Tech fins for the gear-centric?

[billder99]

Prior to saying anything to you "Pros" and to hedge my bet's: I searched the site, read manufacturers propaganda, and even researched Trux's excellent thread on "Wierd Fins" which took me into all sorts of esoteric fin design hypothesis. I think I get it... high tech designs all say they give faster speed with less effort.

Regardless of all of the theory, I suspect that most of this stuff is designed mainly to sell more fins for more money. Personally, I believe it is the swimmer, not the fin, that makes you go faster or farther. If you want to swim faster and farther, practice swimming faster and farther.

Now I'll really stick my foot in it (pun intended)... I use off the shelf Churchill fins at $35 a pop. Gasp! Sacrilege! :martial I was a water polo player and competitive swimmer for 14 years, and I have used my Churchies since I was a boy (I'm now 49 years old). I would bet that over a 200m course, there are very few of you who could beat me in either a straight course or a pool with the fins of your choice against my Churchies, and I am old(er) and out of shape. PS; It is FAR easier to tread water in place with short fins, my Churchills float, I don't cramp up, and I can maneuver quickly and easily!

However, I will admit that I have not actually used any of the high tech fins and therefore my mind is open. As I see it, there are 2 fundamental situations: "Deep water diving" and "shallow water diving".

• Deep Water - OK, maybe... there are a lot of freedivers who swear by the longer fin designs in terms of conservation of energy. In deep water I suppose I can see the advantages, especially for pure freediving. However, for spearfishing, I'm still not convinced, because...
• Shallow Water - Most speardiving seems to be done in 35 feet or less depth. The shallower the water, the more likely you are to be near the bottom. Near the bottom where you have to maneuver, I guarantee I can move much quicker and easier than a long-finner. When it comes to scratching my Churchies on the rocks or pushing off from the rough stuff, who cares. Underwater recovery or rescue?... lets just say Beach Lifeguards use Churchills for a reason.

An admittance of a predjudice. When the surf is right, I go bodysurfing. I prefer to gear-up lightly, and with the Churchills I only need one set of fins for everything.

 

[trux]

Re: Tech fin design = marketing gimmic?

Yes, I believe that people generally expect too much from fins as for performance boost goes. If you look at the differences at world records, or PB, with and without fins, then you can see that the difference is about 20% at horizontal disciplines, and ~30% at vertical disciplines. I guess that even with the worst fins you'd be better than without fins, so the difference between the worst and the best fins you can ever find, is probably somewhere in the range of 10%, possibly even much less, once you adapt your kicking style to the type of the fin. So, it is true that this is not very important for recreational freediving, and of special interest only to competitive freedivers.

I tried numerous fins for freediving, from quite small prehistoric rubber fins, to C4 carbon freediving fins, and can confirm that the choice has very little impact on the max performance. If you feel any immediate difference, it can be rather attributed to the need of different kicking style that each fin requires, but once you get used to them, there will be indeed very little difference.

That told, the proper choice of fins is still rather important. Although the impact on the maximal performance can be negligible, there are other aspects that are important - comfort, surface swimming, change of stiffness with depth, weight, acceleration, maximal speed, maneuverability, etc. It all depends on the type of diving. Although the differences are not too big, when you dive for long time or in extreme situations, even the small difference can be quite important.

 

[efattah]

Re: Tech fin design = marketing gimmic?

In my case my personal deepest with bifins is 38m, and with monofin 88m. My longest dynamics are: 75m (no-fins), 100m (bi-fins), 150m (monofin).

I have caught fish hunting with a monofin, and there are many species of fish which must be caught way deeper than 35ft (11m). When dragging up a fighting fish, a monofin definitely comes in handy.

The main advantage in terms of hunting with a monofin is that you have a much longer bottom time to actually hunt, since it only takes a couple of strokes to get down, and a couple to get back up. The energy in ascending & descending is negligible, compared to the huge energy required to ascend & descend with bifins, or even more so with short bifins.

