Please Tell me That This is a Joke ?

[Walter]

Signing up for what, Pete?

 

[deco_martini]

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.

Okay, I found the rubicon link to the UoB study.

Here are the findings thus far:
A. FF was marginally better at some points in the graph in the 14 year old Navy study that tested 4 pairs of fins including two pairs of unlisted fins
B. The much broader 2003 study by the UoB did not have Force Fins. The best fins in that study (which 10 years later could have improvements in design or materials that affect their performance) were the unlisted fins (your claim) that were bested by force fins on some graph points in the 1993 study.
C. There is yet another test which is not available that may corroborate your claims about force fins.

Testing, studies, protocols are the realm of science. Since we are working with science, I have to still label to claims about Force Fins as unproven. Mind you, you probably make Force Fins better than you did 14 years ago. A typical manufacturing business has defect removal strategies and I assume there may be minor differences to a Force Fin made today and one from 1993. Force Fins could be misrepresented by the 1993 study as compared to the modern product (or not).

The case for the claims about force fins is fairly inferential but not concrete at the moment.

The UoB study was nice in that it is easily peer reviewable. We see the protocol and tight controls. It is a shame force fins were not included since it would be exactly the sort of evidence that would convince those wacky skeptical types. (a skeptic is someone who doesn't believe claims without proper evidence, its nothing related to the X-Files).

 

[Susanne]

We obtained a copy of the 1993 study in response to a request under the FOIA. The adventure surrounding the request is a good read and was published in an interview by Chris Kostman published in Aquacorps Magazine. Chris has the complete interview posted for everyone to read at The Force Fins Story

The 1993 study was very comprehensive. We've quoted the fin relevant portions at navy_study We deleted the identification of any other fins in compliance with a request by the Navy.

 

[deco_martini]

We obtained a copy of the 1993 study in response to a request under the FOIA. The adventure surrounding the request is a good read and was published in an interview by Chris Kostman published in Aquacorps Magazine. Chris has the complete interview posted for everyone to read at The Force Fins Story

The 1993 study was very comprehensive. We've quoted the fin relevant portions at navy_study We deleted the identification of any other fins in compliance with a request by the Navy.

Thanks Suzanne. I understand the redactions in the navy study. I just hope to one day see a comprehensive modern study like the UoB but with Force Fins included.

Cheers.

 

[meesier42]

A. FF was marginally better at some points in the graph in the 14 year old Navy study that tested 4 pairs of fins including two pairs of unlisted fins

all that you see is 4 pairs, infact the study involved many more, but the only evidence of that you can see is the Fin A and Fin F for comparison. Again you can infere that there are at least 2 other fins, but this is not concrete evidence of anything. I can say that the 2 used in the comparison on the FF website were the top 2 performing fins in the 1993 study.

B. The much broader 2003 study by the UoB did not have Force Fins. The best fins in that study (which 10 years later could have improvements in design or materials that affect their performance) were the unlisted fins (your claim) that were bested by force fins on some graph points in the 1993 study.

That is absolutely true, I can't speak to what manufacturing improvements the other fins have gone through, but I can say their designs did not change.

C. There is yet another test which is not available that may corroborate your claims about force fins.

If you have more information please send it to me, I have not been able to find any other qualitative studies

The UoB study was nice in that it is easily peer reviewable. We see the protocol and tight controls. It is a shame force fins were not included since it would be exactly the sort of evidence that would convince those wacky skeptical types. (a skeptic is someone who doesn't believe claims without proper evidence, its nothing related to the X-Files).

I completely agree, I appreciate the ability to do a peer review, but unfortunatly the UofB study falls flat on its face during this. If you read the conclusions that they state on pages 14-15 you'll notice that although their logic flow makes sense, it fails to be substaintiated with data. And that doesn't even begin to broach the subject that their data and their math is inconsistent at best, and flat out wrong at worst.

We see the protocol and tight controls

Well they described their protocols, but their controls were terrible, you can see this inconsistentcy in their Standard Deviations. You will see that some fins had SD that were very small while other fins have SD that are 3-5 times are wide. This means that the swimmers were more comfortable with certain fins and therefore were more efficient with them, while other fins that they were less comfortable with they were working harder just to use them and accordingly the SD went through the roof. This invalidates the entire data collection as it biases to the fins they swimmers were used to using. This is simple exercise theory, that you will become profiencent performing an exercise and become more efficient at that movement, any changes will introduce a variable that was not accounted for, or at least was accounted for in the SD's without explaination. A simple control would have been to ensure the SD of each test was less than a set value and that all SD were within 1 SD of each other for the overall test.

Of course there are also the huge number of typo's in the study, such as Force measured in NUETRONS, I didn't know you could measure force in terms of subatomic particles. Or the Taped Apollo creating 10x the thrust of the nearest fin during the transition. I can go on, but its not worth it.

