2014 lunocet

[REVAN]

Ok, here's some lovely monofinning technique to study:

She is so beautiful to watch. It is mesmerizing. Or should I say mer-merizing....

I have the 2014 classic and it's immediate predecessor. In line for a Pro. No doubt the same fin can act great or lousy with a few adjustments. I remember you writing similar observations about your designs... Applies here too. For me it is a sign of a Lunocet that is too lose if it demands large amplitude to function. Good news if that is the case is that it is fairly easy to adjust and there would be lots of improvement available. I worry some folks had a brush with greatness trying out a poorly adjusted set up.

I said that there were things that I (the manufacturer) could change that would not be noticeable in a photo spread and that would result in poor function, not that there were things a customer could change (at least not without going at it with power tools).

Please explain how to use the adjustments on the Lunocet. Do you use different settings for slow relaxed dynamic swimming versus faster swimming; dynamics versus depth, etc...? What exactly is being adjusted and why? Is it just the spring constant, and is the spring constant the only thing that controls extent of the foil rotation while swimming?

 

[cdavis]

Thanks Kars. I think that is the most gorgeous technique I ever saw.

 

[Chipswim]

Writing from intensive care.... Tried the belly dancing concept. Just got in the water.... closed my eyes and started running her dance through my mind and body.... Worked incredibly well! Started zipping effortlessly all over the pool... Woke up here ¡ Apparently one of the ladies exercise gals got the wrong idea and smacked me with a milk jug of water !! ¡¡ !!

Revan...You are correct on both counts. There is some very nice adjustability built in AND I got after mine with power tools. Please remember I'm oversized and til you guys calmed me I swam with more violence than patience. So it would relate to over powering the built in limits. I think others intent on going fast may have done the same.

I don't think it is any secret that the fluke must always return to center on its own at the stroke's extremities. It must then easily deflect to a power position immediately upon receiving input from the swimmer. Then it has to increasingly resist further deflection so the most possible swimming power becomes propulsion. I'm thinking you've had to wrestle with similar parameters to make a device act alive?!?!

With the news of the last few posts in here I'm tinking all my dinking is old news by weeks end when the postman arrives.

I've written and photographed in here along the way. It has all worked out great! You can probably tell what I've been up to with the question you just wrote in mind. I'm expecting to be on a new level with the arrival of the Pro.

I actually promised Ted that I wouldn't disfigure this new one! Whether he believed me likely determines whether my address is one of the fifteen shipped......Ohhhh gave myself a sinking feeling there. Haven't had a very good track record keeping stock configuration.

 

[Chipswim]

I meant to say a really important part of your question about changing the adjustment for different purposes!!! For me when it's right..... Really right the same set up responds to every request!!!! That is a lot to ask but it is what I ask! The set up I have now pretty much answers that demand. I will be genuinely impressed if the Pro is even better!

 

[REVAN]

What is not clear to me is if your fin stays at one setting tailored to you, or if you have different settings, each tailored to the type of swimming you are doing.

Oh, I see you responded while I was typing. LOL! Okay, so you have one setting that works best for you regardless of swimming at 0.8 m/s or swimming at 2 m/s.

 

[Chipswim]

Yes!

 

[Kars]

Another picture of some foil mutilation. If I was Ted I would feel violated.

 

[Chipswim]

You are correct Kars and i feel some bad about that. Ted also knows I greatly appreciate what he makes. The fin pictured was one of the first 2014's shipped after the last long wait. It has gone to the pool almost every day since. Twice today. Twice many days. I'd be surprised if it isn't the most used maybe the most functional one of that design. Old news now and I hope there is no urge to hot rod the next one.

 

[Ted Ciamillo]

The nice thing about Chip is that at least he uses lots of lube before violating anyone.

 

[neurodoc]

That fin looks like it needs some TLC..lube...something! It has had a hard life. Official torture tester! and it has wood dowels stuffed in there too! At least I found a fiberglass tomato stake to make spare pegs out of ;-)

 

[lil jon]

I hope this doesn't cause folks to think of me as the turd in the punchbowl, but I am a numbers guy and I've been looking at some numbers from various videos posted on the forum.

