After seeing a woman break 24 seconds and I think we can stop the discussion of "IF" the LZR suit is faster and start thinking "how much faster".
The previous line of suits (Fastskin and so on) were pretty similiar to a shaved swimmer. Sure - they do feel like they make you float, but overall the times seemed to move along "in line" with what I would expect to see in terms of improvements in the sport. If the previous suits would have been that much faster than shaving, you would have never seen people just using the legskins. By the way - for us Masters swimmers there was always the added benefit of keeping in all the "extra layers of skin".
So how much faster are the LZR suits ?
If I had to guess based on the results so far, I would say 0.25 to 0.30 per 50 and double that for the 100. I can see the Bernard going 48 low in the 100 and I can see Sullivan getting close or just breaking the 50 record. It makes sense that Libby Lenton would swim a 24.2 or so in the 50.
I think one of the top regular teams out there should do a test - you need a good amount of world class swimmers training together to be able to do a test. Here is the test I would propose:
8-10 swimmers
2 days of testing
4x50 on 10 minutes all out
Day 1 - swim 2 with a Fastskin2 followed by 2 with the LZR
Day 2 - swim 2 with the LZR followed by 2 with the Fastskin2
Get the averages of all 10 swimmers - maybe drop the high and low and there you go.
Why do the test ? I would HAVE to know. Swimming is a big part of your life and you just set a massive PR using this new technology - my very first question would be " How much was me and how much was the suit?"?
Maybe this is more of a swim rant, but....
I don't consider myself a swimming purist. However, I enjoy swimming in briefs much more than any of the tech suits and I am not sold that they improve my times significantly (especially the IMs where I believe they are probably a hinderance). I think there is a benefit in freestyle and I think I have proven that in my own with and without experiments that it is maybe a 1% benefit, but the comfort factor is just something I can't get past and I am willing to give up a few tenths for it or even a half a second in a 100 for it because I think I can make it up elsewhere. I know most everyone loves being on the cutting edge of technology. We see it everywhere in our lives. However, I would bet most of us could improve more through improved technique/starts/turns, conditioning, lifting weights, losing some pounds, etc. Why don't we spend more time discussing those elements of our swimming?
I have also noticed that Phelps and a lot of IMers don't use tech suits with shoulder straps and I find it difficult to believe that the leg suits alone could provide much benefit. I find it funny that Phelps is in all the ads wearing the full LZR, but he doesn't wear it in his signature events. Why is that? I assume he and his coaches are making a very informed decision since he has a lot more riding on his suit selection than any masters swimmer. Maybe he will wear the full LZR at the Olympics in the 400IM, but I doubt it. I assume Phelps feel the same way I do regarding the loss of range of motion and the binding on the shoulders causes more time loss and grief than gain in the IMs.
Anyway, my tech suit is retired and I won't go back even if the latest suits provide extra flotation. I do like to wear my tech suit to show my wife how skinny I used to be in college, but that seems to be its primary quantifiable benefit. Sorry Speedo and the other swim suit vendors, I am staying in the early 80s with my suit selection.
I know everyone likes to win and improve, but even if you think the suit is a major part of your time improvement or your ability to place does it really make you feel as good about your accomplishment as other means of improvement? I feel much better about a time drop when I know it is from something other than my suit.
It also seems crazy to me to buy multiple tech suits to see which one is better and now it sounds like we are considering multiple combinations of suits for masters swimmers to drop a tenth. I certainly understand the obsession with suits at the elite/professional level where their future earnings may be impacted by a tenth or two and they have probably done everything you can do otherwise to do your best time, but why do we care so much at the masters level?
A month or so ago my kids were at their summer club league meet (year round swimmers generally don't participate) and a 10 year old girl shows up with a tech suit (probably a year round swimmer). I thought the reaction of everyone at the meet was funny - the girl won the 100 free by 5 seconds and all the kids and parents were saying she won because of the tech suit. Most of spectators were not especially familiar with swimming, but it is just an overblown example of the hype surrounding tech suits. I wonder at the masters level whether many of us suffer from similiar dillusions (but to a much lessor degree) that the suit makes a significant contribution to our success. I think our success comes almost entirely from other factors. I doubt even at Nationals that our place and times would change all that much without the tech suits. For example, I have seen John Smith go 48 low in speedo briefs at altitude untapered (I assume) a few years ago and I have seen him go 47 flat in a LZR or another tech suit in Austin. Was the difference due to lower altitude or was he bettered conditioned in Austin or was it the suit or that he was tapered or that he just tried harder due to better competition or ego or perhaps the UT pool was a factor or maybe it was the superior TexMex or the caffeine intake was higher? My bet is the suit, at the very best, only accounted for half of that difference and he would have gone 47.4 or 47.5 (maybe faster) without the suit and still won the event. If you fell a place lower because you didn't wear a tech suit or swam half a second slower, would it matter to you? I guess everyone is telling me it does, but it doesn't matter to me and I am somewhat surprised it matters to most masters swimmers.
