Dive Fin History

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

John:

The Aqueon was around in the late 1960s here in the UK. I'm reproducing below a message I posted on SB a few months ago:

Here are a couple of Aqueon-related ads from Triton, the journal of the British Sub Aqua Club. The dates may help in determining the chronology of the device.

1. February 1967 issue: The device is called an "Aqua-naut" at this stage. It is distributed within the UK by Unitex Ltd of Knaresborough in Yorkshire. It is available in three different models: Sea Raider, Commando and Sea Sprite.
aqua-naut-jpg.401925.jpg


2. August 1968 issue: Unitex announces a change of name to "Aqueon". Interesting from a cultural perspective that the accompanying image now pitches the device at women as well as men and portrays its use in swimming and breathhold diving.
aqueon-jpg.401926.jpg


PS: Thank you, John, for pointing out the nylon stocking on the foot modelling the prototype Cressi Rondine fin and explaining its purpose:
1947-rondinecressi-jpg.433645.jpg

Male (and female?) freedivers nowadays also seem to use the pantyhose strategy when donning tight-fitting unlined open-cell neoprene wetsuits.

The success of Cressi Rondine fins in Europe during the 1960s meant that full-foot fins were regarded as the best type to use when diving on the continent during that decade. Beuchat Jet Fins first became available with closed heels. Full-foot fins were also more expensive than open-heel fins throughout the 1960s in Europe, which is why fins in children's sizes back then were generally open-heel adjustable models to accommodate growing feet.

David
 
Last edited:
David,

I think the first time I ever saw the Aqueon was at a Mermaid performance at Weeki Washee Springs, where they have an underwater ampitheater and give live performances. I think two divers came out mid-way through the performance in Aqueons as the bad guys in the performance.

After I left the USAF in 1971, I decided to buy an Aqueon. The first time I used the Aqueon was just after I bought it, in a dive in Lake Chalan, Washington on July 2, 1972. This dive was to 30 feet, with about 20 foot visibility. My log book shows a second, deeper dive to 120 feet, for 15 minutes on July 4, 1972.

full.jpg

Here are two photos of the first dive, taken by my dive buddy. Note the Seiko dive watch on my left wrist, and the depth gauge with a button thermometer on my right wrist.

The second dive to 120 feet:
full.jpg

During this dive, I used 1000 psi out of a 72 steel tank. This was a 15 minute dive. Note that with the Aqueon, hands are held in front of the diver, increasing the diver's streamlining. No fins were used on this dive, which was on July 4th, 1972.

I did not record my impressions of the Aqueon on these first dives. But I was successful in using it in open water. I think this was also the first time I had actually dived the Aqueon too.

I continued to use the Aqueon for many years before finally taking it apart, and developing my own device for underwater swimming (I'll detail that later). My impression of the Aqueon is that it is limited in that it is very difficult to do a surface dive with it. Also, planing down is more difficult because of the lack of ability to bend at the waist. I tried all kinds of schemes to make it comfortable on my legs too, with thick foam on the wooden leg rests to wearing a wet suit when using it, which helped a lot. But overall, with its bulk and limitations, I went a different route in developing underwater swimming techniques.

John

PS, I found a log book entry:

Date: 2 Feb. '76
Time In: ~4:00; Time out: ~4:30; Max Depth: ------- ; Water Temperature: ~38 degrees F.
Visibility: 3-5 feet
Weather/Water Conditions: Foggy weather, cold water
Location: I did not record this, but I'm pretty sure it was off docks in the Willamette River near Corvallis, Oregon.

Observations:
Test was to determine the difference between Aqueon swimming and "dolphin" swimming.
1. Aqueon--aborted when the Aqueon failed to move me against the current. Also noted that the leg slats worked up against the tendon just under my knee--even with the knee pads, it hurt.
2. R modified fins with dolphin kick and forward stabilizer were much faster than the Aqueon--'could move against the current--however, although up and down maneuverability is great, roll is impossible.

Special Problems and Ideas:
1. Should conduct experiments in a large pool. (Note: this was a cold dive!)
2. Must build a forward unit.
3. Had to abort dive due to leaks in my mitts (left thumb froze).
4. Hand prip on forward unit cramped fingers (in wet suit gloves) badly--need hand grips.
(Note, I had placed the Aqueon's stabilizer fins on a flat compass board with grips which were merely sawed-out ovals on the board--this caused the hand cramps.)
 
Last edited:
FWIW, it was not uncommon to find nylon hose - at least the feet - on rock climbers in SoCal back-in-the-day to minimize chafing while keeping the climbing shoes as tight to the feet as possible. I haven't lived in SoCal (nor been rock climbing) in quite a while, so the practice may still be wide spread.
 
