Is Swimming Still An Athletic Activity Or Is It Now A Mechanized Sport?
Former Member
Yeah, I know I’m going to get a lot of really negative comments on this one, but I ran across this article on the mechanical engineering techniques (computational hydrodynamic analysis) involved in the design of the FastSkin II suits:
www.fluent.com/.../pr69.htm
I can see where this “suit technology” approach can be of great advantage if you’re into some kind of commercial swimming or diving work, or in a military application that requires personnel swimmers involved in amphibious operations (such as the Navy Seals or the Marines).
And maybe, the Olympics and FINA should have a “RoboSwimmer” division (something similar to NASCAR) where all the latest speed enhancing/drag reducing and flotation assisting gadgets and gimmicks can be shown off.
Hey -eventually, the writers at MAD Magazine will catch onto this suit technology craze and come up with some ideas of their own such as “bubble wrap” skin (for enhanced buoyancy), a built in snorkel (no more hassle of timed breathing you had to learn back in Swimming 101-A), and of course -body fins- (to produce wake turbulence) and “wipe out” anyone who might be catching up in the adjacent lanes behind you!
I’m not kidding either - this issue is becoming hotly debated by swimming coaches too:
www-rohan.sdsu.edu/.../table.htm
But seriously, FastSkin II just amounts to another commercial product that anyone can go out and buy for the money. But in the end, the person with the real competitive edge is going to be one who has true athletic ability and has spent the more time practicing in the pool than anyone else in the race.
I would hope that we can stay with the traditional athletic approach instead of who's the most technology advanced.
Happy Swimming
Dolphin 2
:D
Parents
Former Member
Originally posted by hofffam
Huh? It is still a human being that turns the pedals and pushes the combined mass up a hill. In the Tour de France and other elite events the technology playing field is essentially level. All of those guys ride $10,000 bikes at the (lower) weight limit. Lance Armstrong could ride a mountain bike and go faster than the majority of road cyclists out there. Don't forget that elite cyclists VO2 max capability is generally ranked second behind cross country skiers.
The difference is that the bike is an essential component of biking. A swimsuit is not an essential component of swimming, and is worn purely for purposes of modesty. And, until recently, it was not a component of swim racing, except insofar as it impeded a swimmer's performance.
As for swimsuits - I'm old enough to remember when the "Belgrade" suits appeared in the 70s. And compared to the nylon suits girls wore then I bet the advantage was signficant. Guess what - in a year every reasonably fast girl had one even at the unheard of price of $50 then. So the technology supplied by swimsuits is obtainable by most anyone. Even an economically disadvantaged child can probably get one once they demonstrate potential.
You are comparing swimsuits to swimsuits. Of course it is true that, historically, some swimsuits created a more significant deterrent to a swimmer's performance than others did. And the goal of swimmers was to find a suit that had as little effect on their performance as possible. But now the name of the game has changed and swimmers are talking about suits that will actually enhance their performance.
Bob
Originally posted by hofffam
Huh? It is still a human being that turns the pedals and pushes the combined mass up a hill. In the Tour de France and other elite events the technology playing field is essentially level. All of those guys ride $10,000 bikes at the (lower) weight limit. Lance Armstrong could ride a mountain bike and go faster than the majority of road cyclists out there. Don't forget that elite cyclists VO2 max capability is generally ranked second behind cross country skiers.
The difference is that the bike is an essential component of biking. A swimsuit is not an essential component of swimming, and is worn purely for purposes of modesty. And, until recently, it was not a component of swim racing, except insofar as it impeded a swimmer's performance.
As for swimsuits - I'm old enough to remember when the "Belgrade" suits appeared in the 70s. And compared to the nylon suits girls wore then I bet the advantage was signficant. Guess what - in a year every reasonably fast girl had one even at the unheard of price of $50 then. So the technology supplied by swimsuits is obtainable by most anyone. Even an economically disadvantaged child can probably get one once they demonstrate potential.
You are comparing swimsuits to swimsuits. Of course it is true that, historically, some swimsuits created a more significant deterrent to a swimmer's performance than others did. And the goal of swimmers was to find a suit that had as little effect on their performance as possible. But now the name of the game has changed and swimmers are talking about suits that will actually enhance their performance.
Bob
