do some research on those different models. Were the modifications fairly costly?

No, very cheap.

 

[Mr. X]

I bought half a dozen simple J-shaped snorkels, no valves or dry tops, a couple of years ago after loosing my favourite snorkel, a Typhoon from the 1970s. I tried 3 or 4 of them. One large bore snorkel, a Cressi I think, that looked promising just wasn't pleasant to use, noisy and didn't clear properly and was too short. Two other snorkels performed almost as well as the Typhoon, one was a Cressi, the other an Omer Zoom. Once I tried the Omer Zoom though, I decided to stick with it. It is good enough.

Most simple J's work but some work better than others. Personal size probably plays a part too. Being fairly large, I find that snorkels that seem to come mainly out of Italy and Taiwan are just too small for my big ol' head. I actually extended a couple of snorkels more than an inch using electrician's tape; handy as too many snorkels now come without a hi-viz tip marker - quite dangerous.

 

[DRW]

If you do decide to research snorkel design, Ryan, be aware that the dimensions of breathing tubes have changed over time in the normative literature in response to progress in swimming and diving science and technology:

During that half-century, maximum tube length has almost halved (from 600 to 380 mm); maximum bore (inner diameter) has increased (from 18 to 25 mm); capacity (or inner volume) has partly replaced inner diameter when dimensioning snorkels; and different snorkel dimensions have evolved for different users (first adults/children; then taller/shorter heights; then larger/smaller lung capacities).

So much for the quantitative aspect of snorkel design. For a qualitative perspective, you may find the 2004 French government sports equipment selection guide of interest at https://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/directions_services/daj/marches_publics/oeap/gem/ARCHIVE-equipements_sportifs/equipement_sportif.pdf. Pages 113-116 list thirty-one criteria for selection of snorkels for community use. I have translated them below from French into English for your benefit:
01. Snorkels should be tailored to their users' morphology (e.g. different mouthpiece fittings for different mouth cavities).
02. Snorkels should keep water out when used on the surface (no leaky joints).
03. Snorkels should not cause injury (no sharp edges).
04. Snorkels should enable users to keep water out of their mouths (choice of mouthpiece orifice diameter).
05. Snorkels should not cause allergic reactions (choice of materials).
06. Snorkels should permit hygienic practices (mouthpiece sterilisation and interchangeability).
07. Snorkels should be clearly visible on surface (fluorescent band at top to alert other water users to snorkeller's presence).
08. Snorkels should be sufficiently tall to diminish flooding risks on surface (e.g. from surf spray).
09. Snorkels should be easy to don and doff (materials, mouthpiece design).
10. Snorkels should come with a simple method of attachment (to the mask, adjustable and without causing injury).
11. Snorkels should be easy to identify (colour, size).
12. Snorkels should be usable in all aquatic environments (pool, sea, river).
13. Snorkels should allow residual water to be easily drained (barrel diameter, height; mouthpiece design).
14. Snorkels should have an easily recognisable orientation (top/bottom; front-mounted or side-mounted).
15. Snorkels should not cause discomfort.
16. Snorkels should be odour-repellent.
17. Snorkels should be light in weight.
18. Snorkels should be flexible.
19. Snorkels should look good (shape, colour).
20. Snorkels should withstand heavy use (joints, attachment).
21. Snorkels should be shock-resistant (material properties).
22. Snorkels should be tear-resistant (material properties, mouthpiece design).
23. Snorkels should be UV-resistant (colour-fastness during sunlight exposure).
24. Snorkels should retain their features over time.
25. Snorkels should be resistant to chemicals, solvents and corrosion (e.g. use in salt or chlorine-treated water).
26. Snorkels should withstand temperature fluctuations (blazing sunshine, white-water swimming).
27. Snorkels should be easy to repair (removable and replaceable parts available).
28. Snorkels should be easy to maintain (washing/drying).
29. Snorkels should be supplied with a guarantee (2 years).
30. Snorkels should be cost-effective (quality and price clearly related).
31. Snorkels should come with a fact sheet (product features, target age-groups, maintenance procedures).

Hope this helps!

 

[Andrew the fish]

we were asked to choose a category of products and work with consumers of those products to address key issues and work to understand what could be improved. I chose to focus on outdoor gear and am really excited about the oppurtunity to learn what products can be improved, added to, or completely re-designed in this space.

You can engineer swimming goggles with pressure equalizing chamber. This has been done but at a very rudimental levels. Fins - have alook at Lunocet monofin, this can give you an idea of where you can take it. I am still get off my butt and come up with a clear capillary tube depth meter. No battery needed, could be glued right to wetsuit, something like that. Another idea I am thinking, is a bouyancy compensation for freediver or spearo. Also a simple-stupid fix of adding floats to a buoy line, set at depths where spearo is beginning to become negatively buoyant, so that he is not getting any heavier the deeper he goes. This is a big problem for cold environments, where wetsuit is VERY boyant at surface and requires a pile of lead to dive, but then becomes squeezed at depth. Progressively added floaters will be adding bouyancy to offset the wetsuit squeeze. And there is always room for more gadgets. HUDs are largely underexplored in diving. Propulsion devices. Think about it, freediver is sinking straight down, while he could actually glide, if he had a wing. The wing idea keep re-surfacing, but it is always the same bullky separate piece of gear. When you think about it, freediver already has rear appendage (his fins), all he needs is batman suit to get some glide ratio. I can keep going. Should we talk spearguns? May take a few pages, too much material for a student project.

