|
|
Post by aquajedi on Feb 13, 2018 9:51:49 GMT -8
Here is an article I've been working on for a long time. Appreciate all feedback. Thanks. swelllinesmag.com/2018/02/13/the-history-of-duck-feet/Excerpt: "In the early twentieth century watermen witnessed swim fins evolve from sticky palm fronds to meticulously manufactured tools. One of the largest steps in that process was taken by Arthur H. Brown. Arthur is described as an expert diver in his day. At the time, Churchill Swim Fins were the only option for increased propulsion in the Ocean. He imagined a fin that provided more thrust and floated. This new symmetrical fin would stand in stark contrast to it’s predecessors and create die-hard fans from the very beginning."  |
|
|
|
Post by vance on Feb 13, 2018 11:18:53 GMT -8
Cool article! Thanks for sharing!
|
|
|
|
Post by lakediver on Feb 13, 2018 18:01:53 GMT -8
Excellent article. Always wanted a pair of those. How do the UDT Duck Feet stack up with the other all rubber classic Scubapro Jet fins?
|
|
|
|
Post by tomcatpc on Feb 13, 2018 18:39:07 GMT -8
When I got into Scuba Diving, then got interested in Vintage Scuba Diving I never thought I'd find the topic of swim fins of much interest to me. But here I am getting more and more interested in a seemingly "mundane" (in my previous thoughts). I really enjoyed this article.
It looks like the USN issued swim trunks I was issued in 1989 are not much different as the ones from the 1950's? Not sure mine fit anymore...LOL!
As for the Duck Feet fins, I have a modern copy of the UDT versions. I love diving them, but wished they were not a green and brown "camo" pattern, but were the brown or black versions of yore.
I might think about picking up a pair of "standard Duck Feet" fins in the future, but I want to dive my UDTs and my Oceanways copy of the Cressi "Rondine" fin this coming Summer.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by tomcatpc on Feb 13, 2018 18:43:49 GMT -8
Off topic, but I have a pair of 1970's Voit Mark-9 Fins that I got last year. The blade part of the fin looks very similar to the Duck Feet fins. Other than having a adjustable heel strap I see a few close similar things in both fins. Was the Mark-9 fin a way of having an "updated" version of the Duck Feet fins to work with the wetsuit "booties" that were starting to become popular? Just a thought I had.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by SeaRat on Feb 13, 2018 18:51:25 GMT -8
I've read the article, and think that something is missing. The article states: My understanding is that this merger was more of a hostile takeover, and resulted in Art Brown destroying the original Duck Feet molds. AMF Swimaster then had to redesign the Duckfeet, and did so with the slightly different foot pocket. This different foot pocket, which incorporated a softer rubber, actually led to more cramping than occurred with the originals. Also, with this new foot pocket, some divers (myself included) could no longer wear their Duck Feet upside-down, which actually gave more support to the arch of the foot during long swims. I have used my Duck Feet on numerous occasions, and made parascuba jumps in the USAF with them. We would tape the fins with masking tape to ensure that they stayed on during our jumps too. Here's a video I made in the pool which shows my Duck Feet in use: I currently have four pairs of Duck Feet. Two are the original Duck Feet, and two are the closed heel Duck Feet. Of those, one pair has the open toe without a rib over it, and the other, blemished pair has the rib over the toe opening.  I like my Duck Feet, but I cannot wear them much in open water as they are too small to fit my feet with a good pair of booties (a warm pair). The booties I'm using in the video are very thin, and while I can wear them in the river when it's warm, they provide no protection from the river rocks, and so it's rather painful to get to the dive spot. Unlike the Duck Feet, the Jet Fins, and especially the Lightning Jet Fins, have a larger foot pocket, with more room for my booties. I can wear them in different wet suit configurations, and they then became my favorite commercial fin for a while. I used them on helicopter deployments and parascuba jumps too. I finally modified my White Stag Super Stag fins to my scoop design, and used them for a decade or so too. John |
|
|
|
Post by aquajedi on Feb 13, 2018 19:25:59 GMT -8
I've read the article, and think that something is missing. The article states: My understanding is that this merger was more of a hostile takeover, and resulted in Art Brown destroying the original Duck Feet molds. AMF Swimaster then had to redesign the Duckfeet, and did so with the slightly different foot pocket. This different foot pocket, which incorporated a softer rubber, actually led to more cramping than occurred with the originals. Also, with this new foot pocket, some divers (myself included) could no longer wear their Duck Feet upside-down, which actually gave more support to the arch of the foot during long swims. Woah! That's why I post it here. I've not had any information on this. Most of the info (including what you've reference) is based on the original articles in Skin Diver Magazine. Naturally, they would not include some of that in their public relations pieces. If you have any routes to confirm this information I would be thrilled to incorporate it into the article. Cool video too btw. Thanks. Eric |
|
|
|
Post by DavidRitchieWilson on Feb 14, 2018 0:41:18 GMT -8
I agree, an excellent article including several images and points of information I haven't seen before. I'm glad to see you have mentioned the Navy Experimental Diving Unit fin comparative evaluation report of 1956, which is available online and remains one of the most thorough studies of its kind. There was a US military specification on swim fins, MIL-S-82258 - Swim Fins, Rubber, dated 15 February 1965 and focusing on what appears to be the Duck Foot. It too offers a very comprehensive paradigm for dimensioning fins, as can be seen in the following excerpts from the document:    I like the way the specification not only illustrates the measurements to be taken in diagrammatic form but also describes the measurements verbally. |
|
|
|
Post by SeaRat on Feb 14, 2018 23:27:17 GMT -8
Aquajedi,
I have been ch caking, and cannot substantiate that comment of mine above. Apparently, I am the only source, and my information comes from more than 40 years of memory. So take that statement about a hostile takeover by AMF Voit with a grain of salt.
I did a head-to-head swimoff this morning in the Tualatin Hills Aquatic Center pool. This pool is 25 yards wide by 50 meters long. The swimoff was between my Duck Feet fins and my Lightning Jet Fins. So what I did was swim 25 yard lengths, and count the number of strokes. I swam with the same mask/snorkel combination, and wrote down the results on my Dive Rite slate, The Underwater Executive. So here is the data.
Data
Duck Feet Fins
# strokes per 25 yards: 34, 33, 33, 33, 34, 33, 33, 33. This equals 266 strokes per 200 yards.
266 strokes / 200 yards = 1.33 strokes/yard
200 yards / 266 stroke = 0.7519 yards/stroke
Lightning Jet Fins
# strokes per 25 yards: 31, 30, 30, 31, 30, 30, 30, 31. This equals 243 strokes per 200 yards.
243 strokes / 200 yards = 1.215 strokes/yard
200 yards / 243 strokes = 0.823 yards/stroke
Discussion
This wasn't really a fair determination between Jet Fins and Duck Feet fins, as this was the Scubapro Lightning Jet Fins, which are much larger than the Duck Feet fins. A. better run would be against the original Jet Fins, as they are smaller and would be better to determine the efficiency of the two designs. However, if you multiply the yards per stroke by a mile (1760 yards), you get a better idea of fin efficiency.
Lightning Jet Fins: 1.215 strokes/yard x 1760 yards/mile = 2138.4 strokes/mile
Duck Feet fins: 1.33 strokes/yard x 1760 yards/mile = 2349.8 strokes/mile
This difference in a mile swim is just over 200 strokes (202.4 strokes, rounded). That is significanT
I tried the Duck Feet both in the regular manner and upside down; while the upside down fins seemed to work well, the angle was slightly different. But that did not make any difference in the strokes per 25 yards.
The Lightning Jet Fins were definitely more comfortable, but also were loose on my feet as they should be used with my hard soled boots rather than the neoprene sipocks. At one point testing my masks, one fin slipped off my heel.
Conclusion
There is a reason my Duck Feet fins were put away when I get my Lightning Jet Fins. Then, as I developed my scoop fin design, there is a reason my Lightning Jet Fins were also put away.
I also used three mask/snorkel combinations and enjoyed my Champion Deluxe traditional oval mask with a straight snorkel. Clearing my ears was more difficult to get to 15 feet, as I needed to block my nose rather than use the finger pockets on other masks. I did enjoy the visibility down without nose pockets or a nose pocket in front of my eyes. This worked pretty well, but not as well as my more modern snorkels. But that is for a different thread.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by Aquala1 on Feb 15, 2018 19:47:10 GMT -8
John, interesting study. I might be wrong, but if I remember correctly, the only change from standard Jet Fins, to Lightening Jet Fins was the rubber compound, not the size. The Lightenings used a lighter weight compound, thus theoretically making them faster. Regardless of compound, Jets always came in Medium, Large and XL with not only the foot pocket changing size, but the entire fin. Medium and Large were shorter and stubbier, compared to the longer bladed XL.
I’d like to find a pair of the Large UDT Duckfeet, and see how they frog kick in comparison to Jets. That would be a fun experiment.
|
|
|
|
Post by SeaRat on Feb 16, 2018 18:04:01 GMT -8
Okay, I have an update on the data for the fins, as I again went into the pool, and did the same test with U.S. Divers Company Rocket Fins, and my Scoop FIn modification to full-foot ____________ fins. Here's the results from last week:
Here are today's results:
Rocket Fins
# strokes per 25 yards: 34, 34, 34, 34, 34, 34, 34, 34. This equals 266 strokes per 200 yards.
272 strokes / 200 yards = 1.36 strokes/yard
200 yards / 272 stroke = 0.7353 yards/stroke
Scoop Fins
# strokes per 25 yards: 29, 29, 29, 30, 29, 30, 30, 30. This equals 236 strokes per 200 yards.
236 strokes / 200 yards = 1.18 strokes/yard
200 yards / 236 stroke = 0.8474 yards/stroke
(This result pretty much duplicates a similar test I completed on the scoop fins in 2010.)
John
|
|