02/12/14 - LunoClass: 25m. in 25 sec. 1 push + 5 strokes KG (apneadict)

03/26/14 - LunoClass: 25m. in 18 sec. and 1 push + 11 strokes KKG (liljon 1st video)

03/26/14 - LunoClass: 25m. in 16 sec. and 0 push + 15 strokes continuous (liljon 1st video)

04/11/14 - LunoPro: 25 yd. in 23sec and 1 push + 15 strokes KKG (neurodoc)
Linear interpolation for 25m. estimates 25 sec. with 1 push + 17 strokes KKG.

04/11/14 - LunoPro: 25 yd. in 17sec and 1 push + 22 strokes continuous (neurodoc)
Linear interpolation for 25m. estimates 19 sec. with 1 push + 19 strokes continuous.

Obviously, there can be a lot of variables in how a fin is working, but the stats for the Pro are looking worse than for the Classic so far. This is not an encouraging sign, though I'm inclined to think that this has more to do with differences in the swimmers and technique than a devolving of fin performance. However, I think it lends credence to my hypotheses that the Pro is too much like the classic to produce a significant improvement of function. It is basically the same fin, but bigger. I have felt that the result would likely be more of the same performance (i.e. - more thrust along with more induced drag for a net equivalence of performance).

Hey REVAN,

I agrees with you that we should probably look at the numbers. So far we (me included) have gotten excited based on unmet promises of performance and sexy looks. I don't know anything about the engineering side so all I look at arr statistics of performance.

I agree with KARS/REVAN that the videos online is probably not an appropriate metric. In my videos I was more focused on getting more strokes in than efficiency for the purpose of looking at fin flex. AA probably wasn't going for 'max efficiency' either.

Anyways here's my request: anyone with a lunocet classic/pro please contribute some data.

Specifically, The times and number of kicks to complete the following:
Kick-glide
Kick-kick-glide
Constant kicks.

Also please indicate the length of the swim.
If we could do that, we could probably compare it on a (subjective) ROC curve. I have an idea of what my lunocet classic compares to my rocketfin but I'm not keen on posting it yet.

While there are probably many issues in my suggestion due to individual variabilities and subjectivity, there is a plus side to it. It will be a good test on the robustness of the fin. (For the shameless like myself) if you would be willing to post a video of your technique that would be fantastic. This would give an idea if the lunocet holds up differently to a knee-bend or hip undulation technique.

 

[REVAN]

Hey REVAN,

I agrees with you that we should probably look at the numbers. So far we (me included) have gotten excited based on unmet promises of performance and sexy looks. I don't know anything about the engineering side so all I look at arr statistics of performance.

I agree with KARS/REVAN that the videos online is probably not an appropriate metric. In my videos I was more focused on getting more strokes in than efficiency for the purpose of looking at fin flex. AA probably wasn't going for 'max efficiency' either.

Anyways here's my request: anyone with a lunocet classic/pro please contribute some data.

Specifically, The times and number of kicks to complete the following:
Kick-glide
Kick-kick-glide
Constant kicks.

Also please indicate the length of the swim.
If we could do that, we could probably compare it on a (subjective) ROC curve. I have an idea of what my lunocet classic compares to my rocketfin but I'm not keen on posting it yet.

While there are probably many issues in my suggestion due to individual variabilities and subjectivity, there is a plus side to it. It will be a good test on the robustness of the fin. (For the shameless like myself) if you would be willing to post a video of your technique that would be fantastic. This would give an idea if the lunocet holds up differently to a knee-bend or hip undulation technique.

Nice to see that there are others interested in the numbers. I am also interested in the engineering and understanding how design relates to performance. It is not easy to come across data though. I don't think there are many lunocets being used by experienced monofin users and that is a big handicap to the process. The active guys with lunocets talking here on the forum are still in the learning stages and that makes qualifying any data available difficult, if not impossible. I think you are one of the more qualified people, technique wise, to provide good input. If you have data, I think we'd all appreciate seeing what you have found.

