2014 lunocet

[Kars]

Lil Jon, great review. Well structured, well articulated.
Question: about that 50m swim comparison, you say it's about 6 seconds slower, but what are your times, and what effort level did you put in?

Now that you're getting tuned in to your lunocet, can you try 1 (near) max dynamic with it?
- My expectation is that you will swim slower, but you may get further than your rocket fin pb.

---

hey Ron I love your educated questions and opinion around, like you I'm also looking for data in formation.

 

[Apneaddict]

Pic of revised "slop-reducing fluke retainer" (bet you've never seen those words written together in a single sentence!):

 

[Chipswim]

Neat... Thank you for the photo!. Very simple solution. I think you have shown us an interesting detail of the first Pro shipped!

I suppose we are all hoping you've shopped up up some new shoes to get your Pro going again.

 

[Apneaddict]

What does a Freediver / monofinner do when the pools are closed, the lakes are frozen and his Lunocet is in pieces?

He starts playing with his peduncle... I mean...

He sees things as the art / sculpture that they are...

Then he hits the wine and takes some still-life photos...

 

[noa]

Ok AA, looks like you're a bit bored : )
you could also tell us a bit more about your initial swim with the pro...

 

[REVAN]

It seems I have upset some people, while others appreciate my input. I am not trying to upset people, but I recognize that my thoughts can sometimes come across with a, Sheldon Cooper like, lack of tact. I'm sorry about that and I'll try to do better in the future.

I want to state upfront that I look at monofins from the performance perspective first and foremost. The mermaid costume enthusiasts aside, divers have adopted the monofin as a propulsion source when they want better performance than they can get from bi-fins. I think this is why so many of us here on this forum are hung up on the performance question for the Lunocet. Lower performance combined with lower cost does not appear to be a significant market interest for freedivers. I had that combination with my DOL-Fin Classic back in 2009 when I had a special running on it for $395. It had the added bonus of being really good for scuba diving. The feedback I received was, it is good, but not better than bi-fins for freediving. Without that, it will not grab our interest. This is the standard that I have been held to on this forum.

As a result of this, I first researched what freedivers expect from a top of the line monofin to define performance goals, and then I executed an extensive research and development project to figure out how to meet those goals. During that process, I learned that it is very challenging to eclipse a quarter century of flexible monofin development with a new hydrofoil based technology. The things that work are often not intuitive and small details can make or break the whole system. I have built and tested hundreds of combinations of various monofin foil and system attributes, and I recognize there are still many things that I do not understand about what makes a foil system work well. However, with all my experiences I'd like to think that I have gained a better understanding of foils beyond that of my freediving peers.

The Lunocet looks good. But then again, they have all looked good. The issue with the Lunocet has always been the performance. Mimicking the shape of a dolphin's tail is, in my opinion, a good move to maximize the chances of getting something better than what the Lunocet did before. However, it could also be a hail-mary move made from a general lack of knowledge of how to make a good functioning foil. I think the Lunocet is probably getting a little better with each iteration of it's design. Is it up to our standards for a recreational monofin like a WW Nemo? I cannot determine that from looking at the pictures. Is it up to our standards for a hyperfin? I have the same answer.

The performance that results from a hydrofoil are sensitive to subtle variations of the system, and hydrofoils are far less forgiving of mistakes than the classic flexible monofin architecture. I can take my best DOL-Fin and change something that no one else would notice in a photo spread and make it into a bad performing monofin. This is why I was saying we cannot assume good performance because it looks like it should have good performance. I think it is probably safe to assume that it is better than the 2012 Lunocet. If that is your expectation, I think there is a good chance you will be pleased with the 2014 Lunocet. If you expect it to perform on par with your hyperfin, I think you need to wait until more information becomes available if you don't want to risk possible disappointment.

I want to thank "lil jon" for posting his review. Honestly, this is the most thurow review I have seen on the 2014 Lunocet so far. For those waiting for more information, I don't think the wait will be too much longer as people like lil jon start writing about it.

 

[cdavis]

Amen.

