Flooded GATES EX1 housing

[Drew 0]

Pierre

I think it's very unrealistic to think there is no risk to your camera flooding. There is a risk EVERY TIME you enter the water, be it incompetence from the user or faulty housing.

So far, Bruno is the only person to bring up the loose gland issue, whilst others have given examples of equipment failures on a larger scale before manufacturers even think of compensation. I love to hear anecdotal evidence of housing manufacturers replacing cameras etc, but those circumstances are not the same. I know of at least 4 other Gates EX1 users who haven't yet had a problem like that. If there were a major issue, I think it would surface rather quickly. Or maybe it has and it's been dealt with privately. Without details, I won't speculate.

I'm very empathetic and sympathetic to Bruno's plight. Nobody likes to lose a camera. I'm sure it doesn't console Bruno at all however I feel. In fact, irregardless of however anyone feels, the camera is still toast.

Hopefully others will see that equipment insurance is important. It's part of being a pro.

And I believe that Gates shouldn't be held unaccountable IF there was an assembling issue. My point is that there is not enough evidence to make any kind of conclusion. It's easy to jump in and judge. I won't be as quick to judge without further information which will never surface.

[ronscuba 4]

I could be mistaken, but the glands on the EX1 housing look to be same as on my FX7 housing which look the same as many other Gates housings. If the glands were a major issue I think the problems would appear on other Gates housings and it would be pretty hard for word not to get around. This is the 1st I've heard of a Gates gland problem.

[jonny shaw 16]

I could be mistaken, but the glands on the EX1 housing look to be same as on my FX7 housing which look the same as many other Gates housings. If the glands were a major issue I think the problems would appear on other Gates housings and it would be pretty hard for word not to get around. This is the 1st I've heard of a Gates gland problem.

 

 

Me too, but I had a similar problem with an Ikelite housing, the gland became loose after a long drive.

[CamDiver 5]

After reading all this, my conclusion is that the Gates EX1 housing has unreliable parts and is very high maintenance. Not for me.

 

Pierre

Right. So by this logic you would also suggest that all cars are unreliable as they have parts prone to failure therefore leading to high maintenance costs which is why you walk everywhere?

[Paul Kay 62]

It's also fair to assume that the housing when delivered to the user works according to specs, which in the case of Bruno meant 50+ dives over several months and different destinations.

 

Drew has hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head here - the fundamental problem is that after 50+ dives (where the have gland must have operated fine), something changed! And whatever it was, it resulted in the gland being loose and the flood. Given that Gates use loctite and that they state that the traces were still there when they received the housing back, then its unlikely that it undid itself - if it did who would you blame, Gates for using loctite or loctite because their product failed to work as it should? Sadly the bottom line is that the gland came undone for reasons still unknown, that this wasn't picked up by Brumpy unfortunately and the end result was a flood. Sad, annoying, costly but attributing blame to a manufacturer whose product has worked fine for 50+ dives is only feasible if there is clear evidence of a design or assembly fault and from what I've read here that simply doesn't appear to be the case.

 

Commiserations Brumpy, but I'm afraid you'll simply have to live with it and move on ..... nothing else to be said really.

[ce4jesus 1]

Right. So by this logic you would also suggest that all cars are unreliable as they have parts prone to failure therefore leading to high maintenance costs which is why you walk everywhere?

 

No but if the oil pan nut on your new car worked its way out and fried your engine after 50 trips to the grocery store you would want more out of your car dealer than for him to tell you that you should've checked the nut.

[Brumpy 6]

Drew has hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head here - the fundamental problem is that after 50+ dives (where the have gland must have operated fine), something changed! And whatever it was, it resulted in the gland being loose and the flood. Given that Gates use loctite and that they state that the traces were still there when they received the housing back, then its unlikely that it undid itself - if it did who would you blame, Gates for using loctite or loctite because their product failed to work as it should? Sadly the bottom line is that the gland came undone for reasons still unknown, that this wasn't picked up by Brumpy unfortunately and the end result was a flood. Sad, annoying, costly but attributing blame to a manufacturer whose product has worked fine for 50+ dives is only feasible if there is clear evidence of a design or assembly fault and from what I've read here that simply doesn't appear to be the case.

 

Commiserations Brumpy, but I'm afraid you'll simply have to live with it and move on ..... nothing else to be said really.

 

I agree!

I learned i have to live with it! but i keep saying that i am sure that i have done nothing wrong that made the gland lose!

So after allot of postings what did't i/we learned, Gates housings are populair and have allot of people that love them (and i was starting to love them also!)

