A Finswimmer wannabe dilemma

[sakina z]

Hi! I am an open water surface swimmer who swims distances. I don't look for speed performance as much as I look for endurance. I Typically swim distances from 1.5-3 mi, even up to 6mi using a Finis foil monofin. I'm due for an upgrade but have a hard time finding the next mono that fits my kind of use. Monos like WW Nemo types don't work well for me. Too sturdy, made for speed not endurance. The bulk size and sharp blade is also a real challenge in big swells (I live in the Southern california's surf land) and for swimming with buddies. Besides the Lunocet, does anyone know of a good mono, made for marathon swimming (10k+)? Thank you.

 

[cdavis]

the monoflap is pretty good on the surface, search for its thread and look at the videos

The Dolfin is pretty good on the surface. Very low effort for me as long as I keep the speed down. You have to play with technique a bit.

 

[cdavis]

another point on the Dolfin, it has an extremely small blade area, much less surface area for a wave to work on you.

 

[baiyoke]

You should definately consider a dolfin.

 

[REVAN]

If you haven't seen this:
http://forums.deeperblue.com/threads/new-dol-fin-x-20-monofins-at-discounted-price.101874/

 

[sakina z]

Thanks! I had no knowledge of the C4 monoflap. I'll check it out and try to talk to Mark at c4-usa. Regarding the Dol-fin, it looks very similar to the Lunocet, from my uninformed prospective buyer seat. Prices are however extremely different (the hydrotouring lunocet sells at $299) Unless the Lunocet Pro (which looks pricier) is really the model to compare to the Dolfin. What are the differences between the two? Because I am experimenting and not sure which mono will really work for me, I am hesitant to try a mono and then see it sitting in my garage (like the used WW Nemo I got a few weeks ago). Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[REVAN]

The hydrotouring Lunocet at $299 does not include shoes. Expect to spend another $100 to $150 on shoes before you can use it, so it is really a $400 to $450 fin. The last time I saw prices posted for the Pro it was $499. Add shoes to that and it is a $600 to $650 fin. Expect to wait a loooong time for a Lunocet. Before ordering a Lunocet, I suggest you research the waiting experience others here on DB have had so that you know what you are getting into.

To answer your question, "What are the differences between the two?", I'll just point you to the comments of others who have compared them. Since I make the X-20, it would not be that meaningful for me to make the comparison. If you like, you can read the comments of liljon comparing the hydrotouring Lunocet and the X-20 here: http://forums.deeperblue.com/threads/extreme-dolfinism-g2.100667/page-5#post-936598

The X-20 comes with the shoes, and I can usually ship them within a week of receiving an order.

Cheers,
Ron Smith

 

[cdavis]

The monoflap is an interesting fin, very different, much softer than traditional monos. I used one fairly extensively and found it good underwater for what I wanted it for. On the surface, I had problems with it when current and chop started to interfere, but others have been very happy with surface performance. My issues were probably technique.

Be very careful with a lunocet. Ted does fabulous marketing, but there are a bunch of issues. Read at least the last 10 pages of the luno thread. Lots of hope, lots of hype and LOTS of dissatisfied divers who have paid and not received a fin. This is not new; its been Ted's pattern for years.

All that aside, read carefully Apnea Adicts review of the luno classic. Bottom line, it would be a poor fin for your application.
The pro might be more possible, if Ted succeeds in getting around the problems caused by going to a larger blade. I've looked at that design with interest, but the blade area is so much larger than a Dolfin(much closer to a traditional mono) that I don't think it would meet my needs.

If I remember right, Ron has a sale on the x20(the one you would be interested in). No price difference at all with the luno(I think).

I'll have to go back and retest(I don't do surface with it much), but my memory of surface laps with my x18 (prototype to the x20) was very low effort. I was not udulating, just using ankles and a bit of hip, three leg strokes and an arm stroke. Speed was about the same as laps for distance with short fins, but heart rate was MUCH lower. I think it would work well for your application. You can undulate and its faster, but much more energy intensive.

FYI: Ron is absolutely reliable on customer service and performance of his fins.

Connor

 

[Apneaddict]

Wish I could add anything meaningful to the discussion, but I am USELESS at all surface swimming (front crawl, breaststroke, etc) and I'm even less energy efficient at surface swimming with a monofin.

Sea-hiking / Hydrotouring just ain't my thing!

Only thing I like is a negatively buoyant fin for surface swimming, as the fin tends to be lower in the water and a mono touching the surface sucks for propulsion and increases drag.

I get that lighter is better for constant kicking over several KMs.

