 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / December 2003Force Fins forces Rodale's Scuba Diving to pay for scuba equipment ratings scam
Force Fins forces Rodale's Scuba Diving to pay for scuba equipment ratings scam http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i031113/i031113.html > Force Fins forces Rodale's Scuba Diving to pay for scuba equipment ratings > scam > > http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i031113/i031113.html I have always considered Rodales to be among the most prostituted and deceitful of all scuba magazines, in gear discussions. Congratulations to Bob Evans! Dan V Hi Dan, How are you?( I am Casey, the guy who ask about split fins & strong current : ) I have bought a Cressi Gara 3000 but I couldn't find a pair of free diving fins for my girl friend because her feet are too small without size. Anyway, have you try one of those force fin, are they good enough to swim against current? Thanks. Casey 13 Nov. 2003 > > Force Fins forces Rodale's Scuba Diving to pay for scuba equipment ratings > > scam [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dan V > Hi Dan, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Casey > 13 Nov. 2003 Hi Casey, Good choice on the fins for you. How are you liking them ? Your girlfriend may be able to use a larger bootie, available from freedive catalogs or custom wetsuit makers like "Aquatic Wetsuits". The freedive fin neoprene socks are available up to 5mm and even 6 mm, which means a size 6 women's foot may fit nicely into a size 40 (European) freedive fin. My girlfriend Sandra has size 7 feet, and uses one or 2 pairs of white athletic socks--and a 2 mm neoprene sock ( the kind diveshops usually sell). This has her very happy with her size 40 ( American size 8 men's) Picasso Black Team freedive fins. The athletic socks can work pretty well, if you can get past the look ;-) Force Fins.....I have tried them extensively. I would say much better than Twinjets or other split fins, but not as good as "real" freedive fins. The way I see Force fins, is that Bob Evans has created many different models of fins, and each one is best used by a person with a given level of fitness--or lack of fitness. This was a very smart thing for Bob to do, since divers come in MANY different fitness levels...... The original Force Fin is best for the diver who has a heart condition, is morbidly obese, and is in general, at a very low level of fitness. There are MANY divers like this, even many instructors. But Force fin has many other models that allow "more water" to be pushed with each kick ( and with progressively better levels of fitness, this is highly desirable) , and as you go to their more advanced models, they do have some fins that can allow even a diver with "elite level fitness", to feel he or she is not at a disadvantage ( which is how this same diver would feel with twin jets or Apollos on, in a cross current in Boynton). I still like freedive fins best, but some of the Force Fins are much better than most other fins on the market. Fit will not be a problem with them, and they are very easy to use. You will need to get her the most advanced model--the ones with the biggest fin surface. They have a new model now which is very much like a freedive fin--you might try this one. Regards, Dan V Hello Dan, First time when I used the Cressi 3000 I felt hard to kick ( I use Tusa split fins before ) compare with my old fins and it seems I wasn't able to move as quick as my friends who used normal paddle fins. But after 4 to 5 dives , I get used to them and no one could keep up with me anymore!!! Gas consumption it just about the same now ( at the beggining it consume more gas) , now couple of my friends are planning to buy freedives fins, I really should thank you for all the kind advices, thanks Dan. Casey 14 Nov. 2003 > Hello Dan, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Casey > 14 Nov. 2003 Casey, Glad you like the fins. As you get more used to them, and concentrate on the big amplitude, slow kicks, your air consumption should go down alot. A big kick, a long glide, and you can do what other divers can't --conserve energy by coasting. This is one reason I like ultra streamlined gear like Halcyon, so I can get a really good glide between kicks. Regards, Dan V You know Dan, the reason you like free diving fins isn't just their surface area. Its the same reason I like Original Force Fins when diving in a current. When someone kicks a pair of free diving fins, the angle of the blade relevant to the direction of travel stays oriented to best take advantage of the water flow. Their simply too long to pull perpendicular to the direction of travel. The design of the Force Fin blade, as well as the design of the other fins in our portfolio that you do like keep properly oriented to your direction of travel too. Best regards, Susanne Chess Force Fin > > Hi Dan, > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Regards, > Dan V > You know Dan, the reason you like free diving fins isn't just their surface > area. Its the same reason I like Original Force Fins when diving in a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Susanne Chess > Force Fin Susanne, After trying your more advanced Force Fins, I have come to the realization that they represent an entirely different way to push yourself through the water. For many people, this may be a better way than with traditional fins. For the subset of the population which is highly fit, and who can quickly feel comfortable with the large amplitude, slow frequency kick style you use with freediving fins, I still believe this is the best way to go---and a way Force fin can evolve into, with its own freediving fin, as Bob has demonstrated with prototypes. For people who do not find it natural to use a large amplitude, slow frequency kicks, and prefer instead a more rapid, low amplitude flutter, the Force fin offerings, in their advanced fins, are outstanding. I still hate the idea of the original Force fin, because it caters to a person with such low muscle power and low fitness---by way of its requirement for very rapid turnover and very little thrust result--but with almost no torque required----this is a fin ideal for a 400 pound person, who might be better off watching TV and eating Pizza and ice cream with Coca cola. Maybe I am exagerating too much here, but I still see this as a crutch for someone who should become more fit, rather than re-shape the world into their own conception of lazyness. Your other models begin to raise the fitness bar with their capabilities, allowing normal divers to match their fitness with a model ideal for them by Force fin. No one else in the Fin world, other than a few tiny freedive fin companies the average consumer will never hear of or find, have been smart enough to do that, and for this, I commend you guys. As to the perpendicular to current issue....... it sounds good, but the "high end" freedive fin "alternative" benefit, is that you can go through the dive making one big push, followed by a huge long glide, then one more big push, then one more long glide----a streamlined diver can have awesome air consumption from this type of mechanics, since it allows a very low heart rate at an averaged speed normal to most divers---this the result of much gliding. I could keep my heart rate in the low 60's, with most divers at their comfortable pace, using a fin like the Omer C4. And there are some divers I could dive with where I could stay in the high 50's. My resting pulse is 48 to 50bpm, and my max heart rate is 204, aerobic zone is 157 to 188, just to put this low heart rate at diving pace in perspective. The low heart rate from very low kick turnover, translates into very slow breathing and very low air consumption. If I use trashed fins, like my old pair of Omer Tuna Comps, the efficiency is so low that they are not terribly competitive in this example. Their is a requirement that the fin retains its optimal flex charicteristics, and can "return" power optimally after each kick. This is the basic concept freedivers enjoy to perform breath hold dives--the kick and glide, utilizing a very low heart rate ( which allows long periods between breaths if required by a freediver--for the scuba diver, it just allows a much smaller demand for air). I am still anxious to try the Force Fin freediving fin---whenever they finally become available !!!! Regards, Dan Volker > > > Hi Dan, > > > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > Regards, > > Dan V Dan, Phew! How do you get those measurements at depth? And I said that I found free diving fins elegant. When this whole mess landed me in the hospital, I maintained an oxygen absorption level of 98%. That means my cardiovascular system is in very good shape. My personal preference is the Original Force Fin. I don't recommend them for every customer who calls. Like you, Bob as of late is preferring his Excellerating Force Fins. I find the customers who are happiest scuba diving with the Original Force Fin are either those in poor shape as you choose to pigeonhole, or those of an elite level -- the two extremes. We make plenty of Force Fin variations for those in between. With respect to elite divers and swimmers, we find that they use cues other than the resistence or drag of their fins -- your fitness workload, Dan -- as their measurement of forward momentum. An elite swimmer is going to feel more comfortable with a swimmers kick. They can measure their forward momentum or the thrust output of their fin blade by how they're moving, not by how they are working. I personally believe that kicking your fin should be easy. When