Why are we as masters swimmers so obsessed with tech suits? Why do we waste our money? Ande, I think you might need an intervention soon because you seem a bit addicted to tech suits. It is almost exclusively the swimmer and the training that they put in that counts, not the suit. The suit, to me, is an immaterial factor in our success and one that I can easily discount and forgo.
My goals are to generally improve my times by 1% in the coming year without any type of tech suit. When I do so, I will know it was because of what I did in preparation and not the suit. That is worth much more to me than any time/place advantage gained from a suit (whether that advantage is real or perceived).
Sorry for the pre-Olympic rant,
Tim
Maybe this is more of a swim rant, but....
I don't consider myself a swimming purist. However, I enjoy swimming in briefs much more than any of the tech suits and I am not sold that they improve my times significantly (especially the IMs where I believe they are probably a hinderance). I think there is a benefit in freestyle and I think I have proven that in my own with and without experiments that it is maybe a 1% benefit, but the comfort factor is just something I can't get past and I am willing to give up a few tenths for it or even a half a second in a 100 for it because I think I can make it up elsewhere. I know most everyone loves being on the cutting edge of technology. We see it everywhere in our lives. However, I would bet most of us could improve more through improved technique/starts/turns, conditioning, lifting weights, losing some pounds, etc. Why don't we spend more time discussing those elements of our swimming?
I have also noticed that Phelps and a lot of IMers don't use tech suits with shoulder straps and I find it difficult to believe that the leg suits alone could provide much benefit. I find it funny that Phelps is in all the ads wearing the full LZR, but he doesn't wear it in his signature events. Why is that? I assume he and his coaches are making a very informed decision since he has a lot more riding on his suit selection than any masters swimmer. Maybe he will wear the full LZR at the Olympics in the 400IM, but I doubt it. I assume Phelps feel the same way I do regarding the loss of range of motion and the binding on the shoulders causes more time loss and grief than gain in the IMs.
Anyway, my tech suit is retired and I won't go back even if the latest suits provide extra flotation. I do like to wear my tech suit to show my wife how skinny I used to be in college, but that seems to be its primary quantifiable benefit. Sorry Speedo and the other swim suit vendors, I am staying in the early 80s with my suit selection.
I know everyone likes to win and improve, but even if you think the suit is a major part of your time improvement or your ability to place does it really make you feel as good about your accomplishment as other means of improvement? I feel much better about a time drop when I know it is from something other than my suit.
It also seems crazy to me to buy multiple tech suits to see which one is better and now it sounds like we are considering multiple combinations of suits for masters swimmers to drop a tenth. I certainly understand the obsession with suits at the elite/professional level where their future earnings may be impacted by a tenth or two and they have probably done everything you can do otherwise to do your best time, but why do we care so much at the masters level?
A month or so ago my kids were at their summer club league meet (year round swimmers generally don't participate) and a 10 year old girl shows up with a tech suit (probably a year round swimmer). I thought the reaction of everyone at the meet was funny - the girl won the 100 free by 5 seconds and all the kids and parents were saying she won because of the tech suit. Most of spectators were not especially familiar with swimming, but it is just an overblown example of the hype surrounding tech suits. I wonder at the masters level whether many of us suffer from similiar dillusions (but to a much lessor degree) that the suit makes a significant contribution to our success. I think our success comes almost entirely from other factors. I doubt even at Nationals that our place and times would change all that much without the tech suits. For example, I have seen John Smith go 48 low in speedo briefs at altitude untapered (I assume) a few years ago and I have seen him go 47 flat in a LZR or another tech suit in Austin. Was the difference due to lower altitude or was he bettered conditioned in Austin or was it the suit or that he was tapered or that he just tried harder due to better competition or ego or perhaps the UT pool was a factor or maybe it was the superior TexMex or the caffeine intake was higher? My bet is the suit, at the very best, only accounted for half of that difference and he would have gone 47.4 or 47.5 (maybe faster) without the suit and still won the event. If you fell a place lower because you didn't wear a tech suit or swam half a second slower, would it matter to you? I guess everyone is telling me it does, but it doesn't matter to me and I am somewhat surprised it matters to most masters swimmers.
Why are we as masters swimmers so obsessed with tech suits? Why do we waste our money? Ande, I think you might need an intervention soon because you seem a bit addicted to tech suits. It is almost exclusively the swimmer and the training that they put in that counts, not the suit. The suit, to me, is an immaterial factor in our success and one that I can easily discount and forgo.
My goals are to generally improve my times by 1% in the coming year without any type of tech suit. When I do so, I will know it was because of what I did in preparation and not the suit. That is worth much more to me than any time/place advantage gained from a suit (whether that advantage is real or perceived).
Sorry for the pre-Olympic rant,
Tim
