Lee wrote:

> Here's the data everybody asked for.
>
> The home page for the study is at
> http://www.ndsu.edu/instruct/grier/fins.html
>
> The thrust page is at
> http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/grier/fins-static.html
>  Note that Scuba
> Pro Jet Fins scored the lowest of all fins tested.

You'd have done better to read the full report rather than select the part
that suited your argument. It can be found on
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/grier/fins-in-depth-2002.html, and if you
bother to read it, you'll encounter the following disclaimer:

"Maximum speed, like stationary thrust tests (see below) do not simulate
normal diving. These speeds cannot be maintained for more than a few brief
seconds at most and cause a huge oxygen debt that has to be paid by resting
afterwards"

Also, the SAME gentleman published the following article on Rodale's website
in August 2003:

http://dive.scubadiving.com/members/gearreviews.php?s=534

It is scientific and comparative (just like the original study), and as near
as I can tell, initially exceptionally heavily biased AGAINST the old Jet
Fins, as you'll quickly discover if you bother to read it. And although I
will give you that the Jet Fins did not always (hint, the word "always" is
there as a primer for you actually read the tables) score in the top of the
fins tested, he certainly ends up giving them a glowing reference all the
same. To wit:

"ALL of these fins, the XTs, Jets, and Turtles did very well. The
tech/(etc.) divers were right! The Jets and Turtles are excellent! The new
XTs are also excellent (maybe even a shade better)."

Hmmm...

The next one was printed, in 2001, by Rodale's (one of the magazines that is
rather unlikely to have excaped your voracious reading): The 2001 Testers'
Choice (http://www.scubadiving.com/article/0,7424,2-35-62-314,00.html),
claims that the IDI Power Fin is a copy of the original Scuba Pro Jet Fin.
The performance of the IDI PF (which it is safe to say would thus also be
the description of the original Jet Fin, at least from the reviewer in
question) is descibed thus:

"The Frog Foot's scores for sizing, fit and comfort; changing speeds;
different kicks; stability and power vs. stress were all outstanding. While
the Frog Foot is long and flexible, the Power Fin is a short vented fin that
has most of the same outstanding scores as the Frog Foot, plus top ratings
in surface swimming and ability to change direction. Best Buy."

Incidentally, and as a matter of only peripheral interest for THIS debate,
the new Jet Fin (not the split type) gets the following rating: "Top scores
in sizing, fit and comfort; surface swimming, changing speed, changing
direction; different kicks and stability. Overall performance is nearly
identical to the IDI Power Fin, which is a copy of the original Scubapro Jet
Fin. Best Buy"

Latly, several links I found taunt with a report recently put out by the
Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine Journal. The report, prepared by the
Univerity of Buffalo's Center for Research and Education in Special
Environments, and alleged to have been sponsored by the Navy, and is claimed
to rank Jets at the top of the class in many categories. Sadly, I have not
been able to find the report (for free, that is) anywhere.

The full title of the study is "Pendergast D.R., J.C. Mollendorf, C. Logue
and S. Samimy, "Evaluation of Fins Used in Underwater Swimming", J Undersea
and Hyperbaric Medicine, 30, 1 , 58-73, 2003." I'd be interested in whether
anybody can find it. I have sent a private mail to the poster to the
bulletin board that drew my attention to the study, asking him if he has a
copy he can send me.

As it happens, I don't own a pair of Jet Fins. Never have, probably never
will. I am perfectly happy with my Mares Plano Avanti Quattros that I have
had for 6 years without a single mishap or reason to even think about
looking elsewhere. I believe that whatever fins suit you and provide you
with an enjoyable diving experience are the ones you should stick with. And
of course, I have several NED witnesses to the fact that not even HAVING a
pair of fins doesn't bother me (much) :-))

But I also believe that if you set out to fight a war of words on scientific
merits, then it behooves you to not simply present as "evidence" the first
website, or part thereof, that supports your preconceived notions!

Incidentally, for diving history buffs, here is an interesting little site I
came across in my travels on the web:
http://www.sandiasnorkel.com/history/his-f_dz.htm

Bjorn