 

[billder99]

Re: Tech fin design = marketing gimmic?

Hey Trux,

Thanks very much for your response regarding fins. I have read many of your posts in the last month, but just now noticed the link "Freediving and Apnea Video Collection" in your signature. Wow! You have done an enourmous amount of work putting this resource together. I look forward to many hours of viewing pleasure in those "nothing else to do moments". Thanks very much for sharing with everyone.

BD

 

[Seacidal]

Re: Tech fin design = marketing gimmic?

Eric,
I've been interested in trying out a monofin for hunting, but the maneuverability factor has me concerned. When hunting white seabass, a silent descent is essential, along with an ability to hang mid-water and turn to face your target. Without any personal monofin experience, I've been wondering how you can effect slow turning motions? What is your experience?
Chip

 

[billder99]

Re: Tech fin design = marketing gimmic?

Hey Eric,

Have to admit, you make the mono-fin sound good. I would like to try one sometime just for fun. (Typical: I still snow ski too... resisting the change to snowboard like mad... guess I'm one of those "find something that works and stay with it" kind of guys).

Regarding the difference between your mono-fin and bi-fin performance, that is just a technique issue (as if I am saying something you don't know). As I said, I'm out of shape but I can still swim (or kick) fast... for 100 or 200 meters, anyway!.. all technique.

Great bunch of people on this forum... friendly, knowledgable, respectful.

BD

 

[Fondueset]

Re: Tech fin design = marketing gimmic?

As a relatively new long fin user I'd say the difference is pretty dramatic. I went from using Dacor Longblades - which were a huge improvement over my older USD fins - to sporasub HDs - the main thing I noticed was the energy conserved. It was a pretty radical change. The sporas were stiff though - very hard to manuever with and the foot pockets were boxy. I switched to Omer Ice fins - softer - but much more comfortable. Anyway, the point is long fins seem to make a huge diff. I'm looking forward to a monofin though.

 

[RydDragyn]

Re: Tech fin design = marketing gimmic?

I think you're right insofar as fins are like the tires on a car - the amount of power they transmit to the ground is only as good as the engine - which in this case, is the swimmer.

Having said that, I've used a lot of different kinds of fins, and I've found that there are VERY significant differences between the broad categories - e.g. jet fins, split fins, and long blades. Between different fins/brands of the same category, it all probably comes down to personal fit and feel.

Anecdotally, I've also noticed that people (by which I mean "old-timers") tend to prefer the fin type they started out with, no matter what that may be. Take that however you want.

 

[billder99]

Re: Tech fin design = marketing gimmic?

Hah! So right Red Dragon... most of the Oldsters are definitely more "change resistant". :head So after all the experimentation (and expense!) what kind of fins would you guys be using if money were no object? I truly do have an open mind and will experiment when I take classes and can try other fins.

Do you agree with my observations regarding small-fin advantages for close in maneuverability, spearfishing? (Again, I do understand that I will get more downtime if I conserve more energy, but so far I have found that most of my "tracking" time is on the surface and "killing" time is rarely more than 1:30m down and back). Admittedly, I am not in the same league of spearfishing as many on this board (100# plus fish in blue water), but I always get fish and we always eat well afterward.

 

[rslomkow]

Re: Tech fin design = marketing gimmic?

I think you may be right that at least surface swimming, a trained swimmer in "churchies" or any other swimming fin is probably faster than the average freediver with long fins. I suspect that many swimmers with no fins are faster than freedivers in carbon fins at surface swimming.

