MaxAir Swim Fins - Stay Down Longer with Less Effort

[TECreation]

Great comments. I do suppose there is no net change in carbon footprint if you take advantage of the 20% savings in air consumption and stay down for the extra 20% of the time. There is a reduction in the carbon footprint per minute of submerged time though. This is actually pretty far off the track of the real point though.

No doubt, for the most part, the best dives are done slowly. If you are always going slowly there is no need for a high performance fin. In fact if all you do is sit on the bottom there is no need for fins at all. We wear fins to maker our swimming easier. Any fins will work if you only want to go a half mile an hour or less. Unfortunately, there are times where we want or need to go faster. To follow a cuttlefish, to get around a coral head to get a great picture of your buddy coming around, or even to get back to the boat after a navigation mistake put you down current. I view the high performance capability as an insurance policy. It extends the conditions in which you can prevail.

Many people love split fins because they are so easy on the ankles but most bemoan them because they are at a loss when they get caught down current. The MaxAir has the benefit of both. They are easy at slow speeds and have the capability to get you out of trouble if need be. I do not recommend placing yourself in trouble just because you have a reasonable probability of getting out. The conditions in the sea always need to be respected.

In the air consumption tests the "cruise" is an arbitrarily chosen consistent speed for each test. In a series of 5 to 6 runs per pair of fins 5 or 6 different cruise speeds are selected between "as slow as possible" to "if I slow down I will be eaten by a shark". The data is compiled to create a performance curve for each fin type. The curve compares the total air consumed for the course to the speed of course completion. This data is compiled and shown in .pdf files on our testing page.

The results make it clear that at low speeds it does not matter what fin you use. The reason for this is at slow speeds your metabolic rate is not increased from the rate at rest. The big difference is at the high end. This is where we have logged as much as a 50% reduction in air consumption to complete the course. The claim we make is you could extend your dive time as much as 20% to be conservative. Granted, to do that your entire dive would have to be at a moderate swimming speed. That does not happen that often but it does happen sometimes. We have learned a lot about speed to swim from the testing and it does prove what most instructors have always taught. "Take it easy out there," your air will last longer.

I prefer to emphasize the air efficiency of the fins but in conversations with divers their first question is usually, "Are they faster?" The answer is "Yes" but that is really because they are more efficient.

As for frog kicking - These are not frog kicking fins. The reduced wake profile and ease of the bent knee kick pretty much eliminate the need for frog kicking. There is a reason you do not see silt being kicked up. It is because it is not. But to be clear these are not designed (at this time) for frog kicking. If these are successful we will turn our attention to tech divers and the frog kicking world and design another fin specifically for that purpose. These are for the average open water diver.

We are still nearly a year out on the actual crowdfunding and we hope to do a lot more testing by the general public by then so we can get everyone's feedback. Please bear with us while we try to let everyone know we exist.

We have not expounded on the referral code much yet because we felt it was better to talk about the fins. For those who sign up early (the first 400) the referral code will get the owner $40 (Yes that will be a check.) for each pair of fins that are bought with them (that is unlimited) Each purchaser will get a 10% discount also. These codes will only go to people who actually back the crowdfunding though. Every backer of the crowdfunding will get their own code but the referral fee will drop as the list grows. So if you and your friends want to benefit the most from this program sign up now.

The final pricing of the fins is not set and will be based on the actual cost of production and the market demand.

This is great stuff. Keep it coming. We want to know what you are thinking.

 

[REVAN]

...$200 for a pair of fins? Not me. Sorry...

Have you considered that the reason you won't pay $200 or more for a dive fin is simply because you have never used a fin that is worth more than $65? Granted there are a lot of $65 fins out there that are sold for closer to $200, but that doesn't actually mean that it is a $200 fin. Look at those $189 F1s and tell me what tech they have that would make it a $189 fin when it is built and functions just like the cheap fins.

Good equipment costs money. At DEMA show, I was looking at the new UP-F1 fins from Aqualung / OmerSub. The rep said they retail at $850.