 

[Ryan Antenucci]

You can engineer swimming goggles with pressure equalizing chamber. This has been done but at a very rudimental levels. Fins - have alook at Lunocet monofin, this can give you an idea of where you can take it. I am still get off my butt and come up with a clear capillary tube depth meter. No battery needed, could be glued right to wetsuit, something like that. Another idea I am thinking, is a bouyancy compensation for freediver or spearo. Also a simple-stupid fix of adding floats to a buoy line, set at depths where spearo is beginning to become negatively buoyant, so that he is not getting any heavier the deeper he goes. This is a big problem for cold environments, where wetsuit is VERY boyant at surface and requires a pile of lead to dive, but then becomes squeezed at depth. Progressively added floaters will be adding bouyancy to offset the wetsuit squeeze. And there is always room for more gadgets. HUDs are largely underexplored in diving. Propulsion devices. Think about it, freediver is sinking straight down, while he could actually glide, if he had a wing. The wing idea keep re-surfacing, but it is always the same bullky separate piece of gear. When you think about it, freediver already has rear appendage (his fins), all he needs is batman suit to get some glide ratio. I can keep going. Should we talk spearguns? May take a few pages, too much material for a student project.

Okay that was awesome and extremely helpful. Yes we should talk spearguns if you are willing, as that is now where I am focusing in but you other ideas got me thinking I might need to explore those as well. I really like the depth meter, that is a killer idea. Right now I am looking at all aspect of spearguns and trying to redesign a better one. I am trying to eliminate the mess of the lead line and figure out a way to possibly have it collapse without losing strength. Any issues you have had with guns and any aspects you think could be added too I would love to hear.

 

[Ryan Antenucci]

If you do decide to research snorkel design, Ryan, be aware that the dimensions of breathing tubes have changed over time in the normative literature in response to progress in swimming and diving science and technology:
View attachment 55605
During that half-century, maximum tube length has almost halved (from 600 to 380 mm); maximum bore (inner diameter) has increased (from 18 to 25 mm); capacity (or inner volume) has partly replaced inner diameter when dimensioning snorkels; and different snorkel dimensions have evolved for different users (first adults/children; then taller/shorter heights; then larger/smaller lung capacities).

So much for the quantitative aspect of snorkel design. For a qualitative perspective, you may find the 2004 French government sports equipment selection guide of interest at https://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/directions_services/daj/marches_publics/oeap/gem/ARCHIVE-equipements_sportifs/equipement_sportif.pdf. Pages 113-116 list thirty-one criteria for selection of snorkels for community use. I have translated them below from French into English for your benefit:
01. Snorkels should be tailored to their users' morphology (e.g. different mouthpiece fittings for different mouth cavities).
02. Snorkels should keep water out when used on the surface (no leaky joints).
03. Snorkels should not cause injury (no sharp edges).
04. Snorkels should enable users to keep water out of their mouths (choice of mouthpiece orifice diameter).
05. Snorkels should not cause allergic reactions (choice of materials).
06. Snorkels should permit hygienic practices (mouthpiece sterilisation and interchangeability).
07. Snorkels should be clearly visible on surface (fluorescent band at top to alert other water users to snorkeller's presence).
08. Snorkels should be sufficiently tall to diminish flooding risks on surface (e.g. from surf spray).
09. Snorkels should be easy to don and doff (materials, mouthpiece design).
10. Snorkels should come with a simple method of attachment (to the mask, adjustable and without causing injury).
11. Snorkels should be easy to identify (colour, size).
12. Snorkels should be usable in all aquatic environments (pool, sea, river).
13. Snorkels should allow residual water to be easily drained (barrel diameter, height; mouthpiece design).
14. Snorkels should have an easily recognisable orientation (top/bottom; front-mounted or side-mounted).
15. Snorkels should not cause discomfort.
16. Snorkels should be odour-repellent.
17. Snorkels should be light in weight.
18. Snorkels should be flexible.
19. Snorkels should look good (shape, colour).
20. Snorkels should withstand heavy use (joints, attachment).
21. Snorkels should be shock-resistant (material properties).
22. Snorkels should be tear-resistant (material properties, mouthpiece design).
23. Snorkels should be UV-resistant (colour-fastness during sunlight exposure).
24. Snorkels should retain their features over time.
25. Snorkels should be resistant to chemicals, solvents and corrosion (e.g. use in salt or chlorine-treated water).
26. Snorkels should withstand temperature fluctuations (blazing sunshine, white-water swimming).
27. Snorkels should be easy to repair (removable and replaceable parts available).
28. Snorkels should be easy to maintain (washing/drying).
29. Snorkels should be supplied with a guarantee (2 years).
30. Snorkels should be cost-effective (quality and price clearly related).
31. Snorkels should come with a fact sheet (product features, target age-groups, maintenance procedures).

Hope this helps!

Thank you so much! That is a ton of helpful info and I really appreciate it! I ended up veering off of snorkels but will absolutely return to the idea in the future because I think there is a lot of room for improvement.