World records for swimming:

50m 21.64s, Alexander POPOV RUS, Jun 2000 Moscow, RUS
100m 47.84s, Pieter VAN DEN HOOGENBAND NED, 19 Sep 2000 Sydney, AUS
200m 1:44.06, Ian THORPE AUS, 25 Jul 2001 Fukuoka, JPN
400m 3:40.08, Ian THORPE AUS, 30 Jul 2002 Manchester, ENG
​

In general oxygen makes you faster rofl

The joy of long-fins is not the speed, but the efficiency and reactiveness at depth. I do think they are about 25% performance boost than no-fins (World records as has already been pointed out). I feel a number of long fins I have owned were inferior to bare feet at surface sprinting. Long fins on the other hand are so much more comfortable for a day of deep (-20m for me) diving that they are well worth it.

To do long slow runs or spend a day out freediving and/or apnea spear fishing most find it much more comfortable to wear long fins and use a high amplitude low-frequency kick. I think lots of people get fins that are too-stiff for them thinking that it will make them "fast." Though I have to admit for us shorter stockier types stiff fins feel better.

For spearfishing in Europe many groupers hang out in deep waters, -20m - -40m and deep is a serious concern. Though for East Pacific diving I agree -12m is where most of the good fishing is.

If money, aquisition, and logistics were not limitations:

I would go with custom made carbon fiber blades, minmum rail, and a custom full foot enclosure.

I would also love to have a carbon monfin, in practice I don't have a monofin mostly because of logistics rather than cost. Innconvient to travel with, difficult to find someone who will let me try on some foot pockets to see how well they fit me.

In reality I like Cressi Gara 3000 HF mostly because the footpocket fits me far better than Omer or Sporasub, and they are longer and feel snapier than the Cressi Gara2000 HF

Have fun playing in the water! with whatever gear you have.

 

[Fondueset]

Re: Tech fin design = marketing gimmic?

Maneuverability is a good point - also the issue of speed vs energy conservation. For sure long fins are about the latter. My softer ice fins allow me much better maneuverability in close than the sporas did.

All the long fins I've used are more awkward for surface swimming - it is difficult to keep them from breaking the surface - much more so than short fins. I think it's important to stay with the point that it is not about surface speed. The vertical dimension is the only one where speed matters and long fins certain deliver there - more so than short and with less energy expended.

As to the title of the thread; While I think there are fins out there that are mostly marketing gimmicks but my bet is you'll find the bulk of them in the scuba/snorkeling arena. Freediving is a much smaller and relatively discerning market. It just wouldn't pay off to put something out there that doesn't deliver - not that it hasn't happened. Just not as much.

 

[dr.ed]

Re: Tech fin design = marketing gimmic?

Being older, and therefore wiser lol and NOt resistant to change; for decades i used duckfeet(still do in pool) churchills to bodyboard in close/"hydrofins" outside and to snorkle. Just bought a pair of long fins (Omer milenium comps) in O'ahu (Dec '06);they have more "bang for the buck" (i did cramp up calfs 1st time out) imho. They do take getting use-to; lots of power even on surface; got me to bottom and back up quick ans easy

 

[billder99]

Re: Tech fin design = marketing gimmic?

Everyone - thanks for your observations and experience... persuasive!

I have observed that people have become "gear-centic" (my new word) in pursuit of personal improvement. They think they can be better if they get better gear. Whether we are talking about spearfishing, playing guitar, martial arts, you name it... spending money on "the newest thing" is easier than hard and dedicated practice over the long term. There are no short-cuts to excellence.

I do know that some advances in gear technology are huge leaps forward... (FI: I won't snowboard, but I have changed to shape-skis and they have taken my snow skiing to far higher levels.) Perhaps long fins, and particularly carbon long fins, are such a technology advance. Clearly, everyone here who has used the long-fins has preferred them for freediving and even spearfishing, regardless of material.

Fondueset,
I have to agree that the title of the thread is inappropriate, in that it implies unethical marketing practices... I absolutely do not believe that to be the case (so will change the thread name from "marketing gimmic" to "gear-centric"). I am certain the companies developing fins are looking for "a better mousetrap", and each feels thier solution to be beneficial in some unique way.

Mr Ed,
Nice to have the input from someone who is "older", shared the same short-fin preferences, made the transition and is glad he did.

