I am just back from the SPMA meet where all the top finisher were wearing the latest generation tech suits,mostly B-70s(or were named Jeff Commings.)I have here to for been in favor of the suits,but now I am not so sure.First,they eliminate the old bench marks.I went my fastest 100m BR in 5 yr in my LZR,but it was only .3 sec faster than I did untapered 5 wk earlier in my first swim in the LZR.So was my swim good or not,I'm not sure.Also,instead of focusing on technique or pace I found myself ruminating over aspects of the suits,how many more swims did the suit have,is it the right size,was the reason I didn't get better results from my B-70 because it was too big?etc.The B-70 has somewhat mitigated the "too expensive,not durable" problem,but for how long.
Lets say a company comes up with a suit that is much faster,say 4 sec/100.Further that it is very expensive(say $1000) lasts 4 swims and is very hard to make so that quantities are always limited and the fastest way to get one is to bid up to $3000 on ebay. Now lets say your nemesis has one,or that getting one is your best chance to get TT or AA or a ZR or WR,or that your child is close to making JO cuts,or finally beating his/her nemesis etc. Is it worth it and where does it stop?
I've had a similar capitalist thought. I wonder if the bigger company is licking it's chops now at buying the smaller better competitor at a cut rate price because their product is possibly going to be DQ'd but has significant value and potential without much alteration.
Quite often, if you look beneath the surface, the main force behind regulations to "protect" some entity (the consumer, the sport, etc.), you'll find a powerful company trying to use its leverage to quell competition, new technology, etc. It will very often get wrapped up in lofty language, but that language is often a front for anti-free-market principles in action.
My libertarian rant for the day is done.
I've had a similar capitalist thought. I wonder if the bigger company is licking it's chops now at buying the smaller better competitor at a cut rate price because their product is possibly going to be DQ'd but has significant value and potential without much alteration.
Quite often, if you look beneath the surface, the main force behind regulations to "protect" some entity (the consumer, the sport, etc.), you'll find a powerful company trying to use its leverage to quell competition, new technology, etc. It will very often get wrapped up in lofty language, but that language is often a front for anti-free-market principles in action.
My libertarian rant for the day is done.