In truth, I am glad that ForceFins were not included in this study, as the primary simplifing assumption was that the tranistion phase occupied 15% of the stroke cycle. With many fins this may be a valid assumption, with ForceFins I am sure that it is not valid. I believe, although I have not been able to substaintiate this, that the fact that FF does not comply to this assumption maybe one of the reasons the FF was not included. I do think that the conclusions that they made are logical and valid, just that their data controls and analysis are significantly flawed. Further by not discussing the inconsistencies in their data and analysis it must be assumed that they are not aware of them, and that doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Otter]

I do not begrudge, or IMHO should anyone else, FF's right/ability to charge whatever they can get for their products. While FF look different, I don't really care about that and if they work better than regular fins, I will be more than happy to own a pair.

My question was in trying to understand WHAT differentiates the $150 pair of fins (FFs or otherwise) from the $800 fins? On that point, I have three observations.

(1) Making it more difficult for a prospective buyer to determine the features and benefits of your product by telling them "go look here" is not very good Marketing.
(2) Referring to studies that are dated and (perhaps) irrelevant -- I am assuming that the Tandeltas were not the fin actually tested -- due to (1) I didn't go read all of these studies to actually determine which FF model was used.
(3) Presuming that there is a meaningful difference between FF and other fins (i.e. differentiated), then a 2-3 sentence explanation would go a long way to helping me decide whether or not to explore further...it could be less work/less air, less fatigue/joint stress, or you look cool and chicks will dig ya....I don't care, it just should be so darn hard to figure it out.

 

[The Chairman]

Signing up for what, Pete?

Force Fin Gear Days at either Weeki Wachee, Forty Fathom Grotto or BOTH! It looks to be fun and both will get you fed and wet!

Here is the proposed schedule:

Saturday, March 15th, 2008
9:00 am (ish). Hal, Bob, Dr Hoover and myself arrive at Weeki Wachee Springs to test/fit me for Force Fins. Dr Hoover will be my safety officer! He won't let ANYONE ruin his work on my ankle. The $45 includes admission for the day, so come down and watch the Mermaid shows (they may get nuked when the State takes over) and the tests.

6:00 pm (ish) We start the Evening Party in the Springs! We will have some hot food and snacks through out the evening and we should finish up by 9:30/10:00pm.

Sunday, March 16th, 2008
9:00 am (ish) Hal, Bob and myself will arrive at Forty Fathom Grotto to begin a day of really testing the fins. Ray Black has promised us enough Grotto Guides to go around. Consider this a coming out party/open house for the Grotto under it's new management. If you haven't been there in the last couple of months, you may not recognize it! I was IMPRESSED when I stopped there on Saturday afternoon after the Deviled Eggs Dive! Ray has also promised us air (for our tanks) and lunch included in the $50.00 price. It seems that the grotto is getting easier and easier to dive in! It has been a few years since I have been in there, and the water looks better than it has in years.

Also, when you go to https://reservations.scubaboard.com you are taking a look at our New reservation system. We are still in the midst of developing it and you will see it blossom over the next few months as we enable YOU to book charters, hotels, liveaboards and the like ANYWHERE in the world. Not just ScubaBoard events, but all types of diving. Contact Reservations@ScubaBoard.com if you want to participate in this exciting new venture! Our staff is beginning to take your events and publish them there right NOW.

 

[Susanne]

The information links specifically responded to deco martini and are a good read to boot.

As far as "marketing". Every Tuesday morning..... well morning in California.... we sponsor Blair Mott, Force Fin's Ambassador in Residence in discussing Force Fin features, benefits and his adventures diving the world wearing Force Fins at ScubaBoard - Force Fin This morning's post specifically addresses the way in which the materials we use in manufacture, which is a good part of the basis for Force Fin pricing, work in combination with the design to make fins that are substantially better, both in terms of efficiency and in terms of the propulsion generated by the fin.

I think that scubaboard powers that be were very astute in creating this manufacturers' subforum as it keeps an identified area for marketing by those of us who are lucky enough to have our businesses be so closely related to our passion -- diving.

 

[meesier42]

My question was in trying to understand WHAT differentiates the $150 pair of fins (FFs or otherwise) from the $800 fins? On that point, I have three observations.

Hey, I for one apologize if I went that to go here, go there. But your question about what differentiates the different fins can all be answered by going here...:no


Ha, no seriously, there is quite a few intelligent discussion about this why so many models, materials, etc... over on the ForceFin manufactures thread.

But, to save face some, I will give my opinions on the fins
Original/Pro- great easy to use dive fins that pack light and small, they will do pretty much anything you would want out of a dive fin. I have no held that this is the best all around fin on the market, because its price point is comparable and its performance is wonderful
TanDelta- well this is the performance upgrade to the standard blade, more snap therefore more free energy from the transition. Overall, better than the Original or Pro, but at a price.

Extra Force- this is a maximum uber fin- its fast, its powerful (lots of torque), and it can do precision manuevers (sculling) better than any fin I have used. This is further enhanced by using the forcewings (whiskers) about, parrallel for efficency, in tight for power, out wide for control

Excellerators (the fin that starting this thread)- these were designed to frog kick and as their name implies... accelerate. They frog kick wonderfully (a weakness of the other FF designs) and and outpump a surge with only a quick 1,2 kick. They are not as fast as the Extras, but very close and they kick easier, not to mention they track in the water smoother.

I hope that helps

 

[Walter]

Thanks, Pete. Looks very interesting. New management? Hal Watts is out?