scuba diving there are too many other things to enjoy and consider than how to kick your fins. A low amplitude, wide stride kick is an adaptation of your kick for your fins, just as a frog kick is an adaptation for optimizing Jet Fins. Sure you can be very efficient once adapted, but why suggest that everyone go through the process? Love ya, Susanne Chess Force Fin > > You know Dan, the reason you like free diving fins isn't just their > surface [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] > > > Regards, > > > Dan V > Dan, > > Phew! How do you get those measurements at depth? And I said that I found > free diving fins elegant. Force Fins were great when I lived in St Thomas, because they were better than bare feet for doing boat surveys, replacing zinks, etc, and you could walk on the dock with them on and go from boat to boat. Scott > Dan, > > Phew! How do you get those measurements at depth? And I said that I found > free diving fins elegant. Hi Suzanne, Careful, someone will repeat this as saying you like freediving fins :- As to the measurement of HR, I have a Polar 720i heart rate monitor---awesome gadget, I bought it for cycling, but its good to 60 feet deep and will download to my PC afterward. > When this whole mess landed me in the hospital, I maintained an oxygen > absorption level of 98%. That means my cardiovascular system is in very good [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > momentum or the thrust output of their fin blade by how they're moving, not > by how they are working. Ahhh, lets use the experience of forward speed through the water--as measured by how fast the bottom goes by....that does not make me sound so myopic ;-) > I personally believe that kicking your fin should be easy. When scuba diving > there are too many other things to enjoy and consider than how to kick your > fins. A low amplitude, wide stride kick is an adaptation of your kick for > your fins, just as a frog kick is an adaptation for optimizing Jet Fins. > Sure you can be very efficient once adapted, but why suggest that everyone > go through the process? And in my last post, I did allude to this---I am aware some people will be comfortable with the big amplitude kicks, and some will not. Regards, Dan V > Love ya, > [quoted text clipped - 175 lines] > > > > Regards, > > > > Dan V > I personally believe that kicking your fin should be easy. When scuba diving > there are too many other things to enjoy and consider than how to kick your > fins. A low amplitude, wide stride kick is an adaptation of your kick for > your fins, just as a frog kick is an adaptation for optimizing Jet Fins. My take on this is very different. The slower, longer kick is the standard which most of us learned long before fins were particularly efficient. Anything else, including a more rapid kick characteristic of the split fins and, apparently the Force Fins, is an adaptation to the fin's different functional aspects. In my personal opinion, your question below is a good one, but applied to the wrong fin. > Sure you can be very efficient once adapted, but why suggest that everyone > go through the process? Regarding Jet Fins, the frog kick is not an adaptation of otimizing them. It is an adaptation for preventing them, or any other fin, from silting out confined spaces. The frog kick is not an optimal method of propulsion except where silt is an issue. Lee Lee, Kicks taught in the industry have always evolved relative to the fins sold in the industry. A low amplitude, wide stride kick was the standard kick taught when we first started our business in 1983. I think the best sellers then were the Jet, Rocket or Power Plana. With these boards you have to use a low amplitude, wide stride kick or oxygen deplete. The same is true with free diving fins, but they keep a better angle relative to your direction of travel than these other fins when you use this kick. Most fins, and I'm talking fins in general, are pretty flexible nowadays. As such, the kick can be streamlined without oxygen depleting unless you have to really go for it. I think that has led to a practice to let divers kick more comfortably during instruction and concentrate more on other things, unless you have a student that is having problems kicking in general. Most divers are flutter kicking, or close to it these days. The exception is us old salts that learned to dive when the Jet, Rocket, Plana Power or even UDT Duck foot was the industry standard, or a few years thereafter while the instruction caught up with fin design changes. We're a minority now. And, if you are an old salt, you are comfortable enough in the water to make changes and adaptations if you care to take the time to make your diving easier. Likewise, most of those involved in the cave diving standardization process were diving Jet Fins or various clones that were popular at that time. As such, they developed kicking techniques that limited silting when using those fins. Isn't the best fin for cave diving the Jet Fin? Cave divers are an influential market elite, so manufacturers design fins to work well with the frog kick. Its a kick loop. With different fins, there are different techniques that may work as well or maybe even better, if those fins are used instead. Does that mean you shouldn't frog kick with Jet Fins. Of course not. It just means that being open minded and letting technique expand with design evolution isn't wrong either. Best regards, Susanne Chess Force Fin > > I personally believe that kicking your fin should be easy. When scuba > diving [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Lee We are not going to go into the "swim against current" issue again, are we? Boys and girls, listen: Fins do not care whether there is a current or no. They do not know! If your fin(s) push you through the water at, say, 3 knots in still water (assuming the same type of leg motion throughout) they are still going to push you through the water at 3 knots if there is a current running. But, if you are heading straight into a 3 knot current your headway will be zero! You/yourself/your body are still moving through the water at 3 knots. The idea that some type of fins suddenly forget how to work when the ocean is moving is absurd...the fins do not know. Notice here how I am not mentioning any type of fin over another? If a certain type of fin works for you then by all means I think you should obtain it and use it. Some types of fins work well, but they require a tri-athletes strength and endurance to keep them up into any type of speed range, plus they are as comfortable as hiking uphill in wooden clogs. Other types of fins give good speed and require less effort, allowing you to use them at higher speeds for longer distances. And they are comfy to wear. And just like underwear not everyone agrees on the same type or brand. (yes, there are people out there that insist a fin be uncomfortable or high-effort to be considered a manly fin. Just like my grandmother insisted that nothing that is good for you can taste good.*) FINS DO NOT SUDDENLY CHANGE THE WAY THEY WORK IF THE WATER IS IN MOTION. THERE IS NO EASTER BUNNY. * (not a lot of time was spent having dinner with Grandma)  SignatureR Beard Oahu Dive Center Kailua, Hawaii 1-866-933-DIVE www.oahudivecenter.com > > > Hi Dan, [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Regards, > Dan V > We are not going to go into the "swim against current" issue again, are we? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if you are heading straight into a 3 knot current your headway will be zero! > You/yourself/your body are still moving through the water at 3 knots. <snip> > R Beard R Beard, There actually "is" an issue with side currents, if the fins in question are of the Split Fin variety. While the split fins can achieve decent speed in a straight line--in either no current or straight against a good current, this is not always enough. Here in South Florida, we have long reef lines which parallel the shore, about 2 to 3 miles out. This goes on for about 50 miles or so. The reef crown is less than 100 yards across on much of this--in some places wider, in some narrower. A typical dive profile could be dropping on the offshore facing side of the reef, where it may be 90 feet deep, doing a drift along it for 5 to 10 minutes or so, then coming up to the crown at 37 to 50 feet, crossing it and then spending another 30 to 40 minutes on the inshore facing reef --which will vary from 45 to 60 feet deep in the sand at the bottom of the ledge. In crossing the reef, split fin wearers typically have problems keeping up with divers wearing traditional fins, particularly on days when the current is really flying. My girlfriend and I have had to literally drag a couple of split fin wearing divers across the reef, in order for them to make the crossing--this same couple had been fine on dives like this, prior to their unfortunate purchase of their fancy new split fins. My girlfriend was able to pull her huge dual strobe camera AND the female diver from this couple, all the way across the reef, using her freedive fins--the woman she pulled just could not make headway on her own. I had no camera to push, and found no difficulty in dragging the woman's husband across. There are also days when the current does not just run with the reef, but heads out at a 45 degree angle to it, forcing the divers to deal with a constant side current. This is the place split fin wearers suffer, and this idea is part of what I was referring to in the earlier post. Their is actually some physics to this, and the place I originally heard it was from Bob Evans of Force fins. Since I have seen