What happened to Lunocet Monofins?

[Billfish]

I was following the design evolution of the Lunocet Monofin prototypes and tried to contact Ted Ciamillo with little or no luck at all with responses. I even
placed an order with him. That was in 2008! Does anyone out there have any
current info on what occurred with the Lunocet Monofin. Thanks in advance.

 

[azapa]

I signed up as a tester, was promised a fin and it never arrived. Just my experience. What can you expect for free though?!

 

[BennyB]

I signed up as a tester, was promised a fin and it never arrived. Just my experience. What can you expect for free though?!

Exactly the same Simon, was supposed to be testing one, it never arrived and he didn't even have the courtesy to reply to my follow up email. If he had written back to tell me that the test was not going ahead I would have been fine with it but i'm afraid I don't have much respect for people who operate like that.

 

[chrismar]

You missed out on one of the most entertaining swimming experience ever. It's slightly more effective than bare feet alone, provided you don't have a good fly kick or a reasonable breast-stroke one. It's still comfortably beaten by swim training fins.

The most effective stroke to use is best described as "underwater squats".

 

[apneaboy]

I even placed an order with him. That was in 2008! Does anyone out there have any current info on what occurred with the Lunocet Monofin. Thanks in advance.

Did you actually pay for it and get nothing or was you offered a free trial one?

 

[Billfish]

I just received an e-mail from Ted Ciamillo in regard to my inquiry about the
status of the Lunocet monofin. He appears to be continuing the development
of the Lunocet. Back in 2008 I did not send any money but registered on his web site. I tried to stay informed by Lunocet but I'm guessing that the U.S. economic down turn prevented any production for consumer retail sales from coming about.

 

[Kars]

You missed out on one of the most entertaining swimming experience ever. It's slightly more effective than bare feet alone, provided you don't have a good fly kick or a reasonable breast-stroke one. It's still comfortably beaten by swim training fins.

The most effective stroke to use is best described as "underwater squats".

Chriss, pretty strong statements.

How did you arrive at those?

 

[efattah]

The original lunocet was actually pretty good, I got up from 30m in around 9 strokes.

 

[chrismar]

Chriss, pretty strong statements.

How did you arrive at those?

By swimming with it, Kars.

 

[Kars]

Which version did you try?
Have you tried it in a pool? - how was it?
Did you try it to depth? - how was it?
Did you try different speeds?
For how long did try it?

Have you got some video of your testing?

Do you think the design can be improved, if so by what?

Since I think you got a pretty nice technique, and a dynamic I would be proud of, therefor I value your opinion highly.

Thanks!

 

[Whopperhead]

We used the Lunocet at our Freedive-A-Palooza in 2009. Here is a video of the Palooza with glimpse of the Lunocet.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arVqcMIy530&feature=g-upl&context=G2952b1cAUAAAAAAAFAA]Freedive - A - Palooza 2009 Video - YouTube[/ame]


We tried/tested it for several days. Raced against other Monofins. Including the C4 Mono. The Lunocet won almost every time. We were almost able to breech completely. I got out of the water down to my shins a couple of times. It seemed like it took more effort to use the fin but it was very fast and took some getting use to. I liked the Lunocet but was not willing to buy one. I think at the time they were running $1800.

I have heard also that they are making improvements to the fin.

It was a joy to test out - we had a lot of fun with it.

 

[Kars]

Thanks Scott!

I've just seen your video, thanks for posting, a looked for the Lunocet's action. I noticed it seems to have a quicker transition action, going from the up to the downstroke. I also noticed it's wider and shorter then traditional fins. - The monoflap goes the other way. I wonder if it's not just the surface area that made it faster then other fins in certain comparisons.

What competitions did you do? Speed, dynamic, breaching?
What kind of fin used does this design prefer? (big-smal indulations, slow high speed, etc.)
Can you go into more detail why you think it often performed better?
Do you think the design you tried would outperform a good model hyperfin, and in what discipline and ways?

Thanks!

 

[efattah]

When I used the original lunocet, I found a large dead space during the transition from front kick to back kick and vice versa. Thus, to reduce the impact of this large dead space, I found that a huge amplitude stroke was the only way to use it effectively. This however is opposite from a monofin, which I think is the reason many people didn't like the original lunocet. I still have the original and the 2nd generation one.

 

[Kars]

Thanks Eric!

- side question, does the DOL-fin (pure hydrofoil) fin also have a (big) dead space? <I expect hardly any>.

 

[chrismar]

I'm not sure which version I used, though I think it was v2. The dead space that Eric mentioned was massive and pretty much made the fin functionally useless in the pool at least. The big amplitude kick means that speed is pretty much out as that requires a small amplitude and because it pushes so much water perpendicular to your motion, the efficiency was pretty horrible for me.

With a monofin, I can do a 100m in a 25m pool in 41 seconds. With the lunocet, I would struggle to get much under that time for a 50m. Effort, breath-hold and discomfort for the two swims would be comparable. I tried a few different kick styles with it and found anything remotely traditional from swimming or finswimming was useless. Turns are a nightmare too, as the fin has no lateral flexibility so trying to change directions quickly are a really effective way to dislocate a knee.

For me, a good monofin is faster, more efficient, more versatile and far cheaper. The lunocet is more compact and looks cool. Pick what's important to you.

 

[Kars]

Thanks Chris, understanding this fin also helps to know what we like for freediving.

 

[efattah]

Thanks Eric!

- side question, does the DOL-fin (pure hydrofoil) fin also have a (big) dead space? <I expect hardly any>.

The DOL-Fin has almost no dead space-- Ron designed the blade to be short enough to avoid the dead space issue.

However make no mistake. I still believe that the original Lunocet might be the best device to ascend in a condition of extra-ordinary negative ballast. In other words if you told me I needed to lift a 25kg weight off the bottom, this would be no problem with the lunocet, but very difficult with any other device.

 

[Mullins]

I think the version you used is the most recent iteration Chris. At least, I haven't seen anything since.

 

[Mullins]

I still believe that the original Lunocet might be the best device to ascend in a condition of extra-ordinary negative ballast.

I wonder what went wrong with version 2 then? Any attempt to ascend from more than about 30m with that fin would mean certain death.

 

[no bubbles]

Chris that's very fast 100m for 41sec. Was it a max effort?