The success of Cressi Rondine fins in Europe during the 1960s meant that full-foot fins were regarded as the best type to use when diving on the continent during that decade. Beuchat Jet Fins first became available with closed heels. Full-foot fins were also more expensive than open-heel fins throughout the 1960s in Europe, which is why fins in children's sizes back then were generally open-heel adjustable models to accommodate growing feet.
David,

From a hydrodynamic point of view, the full-foot fin is better because it lacks the holding/adjusting system for the heel strap. Because this is in a strategic area of the foot for dynamic drag, the open heel fins of today are at a disadvantage to the full-foot fin. Competitive spearfishers and finswimmers are well aware of any drag component on their fins, and work to minimize and/or eliminate them. The open heel monofins have no strap system, just the basic molded heel area like the Duck Feet, because of this.

John
 
This is a beautiful thread and I am enjoying it more and more. Thank you to all who have posted insightful material. Love the pics too.
 
A couple of things. First, there are people who are still using the Aqueon:


Also, DARPA built an improved model of the Aqueon, which they titled the PowerSwim:


Tomorrow morning I am swimming in a local pool and will use both my Voit Viking V-66 and my full foot Duck Feet fins. It should be fun.

SeaRat
 
I snorkeled in the pool today with my AMF Voit Viking V-66 fins, my full-foot Duck Feet fins, and my Mares Plana Plus Graphite fins. All were full-foot fins, and the first two were natural rubber, with the Mares Plana Plus Graphite fins being plastic. My protocol was to swim these fins first the conventional way, with only fins, for 50 yards with hands trailing and a flutter kick style of swimming. The next 50 yards was the same kick, but with hands extended in front of me. Next, I would get my "Hammerhead Unit," and swim the fins with the dolphin kick and the "Hammerhead Unit." I'll explain this unit later, but it is an adaptation to dolphin swimming that I now call the "Sea Turtle/Dolphin" method of swimming. I swam that both on the surface and underwater in the pool.

The Viking fins were the first I used, and they were the worst-performing fins, primarily because they are really stiff and unresponsive fins. As I recall from my previous experience from 1970, these fins were always really stiff. These are a black rubber pair, with a soft foot pocket and a very stiff blade and top. This combination made them difficult, as it was about like finning with a wooden set of fins. These are the second pair of fins that I converted to my scoop design, and now I remember why--they are tough on the legs without that modification. I swam them today for 400 yards, and was happy to get them off my feet. The "Sea Turtle/Dolphin" style did not work well, as these fins were difficult to swim, and needed a wider kick.

The full-foot Duck Feet fins were much easier on my feet. Being made of "pure gum rubber," they were flexible and provided a good deal of thrust. Their only drawback was that they had a rib extending all the way over the open toe area, and this tended to push the top part of the fin down onto my toes, but not badly. They also bent before my arch, and therefore put some pressure on the distal part of my foot. The "Sea Turtle/Dolphin" style worked very well with these fins. But with that rib over the toes, there was some slight pinching.

I then put on the Mares Plana Plus Graphite fins. These fins are not only all-plastic, but also are longer than the other two fins. They provided really good acceleration with both styles of swimming. The only drawback is that, being plastic, I had stored them with other fins on top, and one fin has taken a slight bend, which impinged on the outside of my left foot. I used these fins for the rest of the swim time, and swam with them at least a half hour after completing the above protocol. I simply was swimming and having fun. But, I should have heeded the information above on the woman's pantihose, as I now sport a couple of blisters on my toes. I usually carry some Vaseline to ensure that my toes don't get scraped up, but did not find it in my swim bag this time.

These fins were my "control" fins in experiments I conducted on March 12, 2010. I am going to try placing parts of those results from a spreadsheet below:

...........Strokes...Seconds...yards/stroke...Feet/second..seconds/mile..minutes/mile..Strokes/mile
Flat Ave.30.8.........43..................1.6................3.5.................1513.6..............25.2....................1084
Split Ave.30.2........43..................1.7................3.5.................1513.6..............25.2....................1063
Scoop
Ave.........29...........40..................1.7................3.8.................1408.0..............23.5....................1021
Difference between scoop & flat blade:
...............1.8............3.................-0.1...............-0.3..................105.6.................1.8.......................63
Difference between scoop & split blade:
...............1.2............3.................-0.1...............-0.3..................105.6.................1.8.......................42
This set of tests were completed in a 25 yard pool, with 1 flip turns per set for 50 yards.
The stroke was a crawl kick, without arms and with arms to the side.

The averages above are for the five different trials for each blade type. I used the exact same fins for each, as I have three pairs of the Plana Plus Graphite fins. One (the control) I left as it was (flat blade). The second I drilled a hole in the blade just below my toes, and split the blade with a knife down the center to the hole (split blade). The third, I removed most of the center of the blade, and made my scoop fins out of the blade. Again, the dimensions of all there fins were exactly the same (except that the scoop fin's flexible material actually was a bit shorter, as it went straight from rib to rib, while the other two blades retained the original blade's shape, which was rounded toward the center of the fin.

This established the Plana Plus Graphite fins as providing better thrust than either of the other two fins (Duck Feet and Voit V-66 fins). This is kinda important, as I hope to see warm water this winter, and wanted to decided which fins to take.

SeaRat
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom