Divers today are faced with a
dizzying array of fin designs: split
blades, Venturi action, vents,
troughs, side rails, etc. Each has its
own performance claims, carefully
crafted by advertising copywriters.
Nevertheless, a university study
appearing in the spring 2003 issue
of the Undersea & Hyperbaric Medicine
Journal explains why these bells and
whistles may be just so much hype.
Researchers at the University
at Buffalo in New York purchased
seven different brands of fins, each with at least one unique characteristic:
Mares Plana and Avanti
Quattro, Apollo Bio-Fin Pro, US
Divers Blades, Scubapro Twin Jets,
and three models that have since
been discontinued: the Mares
Plana Attack, Oceanic's Ocean
Pro, and US Divers Compro. The
Apollos were tested in their original
split blade design and with the
split blades taped together.
Using recruits from local dive
shops, the study measured the
energy cost of swimming (oxygen consumption as a function of
velocity, i.e. aerobic velocity), body
drag and efficiency of fins; and
kick frequency, velocity, and maximum
thrust in a swimming pool.
Rigid and Flexible Fins
Conserve the Most Energy
Interestingly, both rigid
(Attack) and flexible (Apollo) fins
conserved the most. The maximum
aerobic velocity was significantly
higher for the Attack (6%)
and Apollo taped fins (6%) and
lower for the Compro (-10%).
Scubapro Twin Jets, manufactured
from the same Nature's
Wing patent as the Apollo, were
stiffer but did not perform as economically
as either the split or
taped Apollos. In fact, the
Scubapro fins (9%) had a significantly
lower maximal aerobic
velocity than all the others.
Apollo Has Less Drag
The drag a diver must overcome
has to be offset by the kick
thrust, which comes primarily
from the power stroke which was
greater in more aerobically economic
fins, like Attack and Apollo.
Because a kick's recovery phase
provides little thrust and adds to
body drag, it has to be compensated
for by an increase in kick frequency
or thrust. Attack and
Apollo were in the power phase of the kick less time (34%) than the
fins with less power (39 to 41%).
The Apollos produced significantly
less drag, because divers kicked
deeper with the Attack fins. But
with a narrower kick depth, the
frequency of kicking with the
Apollo (both split and taped versions)
was significantly higher and
the efficiency was lower (5%) compared
with the Attack fin (7%).
The two fins with a higher energy
cost also had higher drag and
lower efficiencies. This indicates
that kick depth and kick frequency
have to be optimized to minimize
the energy cost and accounts for
the similar performance of the
Attack and Apollo fins.
Fancy Features Slow Fins Down
The researchers determined
that length and width of a fin's
leading or trailing edges, surface
area, weight, and flexibility did not
significantly influence the energy
cost of swimming. The type of
material and the use of winglets
(flanges), longitudinal splits, vents,
or ribs alone didn't increase the
velocity of water down the fin, and
in fact may decrease it, thus leading
to lower thrust and economy.
Stiffness Affects Thrust
Divers generated significantly
greater thrust (distance per kick)
and velocity with the Attack. The
distance per kick for the Attack fin
was significantly higher (19%),
while the Apollo was significantly
lower (16%). The maximum distance
per kick increased as a function
of stiffness. The maximum
velocity was highest for the Attack
(15%). Although the maximal
kick frequency was higher for the
Apollo (13%), the distance per
kick was significantly lower (14%).
Flexible fins had to be used at
higher frequencies as the distance
per kick was significantly less. The
stiffest fin (Attack) had the highest
maximum thrust, and the diver covered the greatest distance per
kick (1.19 m/k).
The Attack's more flexible sister
fin, the Mares Quattro, produced
slightly less velocity and distance
per kick. But the Quattro
outpaced both split fin models in
distance per kick (that may be why
the British magazine Diver rated
the Quattro superior to the Apollo,
based on subjective field tests
reported in the August
Undercurrent.)
Between the two split fin models,
the Scubapro Twin Jet provided
significantly more distance per
kick than the Apollo, which scored
well below average in this measure.
In fact, the taped Apollos outdistanced
the split version.
The researchers say that "The
notion that rigid fins develop more
thrust and speed was not supported
by this study. The maximal
velocity and thrust were developed
by both rigid (Attack) and flexible (Apollo) fins, with the limitation of
the rigid fins being the ability of
the diver to generate a high frequency
kick and the limitation of
the flexible fins being the diver's
maximal leg kick frequency."
More important than any single
design feature was the correlation
between fin stiffness and hip
angle, reflecting a deeper kick and
resulting in a greater distance of
travel per kick. The stiffer Attack,
Blades, Quattro, and Compro fins
were kicked deeper and with a
lower frequency, thus achieving a
higher thrust per kick.
Conclusion
So what about all those advertising
and editorial claims? They
sound good but when compared
with the findings from this study,
they appear to be all sizzle, no steak.The researchers concluded:
"Based on the physics of fin swimming
... it is clear that some fins (Apollo) fins, with the limitation of
the rigid fins being the ability of
the diver to generate a high frequency
kick and the limitation of
the flexible fins being the diver's
maximal leg kick frequency."
More important than any single
design feature was the correlation
between fin stiffness and hip
angle, reflecting a deeper kick and
resulting in a greater distance of
travel per kick. The stiffer Attack,
Blades, Quattro, and Compro fins
were kicked deeper and with a
lower frequency, thus achieving a
higher thrust per kick.
Conclusion
So what about all those advertising
and editorial claims? They
sound good but when compared
with the findings from this study,
they appear to be all sizzle, no steak.
The researchers concluded:
"Based on the physics of fin swimming
... it is clear that some fins have better performance (Attack,
Apollo) than other fins; however,
this cannot be ascribed to a single
fin characteristic. The research also
made it clear that Venturis, vents,
troughs, and splits did not improve
the performance of the tested fins."
As a result, they determined,
"Further work is needed to develop
the optimization of fin characteristics,
by lowering drag (kick depthrigidity)
and maximizing efficiency
(kick frequency-flexibility), to minimize
energy requirement and maximize
performance."
So the ultimate fin isn't here
yet. When shopping around, try
as many models as possible, and
consider the type of diving you
prefer. For instance, a more flexible
fin worked better for female
divers in this study since women,
with lower body weight and density,
generally have less metabolic
power and thrust than men, but
lower cost of energy. Some
designs help you more when
swimming into currents or for
short bursts of speed. Others may
prove better when used with a
frog kick or in sculling. All these will be personal judgments, based
on your own leg strength, conditioning,
and kicking style.
D.R. Pendergasti, J. Mollendorf,
C. Logue, and S. Samimy.
Departments of Physiology and
Biophysics and Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering, Schools of
Engineering and Medicine and
Biomedical Sciences, University at
Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14214.
"Evaluation of fins used in underwater
swimming." Undersea Hyperb Med 2003.
30(1): 57-73.