Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Tue, 01 May 2012 08:43:04 GMT

I have used the S-Stroke for years and feel it gives me a lot of thrust per stroke. My right hand enters the water, with my arm fully extended, to the left of my head, and with the handed cupped, I make a more or less S, or maybe a sweeping motion below my left sholder down to left hip and then crosses over and exit water above my right knee. No-one showed me this, it is just what developed from trying different styles.

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:40:55 GMT

Don’t over-exaggerate the “S” pattern, avoid stopping the propulsive mechanisms by gliding, clear the hand of air as you enter it into the water, set-up your forearm and get it vertical early, find a pulling pattern that is the most effective for you (improve your DPS), improve ankle flexibility and core strength, and train smarter not just harder. Thank you very much. I am self taught and have been following Councilman's and Maglischo's theories and details of stoke mechanics for several decades. I know that swimmers need to swim by feel, but it would be useful to have the most current book on freestyle stroke mechanics to build from. Reviews of Maglischo imply that even his Swim Fastest is dated. Is there any book or combinatins of books that you might recommend to bring my stroke into the 21st century? I'm an open water swimmer, and my most prized goal is maximum efficiency for an hour and a half of sustained freestyle. I can do the hour and a half, but I'm using out of date mechanics. And my joints are getting old. Thanks very much.

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:27:02 GMT

Here is a video on hydrodynamics. video.google.ca/videoplay

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 07:31:22 GMT

Very cool George, the day when this stuff becomes useful for swimming analysis may not be that far away! The ability to put markers in the water to make the flow more visible is especially interesting and could produce interesting visualizations even just using rigid models of swimmers or their body parts. Check this one out: www.youtube.com/watch So non-rigid objects are also possible. I wonder if how expensive and hard to learn the software is. This video is also kind of cool: www.youtube.com/watch The future is going to be so cool...

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:15:13 GMT

It surelly is a messy subject. Lindsay are you being too practical? I think if we were to exagerrate the "S" it would change the results??? Actually, I'm not sure I'm being practical at all! It would have been interesting to have observed the effect on a high-glide breaststroke (200m style) or a catchup freestyle versus a more continuous propulsion style.

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:06:24 GMT

It surelly is a messy subject. Lindsay are you being too practical? I think if we were to exagerrate the "S" it would change the results???

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:58:42 GMT

I've been sick the last few days and am probably not thinking straight, but, it seems to me that this experiment says something about mass versus viscosity. The article says the viscosity was doubled, if we presume that the mass of the guar gum was a small fraction of the mass of the water in the pool (or at least that the mass of the mix was much less than double the mass of water) then we should be able to predict differences in the effect if swimming is viscosity based or mass based. If mass was the dominant factor then the swimmers should have slowed down considerably as the drag of moving through the thicker, more viscous fluid is doubled while the mass that is being accelerated backward is increased by a much smaller amount. If viscosity was the dominant factor then the increased resistance to forward movement would be balanced by an equal resistance to the backward movement of the propelling limbs. The experimental results were the latter. In reality when a body moves through a more viscous fluid a larger volume, and hence larger mass, is dragged along, so it is really two sides of the same coin, but even so, this extra step in providing an explanation seems to me to unnecessarily complicate the explanation versus just directly talking about drag, and it doesn't correspond to the intuitive model of pushing mass backward. Yes, yes, very pedantic. Sorry. :o

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:18:33 GMT

here's another copy of the story www.it.umn.edu/.../goingforthegoo.html

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:10:02 GMT

Nothing like you are imagining it is clean not for adults only. It is messy, about humans swimming in an almost solid fluid.

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:58:49 GMT

I will certainly give it a try and test your theory out but I don't think that is a great option. I will let you know. oh common on all you swimmers, how about i make easy for you: at the mid-line, 2 feet out, or 2 feet the other side of the mid-line. this is a TEST.

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

knelson — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:58:39 GMT

Here is a little more about Fluid Mechanics. www.pantherhouse.com/.../ I'm not sure what your link is, George, but I got a "denied access due to adult content" warning when I just tried to open it at work.

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:11:31 GMT

Right - the "S" Stroke is still there but is hidden by the fact that most swimmers of to day are rotating the shoulders and it no longer looks like an "S" Stroke. Now does this fool us into believing we are doing an "I" Stroke??? I happened to see George Breen doing the big cross over stroke that Coucilman called an "S" stroke and was it ever a cross over with George Breen's almost scissor kick. I was told once that we are really planting our hand in water then vaulting our bodies over our planted hand. Sometimes this image works, sometimes it doesn't. The coach who told me this said that simple human body shape will force you to do a S movement with your stroke.

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

cantwait4bike — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:48:35 GMT

just to simplify this thread (nuke out the iran stuff), how close to the body mid-line should the hand come when directly under the chest?? on the mid-line, 2-4 inches off, 4-6?, 6-8, 8+ ?

