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?
Former Member
If you want to bring up goggles, there are also $25 goggles. What is the difference between a $5 pair of goggles and a $25 pair, price. So, if price is your definition of fairness, why aren't you opposed to goggles that cost 5 X the price?
I've used many brands of goggles. I've never felt one gave an advantage over another. Have there been speed tests of different brands?
As far as I know there is a single suit that current goes for more than $500 and dozens you can get for under $200 and a few under $100 now. The B70 is in the $300-$400 range I think. When you continuously bring up the price of a product it totally nullifies the fairness argument. That's a preference issue.
If the suits are not available for every swimmer that is not fair.
Did you read this. If you did was it fair she was not able to have the same suit as her competitors?
Price matters especially to parents, athletic programs, and most everyone I know. Why price people out of swimming?
There is a simple solution to this for men anyway. Go back to briefs only.
I guess because you choose to not spend the money it is fair to tell me how to spend mine on my hobby. Your concept of fair really only means you have it your way.
I'm not telling you how to spend your money. Spend it all day long. Look cool and feel great about your suit just don't wear it at a meet for an official time.
Tech suits are like steroids. It's always easier to buy a time than work for it.
I think most people concede tech suits make somewhat of a difference in speed. There is a range of opinion in this area, Karen being at one end ("dramatic" difference) and Chris being at the other (1%). But Geek is right, there are many tech suits out there. The Pro is pretty reasonably priced right now.
Are all tech suits designed equally? I wonder why someone would choose a LZR over a B70 or a B70 over something else?
Charged, I must repeat that, in the absence of tech suits, there is no currently existing "level playing field" or "fairness." What gives you this crazy idea?
There would be a level playing field in swim suits if all men were required to use briefs.
Here is a letter from the AD of my college:
Aaron,
Thank you for your email. I share your excitement over this past weekends results. The results are extremely impressive.
Yes, the moratorium that the NCAA passed regarding the suits has caused more of a migraine than a headache. Let me be clear, there is no “line in the sand”. The problem is that there is not enough sand. I would love to be able to provide these suits for the swimmers and would not think twice about doing so if I had the resources to purchase them. The moratorium, especially coming at a time when budgets were already set, has caused a hardship for us as well as many other swimming programs and athletic departments
I cannot wait to race in one of these suits...but if they are banned I will totally understand it. $400 is alot of money, espeically when the suits do not last even one season.
Here is a letter from the AD of my college:
Aaron,
Thank you for your email. I share your excitement over this past weekends results. The results are extremely impressive.
Yes, the moratorium that the NCAA passed regarding the suits has caused more of a migraine than a headache. Let me be clear, there is no “line in the sand”. The problem is that there is not enough sand. I would love to be able to provide these suits for the swimmers and would not think twice about doing so if I had the resources to purchase them. The moratorium, especially coming at a time when budgets were already set, has caused a hardship for us as well as many other swimming programs and athletic departments
I cannot wait to race in one of these suits...but if they are banned I will totally understand it. $400 is alot of money, espeically when the suits do not last even one season.
It's just money. Why can't the students go and buy their own suits?
Even if they couldn't get their parents to pay for a couple suits per year it's the training that gets you through not a suit.
Even if they couldn't get their parents to pay for a couple suits per year it's the training that gets you through not a suit.
So if it's just the training, then why are the suits so popular? Admittedly, training is key. But I think it would be disingenuous to say that the suits provide no benefit.
So if it's just the training, then why are the suits so popular? Admittedly, training is key. But I think it would be disingenuous to say that the suits provide no benefit.
I was just being sarcastic. I think that for men suits should be limited to a brief. But that would mean swim suit companys wouldn't make as much money and that lazy swimmers would have to train harder to drop their times 2% instead of buying a time.
You cannot, I don't know, pay for dues for an elite club on the way to a swimmeet and suddenly drop 1-2% (or whatever amount you choose to believe). Better googles, better cap? Yeah, I suppose that is the same thing as a better suit, but the expenses are smaller and the improvements less dramatic.
Paying for elite clubs...what does it matter when the improvements come? Those with money have access to the means to swim faster than those without. Nothing new about that, and it isn't just swimming either.
Despite their small expense, goggles have a FAR bigger impact on performance than any tech suit. Try training without them and see.
I would guesstimate that non-turbulent lane-lines and better gutter systems have an impact AT LEAST comparable to any tech suit.
The point isn't about equity -- "someone bringing their own starting block" -- the point is that technological advances have always allowed improvements in times for reasons unrelated to talent/training.
This has been true for decades, not just recently. And renting these better pools is a major expense in the sport, so it isn't as if these advances all came as cheaply as goggles.
Debbie did bring up a good point though: what about the 13, 14 or 15 yo that makes their Oly Trial cuts? They should get to wear a full length tech suit. So with that argument, the elite age groupers would get to wear them. I mentioned then, what if an age grouper would GET their cuts if they wore one?
Pfffft, another can of worms to open up. :D
I din't think it really is. Kids that fast would most likely be achieving these cuts at senior meets, not age group meets, and they would be able to wear the suits at these meets.