But GATES have a problem and they admited it a litle (they are going to change there manuel!!!)

After almost 10 years of diving with other housing without a flood with other brands i changed to a GATES, and the crazy thing is that the last years even without a flood i started to spend more and more time to clean and prepare my housing, but the GATES housings needs even more then the normal cleaning! there was nothing in my mind thinking to chek the glands (and also nothing in the manuel!!!) i was sure that this was one of the things where you did't not have to worry about! i was so wrong and i learned the hard way! if this happens again to me in the future yes then i will be the stupid guy that did't nog learn from the past, but before this flood nobody or nothing was telling me to chek this i had never had to do somthing likely with other brands!

 

So i still hold GATES responsible for what happens! i understand perfectly that if the housing works for +50 dives that means the housing works fine for them, but if you buy a car and the screws on your wheels are not perfect thight then you will also drive for a few thousend miles before somthing happens with it, and thats the way i see it, now i will chek everthing for sure every time.

The only good thing in this sad storry is that GATES is going to change there MANUEL and that people that have GATES housing and read WETPIXEL know what to look for, they are warned i was not and that costed me not only a expensive camera but also a expensive trip where i was only possible to film for 1,5 day.

 

But what for me makes everthing even more bad is that GATES is not doing enything for me!

I have bought a Expensive housing, A HD monitor, all the flip filters and macro diopters from them and even the the wide angle, i ordered months ago and this arrived here on the moment my housing was with GATES after the flood, so till now i did't not had the change to dive with this complete expensive set up and it costed me allot of extra money!

Today i got a brand new EX1 costed me 7000 euro's and in 2 days i leave to Indonesia, i can tell you i will chek like crazy before diving but i will be afraid in the water!

 

And yes then you have the factor of a insurance! and yes i got one today so that cost me even more if i did't not had the flood then i never had bought the insurance!

 

So the total bill for me after this sad story is 7000 euro for the Camera 1400 euro insurance (every year) and a expensive trip in the toilet!

 

So thanks GATES!!!

 

I hope some people will not experience a flood like mine because they have read this and cheked there glands on the rigth moment or buy another brand!

 

Bruno

[Steve Douglas 16]

I think it's time to put this thread to bed. In my experience the Gates housings need no more maintenence than any other housing. When you buy a camcorder the manual rarely ever tells you EVERYTHING there is to know about the camera, same for software or most anything. Buy a new car and the manual doesn't tell you how to replace the brakes.

 

We've all said our piece, expressed our views. End of story. Goodnight

Steve

 

ps See you all at the San Diego Film Festival this weekend

[DeanB 19]

Simons bad experience with the Sealux housing doesn't seem so bad now ... Off balance housing or Flooded housing ... Hmmmm ...

 

Dive safe

 

DeanB

[gbrandon 0]

I agree!

I learned i have to live with it! but i keep saying that i am sure that i have done nothing wrong that made the gland lose!

So after allot of postings what did't i/we learned, Gates housings are populair and have allot of people that love them (and i was starting to love them also!)

But GATES have a problem and they admited it a litle (they are going to change there manuel!!!)

 

So i still hold GATES responsible for what happens! i understand perfectly that if the housing works for +50 dives that means the housing works fine for them, but if you buy a car and the screws on your wheels are not perfect thight then you will also drive for a few thousend miles before somthing happens with it, and thats the way i see it, now i will chek everthing for sure every time.

The only good thing in this sad storry is that GATES is going to change there MANUEL and that people that have GATES housing and read WETPIXEL know what to look for, they are warned i was not and that costed me not only a expensive camera but also a expensive trip where i was only possible to film for 1,5 day.

 

But what for me makes everthing even more bad is that GATES is not doing enything for me!

Bruno

 

1) They have admitted nothing, except to put a warning in for users to check the fittings before each dive, as they may have been loosened or damaged during transit. That is not acknowledging any fault, its simply putting a disclamer for something that should be common sense to people purchasing this type of equipment. Thats why mfg's have some asnine disclaimers on goods now when you buy them. Nobody wants to be responsible for their actions, they want to blame the mfg.

 

2) Gates responsible? Are you serious? So your saying every camera housing mfg should replace a users camera and/or housing when they experience a flood that the user determine's is not "user error"?

 

3) Did nothing for you? they dignosed the problem, fixed it, tested it , cleaned it and returned it to you, without charing you one dollar. Id say they did ALOT for you. I dont even own a gates housing, and that seems impressive to me.