this empirically demonstrated time and time again, the explanation Bob has would seem to be born out. Hopefully he will see this thread and share it with the NG. Regards, Dan Volker > snip> THERE IS NO EASTER BUNNY. Oh sure, next thing you'll be lecturing is that Santa isn't real. > We are not going to go into the "swim against current" issue again, are we? > > Boys and girls, listen: Fins do not care whether there is a current or no. > They do not know! You obviously missed out on the split fin thread a few weeks ago - I went into this concept and explained the science behind why you are wrong. Logic would make it seem like your argument is correct, however fluid dynamics are not relativistic - meaning that water moving at 3 knots will have certain physical properties regardless of whether you are moving with the current (i.e. you "see" 0 knots), moving against the current, or moving perpendicular to the current. The most important of these is the Reynolds number. The Reynolds number is a number you can calculate based on certain properties of a fluid - notably the fluids viscosity (resistance to flow), temperature, and most importantly, velocity. As the velocity of the fluid (in our case water) increases so does the Reynolds number. Once the Reynolds number becomes equal to or greater than 30 water flow will become turbulent - and turbulent flow kills the efficiency of splits. For splits to work properly you need what is termed laminar flow - smooth, non-turbuent flow of the water. As you kick split fins you'll get water flowing faster over one face of the fin then the other. This creates lower pressure on one side of the fin then the other (differential pressure), providing thrust. This is the same concept that airplane wings use to fly. As soon as turbulence forms you loose the smooth flow, you loose differential pressure, and so you loose thrust. That's the catch - when you kick you make the water move, which will increase the Reynolds number of the water surrounding your fin. If the Reynolds number increases past 30 you'll generate turbulence and you will not generate thrust. Now if you are in resting water the water has a reynolds number of zero, but water moving at 3 knots has a Reynolds number approaching 12 - meaning in your example of a three knot current your fins have, in essence, already "lost" about 1/2 of their potential thrust. So, in fact, you fins do "know" if the water around them is moving. If you'd like to know more (or don't trust me) you can read up on these things yourself - fluid dynamics is the area of physics which rule fin function. But that's a large area, the main things you want to read on are: differential pressure (or airplane wings), laminar flow, turbulent flow, and the Reynolds number. Science is a bitch... Bryan > > We are not going to go into the "swim against current" issue again, are we? > > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Bryan Thanks Bryan, great post. Dan V <snip> all this is well and good but... for a flow of 2m/s the RE is >2300 ie not tubulent. so just what *real* effect does any of this have? > Once the Reynolds number becomes equal to or greater than 30 water flow > will become turbulent - and turbulent flow kills the efficiency of splits. Critical Reynolds number is usually quoted as 2000. Where did the 30 come from? Now if you are in resting water the water has > a reynolds number of zero, but water moving at 3 knots has a Reynolds > number approaching 12 - meaning in your example of a three knot current > your fins have, in essence, already "lost" about 1/2 of their potential > thrust. Reynolds number is the product of velocity and characteristic size, divided by kinematic viscosity. Unfortunately the kinematic viscosity of water is about 1.E-6 m^2/s. So if we assume a velocity of only 1 m/s and a characteristic length of 0.1 m (representing fin width), this gives a Reynolds number around 100,000. It's not clear to me how any fin could operate in a laminar flow regime. ab > > Once the Reynolds number becomes equal to or greater than 30 water flow > > will become turbulent - and turbulent flow kills the efficiency of splits. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > gives a Reynolds number around 100,000. It's not clear to me how any > fin could operate in a laminar flow regime. Characteristic length should be the thickness of the fin; analogous to flow around wings, spheres, cylinders, you name it. However, even at a fin thickness of 1 mm (too thin) would give a Re=1000. That's still not laminar flow; at most the transition zone between laminar and turbulent. If I'm not mistaken, the transition happens at about 11" or a couple of inches forward of the foot pocket on most fins. Just where you see it. Susanne Chess Force Fin snip > However, even at a fin thickness of 1 mm (too thin) would give a Re=1000. > That's still not laminar flow; at most the transition zone between > laminar and turbulent. >> Once the Reynolds number becomes equal to or greater than 30 water >> flow will become turbulent - and turbulent flow kills the efficiency >> of splits. > > Critical Reynolds number is usually quoted as 2000. Where did the 30 > come from? Convention in my field (immunology). Because blood flow tends to have very high reynolds numbers associated with it it's become common in my field to talk about these things scaled down by a factor of ten (i.e. 30 = 3000). I have no idea why we do this - it's been going on since before I was born, ad causes no end of headaches when we want things like software designed, but it's the way we do things. I approximated the number of 30 (3000) to factor in the effects of solutes and particulate in sea water. <snip> > Reynolds number is the product of velocity and characteristic size, > divided by kinematic viscosity. Unfortunately the kinematic viscosity > of water is about 1.E-6 m^2/s. So if we assume a velocity of only 1 m/s > and a characteristic length of 0.1 m (representing fin width), this > gives a Reynolds number around 100,000. It's not clear to me how any > fin could operate in a laminar flow regime. I'm just quoting what I've read about splits fins - which supposedly work more like an airplane wing then a conventional fin (which functions via displacement). In order for a wing to work with any degree of efficiency it must have laminar (or at least minimal turbulence) over the wing surface. Perhaps the answer to your question lies in boundary effects - Im not sure about the "real" world, but in blood flow boundary effects play a huge role in mediating how blood flows - including allowing smooth flow where, in theory, it should be completely turbulent. Of course the cross section of a blood vesicle is tiny, the ones I usually look at are in the range of 10-50um, so these effects may have minimal impact on a fins function. Bryan > I'm just quoting what I've read about splits fins - which supposedly > work more like an airplane wing then a conventional fin (which functions [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Bryan Bryan, According to the marketing splits act like an airplane wing. In practice, turbulence occurs when the inner flaps transition between opened up (when you are kicking forward) and opened down (when you are pulling your leg back), with the more flexible models (Apollo Biofin, for example). The stiffer splits (Atomic Aquatic, for example) don't open down. They act more like a traditional fin when you pull your leg back up. Some of the turbulence is released, so it occurs about half way down the blade, instead of just forward of the foot pocket as is the case with traditional fins. Not sure what TUSA was up to curving the fins downward. It moves the turbulence right back to just past the foot pocket and the curve. The turbulence is so dramatic, they can suck off your foot backwards if you kick real hard. Scubapro lost the effect by releasing the flow of water through the vents, much of it flows away from the blade instead of down toward the trailing edge, much as it does when you kick hard and open any of them wide. Scubapro are masters at marketing though. The kept a consistent image with the Jet Fin. Don't get me wrong. They all work, but they are generating turbulence consistent with your math. To keep things simple, I'm talking straight line course. When Bob gets back from the Dive Show in Birmingham, UK, we'll see if he'll volunteer what goes on with fins confronting sideways flow. Susanne Chess Force Fin Bryan, I thought you might be interested in this link. http://personalpages.tds.net/~hwirth/nd/bobevans.html Quotes from an interview gave to Professor Harry Wirth of the American Design Network: "HW: What is the future of the swim fin? Project as far into the future that you can. BE: I can see my fin technology used for ship propulsion systems. Thinking way ahead, I can see the same ideas used for the transfer of medicine with the human body's fluids." Its a project Bob Evans is working on. Best, Susanne Chess Force Fin > >> Once the Reynolds number becomes equal to or greater than 30 water > >> flow will become turbulent - and turbulent flow kills the efficiency [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Bryan >> Hi Dan, >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >Regards, >Dan V Rodale's dropped off my sub list long ago, before the surface of the Earth had cooled. Immersed, Diver, and Dive Training are worth reading, anyway. Just tried a pair of Force Fin Pros on a trip to Cayman Brac last week. Liked them a lot for boat dives--they were great, very controllable for pottering about the reefs, and exploring the Tibbetts, but I finally had to buy a pair of