FIRST, the coating is now available for anyone who wants to improve their equipment performance. SECOND, it’s not free, but it’s not expensive either. I’m just trying to cover my time and materials, in order to provide the service.
single fins…$2O plus $10 S&H
twin fins…$35 plus $10 S&H
3 and 4 fins…$40 plus $10 S&H
Does the SharkSkin texture make a difference in fin and board performance? The short answer to that question, is yes. In simple terms, you are able to tap into (harness) more of the wave energy. It has been proven in the field, in waves. (not JUST theory) Existing fins have been coated, and significant improvement in board performance has been observed as a result. It IS real. I wouldn’t offer it otherwise. To the naysayers my response is, ‘‘Continue in the hog wallow of your ignorance.’’ To everyone else I say, ‘‘This is the fin tech of tomorrow, available to you today.’’ It is not Harvard Peer Reviewed! It is however PEER REVIEWED (in the water) by fellow surfers, that have no ax to grind. You know, guys that actually surf! Get it before Kelly does.
MAIL YOUR FIN OR FINS TO ME, I’LL COAT THEM AND MAIL THEM BACK.
FTR I did not originally post as a “personal” attack. I questioned the science behind your claims in the absence of replicated data. Peer reviewed means there is enough replicated “data” for multiple individuals with an established professional background in the science/technology under question for them to evaluate. There are no “subjective testimonials” involved. Usually the data is also validated through appropriate statistical analyses. Reviewers are anonymous and comments are objective. Subjective evaluations and defensive responses are discarded immediately. You must have a solid disposition and good data to survive a peer review and make it to publication in a respected journal. Few research studies hold up to the rigors of peer review.
Psychology uses double blind studies to eliminate subjective bias (researcher and subject variables/perceptions controlled). This is to eliminate subjective bias – anthropomorphic perception, interpretation, and personal beliefs/desires/expectations. I think most are aware of the “placebo” effect.
When a well renouned scientist makes a claim without substantiating data, humans are apt to follow blindly. Because of the individual’s pre-eminence, people believe it works. Two-time Nobel laureate, for chemistry and peace activism, Linus Pauling claimed that Vitamin C cures (generalized summary) the common cold. He offered no quantifiable substantiation. Because of his pre-eminence, people still believe to this day that Vitamin C can cure or prevent the common cold.
Galen was a pre-eminent physician, circa 129-200 AD. Based on anatomical observations from the dissection of cadavers, he concluded the lungs pumped the blood to the heart and the rest of the body like a bellows. The heart added some “vital essence.” His well respected “opinions” and professional stature held the field of medicine back for several hundred years, based on dissections of the dead and unsubstantiated opinions (no quantifiable evidence/data).
There are many examples throughout history where well respected individuals have swayed perception and belief, only to be proven wrong may years later.
For your success Mr. Thrailkill and the sake of your customers, I hope your technology has a quantifiable benefit. If so, maybe somebody will publish replicated data to substantiate.
As is typical at Sways and other forums, claims are rarely substantiated with replicated data from studies where variables have been controlled. When a respected OP has no “data” to present, the usual response is personal attacks aimed at those who have questioned the lack of quantifiable data. In the absence of verifiable and quantifiable data, objective rebuttals, and good science; let the personal and character assaults begin.
You ARE in serious need of counciling. Anger management, perhaps? Here’s a clue for you. It’s not being a blowhard, when you can back it up. It’s not bragging, when you can do it. EVERY CLAIM I’VE MADE, ABOUT THE SHARKSKIN TEXTURE, IS TRUE. Nothing is to be gained by making false claims. Especially on this site! There are a great many knowledgable members here. If you don’t accept or believe it, that’s OK. It’s your loss, not mine. It must really suck, to be you.
During the late’80s when I was working at West Coast Glassing in Escondido, Art Collier had shaped a sailboard for Pascal Makka (who was at the time the Windsurfing speed record holder) to be used to try to beat his record out at the Ponds by Palm Springs. These gentlemen from 3M showed up with this adhesive film which they applied to the hull of the board. The same film was used on the sailboat which Dennis Conner had recently won back the Americas Cup. The surface texture of film was described to me as micro NACA ducts arranged in a fishscale pattern similar to shark skin. I can’t remember if the speed record was broken with that board.
What is wrong with you? If you have a question, ask it. If you have a contribution to the discussion, make it. But if you’re here to snipe and troll, be polite and go away. Do you have difficulty with being civil? If you don’t like the topic, or have a problem with me, THEN DON’T OPEN THE THREAD. There are others here that are interested in the subject. Your future absense will be viewed as a positive response.
Are you going to be making fins as well? So we could just order a fin. I’m asking because I had seen a post earlier and assumed you were working on a new foil.
First off, congrats on reaching your goal! I would like to see what the end product looks like. Not the most important part of design, but aesthetics still matter to most. pm is fine.
Also, are fins being sent to you to be prepped in any way?