 

Lastly, its time for people to accept responsibility for their actions. Yes, it sucks that your housing flooded. I agree that that is a risk we take every time we go into the water. I had a battery housing flood off one of my LMI lights and never did find the problem, they just sent the battery housing back with a note it had been inspected and tested. They didnt replace my battery, and I didnt ask them. I think the problem here is that you are (understandably) upset about losing a $7,000 camera, and I feel for you, I really do. But on the other hand, we need to be aware that bolts, nuts, etc can and will loosen over time, or during transit, and we should check them periodically. Heck, even checking them so often dosent guarantee they wont flood.

 

Recently, someone asked (on this forum I think) how often they should completely dissasemble their U/W camera housing. Iv'e seen the same question posed in the rebreather forums I visit in regards to a rebreather. My own thoughts are that there are more risks in completely dissasembling something than just going over the main points of where a failure can occur. After that, all we can do is be prepared for a failure and act accordingly. Gates was no more responsible for your flood than a car mfg would be if you got a flat tire.

[DeanB 19]

Gates was no more responsible for your flood than a car mfg would be if you got a flat tire.

 

But who'd be to blame if a part came loose and the whole wheel came off causing an accident and you found out it was a 'problem' in manufacturing and wasn't mentioned in the manual after only driving the new car for 50 miles ??? Do you check all a cars parts before every journey or do you think there should be 'some' reliability when purchasing an expensive product...

 

I'm not blaming anyone but every story has different explanations and blaming one person doesn't answer or solve the problem ... If its a faulty item then can it be replaced or upgraded and 'in my opinion' suddenly admitting this 'can' happen is an admission of some kind...

 

Dive safe

 

DeanB

[gbrandon 0]

But who'd be to blame if a part came loose and the whole wheel came off causing an accident and you found out it was a 'problem' in manufacturing and wasn't mentioned in the manual after only driving the new car for 50 miles ??? Do you check all a cars parts before every journey or do you think there should be 'some' reliability when purchasing an expensive product...

 

I'm not blaming anyone but every story has different explanations and blaming one person doesn't answer or solve the problem ... If its a faulty item then can it be replaced or upgraded and 'in my opinion' suddenly admitting this 'can' happen is an admission of some kind...

 

Dive safe

 

DeanB

 

Dont want to beat a dead horse, but essentialy, we all have a assumed belief that when we buy something it should function as advertised. That I dont argue. But the grey area is how long should that belief last, and how much faith should we put into such assumed belief? In your scenario, if the car was driven for a thousand miles on the highway, and the wheel stayed on, you would expect that. But what if said car was in the baja 1000, driven off road, and the wheel fell off? Would you expect that? We have NO idea how much vibration, handling, etc, his housing had for the nut to come loose. Sure, it could have been loose leaving the factory and it took 50 dives before it got to the point it leaked, but IMO, one should check his gear on the first dive, and then again every so often. The mfg cannot be held responsible for every scenario that could happen. It's just not realistic. On the other hand, im just as guilty as the next guy about not being a fanatic about checking out my gear every dive. IF something happens, its going to suck big time, but im not going to blame the mfg, unless I can see some glaring mfg defect. (eg, the bulkhead snaps off, and I can examine the housing and see something like insufficient material around the bulkhead threads causing such failure.)

 

Let me tell you a story that happened to me, and you tell me if you think I was entitled to reimbursement for my loss....

 

I used to race Nascar late model stock cars. At one race, it was well over 100 degrees. About 50 laps into it, in heavy traffic, I noticed the water temp climbing over 230 degrees. (normally runs about 190-200 degrees) I got on the radio and my crewcheif advised me to try to get the car some clean air (eg, get off the guys ass in front of me). I did this as much as possible without letting someone get inside of me and giving up my position, but it was hard to do. regardless, after about 5-10 minutes, I noticed the gauge going down, and down, and down, to 180. Then I noticed the engine start to miss. Then I noticed I was way down on power and had to go to the pits. The result? A heat exchanger that was mounted below the radiator had split along the welded seam. The water had all leaked out , and the lowered tempature was due to the motor being out of water. End result was a completely distroyed engine, I think we salvaged the crankshaft and rods out of the thing, and maybe the block. Price of engine? 20,000 dollars. You can bet I called the heat exchanger mfg the next monday morning. Unbelievably , he admitted that they had other customers with the same problem and were now plating the seam where they were failing. He promptly sent me out a brand new heat exchanger, value about $500. Did I ask for a new engine? nope, because I figured it was my own fault for continuing to drive the car, even though I THOUGHT it was actually coolling down. Should he have been responsible for my loss? I didnt think so, so I never pursued it, and were talking 20k, not 7k, and believe me, 20k is not easy to come by for me, especially back then.