To add a bit to the "performance" discussion:

I'm interested in monos as a replacement for bifins. I think there are a lot of folks out there like that, especially if it looked really cool. For us, hyperfin performance is not required. Efficient motion is important, but doesn't trump everything else. Bifins are inherently better at some things, primarily flexibility of application and maneuverability. Most bifins are also much more durable under abusive use than a traditional mono(on my boat things get abusive as heck). A mono needs to be a lot better in the areas where it is good to beat that bifin advantage. I've tried a number of traditional monos, which failed my requirements. They were all fast, very powerful, fun to use, but fell down(for me) in an overall comparison to bifins. For a while, I thought the monoflap was going to be the ticket, but found that in open water, it did not have enough low end torque, wasn't maneuverable enough and was too sensitive to bad technique. Then the Dol-fin showed up. It has required a bit of tweeking for my application, but has become substantially better than bifins overall, almost as maneuverable and darn near bullet proof.

Along comes the 2014 lunacet. Looks fabulously cool, I'm VERY curious, and the price is ridiculously low(gotta be under his real cost plus reasonable profit). But is it better than bifins(in an overall use sense) for the non expert? Will it work as well as a Dol-fin or good enough to meet my needs? Is it durable enough? Can't tell yet, but I will be following this thread with great interest.

Apneaaddict: what is the pedunkle made of? metal? what kind? How big are the stainless(?) pins that hold it together? Is the pro model neutral in the water?

 

[marginatus]

I too have been looking at mono's for a while.
Until recently, one would have to choose between comfort or good power transfer, good performance mono would be fragile, not easy to travel with, you all know it better then me...
these new mono's that use the bike shoes, modular, and really toughgot my attention. the Lunocet is in a price point that could fit me (and my intended use) so I'm really curious about it... good performance can't hurt

 

[Apneaddict]

Lunocet Pro report teaser - more to follow in the detailed Part 2 and Part 3 articles...

To address Conner's questions... the peduncle is made of CNC'd aluminum, as is the entire "skeleton" of the Lunocet. The flukes and spring are rubber and they are custom moulded, which themselves are machined in-house from aluminum. The pins are around 1/4" or so I believe, but not sure...

Rubber, fasteners and alum. Just add shoes and water.

The Pro model with my (new pair of) triathlon shoes attached is approx 1/4 lb (100g) negatively buoyant in a freshwater pool. I suspect it would be positive in salt water. With my 2mm neoprene booties in the shoes... it's quite positive in the pool.

It's also a good 1+ lbs lighter than my Starfin.

Acceleration... good. really good... surprisingly good! I knew it had more acceleration than the classic flukes right away after the first 2 kicks (which was the point of this design change for us burst-and-glide freedivers)... but I didn't think it would be as good as it was...

I timed my lengths and WOW! Who knew?! Even surprised me... because it feels like a Lunocet... not a hyperfin... but it still has the speed!

I train and practice without a suit... and was definitely drag-limited, while still swimming at a freediving level of energy expenditure. That's a great thing! The same techniques that work on the Classic will work on the Pro flukes. It's also more forgiving to a variety of techniques (A.K.A. poor technique..., or "hypoxic technique" nearer the end of a DYN swim )

Can't wait to get a suit on and really take this out for a spin! Currently, it's a bit like having a Ferrari but only having 5000 RPM's to play with.

I'll post more #'s and figures... and hopefully some usable video in my articles... but needless to say, I think it could very well make the Lunocet a no-brainer for a lot of the uses / applications mentioned above, not to mention general club and full-blown competition use!

 

[noa]

Thanks a lot for the update and first impression. I let out a sigh...and then a big smile !
Once again, looking forward to hearing more...

 

[Chipswim]

Thank you AA for writing your first impressions of your Lunocet Pro. It sounds very encouraging. I think there are only two made so far and the other one is with Ted Ciamillo at the Deeper Blue booth in Florida. Next week some of our orders may be built.

I thought it might be nice to have a numerical test of my current 2014 Lunocet for comparison when the new fin comes. I asked my son to come to the pool this morning and run a stop watch.

We timed 16 25s the first one is a warm up. All the others were all out all the way. The very best I could do at that moment. I'm age 63...6'4"tall 250#. I am a recreational monofin swimmer. I use my fin about an hour each morning.

1. 17.81 Warm up
2. 13.46 wide open throttle
3. 14.97 arms extended
4. 13.82
5. 14.40
6. 13.58
7. 14.20 on my back
8. 13.41 arm pull at beginning
9. 15.72 on my back
10. 13.26 arm pull 1/2 way
11. 13.27 seems a little faster
12. 13.18 my best of the morning!
13. 13.82
14. 14.06 wearing down
15. 14.47 arms extended
16. 13.45 arm pull 1/2 way last blast

I rested till I thought I could go all out again each time. The whole time used was 35 minutes. Thought this was a measurement within everyone's capability and that I could use to compare when I make changes..... once again I'm a recreational user. I can go 50 yards on a breath but that's about it.