long fins locally to do the shore dives I wanted (they were Beuchat Activas, which I found acceptable). The Force Fins just weren't moving me through the water well enough for those 300 yard surface swims out to the wall, especially since the weather was crap for the whole two damned weeks and there were honkin' big waves (by CB standards) on both sides of the island...viz was lousy too, but I'm not here to whine about my trip (well, maybe a bit). I found it interesting that my SAC stayed steady at around 0.5 for both fins. I really expected to see a difference one way or the other. Anyway, if Rodales trashed Force Fins, I must politely disagree with them, even though it's not the rec.scuba way. --Toren Toren, Long fins do surface swim well. When you get a chance you might want to try a pair of Excellerating Force Fins for your long surface swims. The blade is narrow near the foot, so it easily holds in the water. It widens to a flexible trailing edge for maximum thrust. With tapered side edges and vortex generators to prevent turbulent flow as the water moves down the blade. Rodale didn't exactly trash Force Fins. It was a lot more complex. In short, they made statements we felt were defamatory. They had no data or documentation to support results of fin tests on our Force Fin or Extra Force Fin products. They used our "Force Fin" trademark on their website to redirect readers to web pages soliciting licenses to Nature's Wings Patents; pages that said nothing about Force Fin products. Nature's Wings paid their ScubaLab Director and author of the articles for four years of fin testing. Rodale was holding out to the public that they were objective and unbiased. They offered a $10,000 award to anyone who could find any editorial that contains lies, misrepresentations or other distortions as proof of bias. We submitted our proof and they refused to pay. The link and articles on the Force Fin products are no longer on their website. A $9,000 settlement was reached on the $10,000 award. The story was covered by our local Santa Barbara News Press. It was picked up by CDNN who posted it here and started this thread. Best regards, Susanne Chess Force Fin > Rodale's dropped off my sub list long ago, before the surface of the > Earth had cooled. Immersed, Diver, and Dive Training are worth [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > them, even though it's not the rec.scuba way. > --Toren > Toren, > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > them, even though it's not the rec.scuba way. > > --Toren Susanne, I'm still anxious to hear about the new developments with the prototyped freediving fin Bob has been working on----you know, the big bladed monster I want to get my hands on :-) So what is the news on this? Dan V >Susanne, >I'm still anxious to hear about the new developments with the prototyped [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Dan V It won't help. You'll still be the worst diver with the biggest fins in Florida. > >Susanne, > >I'm still anxious to hear about the new developments with the prototyped [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It won't help. You'll still be the worst diver with the biggest fins > in Florida. Hey, as long as I excel, right .. :-) Dan V Are you talking about the OPS? http://www.forcefin.com/FF_PAGES/FF_Products/ops.htm Bob's putting it through the paces a bit longer. He's exclusively supplying Jean Michel Cousteau and his team of divers at Oceans Futures Society. Once we've got enough mileage in enough conditions, we'll release it in general. We'll be auctioning pairs that have been on various expeditions signed by the expedition members, including Jean Michel Cousteau and Bob Evans as a fundraiser for Oceans Futures Society. Susanne Chess Force Fin > Susanne, > I'm still anxious to hear about the new developments with the prototyped [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dan V > Are you talking about the OPS? > http://www.forcefin.com/FF_PAGES/FF_Products/ops.htm [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Susanne Chess > Force Fin Hi Susanne, These are the ones....I got to try a prototype of these...I liked them, but I need a pair with longer and stiffer blades. Even at the max setting they were too soft for someone who is used to competition level freedive fins ( but of course, this would "not" be 99% of scuba divers ;-) I've used Esclapez Blue fins before, which used to be their softest model--the one used by freedivers planning to be in the water for 8 hours straight for a long contest----since I don't generally dive more than 3 hours, the spaghetti feel of the blue fins bothered me. Esclapez also made the green fin ( quite a bit stiffer), and the black fins ( a great deal stiffer). The greens were aimed more at deeper freediving for a shorter duration--like 4 hours, and the blacks for 100 foot deep drops for maybe an hour or 2. The black fins came closest for me, in providing me a comfortable "push" platform, which I felt great using for up to 3 hours ( actual duration of each fin use is still individualized to each person). If a person matched their own muscle and aerobic fitness, with a model too stiff for them, then cramping prior to the desired max duration would probably occur. Freedive fin companies have used this "mission oriented" model selection for many years now..They don't say this model is for weak divers, and this one is for highly fit divers--at least not for their standard models, of which their will typically be 2 to 4 stiffness choices ( and of course, the stiffer ones will be harder to load with muscle effort, and will then "unload" much more forcefully, pushing the freediver faster and further through the water from each single kick). The freedive manufacturers that offer elite competition fins, "will" sometimes suggest that their top elite fins "are only" for elite level athletes, as these will be tuned for someone doing 1 hour or less duration, very deep freediving, and this will be aimed at people who have adapted to very rigorous aerobic and weight based training---or just a huge amount of time in the water kicking freedive fins every day :-) The interesting thing is that companies like Scubapro, Mares, and the other large scuba fin manufacturers, ignore the REALITY that this categorization used by the freedive mfg's for duration use, is IDEAL for scuba use, as it is an optimal way to help a person match their fitness with the flex characteristics of a fin. Bob Evans and Force Fin have actually done this, but kept the fitness characterizations "out of" the marketing, instead positioning the progressively more aggressive fins as being for more "advanced" divers. Perhaps you guys are right, in that the scuba world is offended by fitness, or suggestions that a diver should have it--and with this in mind, linking the potential of the fins to a person who spends more time diving, might well be the "safest" way to market this range of potentials. Personally, I think you could let the dive shops in on this, and they could help "push" the stiffer, more aggressive models on the people who are clearly more fit. This is something I have NOT seen at local dive shops. And the complication for this of course, is that a huge percentage of dive shops, are populated with ego-challenged, doughnut eating divemaster and instructor types---and these people combine poor fitness with macho mentalities---they would find it tough to tell a diver that they should try an advanced fin if it is "too advanced" for the divemaster/instructor. And the whole system starts to break down, as the poor fitness levels and big egos destroy good advice. Luckily their are good shops, good instructors, and even good coffee servers :-) , but there are not enough of them ;-) The new fin you guys have adds a particularly cool dimension, in that it allows a diver to actually increase or decrease the stiffness and push level per kick, while in the water on a dive. As great as this feature is, for the reasons talked about above, you really do need a version of this fin which starts at the stiffest level of your existing fin, and goes far beyond. This would be needed at the very least, for the elite competitive freediving community. Certainly there are scuba divers which could enjoy this as well. If you guys want to be able to bump chests with the Omer C4's, or equivalent state of the art freedive fins, then this is the path I'm hoping you will take. Please relay this to Bob, in a nice way :-) Regards, Dan Volker <snip> > Dan Volker wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Dan Volker >------------------------------------------------------------- At the risk of incurring Dan Volker's usually unwarrranted and considerable wrath I think it should be pointed out that the ScubaPro Twin Jets DO come in three differing levels of stiffness. And yes Dan, there are shops out there that will point this out to potential customers. And NO Dan I am not trying to advertise for the above-mentioned company. And NO to any of the other accusations you will undoubtedly heap on me for having a difference of opinion or daring to hint that you might not have the very last word on every subject. "It is the wise man who begins to realize the depths of his own ignorance" Bob > <snip> > > Dan Volker wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > difference of opinion or daring to hint that you might not have the very > last word on every subject. Thanks for the clarification Bob. As to the "wrath" part, I guess I should apologize for the "tone" in my recent postings which Karl has elicited. Regards, Dan V The Force Fin has for many, many years been offered