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?"?
We don't need proof to validate personal experience, and it is unreasonable to think that the swimming elite has been tricked into buying more suits. Each single person had to evaluate the benefit for themselves, and they made a conscious decision as to which suit they would wear. Phelps could have worn briefs in that 200 free, and that's all the proof I need.
I agree, that's why I made a distinction between "scientific proof" and the amount of evidence needed to make a purchasing decision.
Look, I am not trying to say that Speedo is evil or anything, and I don't think they "trick" anyone any more any other company that is hawking a product. (Last I checked, drinking beer didn't make me more attractive to bikini-clad twentysomethings, despite the advertisement!)
I don't have a bone to pick here, really and truly. The only thing I am against is reading more into the data than is really there.
Gaash...of course it is about probabilities. That is the entire basis of hypothesis testing, which is what we are really talking about. The bar for "scientific certainty" is commonly taken to be 95% probability, meaning a 5% chance of a false positive (in this case, incorrectly assuming the LZR has an effect when it really doesn't).
As far as what I would bet, well I've already "bet" with my wallet, haven't I? I will never purchase the current version of the LZR because I don't believe it is cost-effective (too expensive and fragile) but I bought a B70 at about half the price, it is supposedly more durable, and I think it is roughly as effective.
We don't need proof to validate personal experience, and it is unreasonable to think that the swimming elite has been tricked into buying more suits. Each single person had to evaluate the benefit for themselves, and they made a conscious decision as to which suit they would wear. Phelps could have worn briefs in that 200 free, and that's all the proof I need.
I agree, that's why I made a distinction between "scientific proof" and the amount of evidence needed to make a purchasing decision.
Look, I am not trying to say that Speedo is evil or anything, and I don't think they "trick" anyone any more any other company that is hawking a product. (Last I checked, drinking beer didn't make me more attractive to bikini-clad twentysomethings, despite the advertisement!)
I don't have a bone to pick here, really and truly. The only thing I am against is reading more into the data than is really there.
Gaash...of course it is about probabilities. That is the entire basis of hypothesis testing, which is what we are really talking about. The bar for "scientific certainty" is commonly taken to be 95% probability, meaning a 5% chance of a false positive (in this case, incorrectly assuming the LZR has an effect when it really doesn't).
As far as what I would bet, well I've already "bet" with my wallet, haven't I? I will never purchase the current version of the LZR because I don't believe it is cost-effective (too expensive and fragile) but I bought a B70 at about half the price, it is supposedly more durable, and I think it is roughly as effective.
