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?
Although no one is more of a Luddite than I am, I just don't see the problem here.
1) The idea that swimming or any sport is truly egalitarian is, at best, a fantasy. There is no equality in swimming. People with more money generally get better facilities, coaches, etc and it's the same in most sports. If you want an egalitarian sport, try racewalking - all you need is basic shoes (I know a guy who made 2 Olympic teams wearing Hush Puppies), shorts, sox, and a t-shirt.
2) Tech suits offer no mechanical leverage advantage (as do, say hand paddles). They are passive in that they reduce drag; not add propulsion.
3) Almost all sports have embraced technological change that has allowed them to change in fundamental ways. Why should swimming be different?
4) You have a choice not to participate by getting a tech suit. For example, I swim lots of open water races and will NOT wear a wetsuit. My choice and if I miss a medal because of it, so what? I've got a crate of them anyway. Besides, it allows me to wallow in my moral superiority and general studliness.
Thought experiment: Suppose that a swim suit is developed that is the ULTIMATE in passive technology - i.e. it reduces drag and enhances compression as far as it can go without adding any mechanical leverage advantages. Furthermore, suppose that it costs about as much as the average pair of lycra jammers. This means that most people can afford one and no one has a technological advantage. At this point it comes back to who wants it the most, trains the hardest and competes the hardest. Admittedly, this assumes that there is an ultimate point, but the historical reality is that this is exactly what has happened to a lesser (non-ultimate)degree with the intoduction of briefs, lycra, etc. Therefore, the introduction of improved tech suits is merely a more advanced part of the curve that has been happening all along.
And for the record, people who wear wetsuits are in the same category as those who beat their dogs and don't brush their teeth. :afraid:
-LBJ
Hmmm, to play the devil's advocate:
-- some say that the latest suits provide some buoyancy, giving a mechanical advantage
-- how does anything you say in support of tech suits, not also apply to wetsuits? It seems inconsistent to me to say that tech suits are okay but wetsuits are not.
I know, for me, that any suit that holds "the girls" in, nice and tight, is a definite help!
:bliss:
The suit gives me a boy's physique causing me to consider going out and buying some "girls." :bitching:
It's simply a mute point, just as many of us have pointed out here if your a top level athlete you don't show up to a major race not ready to race and not trying to make some purist statment by not using approved equipment...as Geek said I haven't seen to many steel TT bikes at the Tour de France with the riders complaining afterwards that they were cheated.
Exactly. If someone is fast, and has dedicated a lot of time and effort to training and competing in meets over many years, why isn't that person a "purist"? You can't be a purist if you like tech suits and technological advancement? You can only be a purist if you're almost naked?
Maybe some swim federations are pissed off at paying so many bonuses for WRs? If so, won't this level off?
The suits have brought increased excitement, exposure and revenue to the sport. I hope they're here to stay.
As long as we are talking about "the girls," it should be noted the suits also keep "the gents" well in place. I will be banned momentarily, nice knowing you all.
"lift and separate" are not always good.
meh yawn... for masters: ban 'em/dont ban 'em DILLIGAF.
I'd like to see the use kept out of the youth set up barring top level meets; purely on the side of accessibility and affordability for all...nobody want to be the "poor kid" on the block.
Although no one is more of a Luddite than I am, I just don't see the problem here.
1) The idea that swimming or any sport is truly egalitarian is, at best, a fantasy. There is no equality in swimming. People with more money generally get better facilities, coaches, etc and it's the same in most sports. If you want an egalitarian sport, try racewalking - all you need is basic shoes (I know a guy who made 2 Olympic teams wearing Hush Puppies), shorts, sox, and a t-shirt.
2) Tech suits offer no mechanical leverage advantage (as do, say hand paddles). They are passive in that they reduce drag; not add propulsion.
3) Almost all sports have embraced technological change that has allowed them to change in fundamental ways. Why should swimming be different?
4) You have a choice not to participate by getting a tech suit. For example, I swim lots of open water races and will NOT wear a wetsuit. My choice and if I miss a medal because of it, so what? I've got a crate of them anyway. Besides, it allows me to wallow in my moral superiority and general studliness.
Thought experiment: Suppose that a swim suit is developed that is the ULTIMATE in passive technology - i.e. it reduces drag and enhances compression as far as it can go without adding any mechanical leverage advantages. Furthermore, suppose that it costs about as much as the average pair of lycra jammers. This means that most people can afford one and no one has a technological advantage. At this point it comes back to who wants it the most, trains the hardest and competes the hardest. Admittedly, this assumes that there is an ultimate point, but the historical reality is that this is exactly what has happened to a lesser (non-ultimate)degree with the intoduction of briefs, lycra, etc. Therefore, the introduction of improved tech suits is merely a more advanced part of the curve that has been happening all along.
And for the record, people who wear wetsuits are in the same category as those who beat their dogs and don't brush their teeth. :afraid:
-LBJ
Hmmm, to play the devil's advocate:
-- some say that the latest suits provide some buoyancy, giving a mechanical advantage
-- how does anything you say in support of tech suits, not also apply to wetsuits? It seems inconsistent to me to say that tech suits are okay but wetsuits are not.
exactly. while it can be argued that the tech suit effect on swimming competition is a small one and is the result of incremental advances in fabric technology that has been ongoing since the first humanoid covered his privies with a leopard skin; there is no such parallel argument to be made for the use of wetsuits.
I haven’t waded through this entire thread, but I’m curious if there is talk of limiting the use of tech suits for only “championship” events (e.g. in NCAA swimming, tech suits would only be allowed in conference and national championship meets)? This seems like a reasonable approach to me as it allows meets prior to the championships to raced using equal (old) technology.
My take on the tech suits… Can’t put the genie back in the bottle. They are here to stay. That said, I’m too cheap to buy one.
