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?"?
Parents
Former Member
Not saying there are none.. all I am saying is that the probability that these drops in times were not due at least in part to the LZR is low given the data. It MAY be true, but it is UNLIKELY to be true. It's like flipping coins. If I have a coin I'm not sure is real or weighted, and I flip it 20 times and I get 19 heads, while it is POSSIBLE the coin isn't weighted, it is much more likely that it is. If I flip it 1 million times and I get 999,999 heads. I GUARANTEE YOU the coin is weighted (or the toss) Now, whether or not it's worth the money is an entirely different question that depends on the buyers utility function.
You'd show that the correlation is unlikely to have happened by chance (randomly). But you still have the whole "correlation is not causation" thing -- which is where we started all this -- and the need to control confounding variables. Gaash contends that there are none, and I respectfully disagree (ie, opinion). No way to know until you do the experiments.
Not saying there are none.. all I am saying is that the probability that these drops in times were not due at least in part to the LZR is low given the data. It MAY be true, but it is UNLIKELY to be true. It's like flipping coins. If I have a coin I'm not sure is real or weighted, and I flip it 20 times and I get 19 heads, while it is POSSIBLE the coin isn't weighted, it is much more likely that it is. If I flip it 1 million times and I get 999,999 heads. I GUARANTEE YOU the coin is weighted (or the toss) Now, whether or not it's worth the money is an entirely different question that depends on the buyers utility function.
You'd show that the correlation is unlikely to have happened by chance (randomly). But you still have the whole "correlation is not causation" thing -- which is where we started all this -- and the need to control confounding variables. Gaash contends that there are none, and I respectfully disagree (ie, opinion). No way to know until you do the experiments.
