New TYR suit. What do you think?

Piking is like the pike dive. Off the starting blocks the body is bent at the waist, head and arms down, legs and feet down, rear up in the air. Arms and feet hit the water at the same time, followed by the ceter of the body. I can't believe I am describing this. Was a method of protecting the family jewels. Not recommended for a fast start!!! Back then you wanted to be absolutely flat on the waters surface, so if you were pink from the water smaking your whole body that was a great start. Hence the problem of no suits:p

Originally posted by aquageek Why do technological advances disgust a person? The person still has to swim. I agree with Bert on this. Yes, the person still has to swim. Shouldn't that really be the deciding factor? It used to be when you stepped up on the block you asked yourself "did I train harder and smarter than everyone else in this heat?" Now you also have to ask "do I have the fastest suit in the heat?" Personally I liked it the old way better.

I think the rules should clearly state that the following pieces of equipment are acceptable during competition:a swimsuit, goggles, cap (and maybe nose-clip?). The swimsuit must be one-piece with the exception that a two-piece "tankini" style women's suit is acceptable. The suit must not cover either the hands or the feet. Other than that I think it's fair game. The current rules that require no positive buoyancy is good. Special materials that affect drag are acceptable as long as they adhere to the other rules.

Without being technical because I'm not qualified to be technical, my point is that all sports and sporting equipment evolve. There will always be those that say they are purists and advances ruin the sport. But, to your point, purists might think nude swimming is the only way. Today's elite athletes with their new fangled garb and gadgets would still whoop the elite from 50 years ago (with the exception of basketball, possibly). Training is better, nutrition is better, facilities are better, etc, etc. I don't make the call on legal versus illegal. It doesn't make a bit of difference to me. If it's legal, make sure everyone has access to it. If illegal, then no one has it. The best athletes in the best gear is exciting to me. NOTE: this does not include doping, I'm moderately opposed to that. What more annoys me than equipment advances are the changes in strokes since I swam as a kid, especially changes in backstroke and breastroke. But, I will keep attempting to unlearn what I did as a kid and be competitive as an old man.

Well, Wayne the high school kids now in Tucson don't swim nude in practice. Anyway, there are a few school pools they practice in and a few year-round rec pools,so they don't need to use a Y pool now for practice.

Aquageek, Without necessarily disagreeing with you, how do we distinguish the sleeves on a suit, or armbands, from paddles? How do we distinquish legs on a full body suit from fins? Yes, it is easy now because the former are form-fitting and the latter are rigid and expand the surface of the hands or feet. But, if we allow arm bands, you can bet the next step will be something between them and paddles. For example, webbed gloves. What is our criteria for distinguishing legal from illegal suits? For the critics of the Aqua Shift suits, Doesn't the logic of your argument compel you to advocate that only nude swimming is legitimate? If suits that mess with water flow over a body are not legitimate, how is a lycra suit versus a nylon or wool suit not a similar form of "cheating?" Is human skin the baseline for measuring water flow, and if so, can you allow any swimmer to wear any suit that changes that flow for the better. If not, who would wear any suit that has to be certified to INCREASE drag compared to naked skin, and does that force us to go back to the original Greek practice of competing in the nude? I don't know the answers to these questions, but the technology is clearly compelling us to think about legitimate "equipment" for our sport. At least we have to think a little bit more than our own intuitive "gut check" on this issue. Matt

FINA has it's rules and regulation re swimsuits. BTW, these regulations pretty much rule out naked swimming. But back to the main point. Aren't those so "outraged" by these new suits buying the companies propaganda? Do we really believe these claims? I'm highly doubtful that any truly scientific studies can demonstrate, in a peered-review journal, the claim that one of these suits can really make a difference versus the equivalent suit from Speedo, Arena, Addidas, etc. Isn't this just a form of marketing to get the less than Olympian athlete to fork over lots of money for an "unfair" advantage. Don't get me wrong...it's not all bad for these companies to make money from selling very expensive suits that are designed to wear out quickly. That means more money to promote swimming. It's just that we shouldn't believe all of the marketing promo and worry too much about protecting the integrity of our sport. As a spectator I'd much preferred the older suits. I think that they showed off the magnificent figures of our athletes and did more to promote interest in swimming on the part of the general public then these new suits where everyone looks like some kind of marine mammal.

What about TYR's claim that their material achieves muscle compression, which some evidence indicates improves muscle performance?

all i can say is......jus get in the pool & swim it b***tch

Originally posted by Fritz Surely these guys have some inclination that Fina will approve them. What a gamble otherwise. A stupid gamble at that if they didn't do the homework. Why are sleeves OK if connected to the suit but not OK if they aren't? That's just the point! At one time, no one (including swim suit manufacturers) would have dreamt of trying to sell the public on the idea that propulsive wristbands are components of a 3-piece swimsuit. But when swimmers are being allowed to use full body suits that cover their arms all the way down to their wrists, the argument becomes: Then why shouldn't anything that covers a swimmer's wrists be considered part of their swimsuit? The bottom line is that the purpose of a swimsuit is to keep a swimmer's private parts from showing, and a "swimsuit" that covers other areas of the body has therefore ceased to be a swimsuit and is instead being worn to artificially enhance performance. The only consistent solution, then, is to ban arm and leg coverings, regardless of whether they are attached to somebody's swimsuit or not.