 

So the moral of the story is , even though the guy made a good faith effort with the product, to the best of his knowledge, things sometimes happen that are unforseen. The difference being that while he saw a fault in his product, GATES does not. There is no mfg defect. If it was, I think everyone in this forum would be alot more sympathetic. This is a simple case of a nut backing off, not a known defect. I knew back then, racing in itself is not only dangerous, but parts can and do break. Its the nature of the beast. Heck, ive seen guys put chinese rods in their engines and blow up on the dyno (eagle rods=chinese junk steel). I dont see them asking eagle for a new engine when this happens, and thats on the dyno, before the thing ever makes it to the car to hit the road. Like I said earlier, I feel bad for him, but I cant expect Gates to buy him a new camera.

 

again, just my .02 cents...

Edited September 24, 2009 by gbrandon

[Drew 0]

Actually, Gates has a 2 year warranty on manufacturer defects, that's how long they warrant their products from failure. Now whether there is a defect or not, that is the issue Bruno was trying to discuss here.

Even IF there is a defect, is Gates responsible for the camera repair? I don't see anything in their warranty stating either way, and I doubt any one with a brain would. Now to get into Californian law, it remains to be seen if there is strict liability for Gates products because of what they are designed for. I'm no lawyer so I'm not going to speculate but it'd be interesting to find out.

Conversely, is there anyone out there who thinks it unwise not to insure a $20k rig?

PS:

Speaking of your car, if the heat exchanger had a design flaw which killed your and you can prove it, then you can expect the manufacturer to pay for the repair of your engine. Design defects that cause multiple failures is strict liability as I see it. What you decided to do was nice but that's got nothing to do with product liability. If you'd died because of that engine blowing up, then your estate lawyers will have a field day. But enough about cars, this is about housings.

[bacripe 0]

I just ran into this thread, but it is something that is worth people paying attention to. On the ShearWater I helped diagnose and repair 2 EX1 housings from Gates (one less than 3 months old!) that had loose glands and as a result minor leaks. Both of these leaks were not catastrophic and were caught by the leak alarm, but were disturbing nonetheless. Perhaps a different design/higher grade of Loctite is in order?

[Drew 0]

Thanks for that Brian. Do you know if the issues were reported to Gates? Certainly does add more spice to this issue.

[DeanB 19]

Dont want to beat a dead horse, but essentialy, we all have a assumed belief that when we buy something it should function as advertised. That I dont argue. But the grey area is how long should that belief last, and how much faith should we put into such assumed belief? In your scenario, if the car was driven for a thousand miles on the highway, and the wheel stayed on, you would expect that. But what if said car was in the baja 1000, driven off road, and the wheel fell off? Would you expect that? We have NO idea how much vibration, handling, etc, his housing had for the nut to come loose. Sure, it could have been loose leaving the factory and it took 50 dives before it got to the point it leaked, but IMO, one should check his gear on the first dive, and then again every so often. The mfg cannot be held responsible for every scenario that could happen. It's just not realistic. On the other hand, im just as guilty as the next guy about not being a fanatic about checking out my gear every dive. IF something happens, its going to suck big time, but im not going to blame the mfg, unless I can see some glaring mfg defect. (eg, the bulkhead snaps off, and I can examine the housing and see something like insufficient material around the bulkhead threads causing such failure.)

 

Let me tell you a story that happened to me, and you tell me if you think I was entitled to reimbursement for my loss....

 

I used to race Nascar late model stock cars. At one race, it was well over 100 degrees. About 50 laps into it, in heavy traffic, I noticed the water temp climbing over 230 degrees. (normally runs about 190-200 degrees) I got on the radio and my crewcheif advised me to try to get the car some clean air (eg, get off the guys ass in front of me). I did this as much as possible without letting someone get inside of me and giving up my position, but it was hard to do. regardless, after about 5-10 minutes, I noticed the gauge going down, and down, and down, to 180. Then I noticed the engine start to miss. Then I noticed I was way down on power and had to go to the pits. The result? A heat exchanger that was mounted below the radiator had split along the welded seam. The water had all leaked out , and the lowered tempature was due to the motor being out of water. End result was a completely distroyed engine, I think we salvaged the crankshaft and rods out of the thing, and maybe the block. Price of engine? 20,000 dollars. You can bet I called the heat exchanger mfg the next monday morning. Unbelievably , he admitted that they had other customers with the same problem and were now plating the seam where they were failing. He promptly sent me out a brand new heat exchanger, value about $500. Did I ask for a new engine? nope, because I figured it was my own fault for continuing to drive the car, even though I THOUGHT it was actually coolling down. Should he have been responsible for my loss? I didnt think so, so I never pursued it, and were talking 20k, not 7k, and believe me, 20k is not easy to come by for me, especially back then.

