Ban the tech suits?

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. 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. The "100 yards" thing is a red herring. I'm positive that a carbon fiber bike, aerobars, disk wheels, etc provide well over a 1-second advantage over typical race distances. Ask Laurent Fignon. Though I am not really a fan of the tech suits, I do find it a bit laughable to hear cyclists or triathletes complain about them. "Questionably legal?" Is that like questionably pregnant? They are legal, period. Until they aren't.

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. 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. As a cycling purist are you riding a steel framed bike? If not, this discussion is over with you. Charged - first, I hope you recover quickly from your upcoming surgery. Second, a tech suit never has nor ever will make a slow swimmer fast.

Get rid of them. Get the speed suits out of the competitions, USMS. Please. USMS...please keep the suits. Allow the people that want to wear them, and don't feel they are cheating to do so. Allow those that think they are bad, to continue to wear briefs and think like they are in the 80's to do. Allow each person to decide. Cyclist...yes, it is about fast times. The vast majority of people aren't going to remember years from now what suit they were wearing when the achieved the fastest time they ever went. They are just going to remember their time. So, you can say "it's an invalid argument and the technology is a joke" but they are valid. 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. The sport has advanced beyond briefs. I hope we never go back. The body suits are fun to wear and make one feel good on the deck and in the water. If you don't want to wear them, support them, don't. But don't try to ruin it for those that do...let each person make a choice.

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? A 50 second 100 got you top 10 at nats last year in 35-39, top 20 in 40-44, top 11 in 45-49, top 5 50-54 and first place in 55-59 so therefore that is not slow swimming. A person who swims a 1:30 and dons a LZR will still be slow, that's my point. As a side point, my age group sucks, too dang fast.

As for me, I am disinclined to do any USMS open water races until speed suits are placed into a division separate from briefs. I have no interest in incurring travel expenses to go and compete in races with the deck stacked against me. Everybody knows that speed suits alone give a substantial advantage. They are changing the sport to be more about gear than about skill. Unlike developments, for example, in timing, which create a fairer playing field, the speed suits create a non-level playing field, which is the whole point of their existence. This is especially absurd in non-professional leagues like USMS. The legalization of speed suits has started an arms race. Is the end game a destruction of the sport? Get rid of them. Get the speed suits out of the competitions, USMS. Please.

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.

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.

Could our site manager please correct the spelling of mandatory (the last option in the poll)? Thanks.

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.

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.