• Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:

    • Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
    • Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
    • Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
    • Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
    • All this and much more...

    You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!

MONOFIN HELLLLL!!!!! R.I.P Tritonfin

Thread Status: Hello , There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
thanks I am new to the db site as a memebr but have watch from the het for a while
I have C4 flap and is beatiful for swimming the pool and the sea, i have the many C4 fins in carbon andthe flap for me is just like 81s put together very nice for depth i do 50 in the flap and is verynice on the legs not like my russian mono which is very ahrshif compared , DD you seem to like the 81 fin? the flap is veryvery same just in mono just so you know.

Maneli
 
hi maneli,

i like the 81 very much for relaxing diving but i do not like the mono. i am after high performace fin not relaxing recreational fin, so the c4 does not suit my requirements.

dd
 
Manel, I'm not familiar with the 81s. Do I take your post correctly that using the flap mono is sort of like dolphin kick with a soft (or medium?) set of bifins?

Connor
 
Hi Connor - I'm sure Maneli will reply - and since I haven't used bifins in a long time his review should have more weight than mine - but I think the monoflap is better than bifins with a dolphin kick - though closer than a regular mono, which is why I think you'll like it.
 
Cdavis, the C481's are the freediving specific fins C4 make (bright yellow footpockets and rails), longer blade than the other models and a long oval shaped flap at the end rather than the square flap of the mustang.

i have a pair they are very soft, but they are beutiful in the water, and favour a slow high amplitude kick to create a cruzy continious speed throughout the dive, very enjoyable to use and i can understand how the C4 mono would be work similarly (both developed at the same time) so i figure similar techniques were used in both, and they were both designed for the same thing, recreational deeper freediving.

DD
 
How do the 81's stack up to the old C4 80's?

I used to have a pair of the 80's, and they were the best bi-fins I ever used until I bought a pair of Mustang 30's. I would have bought a pair of the 81's at the time, but they were out of stock- which is how I ended up with the 30's instead.

Now days I use the Triton for deeper stuff, but I still wonder about going back to a pair of something like the 81's simply for durability sake.

Jon
 
thanks DD, sounds like my kind of mono. Fondue and Jon HURRY UP!

Connor
 
Last edited:
I've done the monoflap with a small amp - traditional streamline and its pretty interesting that way - if you keep your drag low you can go very nicely with not much effort. - With a faster kick it seems you almost get a whip effect at the end. For depth High amp seemed the way on the way up - activating the stiff part of the blade. The fin trailed quite nicely on the way down.
 
I’ve been working for the past year to try to address many of the issues raised here in this thread by developing a new monofin for freediving. I’m employing new technology, designs and materials to try to make a monofin that is comfortable enough for recreational freediving and long distance swimming, but efficient enough to stand with the best hyperfins for performance freediving. Assuming my design works as well as I’m predicting, I think you will all appreciate how durable it will be. These problems being raised here will no longer be issues.

Unfortunately, my prototype is not yet completed. You may be familiar with the old saying, “don’t count your chickens before they hatch”. We’ll all have to wait to see how well this works out, but I thought some of you may be interested to know that there is at least one person out there who is working on a solution to these problems you are having.

Ron
 
Last edited:
Please tell me you haven't jammed 2 bifins together as well.....
 
hahahaha mullins classic!

havent used the 80's before but have used the mustang 30's the 81 are softer than the 30 and also a fair bit longer. the 81's i find do well with relaxed relativley soft kicking and trying to speed them up doesnt really work, so mainitaining a nice even efficietn stroke is he best for them and then they work REALLY well.

30's are faster that for sure and can handle more power but not a smooth or efficient as the 81's in my opinion.

DD
 
Mullins said:
Please tell me you haven't jammed 2 bifins together as well.....
Click to expand...

I have not jammed 2 bi-fins together. I'll be posting pictures on my website as they become available. You can see predicted performance for my DOL-Fin Orca at:

DOL-Fin Orca - Smith Aerospace

Performance validation will be conducted in the April timeframe. I’d be interested to know if this performance in a comfortable product that will last 10 years or more, instead of the typical one or two years for a hyperfin, has market appeal to anyone in this group. Some feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Ron
 
Last edited:
Hey Ron,

I tried your original Dol-Fin (one that Pete Scott had) at Dean's Blue hole when we did the lunocet test.

I really didn't give it a fair shake but the problems I had with it were directional stability and getting the footpockets sorted out - which I understand were not finalized. On the plus side - the input/output equation seemed pretty good and there was essentially no drag. I'll be interested to see what you've got going now.
 
Last edited:
Fondueset said:
Hey Ron,

I tried your original Dol-Fin (one that Pete Scott had) at Dean's Blue hole when we did the lunocet test.
Click to expand...

I’ve been getting help from Peter in defining performance requirements for the DOL-Fin Orca. The goal I’ve been working to is 25 meters (dynamic across pool) in 15 seconds with 6 to 8 fin strokes. It has taken over a year of work and the construction and testing of over a dozen different ideas to get to where I think I can meet or exceed those requirements with a design that meets my standards of comfort for long range sea-hiking.

Although the DOL-Fin Orca has a more involved construction process which will make it quite a bit more expensive to manufacture than the DOL-Fin Classic you used before, I think that its versatility and durability will ultimately make the Orca a better long-term investment than are hyperfins.

I normally don’t start talking about equipment before I have validated its performance, but the subject matter in this thread seamed to be calling for the solution I have been working on. So there it is; vaporware in development.

Ron
 
Last edited:
sounds interesting, i wonder how your fin will fair in Dynamic Max attempts, generally 8 kicks would get you mostof the way if not all the way to 50min around 50sec or so.

by the sounds of the performance prerequisit this will postiond as a recreational touring fin rather than for max dives?

DD
 
also looking at the dimensions of 112cm wide,its gonna be apain in the butt to do turns during dynamic apnea without kicking the bottom!

looks to be really well built though.

are the speed and distance graphs actualperfomance figures are theoretical target figures.

DD
 
DivingDane said:
are the speed and distance graphs actualperfomance figures are theoretical target figures.
Click to expand...

The plots for the DOL-Fin Classic and HP are measured composite data. Measurements were taken, and then fed into a kinematic motion computer simulation I developed to assist with engineering development. The measurements are used to tune the simulation parameters to match the demonstrated performance. This provides better resolution and understanding of performance than can be achieved through raw measurements alone. What is important to you is that the performance shown has been demonstrated for these two fins.

The Orca has not yet been completed or tested. The plots shown there are just predicted performance from my kinematic motion simulation. I anchored the simulation’s parameters to tests I have done of engineering test equipment having certain functional similarities to what I am presently building. Then certain parameters get modified based on engineering judgment for the changes between the new design and the equipment that was tested. I run the simulation, and the output is what I am predicting for performance of the, as yet to be constructed, DOL-Fin Orca. I need to finish building this thing before I’ll know if I actually met my performance goals or not, and I don’t presently have any hardware in hand that can achieve what is shown. It is just a good guess for what the new hardware may be capable of when I build it. If I did a good job, the prediction will be a close match to the actual performance when I get it in the pool.

Ron
 
Looking forward seeing some photos and videos, once the fin is ready, so that I can add it to my Collection of Weird Fins too, just like your first one! Wishing good luck!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…