in different durometers, or stiffness, Original, Pro and Tan Delta. With some of Bob Evans' new fins, that Dan has tried, you can change the stiffness and/or blade dynamics of the same blade while you are underwater and underway. Susanne Chess Force Fin > <snip> > > Dan Volker wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Bob > At the risk of incurring Dan Volker's usually unwarrranted and > considerable wrath I think it should be pointed out that the ScubaPro Twin [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Bob Bob and Mary, You've brought up a point that I should explain more about---the issue about good and bad dive shops. Just so people know where I am coming from, in comments like the one I made and that you took issue with, let me explain this. In South Florida, we have a huge number of dive shops---I don't know where you guys are from, but we probably have as many dive shops as you do Burger Kings. Most of the dive shops are forced to offer $99 instruction in their window, and to use automobile industry style advertising ( i.e., misleading) in order to get divers to visit---divers with all the choices in shops, and all the SALES advertised, are under a powerful motivating force to have zero loyalty to a local shop. This would be about the money. But then, you look at the differences between the shops, and there are a few shops who really do have good divers working at them, and these good divers want to share their experiences with the people coming into the shops. And when you find a shop like this, they are worth paying a little more sometimes, because they won't push the wrong gear to you, just so that the shop can make a buck. The shops like this can do a great deal to help you in finding the gear that is best for you ( as opposed to the gear that is best for the shop to sell). Anyway, you have huge numbers of the first example--the bad shops, and much smaller numbers of the good shops. If you ARE a good shop, then my comments should help you, because I want divers to realize what a good resource "good shops" are, and to have some loyalty to them---going with really good advice over trying to save a few cents ( and potentially wasting several hundred dollars or more on the wrong gear). Brand new divers are often completely unaware of the degree of bad advice, coming out of the Bad Shops. They need to hear the real story from the people they meet who have been diving long enough to distinguish the difference. And even divers who have been diving for several years, may need help finding their first "good shop", because they might never have accidentally visited one, due to the large numbers of bad ones in their vicinity. Maybe we should start a thread on all the good things a shop should be known for, and all the bad things you can see in some shops--that they should be "called on" :-) Regards, Dan V > But then, you look at the differences between the shops, and there are a few > shops who really do have good divers working at them, and these good divers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > finding the gear that is best for you ( as opposed to the gear that is best > for the shop to sell). Name one in S. Florida. Lynn's shop doesn't count. She doesn't have enough inventory yet to count one way or the other. Lee > > But then, you look at the differences between the shops, and there are a > few [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Lee This is hugely "worker" related. There have been guys and girls working in shops, throughout the last 15 years, that I have seen make the shops that they worked in great shops--in the sense we are now talking about. There was a time that Force E on Blue Heron near the bridge was good, but not having been there in the last 2 years, I would not have any "expectations" above the average for it today. Brownies Southport, about 3 years ago, had some good people working in it, and they had some great equipment--and they would even let people demo gear--this made them a great shop....but the people I am talking about are not there now, and I have no idea what the caliber of present workers there now would be. I could point out BAD shops much more easily. SunSports on Forest Hills blvd in West Palm jumps to mind immediately. Lee, since I have not had to buy much in the way of gear for quite some time now, I really can't say who is working where, and which shops are good because of this. But this would be an excellent thread---- ----- The search for the Best Dive Shop in South Florida. Criteria: Best personnel in shop ( good divers who have knowledge and desire to "HELP" customers over just making sales) Best program for allowing customers to gain familiarity with gear--Demo Program type of approach Best Instructors Best shop at matching "Divers" to "Dive Boats" ( advanced divers never sent to boat full of novices, rambos sent to boats with other Rambos, Photographers sent to boats with other Photogs, i.e., some sense in putting people together) Best Equipment selection ( still requires being good at matching gear to each individual and caring about this). Lee, what do you think should be added to this ? Dan V > This is hugely "worker" related. There have been guys and girls working in > shops, throughout the last 15 years, that I have seen make the shops that > they worked in great shops--in the sense we are now talking about. There > was a time that Force E on Blue Heron near the bridge was good, but not > having been there in the last 2 years, I would not have any "expectations" > above the average for it today. None of the Force E shops are particularly convenient for me. I've found a couple of employees in them that I liked, but more than I didn't. I'm not real fond of the idea of having a repair shop at a remote location, but it makes sense for them. I kind of like to know and speak with my techs first hand. On the other hand, they did as good a job on my regulators as anybody has and did both my USD Monitor I computers cheaper than anybody else I could find. I'm a bit biased in favor of chain since I know Skip personally. I used to do QA for him. I'd go into various shops looking for just the kinds of things you mention. Sometimes I found them, sometimes I didn't. Skip heard about it either way. In return, I got a discount on whatever I purchased, but the biggest incentive was helping improve the shops in the area. Any shop that cares enough to implement such a program, is more likely to be the kind of shop we all like to find. Force E is near the top of my list even though I don't visit them often . . . or maybe because I don't visit them often. It's easier to maintain quality once it's in place, but even then, it's not automatic. The Diver's Den that used to be on University, just a bit south of 595 was one of my favorite stores. The people there were the kind you like to find, experienced, knowledgeable and honest. They're the ones that turned me away from some much more expensive fins and on to Mares Avante fins. Like everybody else, they had some good deals and some not so good ones. I bought three complete regulators and assorted attachments from them without problem or complaint. Theresa closed that shop long ago and Smitty, the shop salesman I liked most, took up selling BMW cars. Go figure. Maybe there is an honest car salesman in the world after all. I don't use the shop that took over the location, Diver's Cove, because I know the story behind the transition and do not think that they treated Theresa as honestly as I would have liked. Dishonesty will kill my business faster than anything else and, until I find out differently from a reliable source, my opinion is that the new owner was dishonest. > Brownies Southport, about 3 years ago, had some good people working in it, > and they had some great equipment--and they would even let people demo > gear--this made them a great shop....but the people I am talking about are > not there now, and I have no idea what the caliber of present workers there > now would be. Brownies still has some good people, but they're they're hardly likely to direct anybody away from anything with the name Halcyon on it and they're more than a little biased toward GUE. The link between the shop, Halcyon, EE and GUE is just a bit too close for me to be comfortable recommending them to somebody that does not know exactly what they want and why. I'm also not fond of "fair trade pricing", something that they are more likely to follow than unaffiliated shops. More importantly to my business, their fill and service prices are high and the last few fills they did for me were not even close to what they were supposed to be. I'm not sure who was responsible. I've heard that there's one person there that seems to believe he knows how to do partial pressure fills that, in fact, does not, but I don't have a name to tie to the problem. I'm reasonably sure it's not any of those I routinely talk with. Regardless, fills that are significantly off, are not acceptable from a shop so technical in focus. Mark, at Fill Express, is currently on my list of good guys. So far, he's not tried to direct me to anything in particular and his fills are spot on and quite reasonably priced. I can thank Bullshark for turning me on to this operation and they get as much support as I can give them. I want this shop to do well. For now, it's right on the top of my list. I've never felt pressured and and information I get there has always left me feeling confident that it was good and unbiased. I buy quite a bit of my stuff from Diver's Outlet. I used to visit their shop in Florida City on each trip to the Keys. I'm more likely to shop at