Really wanted one pass in the 12's but the watch was heartless ¡

 

[Chipswim]

 

[Chipswim]

For those of you who asked about durability. The 2014 Lunocet pictured has now made about 160 trips to the pool. My previous Lunocet's peduncle was pushed to failure a couple of times. I sent the failed parts to Ciamillo and the new one was made stouter in those areas. It has not been pampered and it has not failed! I did break my shoes in half and replaced my spring a couple of times. The Pro peduncle is designed to be even more robust to handle the extra power. The pro pivot point is also moved a little deeper into the fin so it shouldn't feel as big as it is...... Clever I thought.

A couple of details you can see in the picture.... The quarter used to preload the spring before Ted made the ramp in the same place and there is a bike light trailing the flukes to help others locate me in the water. The circular piece between the shoe toes and the leading edge of the flukes is a pad made of tire
sidewall which helps grip the pool wall on starts and turns. It also makes my flex extra stiff to compensate for my oversized self.

I have offered my Lunocet to curious swimmers at motel pools and been impressed with their immediate ability to swim away with it. Don't think you'd be disappointed to have one in your boat!

 

[marginatus]

Any shoes recommendations would be great...

 

[Apneaddict]

Sidi and Shimano hold up well to water usage. Bont do not.

I used Nineteen tri-shoes that cost $50, but my first pair failed when the adhesive let-go. I believe they could be epoxied back together, however. I just bought another pair instead.

I have a pair of Lake shoes that I haven't mounted yet, but understand that they should hold up well.

Velcro is streamlined, but BOA fasteners are better.

Try shoes on in-person WITH your desired neoprene socks (if any).

Sidis are narrow, Shimano more normal, lake wide, etc.

Stiff road shoes are good, but no need to spend $300+ for a super light carbon shoe.

Triathlon shoes are lighter, have less support on top, but are quick / easy to get in / out of.

One advantage of the Lunocet is that you can get a known / perfect fit in every major city or easily online... Not so with a hyperfin - even the custom made ones, unless you live in Russia / Ukraine!!

You can even buy a second pair of shoes for thick socks.

 

[Chipswim]

It only takes 3 Allen screw's per shoe to change shoes so they are easy to change. I prefer sandals for bicycling in recent years so I started by going to unused road shoes in the bottom of the closet.

The ones awaiting the Pro Lunocet are a new style from Shimano. They have a detail on the heel that makes a little point........ Like they were made to go backwards.

Today's road shoes might as well be made with us in mind. Sleek design, water proof materials, drain holes, comfort, support etc. So most of them will work fine.

Two things I wanted for sure we're a ratcheting top closure and carbon soles. I like my fin shoes very very tight! I broke a set of soles that were not carbon.

 

[noa]

Sidi and Shimano hold up well to water usage. Bont do not.

I used Nineteen tri-shoes that cost $50, but my first pair failed when the adhesive let-go. I believe they could be epoxied back together, however. I just bought another pair instead.

I have a pair of Lake shoes that I haven't mounted yet, but understand that they should hold up well.

Velcro is streamlined, but BOA fasteners are better.

Try shoes on in-person WITH your desired neoprene socks (if any).

Sidis are narrow, Shimano more normal, lake wide, etc.

Stiff road shoes are good, but no need to spend $300+ for a super light carbon shoe.

Triathlon shoes are lighter, have less support on top, but are quick / easy to get in / out of.

One advantage of the Lunocet is that you can get a known / perfect fit in every major city or easily online... Not so with a hyperfin - even the custom made ones, unless you live in Russia / Ukraine!!

You can even buy a second pair of shoes for thick socks.

If I may ask, which model of Bont have you tried and how did it fail ? Reason being, I'm actually considering a pair of them as the usual Shimano and Sidi don't fit me well. Bont do, plus they are highly moldable which I consider a big plus.
Thanks for your input...

 

[Apneaddict]

I believe it was Ted who told me that he has had or heard that they had issues.

Might be best to check with him if you have any specific questions.

 

[Apneaddict]

The issue is re: the adhesives failing when repeatedly being drenched / dried, etc.

Stitching doesn't fail when wet... But SOME glues do.

 

[noa]

Ok, thank you for letting me know. The other option I'm considering are Northwave shoes. There are indeed many options out there. It's just a matter of testing and figuring out which works best for our application.