 

So the moral of the story is , even though the guy made a good faith effort with the product, to the best of his knowledge, things sometimes happen that are unforseen. The difference being that while he saw a fault in his product, GATES does not. There is no mfg defect. If it was, I think everyone in this forum would be alot more sympathetic. This is a simple case of a nut backing off, not a known defect. I knew back then, racing in itself is not only dangerous, but parts can and do break. Its the nature of the beast. Heck, ive seen guys put chinese rods in their engines and blow up on the dyno (eagle rods=chinese junk steel). I dont see them asking eagle for a new engine when this happens, and thats on the dyno, before the thing ever makes it to the car to hit the road. Like I said earlier, I feel bad for him, but I cant expect Gates to buy him a new camera.

 

again, just my .02 cents...

 

To be honest i haven't read your whole reply as i havent the time at the mo... but the car in 'Baja compared to the road vehicle' is self explanatory... if i wanted t drive 'off road' i'd buy an 'off road' car and expect i to perform as an 'off road' car... that argument just doesn't stand up... You buy an pro underwater housing you expect a certain amount of pro performance...

 

I'll look at the rest soon

 

Dive safe

 

DeanB

[Paul Kay 62]

My car apparently has a 'design fault' - at least that's what many people believe. So much so that the manufacturer has sent out a letter explaining that periodic maintenance is essential (lubrication) on the specific part. Having seen what is needed I am very doubtful that it is a design fault, and pretty certain that simple lubrication of the part is all that is required and that anyone who thinks about it should realise this. Failure to lubricate the bonnet release catch means that it may not latch shut properly and the bonnet may fly open at speed (rather awkward I must admit). However no-one has yet shown that requiring periodic lubrication is a 'design fault'.

 

I'd suggest that checking for loose glands falls into this category too, unless they are subject to failure (loosening) which a simple check could not deal with I'm extremely dubious that such an occurrence could be classed as a 'design fault'. Threaded glands are after all, actually designed so that they can be undone and are 'locked' in place by use of a 'locking compound' which may suffer from the effects of vibration, temperature variation, etc., so periodic checking may be considered (as it is by many who responded to this thread) as essential.

[Drew 0]

Well Paul, to be fair, manufacturers do have the duty to warn people of maintenance with a checklist etc. Otherwise who knows which part is maintenance free etc. This is especially true with every product.

I do think those with more technical minds are more forgiving about these things as maintenance is part of their thought processes. I don't think any housing manufacturing wants to limit the market to only that niche. If there are more than a few loosening glands on EX1 housings, then Gates must warn owners to take that extra maintenance step.

Whether it is a flaw or not, I don't think people should be so decisive without having seen the issue. If Brian's 2 incidents were reported to Gates, that makes for 3 loose gland incidents on the EX1 and that should give Gates an idea if there is a problem or not. Manufacturers do require feedback on their products in order to correct any issues.

[pmooney 6]

Following the logic here - I should be able to get a new bike seeing the manufacturer didn't tell me I could fall of if I went to fast around the corner last weekend.

Adding to this I wonder if the tyre company will accept responsibilty for my crash seeing the super soft sticky tyres they sold me clearly were not sticky enough.

[Drew 0]

Actually that's all written in your manual, Peter. Just as Gates doesn't approve of using the housing past the depth limits because of physics and also guarantee good video because of the housing. It's a tool that's suppose to work and allow the user to capture video with a dry camera. Not do the capturing or beat physics.

PS: Now if your tire is rated as W rating and it melts down at 100mph, you can easily sue the tire and bike manufacturer.

[Nick Hope 151]

I just ran into this thread, but it is something that is worth people paying attention to. On the ShearWater I helped diagnose and repair 2 EX1 housings from Gates (one less than 3 months old!) that had loose glands and as a result minor leaks. Both of these leaks were not catastrophic and were caught by the leak alarm, but were disturbing nonetheless. Perhaps a different design/higher grade of Loctite is in order?