In the not-so-distant future, if I can show myself that I have real promise as an apneist and have the dedication to pursue the discipline, then perhaps I would invest in long fins.

For now I'm staying with Churchill. They are tried and true, inexpensive, indestructable, maneuverable, propulsivly quick, they float, are comfortable to wear, easy to put on, won't cramp the legs, you can walk in them across sand and rocks for short distances, small and easy to back in a bag to take anywhere you go, can be used for a variety of water sports, highly visible, and they look good!

Disclaimer: I am in no way associated with the Churchill company; I just like the product.

 

[Fondueset]

Re: Tech fin design = marketing gimmic?

I was out diving yesterday. I'm having to swim much farther and dive deeper because as the water cools the fish move out deeper. As I swam along the bottom I thought of another virtue of long fins that I don't think anyone has mentioned. They greatly reduce percieved motion. This is a big plus for me since I'm usually trying to find and get close to fish. Closer even than is needed for spearing. For me it's not about enhancing performance - it's about opening the door to 'the blue room' and forgetting about 'me' while I'm there.

Must be awesome living near the Sea of Cortez!

 

[dr.ed]

Billder99
Actiually it's dr ed; if mr ed have a nice tart apple for me lol

You really ought to move up(down) to a snowboard!!! Been riddin ~14yrs now started at 47yrs. old. Save your Knees! Shaped skis are just two skinny snoboards lol :t

 

[Jon]

I don't snowboard, as I'm not a knuckle dragger rofl , but have been telemarking for over 25 years and switched to plastic boots and shorter, shape, skis the end of last season after I broke my old leathers in the moguls and needed to upgrade. New gear makes a big difference, so much so that I decided to invest in a helmet, and allows you to do more things- that half pipe has my name on it if we ever get any snow around here. :head

For diving I think that different fins have different purposes. The underwater distance record on scuba is held by a diver wearing ForceFins, but I wouldn't want to use them for freediving. Actually, I have and they sucked.:vangry The underwater distance record, in apnea, is held with a monofin. Different fins for aerobic vs. anerobic endevors. I think the same might be true for what were talking about in this thread- Chruchills for surface (aerobic) swimming and long fins for underwater (anerobic) swiming.

Jon

 

[dr.ed]

Free your heels Free your Mind

 

[trux]

The underwater distance record, in apnea, is held with a monofin.

That's new to me. Which one do you exactly mean? As far as I know the freediving distance record is still 223m DYN by Tom Sietas and was made using bi-fins. Although there is now the new 111m CWT record of Herbert Nitsch and was indeed done with a monofin, it is still one meter shorter (2x111 = 222m). And Tom Sietas is not the only top freediver using bi-fins for dynamic, proving so that their efficiency is not so inferior to the monofin. Stephane Mifsud who did 213m comes to mind too and there are certainly others too.

 

[Jon]

I was thinking of Herbert.

Even so, the dynamic record is still held with freediving (bi)fins and not churchills or forcefins- which was my main point.

If we start talking about depth, then we're back to monofins for all the constant ballast records.

Jon

 

[trux]

Even so, the dynamic record is still held with freediving (bi)fins and not churchills or forcefins- which was my main point.

Well, that's certainly true, but if you look at the no-fins records - or even the Free Immersion records (also without fins), then you can see that the difference between fins and no-fins is rather minimal even in the depth disciplines. And that's the point of this discussion - yes of course, efficient, comfortable and maneuverable fins are crucial, but as long as we do not speak about breaking records or winning competitions, you can quite well freedive also completely without them, or with some old crappy fins as well. It is not the carbon long blades or a monofin that make you a freediver. For example, if you use to hike for weeks with a small backpack along the cost, small fins may be much more suitable and will make your trip much more enjoyable than if you have to bother with transporting huge and heavy bi-fins or a monofin, and your freediving experience won't be influenced a lot.