Fiberglass Hockey Fins

No, I've never had a crack with a pair of mustangs. They're NZ$700 or so a pair, so not cheap. From a friend that's swum with them, the biggest problem for him with the footpocket was that like a normal shoe, it's most comfortable with the foot in the neutral position, rather than the fully extended position that you kick in. Opinions on the footpockets differ, but people tend to love 'em or hate 'em.

I personally think that the andronov-style footpocket, if custom-made, is the best there is for power transfer while still being comfortable enough to play in. If you are interested in playing around with the mustang footpocket, contact C4 and see if you can buy a pair of footpockets only.

ps. For the love of all that's holy, don't try and buy from that shop I linked to. You will get shafted.

I like the c4 footpocket design, its definetly revolutionarry, but I have my doubts if this design nails it for hockey players.

I tried andronov footpocket for similar to my foot - amazing footpocket. These footpockets are a peace of the art, thats for sure! The thing is, that this type of production isnt viable for me. They are extremly labor intensive to make. Thats the reason of Everest price tags - not the vitroplast plate, but custom made rubber footpockets! And they are really made of rubber!

I reckon, that I could do slimmer footpocket, by using harder material (harder than rubber) on the outside, and softer inner side (similar softness as inside gluings in andronov), while using a personal mould (its not viable for rubber production). That wouldnt be so labour intensive. I already have an idea on how to make the right mold, but I'd need serius testing to get it right.

I'm lucky to have a person like you freedivenz, to discuss my ideas with. There arent lots of people out there, that really know what they are talking about, when it comes to fin technollogy. I'll definetly PM you for help in development, and send you my test fins for criticizing...

The mustang footpocket is an interesting idea worth persuing further, but I too am not convinced its the answer to the mysteries of life. Also I agree completely with your assessment of Andronov-style footpockets. Price of an "Advanced" (this actually means something quite specific in monofin style) monofin from Leaderfins: 129.00 €. Price of a Hyper (non-pro) 259.00 €. Only difference: Footpocket. And that's not even custom pockets, for that you pay 379.00 € like me for the Professional model! That's and extra 250.00 € just for the footpocket...

I'm very happy to share any knowledge I've picked up around the place and there's always room for one more pair of fins in my bag!

On a different note, I brought my mono to training and did some timings. A couple of caveats: I'm not the fastest thing on two (or one for that matter) fins, so don't think of these times as absolutes and rather look at the differences in times. Second, I didn't have a puck on me, so unfortunately these are simulated only, swimming in hockey gear along the bottom but not pushing a puck.

Methodology: Pool is a 25m. Starts were in-water starts. I would take a breath, submerge, streamline and then push off the wall. Timing started on the push off for each sprint. All were done fully submerged swimming along the bottom in a 2.5m pool and timing stopped upon any part of my body breaking the surface at the opposite end. Two timings were taken for each sprint, except for the final monofin sprint, where only one run was performed. All pairs of times were within the accuracy of the timepiece (1/10 s).

And without further ado, here are the timings:
Leaderfins Hyper Pro: 9.4s
Leaderfins Games 2006: 10.6s
Mares Quattros: 11.6s

I was a bit disappointed in these times, especially the monofin timing. So at the end of the fitness session (not the best time for it!), I put on my silicon cap and goggles and went for a final full-tilt sprint.
Cap & goggles with mono: 8.0s

Nearly 1.5s difference is pretty big, I have to say. In both of the monofin sprints in gear, I could feel massive drag and my mask leaked both times because of it. To go faster than that for me would require different equipment, I think.

For the record: 50m apnea finswimming world record (with dive): 14.27
I suspect that the kick off the wall is noticably faster than the dive, especially as timing for me started on the kick-off, rather than when the starter goes off. I would expect a "real" finswimmer to do 7-7.5s for the same dive as me. Also note that my mono is not suited for sprinting; it is a soft-medium blade whereas almost all 50m apnea finsprinters use extra hard. I still think that the extra drag in full kit would make getting under 8.5s extremely difficult.

Thanks for the information on your testings. I suspected a big difference, so lets speculate on this a bit further, taking into account your first batch of data, that makes for 2 seconds difference between Mono and Quattro, and lets put this difference as mid-minimum, as for using the non-optimum mono and (dont get me wrong) non-optimum tester.

The difference of 2 seconds time, on cca 10 sec run, relates roughly to 20% faster speed. So at 10 meters range it would mean 2 meters advance distance to monofin player, and thats more than a lenght of a player, at half of a playing area.... and much more than 2 player lenghts from goal to goal. That is surely a very big difference, making it worth exploring further.

For the upper speculation to become more precise, we need to test it with mono&puck versus player with quattros on 25 meters. Also there is a big "reserve" in testings, as nobody has timed his/her swimming with puck&mono. This is also something that needs training to get it right.

I think this is worth exploring further, and that the player wearing the right mono, with right training and changed team tactics, could be able to check-mate the opponents with sheer speed of monofin swimming. If the opposition team leaves full-back at the distance to counter this mono-player, its 1vs1 with huge innertia behind monoplayer (and every 1 second of swimming, a monoplayer gets 20 centimeters advantage) leaving lesser chance for full-back to stop him, and having only 2 backs is more of liabillity, than having only 2 fronts. I guess it would be hard to counter the monoplayer, but with a monoplayer.