I personally prefer soft bifins for surface swimming and even then I'll switch back and forth to a "DNF" technique - so what do I know?? LOL

 

[baiyoke]

Regarding the Dol-fin, it looks very similar to the Lunocet, from my uninformed prospective buyer seat. Prices are however extremely different (the hydrotouring lunocet sells at $299) Unless the Lunocet Pro (which looks pricier) is really the model to compare to the Dolfin. What are the differences between the two?

My of course subjective view on the differences are as follows:
- One of the fins (Dolfin) seems to be a product that you can order and recieve - the other (Lunocet) has a history of non-delivery of more than 5 months because of continoues new problems regarding durability according to the threads on deeperblue.
- One is a very solid concept used at least once by a WR holder doing a near WR dive (2nd longest). The other fin is in my view built on a much more questionable concept since it keeps on a need for constant further development and parts breaking according to the threads on deeperblue.
- One of them you can order and pay for and recieve and then go diving with the next day. The other you can order, pay for, but then you don't know for how long you have to wait.

You can trust Ron (the inventor of Dolfin) in my experience, and following the development of the Dolfin on Deeperblue has been a pleasure.

You can google the Lunocets inventors name (Ted Ciamillo) and research a bit yourself on things like cusomer support etc. - and also read in the Lunocet thread on Deeperblue and make up your mind yourself on the trust issue.

I'm a huge fan on fin development, and as such also perhaps a hard critic. But in my view what Ted is doing to buyers of the Lunocet dream is not ok. At first I thought he was just a confused inventor having difficulties running a business, but now I'm not sure what is going on, since things are not getting better it seems (people have waited 5+ months for a fin).


I just cannot recommend the Lunocet until there's an actual reliable end product, until it's proven by more than a few hopefull fans, and until the inventor shows more respect for both customers and product durability.

Because I am experimenting and not sure which mono will really work for me, I am hesitant to try a mono and then see it sitting in my garage (like the used WW Nemo I got a few weeks ago).

Well, this is difficult for most I think, and that's why it is soooooooooo important what new fin-inventors are doing in the very fragile arena of fin development.

 

[neurodoc]

Sakina, I'm sorry that the Nemo hasn't worked out for your swims; hopefully it's fun to use in other venues! Are you still swimming with a Finis Foil then? The first Lunocet, the classic that has the smaller flukes, works great for surface swimming and is very light. The flukes, while having an aluminum subframe, are completely soft rubber on the outside. For swimming with groups of other people, this is far better than a fin that is aluminum on the outside and much wider-it was one of the reasons I bought the first Lunocet, as I usually swim in a public pool and did not want to injure someone with my Glide and lose fin privelages in the pool. That is also one of the reasons I chose the Lunocet over the Dolfin. I do not know if the wait for a classic is the same as a wait for a Pro, and in any case there won't be much wait soon.
I thought I'd chime in with a few thoughts of my own at this point. This discussion thread has taken a quite harsh turn with Baiyoke's criticisms/accusations of Ted Ciamillo and his product. I feel it's bit of a thread hijack, but want to comment. I have three Lunocets at this point-a Classic, 2014 Pro, and 2015 Pro. As far as "not delivering any product", keeps breaking, or needing constant rebuilding none of those are true. For comparison, none of my three Lunocets ever broke, and I've broken two Foils. The only functional issue I've experienced was some slack that developed in the 14 pro because the spring was too vulnerable for the stronger flukes-and even then it still worked quite well. There's a difference between a product that can be ordered and received as quickly (like thru Amazon) such as the Finis Foil, and a fin like a Lunocet. One is fast/easy to get/cheap, and works ok for a while (though one of mine broke on the third swim and a friend's broke the first time he tried to put it on-the strap snapped). I'm sure that the Dolfin is better than the Foil, from what users say and how it looks-but I bet it isn't on Amazon and can't be gotten the next day either. One of the reasons that Lunocets take time to get is that there is a waiting list; orders exceed product though his recent streamlining of production is allowing bigger batches to be finished. Getting a fin that is handmade, by the designer, and constantly being improved, requires more commitment than mail-order. It's the same thing in any sport; you can buy a Kawasaki off the showroom floor but if you want a Buell it takes time; they build it for you and include the current updates in the process. As to the accusations of fraud and dishonesty, both the term and the way it's described afterward are really more of a personal attack that I feel is uncalled for. This is a small sport; how many people are really working to make new fins that are evolving what we do? Maybe three if you count Bogdan's Tornado as "new" compared to the Glide? We are lucky to have two makers who are striving to evolve our sport's equipment. Regardless of what the reason is for Ted's shipping delays (and I know the delays are due to product improvement cycles/not wanting to send something out that still needs work) to accuse someone of fraud and dishonesty is like using a grenade to kill a spider in your own room. It potentially hurts everyone as it's a pretty small room (ie a small sport). What if he decided to just leave the sport? would we ever know where his product development could have led? Having used the three fins I have, I can tell you I'm excited to have them and look forward to what's next! So really, here's the question: who is doing more to damage the "very fragile arena of fin development", the person who is working through different challenges to continue the evolution of his fin, or the person (who hasn't apparently even experienced the fin) who makes accusations of fraud and dishonesty about that person?