their Sawgrass store these days. I like the people and I like the prices. One of the things I like the most, may make them less desirable for some. They don't know as much about diving as people in most other shops I've frequented, but they have always been honest about it. They'll give me the line the manufacturers give them, but have never tried to convince me they knew something they didn't. Honesty will always rank higher with me than experience, but the two are close to equally important when I'm trying to expand my knowledge into new areas. > Lee, since I have not had to buy much in the way of gear for quite some time > now, I really can't say who is working where, and which shops are good > because of this. But this would be an excellent thread---- I'm in much the same position. I still buy stuff once in a while, but I'm past the point where I do much more than price shop. Most of the time, I know what I want and, for some things, know where I'll buy it. Some of the time, I pay higher prices for the convenience of going home with what I want, sometimes, I pay more attention to prices. It just depends on my mood at the time. Lee Force Fin left this mess on Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:25:16 -0800 for The Way to clean up: >The link and articles on the Force Fin products are no longer on their >website. A $9,000 settlement was reached on the $10,000 award. By your own admission, Susanne, it was not an "award". The $9,000, which was $1,000 less than you sued for on that complaint, was the award. And you failed on four other major points. Why don't you admit that you filed a frivolous lawsuit that the judge tossed the major complaints out on, and Rodale's settled because they would have paid their lawyers more than $9G? Tao te Carl "It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003 (Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-a.s question here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif Your interpretation is wrong. The case was never heard on its merits. The settlement was negotiated in Court, not to avoid Court. Here are the facts. Judge for yourself. On October 15, 2001, Bob Evans Designs, Inc., makers of the Force Fin, filed a Complaint against Rodale, Inc., Publishers of Rodale's Scuba Diving Magazine, alleging Defamation, Trade Libel, Intentional Interference of Prospective Business Advantage, Unfair Competition and Breach of Contract. A summary of facts supporting the allegations are as follows: In articles published in Rodale's Scuba Diving statements were made implying that Bob Evans Designs, Inc. was doing something wrong in marketing their Split Foil Force Fin without license from Nature's Wings. Rodale had been previously notified by Bob Evans Designs, Inc. that the technology and design of its Split Foil Force Fin are found in its own patents that predate the others. Rodale, Inc. reported tests of Force Fin products as independent, objective and unbiased, when in fact no data or documentation existed to support results of fin tests on the Force Fin or Extra Force Fin. Nature's Wings paid the then-Director of Rodale's ScubaLab and author of the articles for approximately four years of fin tests. Some of the tests were developed by Nature's Wings. Rodale, Inc. used the "Force Fin" trademark on their website to redirect readers to web pages soliciting licenses to Nature's Wings patents; pages that said nothing about Force Fin products. Rodale, Inc. offered a $10,000 award to anyone who could find any editorial that contains lies, misrepresentations or other distortions as proof of bias. Bob Evans Designs, Inc. submitted their proof. Rodale, Inc. refused to pay. Statements surrounding the settlement circulated by Rodale leave out the fact that the case was never heard on its merits. On February 14, 2003, the Honorable John F. Walter, United States District Judge granted Rodale's Motion for Summary Judgment finding "that Bob Evans' [first four causes of action] all arise out of alledgedly defamatory statements made by Rodale and distributed to the public over one year prior to Bob Evans filing its complaint,... and are barred by California CCP $340(c)'s one year statute of limitations." In September 2003, members of the dive industry rallied to the support of Bob Evans Designs, Inc. and emailed their demand that Rodale remove the allegedly unfair link. Rodale responded by removing the link and all articles referencing Force Fin products. On October 13, 2003, before the Honorable Thomas P. Anderle, Judge, Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara, a Court negotiated settlement was reached. In attendance for Bob Evans Designs, Inc. were its Officers, Robert B. Evans and Susanne E. Chess. In attendance for Rodale, Inc. was its Advertising Director, Debbie Edwards. Attorneys for each party were also present. A $9,000 settlement was reached on the $10,000 award. Statements made by Dane Farnum, Publisher, Rodale's Scuba Diving regarding the suit conclude with the statement that "Rodale's Scuba Diving will continue to publish the only comparative scuba equipment evaluations available in the United States." The evaluations are not characterized as "independent", "objective" or "unbiased". Truth prevailed and that's a win for everyone. Susanne Chess Force Fin > Force Fin left this mess on Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:25:16 -0800 for The Way to clean > up: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > (Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-a.s question > here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif That's a lot of stuff to analyze. It is tough to separate out what was said by the "court" and what is being said by you or other Force representatives, but at the end you wrote... ...."Statements made by Dane Farnum, Publisher, Rodale's Scuba Diving regarding the suit conclude with the statement that "Rodale's Scuba Diving will continue to publish the only comparative scuba equipment evaluations available in the United States." The evaluations are not characterized as "independent", "objective" or "unbiased"..... The statement above appears to be of your own words, not that of a finding of the court. Did the court find at any point that Rodale's evaluations were "biased", "non-objective" and "dependant"- whatever that means. Apparently the court did find Rodale's didn't submit evidence they weren't (if I read your comments correctly), but the court didn't state that they were. The only things I could find as aggrieveing towards Force in your statement below is their use of the "allegedly unfair" link (which indeed does sound unfair), which they did later remove, and the comment about the marketing of the Split Foil Force. I haven't read the huge 120+ response long thread below, but I have seen this and threads with someone with apparent links to Force involved on several other message boards. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Let's face it. I read the initial Rodale's report on split fins, they reported at the time they had been trying to get Force fins submitted for reviews for years, and only bought them after Apollo presented a pair of their own fins for review and tests. Force fins apparently tested superior to all fins in the test, except the split fins from Apollo. The market jumped for those which placed at the top of Rodale's test results...not the one which would have likely topped the test in previous years if they had only submitted their product for tests... Opportunites lost, perhaps Force would have cleaned up if only they had participated willingly in previous years. later Steve > Your interpretation is wrong. The case was never heard on its merits. The > settlement was negotiated in Court, not to avoid Court. Here are the facts. [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > question > > here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif > Let's face it. I read the initial Rodale's report on split fins, they > reported at the time they had been trying to get Force fins submitted [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > tests... Opportunites lost, perhaps Force would have cleaned up if > only they had participated willingly in previous years. The problem is that you can't really have true objectivity when you insist that vendors donate their products for review: this element alone creates a source of a bias (BTW, hadn't ScubaPro also been a 'decliner' for years?). Afterall, if every Tom, Dick and Harry with a webpage (a public presence as an independent, unbiased evaluator), the world's manufacturers would clearly go out of business providing free 'evaluation' goods to all of them, instead of making each of these businesses pay their own way. From a business perspective, let's face realities here: to buy a dozen pairs of fins for a test would run less than $2K. That's too much for Tom/Dick/Harry, but for Rodale's, that's a drop in the bucket: a recent Audit Bureau of Circulations report, Rodale's Scuba Diving had a monthly paid circulation of 186,000 and a total readership of more than 1 million (BTW, they also report that Scuba Diving readers have an average household income of $121,000). So to spend an extra $2K for review gear for each and every issue works out to a per-magazine cost of 13 cents/year, or 2 cents per reader-year. Considering that it costs them significantly more than this to mail out each "subscription will lapse 6 [5, 4, 3] months from now" reminder, it is quite transparent where their business priorities really lie. -hh > Afterall, if every Tom, Dick and Harry with a webpage (a public presence > as an independent, unbiased