What about Mares? Are these fins too expensive? (Frankly, I think these looked to be better than the UP-F1.)
http://www.leisurepro.com/p-MRSFRC12/mares-razor-carbon-spear-fishing-full-foot-fins-black?gclid=CJG6lYezqMkCFU5afgod244Kzw&kwid=productads-plaid^18283950120-sku^MRSFRC12@ADL4LP-adType^PLA-device^c-adid^56051352613

It costs Mares in the $500 range to make and sell a good diving fin. They sell the cheap fins to scuba divers because they generally don't know any better and don't think they need any better. But this is a good reference point. Good diving fins cost about $500. It is up to you if you choose to dive with lame gear. A lot of people do it all the time and you can still have fun in the water. Just know that the capabilities of lame gear is not the same as that of the good gear.

If Dave can make some good dive fins and sell it in the $200 range, he's actually got something great compared to the current status. I have had a chance to try one of the prototypes. I thought they were noticeably better than the other scuba fins we had available to compare against. They felt less resistive than most all other fins and went further per fin stroke. The only fins that seemed to perform better were the really expensive freediving fins. Dave's fins split the performance difference between the best of the scuba fins and the really expensive composite freediving fins. There was a lot of performance drop off for many of the other scuba fins. I didn't do any highly controlled testing (just swimming along the anchorline laying on the bottom of the lake for a reference), but it was good enough to see there is something new with this tech.

 

[TECreation]

Great fins at great prices for everyone are our goal. As a small company we do not have to support internal churn so we will put these fins on the market at the lowest cost that will keep us in business. I would be thrilled if we could retail these at $100 but in order to do that we need to know there is enough of a market. Right now you can help by showing you have interest in new technology by signing up for our no obligation pre-crowdfunding mailing list. Of course we will not use the list for anything other than this project.

 

[Kanadian_Kash]

Perhaps someone could explain to me what makes a good fin.
I generally shy away from crowdfunding offers. If the person who comes up with a good idea can't come up with their own money it usually isn't a good idea (not always, but usually). Crowdfunding removes most of the risk from the person who came up with the idea, depositing it on the backs of people interested in the product. If the product is great, the inventor does well and those funding it get a product. If it tanks, the people who sunk money into it lose out and the inventor walks away. There just aren't the consumer protections yet to make the risk worth it, particularly in light of Jim's analysis of the claims being made here.
Here's a good read for anyone interested:

When crowdfunding projects go wrong - BBC News

 

[TECreation]

Perhaps someone could explain to me what makes a good fin.
I generally shy away from crowdfunding offers. If the person who comes up with a good idea can't come up with their own money it usually isn't a good idea...

Your comments deserve a thoughtful reply and I will fully address them but not in a single post. Right now typing on an iPhone it is a bit difficult to keep a thought flowing well. I have read your suggested post and recommend others do too.

The short story for tonight is crowd funding using an all or nothing approach is a good way to determine if there is sufficient market demand to create a viable product. If it does not fund then it is time to find another project. If it does and the developer is honest in his financial analysis the product should be delivered. I hope to use the time between now and the actual crowd funding campaign to explain as much as possible and answer all of your questions. We'll get at it tomorrow.

 

[TECreation]

Perhaps someone could explain to me what makes a good fin.
I generally shy away from crowdfunding offers. If the person who comes up with a good idea can't come up with their own money it usually isn't a good idea (not always, but usually). Crowdfunding removes most of the risk from the person who came up with the idea, depositing it on the backs of people interested in the product. If the product is great, the inventor does well and those funding it get a product. If it tanks, the people who sunk money into it lose out and the inventor walks away. There just aren't the consumer protections yet to make the risk worth it, particularly in light of Jim's analysis of the claims being made here.

Sorry about the delay in response. Christmas and all the year end processes got in the way.

The billions of dollars spent on crowdfunding and millions of satisfied customers along with cutting edge new products which big corporations are attempting to copy as quickly as possible indicates there just might be something good about crowdfunding.

I have already sunk over $30,000 into the development of these fins. Most of that is just in the patent expenses. The number of hours spent in design, construction, and testing of them is nearly un-fathomable. The pursuit has been a joy though. Each design iteration has yielded new information and improved the result.