 

[baiyoke]

Just to let you know: I have edited my respons and toned it down a bit.

 

[Ted Ciamillo]

The changes are complete. Yes, there have been painful delays but I am shipping 2 to 3 a day now. Today I am working on shipping ten and I will follow up with a pic before they leave. There is a waiting list and some have waited very long caught up in refinements based on feedback- to these customers I am sincerely sorry. The only thing that caused the delay was the pursuit of perfection coupled with high demand. I value the feedback from my customers and it has shown in my willingness to make improvements - it is this that is so wonderful to "fin development".

 

[sakina z]

First I want to thank everybody for so eagerly providing great information to help me in my search for the perfect fin. Second, it was not my intent to provoke a brouhaha around fab products that all seem unique in their own and are worth experimenting with. Finally, in my search for the next mono, I discovered that most hyperfins are made in Europe and China. So I was quite happy to find out that what seems to be the next generation of super efficient and powerful monos are designed and manufactured right here in the US. Lunocet or Dolfin, it seems like I cannot be wrong either way, both being the product of passionate inventors. Meanwhile, I spoke to Mark at C4-USA. The Mustang Monoflap sounds pretty cook. Ugggh.. Now I want all 3 monos. :O

@neurodoc, I have used the WW Nemo 3 or 4 times. I like it and have played with it in the cove on a couple days, when the ocean was flat. One of the instructors of the local dive shop was even interested in buying it from me (his shop doesn't have any) but I said no, as I don't want to give up on possibly swimming longer distances with it.

 

[sakina z]

*The Mustang Monoflap sounds pretty cool (not cook.. )

 

[cdavis]

cooking with gas?

the monoflap's mustang pockets are almost as comfortable as bike shoes, no real difference if they fit well and you wear a thin sock.

Anyway, it would be very nice to know which of the Dolfin and monoflap is better on the surface, since that will be your main use. Neither is designed for surface swimming. Both should be at least acceptable, considerably better than the Finis Foil. I had issues with the monoflap on the surface that disappeared with the Dolfin. I think because strut that holds the Dolfin foil angles down during surface swimming. This seems to keep the foil below the water's surface, a considerable help to efficiency. From others experience (and the videos) it appears that good technique can do the same thing for the monoflap. I just wasn't successful. It would be a very good idea to explore this factor before buying a fin. Is it possible to try either yourself? (the acid test).

Another factor is your size and strength. The Dolfin you can reduce the foil length, better for small people. If you are small and not very strong, this might be a significant factor.

Connor

 

[REVAN]

FYI Sakina: It looks like you are in O.C., is that right? I'll be in the L.A. area next month and I'll have some equipment with me. PM me if you want to meet and we can discuss options and have you checkout some gear to see if it will work for you.

 

[sakina z]

@cdavis, Thanks so much. "..because strut that holds the Dolfin foil angles down during surface swimming. This seems to keep the foil below the water's surface, a considerable help to efficiency.." --> that s interesting. As for size and strengh, I am big and not all that strong, although swimming distances with the Finis Foil has made a huge difference in my core strength (better than barbell squats!)
Trying to see if I can try a monoflap. The only hesitation I have about the flap is it's length.

@REVAN I would love to try out a dolfin while in SoCal if possible. Now I got to recall how to PM ppl here..

 

[finSailor]

What would be the recommended alternative to the Lunocet? I also usually swim in a public pools and they do not allow you to use wide fins like Dol-fin. A lake nearby is not really suitable for that either, for other reasons

I also bought an extra pair of new cycling shoes for Lunocet, so they are there ready waiting for suitable fin too. Can not get them returned/refunded anymore, so it'd be perfect to get them in use as planned.

 

[cdavis]

You might need to get clarification from pool management. If they don't allow Dol-fins, they are likely to not allow any monofin and you will be limited to bifins. If your interest is monfin style (dolfin kick) swimming, you can develop good technique with soft, short bifins. I found that a stiff set of bifins(Cressi 2000hfs) does a reasonably fast and efficient dolfin style stoke.

Connor