evaluator), the world's manufacturers would > clearly go out of business providing free 'evaluation' goods to all of > them, instead of making each of these businesses pay their own way. This does not wash. The fact is, products that are highly rated by any testing agency sell better than those that are not. It is not at all clear that the world's manufacturers would suffer any adverse financial effect at all. What is clear is that those that submitted the best products would gain market share at the expense of those that could not, or would not compete. I don't see the downside. > So to spend an extra $2K for review gear for each and every issue works > out to a per-magazine cost of 13 cents/year, or 2 cents per reader-year. It's not an extra $2k, is it? Fins are one of many items the company tests. They test BCDs, regulators, knives, lights, just about everything you can think of related to diving and a lot of things that aren't all that closely related. Lee > " H. Huntzinger" wrote> > Afterall, if every Tom, Dick and Harry with a webpage (a public presence > > as an independent, unbiased evaluator), the world's manufacturers would > > clearly go out of business providing free 'evaluation' goods to all of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > gain market share at the expense of those that could not, or would not > compete. I don't see the downside. I view it akin to paying off some gossip rag editor to either put your client in his column... or the opposite. No SCUBA mag (including Bin Ladinson's Blundercurrent) is above taking advertiser's money. There are no saints. Give gear too SDM? Then to everybody else- or be prepared to suffer the fate offered by the "Union of SCUBA Divers" (or similar to whatever that deal Denninger is working on). Until Consumer Reports recognizes what a broad market SCUBA divers represent, and that their readership's SCUBA gear buying habits make any sense... we're stuck with what we've got. If left to their own devices (ie: no input from the store employee of the store that they first stumbled into) most buyers would buy the brand with the most L.E.D.'s or silkscreened sharks on them. And pink snorkels. Doc > > Afterall, if every Tom, Dick and Harry with a webpage (a public presence > > as an independent, unbiased evaluator), the world's manufacturers would [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > gain market share at the expense of those that could not, or would not > compete. I don't see the downside. I agree with the upsides of "free advertising", but all advertising is subject to the laws of diminishing returns. My point was that if you have an oversaturation of reviewers who want a free sample, a manufacturer is going to go broke sending out freebies that will never generate enough return to pay for themselves. > > So to spend an extra $2K for review gear for each and every issue works > > out to a per-magazine cost of 13 cents/year, or 2 cents per reader-year. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > think of related to diving and a lot of things that aren't all that closely > related. It was $2K/month, and while I did base this based on a fin test, it wasn't my intent to claim this as "THE" correct number. My point is that after you distribute whatever additional cost you want to use across the subcription base, you end up with a small number. A small number that is negligible, particularly in the context of the relevent customer demographics (Rodale's Scuba Diving readers' average household income is $120,000 per year). When the potential individual consumer share cost is extremely negligible and easily absorbed, all of the publisher's excuses for not buying the gear is lame. -hh > A small number that is negligible, particularly in the context of the > relevent customer demographics (Rodale's Scuba Diving readers' average > household income is $120,000 per year). When the potential individual > consumer share cost is extremely negligible and easily absorbed, all of > the publisher's excuses for not buying the gear is lame. The *Equipment Test* issues are the highest rack sellers each year (kind of like SI's Swim Suit issue, though obviously not at those production levels). One would think any added cost to purchase the equipment to be tested would be covered, at minimum, a number of times over by the uptick in rack sales and resulting advertisement price points. No misinterpretation. You guys sued for defamation, but gee, how much defaming could have gone on if you waited wayyyyyyyy past the statute of limitations to sue? How much irreparable damage to your economic benefit could there have possibly been, unless you expect us to believe that you had to scrape enough sales together to pay a lawyer? In short, you decided to file a frivolous lawsuit well after the fact, and the judge said no way Jose. Face it, Susanne, you trolled Rodale's, and got your hand bit. Force Fin left this mess on Fri, 21 Nov 2003 03:21:15 GMT for The Way to clean up: >Your interpretation is wrong. The case was never heard on its merits. The >settlement was negotiated in Court, not to avoid Court. Here are the facts. [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] >question >> here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif Tao te Carl "It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003 (Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-a.s question here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif Dan Volker left this mess on Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:06:47 -0500 for The Way to clean up: >> Force Fins forces Rodale's Scuba Diving to pay for scuba equipment ratings >> scam [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I have always considered Rodales to be among the most prostituted and >deceitful of all scuba magazines, in gear discussions. Question: what is the better alternative then? I agree, and Rodale's obviously does, as well, that ad dollars drive their reviews, however, they are also about the only game in town and so if you want factual information, as sparse as it is, you have to go to Rodale's and read between the lines. Consumer Reports don't do dive gear. Tao te Carl "It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003 (Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-a.s question here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif > Dan Volker left this mess on Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:06:47 -0500 for The Way to > clean up: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > (Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-a.s question > here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif For gear, the only way you can really expect good information, is to find shops that will let you demo gear on dives. In snow skiing, this is the way things are done--skiers "expect" to be able to demo critical gear like boots and skiis. But in diving, the consumer is so hoodwinked by the manufacturers and shops, that they don't realize that they "ought" to be able to try gear before getting stuck with it. Find a shop carrying the gear you are interested in, and try to talk them into a demo with credit card deposit--the credit card deposit for if you ruin something. And it would be worth paying significantly more than a normal "rental" fee, for the chance to find out if some particular gear is as good as you have heard--or as good as it "looks" :-) Or, find a buddy who has the gear you are interested in, and see if you can try their stuff. Blind faith in manufacturers and dive shops has gotten us garbage like twin jets and $80 snorkels. Rodales just looked at the whoring going on already, and tried to become better liars. I think they succeeded. And there is always rec.scuba for opinions----and for something more meaningful, try to dive with someone from rec.scuba who has the equipment you are interested in, and who will let you try it. This might be your best tool. Regards, Dan V >> Dan Volker left this mess on Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:06:47 -0500 for The Way >to [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >things are done--skiers "expect" to be able to demo critical gear like boots >and skiis. Frequently, in skiing, such demos are FREE. You just have to be there when the truck is full of the skis, boots, etc. >But in diving, the consumer is so hoodwinked by the manufacturers >and shops, that they don't realize that they "ought" to be able to try gear >before getting stuck with it. Yep. -- SignatureKarl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net Tired of spam at your company? LOOK HERE! http://childrens-justice.org Working for family and children's rights http://diversunion.org LOG IN AND GET YOUR TANK STICKERS TODAY! > Or, find a buddy who has the gear you are interested in, and see if you can > try their stuff. Personally, I think this is one of the best options available, particularly if your buddy is one of the many regular divers in a group like this. Most of us have a range of equipment that allows us to support others without any real burden. Just a couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine was in town without his equipment. We wanted to go diving and in less than an hour, I had put together a setup comparable to what he normally used, wing, plate, long hose and necklaced alternate and all . . . without giving up any of the equipment I normally use myself. > Blind faith in manufacturers and dive shops has gotten us > garbage like twin jets and $80 snorkels. Heh, heh, heh. You go that one right. > And there is always rec.scuba for opinions----and for something