On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:36:42 +0000, Andy M Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>>>I am absolutely gobsmacked that anyone could still have one of this
>>>vintage computers, for one of two reasons:
>
( snip )
>
>>Andy, I think you have the doubly WRONG Uwatec computer.  The one
>>being recalled is the Aladin Air-X NITROX computer which sold at about
>>$1000 USD in 1995, and $1400 USD later, which would have made them
>>about 600 and 850 UK£ respectively, and not 100 UK£.

>Nope, the overpriced lump of shite I have is the Air-X, cost over
>UK£700 in'95, then had to buy the I/F software & cable, then the memo
>mouse 'cos the ancient lump of technically inadequate detritus couldn't
>log more than two dives (with complete profile).

>'UK£102.50' is the quoted price from Uwatec for a new battery for the
>above model, see DIVER mag this month. 'plus shops handling charges'
>was my addition as a Customer was quoted this price by a shop.

Glad you clarified this!  I now believe you DO have the real POS! :-)

Pity is so small.  Otherwise, you could have drilled holes in it,
filled it with lead, and use it as your ankle weight, as Carl
proposed to drill holes in the Cochroach computers, fill them with
lead, and use them as weightbelts!


It was suggested that the price of the POS sky-rocketed by more than
50% after 1998, was to cover the court fines (not to mention the
lawyer fees) which exceeded 10% of the TOTAL company assets of
Uwatec AG/USA.

>
>>But your reaction
>>>I am absolutely gobsmacked that anyone could still have one of this
>>>vintage computers, for one of two reasons:>
>
>>is valid, for the Uwatec Air-X Nitrox, for a different reason,
>>ESPECIALLY because:
>
>>1.  Only about 300 of them were sold in the US.
>...and I thought I was gullible :-)
>
>>2.  Uwatec systematically replaced them by new (non-defective) ones
>>    (at no charge) when the computer went back for whatever reason,
>>    as its clandestic way of "recalling" the few produced.  That was
>>   why even the US National Manager of Uwatec at the time (the
>>    Plaintiff) had difficulty obtaining such a unit!

>This is the maintenance strategy - whatever the problem (including battery
>replacement), replace the unit. This may be good or bad depending on which
>way you look at it. The first
>time I was not unhappy as the unit had got fairly scratched (although I
was
>miffed that Uwatec, or anyone else for that matter, didn't make a cover).
>Subsequent replacements were more than a little annoying.

>
>>The REASON why those vintage (and rare) computers were still around
>>to have gotten FIVE people bent is ...
>>Submit your reason here:

>They hadn't been used, so miraculously had some life left in the
>battery (a pretty rare thing I believe).

Excellent!  That's part of the correct answer.  A dive computer (and
HyperAqualand watch for that matter) can sit on the shelf for a LONG
time without running the battery down.  It's only when it started
recorded the DETAILED dive profiles (needed for the graphical
downloads) that they eat up the batteries.

SOME of those bent owners are probably the ones who spend the greater
part of their lives speculating and bullshitting on the internet and
seldom ever DIVE!  :-)   We have seen a few of those on this list,
haven't we?   rec.scuba is INFESTED with them.  :-)))  That's why
Lee can bullshit so much there without raising an eyebrow.

This coupled with the fact that the Air-X ALGORITHM is flawless for
the FIRST dive (after the computer is completely cleared, because
the error in the algorithm does NOT come into play until
the first surface interval!).  The cumulative effect of the errors on
REPETITIVE dives (such as 4 or 5 on liveaboards on a day) can get one
bent very easily.

This is the REAL reason behind the bent divers, I am pretty sure.
In 1994, when liveaboard divers using dive computers was relatively
rare.  That's why the Cockcroach Nemesis PRO had few complaints about
the errors in the algorithm, and I was the one who got that computer
bent EVERY time after the first day of multi-repetitive dives.


>>> You won't catch me spending another penny on Uwatec!!!
>>To be fair, it depends on the Uwatec computer itself.
>>For YOUR Uwatec, and your reasons, you certainly don't want to buy one.

>Nope, I have spent WELL OVER UK£1,000 on the piece of crap.

But that's petty cash, compared to the cost of of your house,
or even your MB.  :-))

Write it off on your tax return as charitable contributions to
"research and development" of a life-saving gadget. :-)

>
>>Bjorn and I (and a few others, including Kuty, I think) have (had)
>>the Uwatec Nitrox PRO dive computer which did not have the problems
>>you encountered and are (were) satisfied with them (Sue has one too,
>>and I bought it for her in 1998, long after the Air-X Nitrox fiasco
>>surfaced and finalized).  It cost only about 250 UK£.
>Aha, the Pro was pretty much the de-facto UK standard 'puter for years.
>
>>BTW, I am sure you know that Uwatec (and Scubapro) are now both owned
>>by your brothers, Johnson & Johnson.  :-)))

>Sisters actually, me an' me bruv would have come up with one that had
>enough capacity to log more than 2 dives, and it would have had a cover,
>and it wouldn't have had 'wet buttons' !!!
>
>>My biggest complain about it is its "lock out" (or what Cochran
>>called his Cockroach computers the 'gauge mode', when you can't
>>even use it as a gauge <G>, for 24 hours, if you do not follow
>>its overly conservative deco schedules.

>Immaterial if the battery is flat AGAIN !!

But that has not happened on EITHER of our Uwatec Nitrox PRO yet,
and you know I've had more than a dive or two on MINE!  :-)

-- Bob.