 

[neurodoc]

I think we're all interested in the numbers; the problem is that it is simply too early to get any statistically significant data from comparable swimmers. The only data available thus far is from the same swimmer using different fins (a couple of us have done that, mostly...me). It is possible that a "better fin" will work more efficiently than a "lesser fin" for any swimming ability; it is more likely that the better the swimmer's technique the more difference a more efficient fin would make. Look at the extremes-a complete novice who has never used a monofin or done a dolphin kick: would they tell the difference in performance? maybe, but then again not in a very consistent meaningful/measurable way. Now the opposite extreme: a top competitor, or someone with equivalent experience/technique. Would we expect this individual to demonstrate if a fin is capable of better performance than another fin? Yes of course, and that individual can probably do it over and over and get close to the same, repeatable result. This is where good data that can be plotted/graphed and reproduced is obtained. I am certain we will have this given enough Lunocets out there and enough time to use them! Now, with that in mind, I can say that my swimming is not super consistent-on a good day it's much better than any of the videos I've posted. I can tell when it doesn't flow properly, as I'm sure some of you do. I've realized this happens more when the pool is busy. My son and I had the entire pool to ourselves tonight! and my swimming was so much better. My data, if I were to time my swims and count my strokes, would likely not be consistent from one day to the next due to these variations. Honestly that's one of the reasons I don't often post such things about me-I know my limitations at this point in learning.

 

[noa]

Two questions, has anyone here had issues with their wife since getting their fin...? I wonder what the issue is if the fin sleeps with us at night ?
In all seriousness, I know we talked about it somewhere on this gargantuan thread, but would someone be kind enough to explain how the pin setting should work ? Which rods should be in and at what position ?
Thank for any advice...

 

[Chipswim]

Noa,

Ultimately the setting will be personalized by you for your preference.... Nice!

It is intuitive once you make a swim or two. Trust your own ideas!

The two variables you are working with are:
1. The spring itself..ie. How stiff the rubber is. (Did it come with one? Or a choice?)

2. How tightly you confine the spring. ie. How many pins you use. Where you put them. Other ways to confine the spring. (Did the box come with one pin or extras?)

When my last one arrived I asked the same question of Ted. He suggested I start with the softest setting and move from there.

Assuming there are still four holes to choose from. The softest setting would be one pin nearest the toes.
(That leaves most of the spring free to flex with your stroke.)

The next slightly stiffer setting would be one pin in the second hole... Removing the pin from the earlier hole.

A pin in each of those two holes would be slightly stiffer yet.... And so on till you have a pin in every adjusting hole at the same time which would be the stiffest pin setting.

(Since I like very stiff I put a pin in every hole the second trip to the pool. Any 3/8" pin will do. Wooden ones to assemble wood projects from a hardware store work fine. You are looking at a new set up. Maybe these previous style thoughts still apply. )

I like putting a nylon tie around the spring / frame assembly nearest the toes. It further confines the spring in that area making the response feel more life like and protecting the pin holes from over flexing if you push off walls. (No doubt your setting and your Lunocet will stay nicer and last longer... Much longer.... Maybe indefinitely... IF you choose NOT to push off walls! You have to be very pure of heart like the genuine dyn swimmers to never push off walls. Mine takes a severe beating every day and survives. My "violating modifications" like the disc of tire side wall in my photos are largely there to protect my Lunocet from me!)

Best to you Noa! So excited for you!

 

[neurodoc]

noa, the most important pin is the one forward of the peduncle between it and the flukes. There is a stainless hinge pin, which is likely already installed, and then between it and the flukes there is one hole that is only visible when the flukes are not installed. There must be a pin here as it anchors the far end of the spring. Then, on the near end of the rubber spring where you see the four holes Chipswim is speaking of you can put between one and all four to adjust tension to your liking. Softest=one pin nearest the shoes, hardest=all four as Chip said. But, without the pin on the far end, it really won't work

 

[zeno]

I am shipping another 15 units today and I think it covers all forum member customers.

Am I included? Tracking number please...

 

[Xaid]

Has CNN been reporting on the 15 missing tracking numbers? Any breaking news alerts?

 

[noa]

Chipswim and Neurodoc, thank you both very much for your info. It's what I had figured by toying with the fin, but I needed some confirmation.

 

[noa]

I would like to openly here express my gratitude towards Ted.
Although I have yet to swim with the fin, actually having it in my hands allows me to see what a task it must be for Ted to make these fins.
Like I have said in the past, I have followed the evolution of the Lunocet since 2008, when it came and sought to turn the mono fin world on its head. It's been quite the journey for Ted and now we have the fruit of that journey in our hands (or better say feet) to enjoy.
During my wait for the fin, I have at times expressed myself in a slightly harsh way towards Ted. Not always unjustifiably so, and although there is as always, a lot that can be improved on, I believe credit must be given for what has thus far been achieved. Ted has been thinking outside the box since day one and put in the work required to move things forward in his given field.
Once again thank you and may much hydratic goodness come out of your fins...