Sounds like something is up with the assembly process, or the design is not performing in the way Gates expected. Perhaps they used a different grade of Loctite from usual. Perhaps whoever assembled the glands didn't apply enough torque or enough Loctite as the guy who normally does it. Perhaps they've started using a coarser thread for the glands than they did in the past. Bruno's experience is horrible but I still wouldn't expect Gates to pay for camera damage. In fact if I was a housing manufacturer I would probably cover myself by making that very plain in the terms of sale, instructions etc..

 

This sort of problem isn't unique to Gates of course. My last housing had a number of screws loose when it arrived and one crucial screw had completely fallen out. Lucky one had actually fallen out and was rattling around or I might have missed the problem. I found other housings of the same model with very loose screws too.

 

Aside from one real flood due to my error, I've had a number of close shaves with housings. Some were my fault, some I would definitely attribute to poor design. The only solution as a user is total paranoia. Leave plenty of time to set up the housing and check, check and check again. I even got in the habit of delaying for a couple seconds as I'm about to jump in to just look at the housing to see if I've done something really dumb.

[Drew 0]

Well Nick that's a great option if you have time. If I were shooting a doco at sea in a skiff, all my prep from the morning would theorectically be useless if the logic of some of the posters regarding checking were to be followed. A housing must be checked for loose nuts etc periodically and before dives, but then again it shouldn't loosen after a bumpy boat ride. Otherwise, all the people who do natural history work will be out of cameras after day 1.

There's no absolutes here but after years of going through big surf and enduring 2 hours of hard thumping just to shoot 10 mins of baitball activity, if someone were to tell me their housing requires I check it after that, I'd not buy that housing for my purposes. This is not to say that Gates is saying that, just replying to those who seem to think checking and rechecking is the best option.

[Steve Douglas 16]

Another thread that will not die.

Peter, time to get a Harley. Glad you're not hurt though maybe the ego is a bit bruised.

 

While we all need to regularly check our housings and gear, and in Brumby's case I can't see that Gates is at all responsible, Drew brings up a general and correct concern regarding any manufacturer. If one has to be paranoid about their equipment failing, than that is not the equipment for you. While my first housing was an AquaVideo housing for a Minolata 8mm cam back in 1988, my next several housings were all Gates housings for a variety of cams from a Sony Hi 8, Sony 1000, Sony 110, Sony 2000 and Sony A1-U. While I was always kidded about lugging around 'the Brick', I never worried about my Gate's housing's reliability and, to be honest, I paid much less attention to maintenence with it then I do with the housing I currently use. My one and only flood was my own stupid fault. The point being, it is not a good feeling to constantly have to worry whether your gear will function properly or not. I had that feeling all the time a few years back with the lights I was using. Heck, I always traveled with 2 sets of lights, just in case. I don't know if this gland issue is an issue at all or is it just a few isolated cases that have gotten publicity through this thread and have been blown up larger than necessary. If it is truely a design flaw, then it will be fixed I'm sure. If not, regular attention without the paranoia is all that should be needed. A good product is a good product and the Gates housings have always been solid in all ways from my experiences and observations and since I do not now own a Gates housing, no one can accuse me of proprietary predjudice for or against any specific manufacturer.

 

Steve

Edited September 26, 2009 by steve

[ce4jesus 1]

Following the logic here - I should be able to get a new bike seeing the manufacturer didn't tell me I could fall of if I went to fast around the corner last weekend.

Adding to this I wonder if the tyre company will accept responsibilty for my crash seeing the super soft sticky tyres they sold me clearly were not sticky enough.

 

 

No but if the breaks failed or the tire came off and caused the crash you would have claim. Therein lies the difference.

[Paul Kay 62]

Well Paul, to be fair, manufacturers do have the duty to warn people of maintenance with a checklist etc. Otherwise who knows which part is maintenance free etc. This is especially true with every product.

 

Well, equally to be fair, I personally run through a thorough check as I'm assembling my housings, then they are left alone until immediately prior to diving (which often means that they are bounced around for a time either in a box on a hardboat or just on the floor of a RIB (tip: place them at the very back of the RIB where there is least motion and battering!). Then just before I enter the water I give the housing a last visual examination so that I am satisfied that nothing untoward has happened to it. If something goes wrong then at least I've done as much as I can. And in all honesty if you are using expensive, high end underwater equipment, I would say that the onus must be on you to understand it and its care and maintenance and this should go beyond any manufacturer's potential checklist. Going back to Brumpy's problem its clear that something had changed if it worked fine for many dives before the flood - the only way that such a change could be found would be by an examination of the housing prior to diving.