Yes - one more time it's about the suit:
Here is a comparison to 2004 and what it took to make top 16 (top 8 for the 400) over the first 7 events:
2004 listed first then 2008 then the approx. % drop
400 IM - 4:24.8 to 4:21.0 1.5%
100 Fly - 1:01.29 to 59.97 2%
400 Free - 3:55.0 to 3:51.4 1.6%
400 IM - 4:49.57 to 4:43.2 2.3%
100 Br - 1:04.0 to 1:02.36 2.5%
100 Bk - 1:04.12 to 1:02.31 2.6%
200 Free - 1:51.1 to 1:48.76 2.2%
Ok - to be fair, people are getting faster, but I would guess at least a 1.5% drop across the board for the suit -- that is net time !
You can stick your head in the sand and believe what you want, but the numbers don't lie.
You're right that the numbers don't lie because there are no numbers. The only people that have any real scientific data to date are the people at NASA and Speedo that did the testing. If you'll notice, they haven't released any of their data or analyses. I have to believe that if they really succeeded in improving performance that much, they would be presenting their research to journals or at conferences.
As Daaaaaaaaaaave and Chris said, any quantification of performance gain is purely hypothetical. There is absolutely no way that you can unequivocally state a number and have it be anything other than a guess.
You can stick your head in the sand and believe what you want, but the numbers don't lie.
You're right that the numbers don't lie because there are no numbers. The only people that have any real scientific data to date are the people at NASA and Speedo that did the testing. If you'll notice, they haven't released any of their data or analyses. I have to believe that if they really succeeded in improving performance that much, they would be presenting their research to journals or at conferences.
As Daaaaaaaaaaave and Chris said, any quantification of performance gain is purely hypothetical. There is absolutely no way that you can unequivocally state a number and have it be anything other than a guess.