Interesting... huh?

it wouldnt be a question of leaving the fullback back by himself to counter the monofinner... the opposition would have to compensate in the way their back line judges depth to stagger itself, in order to cover any fast breaks.

having said that.... that would be assuming its necessary. a team could stagger their backline slightly deeper than normal to cover its bases and then try to focus on stopping passes from the opposition.... this would both nullify the seagull and pressure the remaining 5 players the opposition have to play the game with who are able to tackle and maneuvre effectively to defend.

i would really like to see this trialled, out of interest, just to see how it would play out. but have a think about this. in the game at present, there are many occasions where a quick forward in fast fins might have a 2 second advantage over most players in the opposing team, perhaps their whole backline, when timed over 25m. that might be the speed advantage over a length... but over distances of say 3-4m, when acceleration has to come into play, plus pushing the puck while defenders can streamline more effectively to chase.... often a difference in speed like that can end up being very minimal. the fast player really needs to know how to use that small advantage to make it work for him.

and that situation, which we often have now, is when the fast forward has full maneuverability (spelling?) with bi-fins, can turn, jink and use a full range of skills. i wonder how much his effectiveness would be lessened by having his skillset restricted.

__________________
it's more polite on the grating than on the subs bench

Hmmmm... I made different conclusions, but I agree that many more things come into consideration than only just looking at speeds on 25meters distance.

The thing is... that there are numerus situations, that a forwrd can anticipate the pass into an open area or the game simply produce this opportunity for him... and in this action, forward accelerate during dive, and with extended arm sprint to make a break, witch is usually stopped by backs in some distance before the goal.

In this situations, a player wearing monofin, couldnt be stopped by any backs IF... the difference between speeds are anything close to what Freedivenz came up with his tests. True, a normal player has more options to make when encountering opp. backs, but flick&sprint would be only one needed for a monofin player with some innertia! Dont forget about this monofin player abbility to outmanuever opp. swimming sideways instead directly forward. A radius in swimming is posible wearing monofin, while loosing little of the end speed.

btw- I made a mistake in calculations in the upper post. Under Freedivenz results, the monofin player makes 25 meters, while player with quatros makes only about 20 meters in the same time. That means incredible difference - every second of that sprint, the player wearing mono, will make 50 cm ahead distance!!! Thats incredible, if this could be done right, I mean.... half a meter every second! How can anyone counter this???

I wonder how mono for short distances performs in the " 0 acceleration" department...

But true, there are many many IF's. But making such a large difference in speed, as is possible with monofin, makes this idea worth while exploring further. Basically what we need to compare further are differences between speeds of monofin + puck versus quattros sprinting without puck. Just like with every new skill, monofin player would have to explore and use his abbillities with hard training, to make use for in the game...

Check your math.

The Mono at 9.4s over 25 meters gets you 2.66m/sec
The Games at 10.6 gets you 2.36m/sec

That's 12.7%, not 20.

__________________
Just in case you weren't sure, it's official -- CMAS sucks.
Oh yeah, and now they're broke.

Was comparing mono to Mares quatros with 11.6sec/25m result.... thats 2.15m/sec, so compared to 2.66 with mono makes 50 cm difference for every second, and thats roughly 20% difference in speed.

My math is correct.

Freedivenz best result is 8 sec/25 meters, thats 3.1 meters/second. And if I compare that to best uwh player speeds of "a slice under 10 sec", thats still 50 cm ahead over best players arround. Now, best finnswimmers results over 25 meters are 7-7.5 seconds, and best uwh results with bi-fins are 9.5-10, that again makes even much more than 50 cm/sec... 90 cm/sec at both best times...BUAAAAAHHH!!!!!!!
Definetly a huge difference in speeds, but with lots of practical aplications unknowns...

Now, for a normal player makes 12 sec a lenght, and if another does 14, thats still only 2 sec difference, but makes only for 30 cm difference in distance per second....!

@freedivenz, please do me a favor and test it with mono&puck, and test quattros&puck as well..... and the consern about full uwh gear dragging a swimmer down, can be countered with using special streamlined mask(technisub has one model) and special uwh cap that I'm in the process of designing. Still there would be some extra drag, if nothing else the puck,stick and glove would make one.

Flk, have you personally swum with a mono-fin? just a question, because i've done a bit and just do not see the ability to swim with the puck even in a straight line. I would think that just based on the body position alone you might be slower in a monofin than with bi-fins when pushing the puck.

oh and as far as streamlining gear... almost no gain when playing, cut the top off the snorkel and that's about it, the resistance created by one arm out at an odd angle in contact with the bottom no matter how slight makes most masks and headgear moot.

__________________
An aquifer is a water bearing layer of rock or soil. Aquifers are separated by impermeable layers of rock or clay called an aquitard. Aquitard, however may sound a bit offensive to some, and therefore we will be changing the name to Aquachallenge.