The study by the navy is much more interesting but I'm afraid that without the names of the other fins involved it is hard to evaluate. In the scientific method, a study is only good if the results can be duplicated by another independent tester which means knowing the test protocol and the controls (and in this case, the other fins).
Also note the navy study was conducted in 91-92 which is 15 years ago. I think two reasonable people could agree that this study at most proves that force fins were marginally better under constant kicking conditions versus two pairs of unidentified fins from that era.
Which isn't to say that force fins do not live up to the hype. All I am saying is the claims are unproven.
The study that was completed all those years ago, was validated in 2003 but FF was not tested. The fins that show up as the unidentified fins being compared to FF are the same fins that proved to be the top performers in this 2003 test was well, (yes, I have read the entire 1993 study). The only new fin in the test was the Apollo Bio-Fin. So it would stand that if FF compared admirally in 1993, and the test was revalidated in 2003 w/o FF, then FF would still one be one of the top fins.
well, rubicon did test a bunch of other fins, including splits. I'm not sure of the original FF were in the test and I can't find the link anywhere (meaining I'm too lazy to look hard for it). they tested each fin a number of ways and with different swimmers. during the tests they monitored speed, heart rate, breathing rate and other factors. seemed like a pretty good test to me. the answer, ain't a damn bit of difference between the lot (AFAICR). interestingly, as I remember, duct taping your splits together doesn't make any difference.
First, rubicon didn't do the study, the study was conducted at the University of Buffalo and the paper has been stored in the rubicon library.
I have spoken with (or really, emailed) the author of the studies, they chose not to include FF in their test, although his reasoning for it was not clear. I believe that it has something to do with the the sponsors.
As for Apollo Bio-Fin, it actually performed better, roughly about 5% better at the top speeds with the split taped. This is based on the O2 consumption to sustain speed. When it comes down to it, is 5% a noticable difference? I don't know.
In the end I just noticed something, for a fin that according to the population posting here "nobody uses" and "don't work" and... well you get the point, this thread now has over 100 replies and over 4,000 views, which has to make it one of the most popular threads on this site. Huh, must be something to this, or it wouldn't draw such a powerful response.