more > meaningful, try to dive with someone from rec.scuba who has the equipment > you are interested in, and who will let you try it. This might be your best > tool. Yep. Within all the bullshit that goes on here, there really is some good information. You just have to ask and be astute enough to see it when it comes by. Lee > Yep. Within all the bullshit that goes on here, there really is some good > information. You just have to ask and be astute enough to see it when it > comes by. > > Lee Why do you think I asked about Conshelf Supremes, I've got the option of buying a second hand Conshelf so asked. And since a number here use it, there can't be much far wrong with them, even if they're not exactly the ultimate best. rhys > For gear, the only way you can really expect good information, is to find > shops that will let you demo gear on dives. In snow skiing, this is the way [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > garbage like twin jets and $80 snorkels. Rodales just looked at the whoring > going on already, and tried to become better liars. I think they succeeded. As usual, I agree with Dan 100%! I have found that most shops will let a regular customer try gear. Other shops will charge a rental fee, applicable to the gear if you buy. But you always have to ask. Dan Volker left this mess on Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:50:15 -0500 for The Way to clean up: >For gear, the only way you can really expect good information, is to find >shops that will let you demo gear on dives. In snow skiing, this is the way >things are done--skiers "expect" to be able to demo critical gear like boots >and skiis. But in diving, the consumer is so hoodwinked by the manufacturers >and shops, that they don't realize that they "ought" to be able to try gear >before getting stuck with it. Interesting point, but when I buy ski gear, I've read up on all the new developments and techniques in gear making, and then go to my local ski shop, look at the lines, and decide what I'm going to try out. Then I rent those in demo model, and try those out. I did the same thing with dive gear. I assume I'm not alone. An LDS should let you test out gear you want to buy, at least a demo model. But you'll note, I still want to be informed before I go and rent. >Find a shop carrying the gear you are interested in, and try to talk them >into a demo with credit card deposit--the credit card deposit for if you >ruin something. > And it would be worth paying significantly more than a normal "rental" fee, >for the chance to find out if some particular gear is as good as you have >heard--or as good as it "looks" :-) Right, and the ski shop "demo rental" model is a good one to apply. Some shops do this. At least in the States. >Or, find a buddy who has the gear you are interested in, and see if you can >try their stuff. Blind faith in manufacturers and dive shops has gotten us >garbage like twin jets and $80 snorkels. Rodales just looked at the whoring >going on already, and tried to become better liars. I think they succeeded. Again, I think you're being unfair, but you do have to read between the lines. >And there is always rec.scuba for opinions----and for something more >meaningful, try to dive with someone from rec.scuba who has the equipment >you are interested in, and who will let you try it. This might be your best >tool. I agree, with the codicil that you again will have to read between the lines. Here, there's an awful lot of sh.t-stirring that goes on just to create mischief. Tao te Carl "It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003 (Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-a.s question here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif > Dan Volker left this mess on Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:50:15 -0500 for The Way to > >And there is always rec.scuba for opinions----and for something more > >meaningful, try to dive with someone from rec.scuba who has the equipment [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > (Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-a.s question > here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif One more reason I put little faith in the Dive shops and MFG's for fair gear reviews----since there are virtually no "Demos" going on out there, its very hard for the dive consumer to find out when they are fed BS. In snow skiing, if a boot manufacturer made an amazing claim, skiers would demo the product right away, and the backlash from deceitful reviews would be nasty... Regards, Dan V Dan Volker left this mess on Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:32:42 -0500 for The Way to clean up: >One more reason I put little faith in the Dive shops and MFG's for fair gear >reviews----since there are virtually no "Demos" going on out there, its very >hard for the dive consumer to find out when they are fed BS. In snow skiing, >if a boot manufacturer made an amazing claim, skiers would demo the product >right away, and the backlash from deceitful reviews would be nasty... But, Dan, really...what "amazing claims" have you read lately from a mfr. besides Spare Air? Tao te Carl "It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003 (Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-a.s question here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif > Dan Volker left this mess on Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:32:42 -0500 for The Way to > clean up: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But, Dan, really...what "amazing claims" have you read lately from a mfr. > besides Spare Air? Thanks for this opportunity :-) Split fins come to mind.....Worse still, do you remember Bondage Wings :-) How about head mounted dive lights--they look great in an ad, but if you are on a night dive with them, and try to get eye contact with your buddy--as you SHOULD, you blind him :-) When people get to experience deviant gear, it keeps the mfg's alot more honest :-) Regards, Dan Dan Volker left this mess on Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:15:49 -0500 for The Way to clean up: >> Dan Volker left this mess on Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:32:42 -0500 for The Way >to [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >When people get to experience deviant gear, it keeps the mfg's alot more >honest :-) Fair enough. I can give you those for points. How many of those did Rodale's give a thumbs up to, tho? :) Spare Air, yea. <chuckle> Tao te Carl "It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003 (Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-a.s question here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif "de Valois" wrote in message > Interesting point, but when I buy ski gear, I've read up on all the new > developments and techniques in gear making, and then go to my local ski shop, > look at the lines, and decide what I'm going to try out. Then I rent those in > demo model, and try those out. Really? When I want ski gear, I go to a mountain and look for the Manufacturer's Reps vans parked at the bottom. That way, I get to try each ski on the same snow and day. Snow varies, dives vary- the ocean doesn't. Irrelevant for the true point of this discussion, but maybe that's why your skiing hasn't improved :) > I did the same thing with dive gear. I assume I'm not alone. An LDS should let > you test out gear you want to buy, at least a demo model. But you'll note, I > still want to be informed before I go and rent. I think that's relevant for a mask or fins. I'm with Volker on the fin issue. At this point, I can simply look at a BC and tell if it will work for me. For a newbie, even a "test dive" wouldn't tell them a thing. >Question: what is the better alternative then? > >I agree, and Rodale's obviously does, as well, that ad dollars drive their >reviews, however, they are also about the only game in town and so if you want >factual information, as sparse as it is, you have to go to Rodale's and read >between the lines. Read Rodale's for a year and you've read every article of interest at least once. And then it repeats. You do much better here - at least the FAQs are free. >Consumer Reports don't do dive gear. And we can all be thankful for this. SignatureJason O'Rourke www.jor.com Dan Volker left this mess on Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:06:47 -0500 for The Way to clean up: >> Force Fins forces Rodale's Scuba Diving to pay for scuba equipment ratings >> scam [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I have always considered Rodales to be among the most prostituted and >deceitful of all scuba magazines, in gear discussions. Question: what is the better alternative then? I agree, and Rodale's obviously does, as well, that ad dollars drive their reviews, however, they are also about the only game in town and so if you want factual information, as sparse as it is, you have to go to Rodale's and read between the lines. Consumer Reports don't do dive gear. Tao te Carl "It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003 (Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-a.s question here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif >Dan Volker left this mess on Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:06:47 -0500 for The Way to >clean up: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >factual information, as sparse as it is, you have to go to Rodale's and read >between the lines. Rodale's is just one of many games in town but the only one I know of that exclusively features nasty old industry whores. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message