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:16:21 GMT

Here is a little more about Fluid Mechanics. www.pantherhouse.com/.../ I mentioned George Breen a couple of posts ago here is his 1500m at the 1956 Olympics www.ishof.org/.../1956_1500m.htm We are definitely in a situation where fluid mechanics has not caught up with human propulsion in the water. I think coaches throwing around half-cocked theories of propulsion tends to slow down the effort to explain what is going on. In all the hoorah about lift forces for propulsion I saw exactly one study with numbers on it referenced. For shed vortices, none. Ernie Maglischo in swimming fastest references some computational fluid dynamics studies showing that a slight side to side motion creates more propulsion, but not because of lift, it actually improves the drag forces on the hand as you pull. If we are to get anywhere, for now it looks like the computational fluid dynamics will help us. But these things are fiendishly difficult to solve and take real horsepower. The ones listed here (projects.seas.gwu.edu/.../MAIN.htm) take 20 days or so to solve. So I think we are left trying to feel the water and get a better purchase on it, we are also left having to discuss with no real science to back us up.

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

cantwait4bike — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:41:31 GMT

This is for you to personally find out. What feels good for me may not feel right for you. It does all of those measurements during a stroke. Try them all and find what you like. Maybe some one can give you exact measurements I can't but your muscle and body frame will make the difference. It is a trial and error process. It is not a one size fit all process. oh common on all you swimmers, how about i make easy for you: at the mid-line, 2 feet out, or 2 feet the other side of the mid-line. this is a TEST.

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:22:45 GMT

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:36:46 GMT

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:53:32 GMT

As the Jedis say "May the force be with you."

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:44:31 GMT

Still it all boils down to F = ma. If you aren't accelerating a mass, you aren't creating force. Not all forces are the result of the acceleration of a mass. I think you are overlooking viscosity. If you are pushing, the water is pushing back with an exact equal force. Even working just with F=ma, any water you have accelerated is in turn running into further water that has not yet been accelerated. As I said, drag your arm through the water at a constant speed, this will require force even if your arm is not accelerating.

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:44:24 GMT

We can talk physics, hydrodynamics, insertion without bubbles, low pressure , highpressure, etc. But when it comes down to swimming you have to have a true feeling for the water. We are not a boat with one drive force. We have many moving parts and it still is going to be trial and error. I once read an article about the dolphins and how their skin movement helped them swim. It talked about the ripple effect of the skin. This may be our next great breakthrough. I have read articles about shark skin and it's effects on movement through the water. The US Navy and there new torpedos that will move through water at the speed of sound. Still lots to come to make humans faster in the water.

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:18:58 GMT

I don't need to listen to biomechanics. I can feel that water. I would definitely trade my limited knowledge of hydrodynamics for better feel and kinesthetic awareness. I only comment on physics when it seems to me that people are explaining swimming things using physics that seem to me not to be valid. I find the physics of swimming to be interesting but probably quite difficult to actually usefully apply to actually swimming.

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:34:18 GMT

Do we have any quite water? When the body moves through the water where does the water go. Some goes forward then it goes out, then it comes back and fills the void made by the body. Once the shoulders pass through the water its starts roaring in to fill the void. We are not built like a boat pointed at the front end and wide at the middle and back end. The arms are our paddles and are not the pointed end of our vessel. Our width is from the head to the stomach where it is narrow again, wide again at the hips and then narrow at the back end. Then what some call the second wave really pours in to fill the void made at the middle and the back end. Now that water is moving towards the front. Now this is where the stroke starts to press on water going in the opposite direction. Firby always talked about this second wave with me we differred on what it was doing and how we could use it to our benifit. The so called second wave is the reason most sprint swimmers kick hard to use the second wave. I think I like to use the water that is moving in the oppsite direction. This is why I mention the bow wave water. This is not the water that sets up that pretty "V" going out to the sides. I am talking about the water that is moving forward. I don't need to listen to biomechanics. I can feel that water.

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:12:19 GMT

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:31:26 GMT

I was at a Masters clinic yesterday at the University of Washington. One of the coaches (Thomas Hannan) said that the S-shaped stroke still occurs when you look at your hand position relative to your torso, when you take body rotation into account, which is similar to the quote that Kirk referenced.

RE: Is the "S" stroke revelant any more???

Former Member — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:21:13 GMT

I understand what you're saying with the "quiet water" thing. When you start pulling, you accelerate the water behind your hand. To create additional propulsive force you need to find additional quiet water to accelerate. If you just continue to push on the already accelerated water you don't produce any additional force. It has always seemed to me that many people in the swimming world use a rather simplistic if not misguided model of swimming physics. It seems like viscosity and drag are more appropriate tools for thinking about swimming than acceleration of mass. I think you will find that if you move your arm through water there will be plenty of force due to drag even after you have supposedly accelerated the water behind it. Another way to experiment with this is to put your arm in a horizontal position under the water and lift it up out of the water, observe how much of the water rolls off your arm instead of moving with it. Or stick you hand just under the surface and then throw some water up in the air, compare the force needed to accelerate the handful of water to the force needed to move your flat hand through the water at anything like an equivalent speed. I am open to being proven wrong but I don't think acceleration of mass is the dominant force to be thinking about, and certainly the idea that force goes to zero after you have accelerated the water behind your hand is just plain wrong and easy to disprove with a simple experiment.