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'm sorry, stillwater, what kind of bike do you own again? Third time.
And, if you knew at thing about Phelps' race with the goggle issue, that was the one individual race where he didn't achieve his pre-planned time goal and he specifically stated it was due to goggle failure. Do your homework.
Second, a tech suit never has nor ever will make a slow swimmer fast.
Never has a slow swimmer been stuck swimming a 50.00 second 100 yard free and put on a tech suit enabling them to swim faster with no aditional training?
Coaches recommend these suits and swimmers wear them because they make swimmers faster. Not the other way around.
Do you actually swim and compete? If so, you know that a fast suit does not make a slow swimmer fast. Nor does it supplant training. I have never lost to a slower swimmer in a fast suit, nor have I beat a better swimmer when I was wearing one.
Briefs are from a bygone era, move on, get over it, we aren't going back and no amount of your whining will change that.
I haven't competed since college and high school many years ago. I started swimming again a couple months ago, but tore a ligament in my wrist and haven't been back and won't be until many months after I have surgery in April.
A fast suit can make a slow swimmer fast. A fast suit can make a fast swimmer faster. If they didn't swimmers would not wear them.
I'll give up my relatively inexpensive tech suit when I go to a triathlon and don't see a fat dude riding an all carbon bike with carbon soled shoes in a $200 helmet and a $500 wet suit. Until then, no cyclist is allowed to ever speak to a swimmer about gear again and no whiney swimmers are allowed to tell me how to spend my money.
When cyclists go back to steel framed bikes I'll ditch my suit. Until then, zip it. February 14th, 2009 06:47 AM
I like the way you compare cycling and swimming. I wonder if a carbon fiber bike gives a one second advantage per 100 yards over a steel bike.
I also know that to a sucessful capitalist as yourself, 200 dollars is a mere drop in the bucket (in the great and ethical sport of cycling). I can only hope that your crutch doesn't become cost prohibitive to you. I'm worried that we might be hearing some real whinning.
"When the training becomes secondary."
Two swimmers have the same abilities and training. One wears the expensive and questionably legal suit. The other wears Joe Speedo. It seems that Mr. Tech Suit wins. Not due to training but due to the one second advantage per 100 yards created by the expensive and questionably legal suit.
I have yet to hear a rational argument that, all things being equal, the man or woman in a tech suit is the superior athlete over the man or woman in a tank suit
Bingo.
Do the suits aid in speed, sure, anything that allows one to cut through water, does...but one still has to do the actual swim.
Now, if some of the suit are shown to float, like a wetsuit, then definitly get rid of them((B70). But any suit that doesn't aid in floation, should be allowed to stay, regardless of the amount of coverage.
Why get rid of suits that float? One still has to do the actual swim.:rolleyes:
IMO a suit that aids in cutting through the water is the same as a suit that floats.
Get rid of tech suits, put men in briefs and then it is the swimmer and training that are measured.
This is a strange statement as I don't know any bike races that are 100 yards or meters. Most sprint tris are at least 15 miles, many more than that. I promise you riding a carbon bike versus a steel bike will make your time vastly better so don't go telling me that what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander.
Then get rid of caps too...plus goggles...they help one cut through the water faster too.
My point was that there is quite a significant advantage For Mr. Tech Suit verses Joe Speedo. I would say a bigger advantage than cycling with a $1000 bike verses a $500 bike, or $15 in swimming accoutre. I would hazzard a guess and say that it is the most significant advantage due to something you can buy in modern swimming history. (Please no more goggle lectures)
"Questionably legal?" Is that like questionably pregnant? They are legal, period. Until they aren't.
I figure if I keep repeating it enough then it will become part of the lexicon.
And, please, please, don't scare me with another questionable pregnancy. You brought back memories I had hidden away.
