The technical components of a start is all about how you enter and exit the surface tension of the water, critical in a 50.
You can increase your power output, but that is met by an equal increase in the resistance of the water. You don't go faster... .
are you saying that resitance increases on a 1 to 1 ratio as you swim faster? I do know that resistance increases with speed, however as you apply more power should still provide an increase in speed, albeit with much less effeciency.
some swimmers have body proportions that slice through the water better than others
head shape and size, body dimensions
remember my Build a Better Boat SFF tip
HULL:
they way the swimmer is naturally shaped and how the swimmer positions her body when she swims, head position
Propeller:
Hand and feet proportions plus technique / efficiency
Motor:
Strength and power
Warning: This post contains physics.
When you are swimming at a constant speed (which you're not, but let's simplify), the drag force is going to be equal to the propulsion force.
The drag force is related to the square of the velocity. So the propulsion force is related to the square of velocity. Therefore, the velocity is related to the square root of the propulsion force.
Increase propulsion force while holding drag coefficient constant, and you get an increase in velocity according to square root function.
A square root function decreases in slope as the input variable increases. This means that as you use more force in the water to go faster, each little bit of force you add makes for a smaller increase in velocity.
Since we're talking about power and not force, I'll add that an increase in swimming power results in an increase in propulsion force as long as it's directed backward.
More power means more speed.
are you saying that resitance increases on a 1 to 1 ratio as you swim faster? I do know that resistance increases with speed, however as you apply more power should still provide an increase in speed, albeit with much less effeciency.
I'm not sure what the mathematical ratio is, but without a doubt, there is a correlation. In the water, increasing power without improving efficiency, is a waste of time.
Not sure I agree with that assumption Mr. Miller.........
If I increase my strength but still swim the same technique, I should be faster? Now of course, if I improved both that would be even better......
Right, both is better. Ahhh semantics, the joy of fragmented communication.
In terms of time spent in training, efficiency and the technical components of a race garnish a bigger return for sprinting through water.
Not sure I agree with that assumption Mr. Miller.........
If I increase my strength but still swim the same technique, I should be faster? Now of course, if I improved both that would be even better......
Warning: This post contains physics.
When you are swimming at a constant speed (which you're not, but let's simplify), the drag force is going to be equal to the propulsion force.
The drag force is related to the square of the velocity. So the propulsion force is related to the square of velocity. Therefore, the velocity is related to the square root of the propulsion force.
Increase propulsion force while holding drag coefficient constant, and you get an increase in velocity according to square root function.
A square root function decreases in slope as the input variable increases. This means that as you use more force in the water to go faster, each little bit of force you add makes for a smaller increase in velocity.
Since we're talking about power and not force, I'll add that an increase in swimming power results in an increase in propulsion force as long as it's directed backward.
More power means more speed.
The start has also changed... Did you see how Sullivan did dolphin kick right to the surface, he didn't start the flutter as usual before breaking through... I wonder how much that counts? Not to mention it was quick dolphin up to the top, not very many SDK's at all..
Now I'll make a consession here, maybe if there was PED involved we wouldn't also see the breakthrough's in technique... just more power... although, that's not what I'm seeing... There really is a difference in the overall technical components of the race.
That's the question isn't it? Performance Enhancing Drugs don't enhance ones technique. They provide more power. Sullivan has fantastic technique and is definitely improved from where he was a few years back.
As for Stephanie Rice, she has always had the talent to be a world class swimmer she has always oozed it and showed flashes of great things, she's always had great technique on all her strokes. But she has been notoriously lackadaisical with her swimming and never seemed like she would fulfil it. She has likely only recently decided to buckle down and give it her full attention, possibly as a result of being around Sullivan whom would have an excellent work ethic and as such is fulfilling the potential that was always there. She is hardly a moderately gifted swimmer that has come from nowhere like some people mention.
Warning: This post contains physics.
When you are swimming at a constant speed (which you're not, but let's simplify), the drag force is going to be equal to the propulsion force.
The drag force is related to the square of the velocity. So the propulsion force is related to the square of velocity. Therefore, the velocity is related to the square root of the propulsion force.
Increase propulsion force while holding drag coefficient constant, and you get an increase in velocity according to square root function.
A square root function decreases in slope as the input variable increases. This means that as you use more force in the water to go faster, each little bit of force you add makes for a smaller increase in velocity.
Since we're talking about power and not force, I'll add that an increase in swimming power results in an increase in propulsion force as long as it's directed backward.
itre.cis.upenn.edu/.../HunminJeongeum01.jpg
:drown:
More power means more speed.
www.rafa.com/.../zl302goines-Can.jpg
I squarely put myself for the time being that I can believe in occasional bursts of athletic excellence. Yes Gary Hall can say what he wants. His commments are probably worth more than mine since he has been a champion and knows first hand what Sullivan and others have been doing.
But some of his comments are off base. He talks about cycling and amphetamines. Cycling's problems have been with endurance focused drugs like EPO. Same types of problems with cross country skiing. EPO has little value for sprinters. If sprinters are doing reduced training volume EPO would probably not even do much for training. Surely Sullivan was tested at the trials. Any instant PED like amphetamine would be caught in testing.
This is an Olympic year. Swimming has been improving at a rapid pace for several years. More athletes staying in the sport. Changing training - especially for sprinters. Swim suits..... The whole effect of Michael Phelps and how his dedication has driven many to re-focus on what they do.
Some people say there is no way a swimmer can put on muscle like Bernard. I think that is BS. Surely most here have known people that just can put on muscle easily. You take a person like that - put him in a swimming program - and all of a sudden he can't put muscle on? Whatever genetic trait that allows some to develop strength easily won't disappear when they become a swimmer.
If in fact the recent WRs are all due to PEDs, I suggest it would be hard to keep it a secret across the globe. Unlike the East Germans and the Chinese before - these swimmers are not all on the same team, same coaches, or same continent. These are swimmers training in countries without an iron curtain to hide behind. They race regularly in public venues. If there is indeed some magic PED - have they all discovered it independently? Only the Australians and French have the secret? I don't think so.
These swims are incredible enough that questions should be raised. But I don't for now have much doubt about the swims.