Each crowdfund supporter is definitely risking something to get these cutting edge fins but that risk is small. On the other hand I have been risking a lot to get to this point. The effort to put together a crowdfunding campaign of this magnitude is huge. I expect to sink another $10,000 into this project just to launch the crowdfunding. Who do you think is taking the greater risk?

 

[REVAN]

Perhaps someone could explain to me what makes a good fin.

IMO: a good fin will be comfortable in the water and provide efficient thrust so that I don't have to work hard to deal with the currents I need to deal with, or the distances I need to cover on a dive, or the speeds I need to swim to keep up with whatever marine life has my interest at the moment. If my swimming requirements result in me feeling winded and stressed with a CO2 headache, my diving kit didn't meet the requirements for the dive I was conducting. It takes both efficient fins and a streamlined scuba rig to get reasonable efficiency in the water. Don't fall into the trap of thinking it is all the fin. The whole diver is the system that needs to be moved.

Few fins are good enough for me. I dive either hydrofoil monofins or composite blade long fins because they are the closest to meeting my requirements. I look forward to spending more time in the TEC fins when they become available (I spent about 15 minutes in a lake with them last Fall). Like I said, there is something new with these fins and there is good potential for a noticeable performance improvement over other industry scuba fins. If they get the comfort right as well, this could be great for divers.

Crowdfunding is a risk, because it is funding a new product. New product development will always carry risk. For scuba fins the need for new tech is quite high because the stuff that you can go into a store and buy now is actually pretty lame. The scuba industry has become rigid and you cannot count on Mares or Scubapro to bring anything that is actually engineered and new to market. This may be one of the few opportunities to make any advancement.

 

[Altamira]

I must be missing something. Lift is not the main component of thrust. Lift primarily counteracts weight and thrust counteracts drag. While your fin design may well increase lift on the fins, unfortunately the lift vector would appear to be behind the major sources of drag, namely the diver's body, bcd (pick your type), and tank, plus all to the dangly things divers hang on their body and bcd. Lift on an airplane, powered or glider, works because the wings are on the side of the airplane, not behind the fuselage. But, as always, I try to keep an open mind concerning new designs and ideas, so I wish you good luck with your invention.

 

[REVAN]

Lift and thrust are basically the same things, fluid forces. The difference is in the reference and the language. It all comes down to moving fluid. An airplane holds itself up by using the wings to throw air down as it moves through it. Thrust from the engines is generated by throwing air back whether from a propeller or a jet. Propellers are just wing that spin around an axis. They generate a lift like forces the same as a wing, but by definition it is called thrust, unless it is a helicopter's rotor in which case that thrust is called lift.

Fins create thrust by throwing fluid back. How it is thrown back will determine how much work is involved in generating the thrust. Think of fins as a fluid pump. The TEC fins are just a different type of fluid pump that may be able to throw the fluid back with less waste being thrown in other undesired directions that don't produce thrust, but can do other things like bomb the silt resting on the bottom. The cleaner the fluid is pumped the less wasted energy there will be.

 

[Kanadian_Kash]

Your argument is that you are taking a bigger risk than everyone else, therefore your idea can't fail? You put $30 - $40K into them, hope to generate $250K and the bigger risk is yours?
My thoughts are that in a crowdfunding scenario the reward rarely (if ever) justifies the risk. In this case the reward for risking your money is... a pair of fins, if the development pans out. If not, you get nothing. They might be the best fins in the world, and if that's the case they will be available in stores in the not too distant future. I struggle to believe that manufacturers have acknowledged that they're amazing fins but refuse to have anything to do with them.
$200 for the possibility of getting a set of fins that work better (according to only you thus far) just doesn't seem like a sensible investment. If the idea pans out I'd be shocked to see them in stores and selling for $200. There's always a niche market, but I suspect it will be a tough slog.
As always though, Caveat Emptor. I can't decide what other people do with their money, so if people want to go into a crowdfunding scenario fully informed, I hope it pans out for everyone involved. Anyone losing hard earned money for any reason just sucks.
Also, a two month delay on responding to concerns does not help solidify your case. In an internet world two months is an eternity.