Ban the tech suits?

In 2007, I had the #2 time in the country in my LCM 800 and #1 in LCM 1500. Wearing a $15 grab bag speedo brief, $2.95 cap and $4.95 sweedes. So what was with the legskins at zones? I've got pictures, remember! You are going down that slippery slope. You know, if you actually SHAVED, you might drop some serious time... Interesting: the poll is running 29-19 (against a ban), which is closer than I thought for this crowd.

The whole tech suit thing is a done deal... records and all... let's move on to cooler caps, webbing (gloves), fins and props! Seriously, this discussion is old. They're here to stay, like em or not.

One other thing I've noticed. I know people have been wearing tech suits for quite a while now. One thing that has because much more common, I think, is people wearing them for every competition. It used to be you'd go to a smallish local meet and only see a couple people wearing bidy suits. Now they are commonplace at any meet you go to. Who cares what people do? Is it a bad thing to wear your tech suit every meet? And, if so, why? Right now, I plan on wearing my B70 for all competitions. I don't swim in many meets per course, and I'd like my times to be meaningful. (Of course, that assumes they even count.)

Is it a bad thing to wear your tech suit every meet? Not really. Just making an observation. I think it does prove that people are, more or less, relying on the performance improvements given by the suits.

I think it does prove that people are, more or less, relying on the performance improvements given by the suits. And is that a bad thing? Doesn't it just mean people might care about their times? Or perhaps small meets are the only places they get to swim or they can't do many meets ... Not everyone tapers for the big meet. Not everyone goes to Nationals.

This idea makes technical sense because if FINA allows the use of any "personal equipment" (anything that can be applied to the swimmer's body) to purportedly reduce drag, they should also allow anything that increases propulsion efficiency. This really makes no sense. Since skiing and cycling have already been brought up, that would be like saying FIS should allow skiers to wear jet packs and whatever the cycling federation is should allow motorized bikes. There's a difference between reducing weight of equipment, reducing rolling and aerodynamic friction, etc. and increasing propulsion.

I think some of you are overdramatizing both how prevalent the latest, most expensive tech suits are and how much they affect performance. I was also at the SPMA meet, and although I saw a lot of B70s and Xterras and a few LZRs, I also saw a lot of FS1s, FSIIs, Aquablades, and TYR Aquapels. Also, on some of the fastest of the younger women, I saw tiny tank suits rather than full-body suits. I've never been in a race where I even suspected that a better suit accounted for someone's having beaten me. In Long Beach, for instance, I took second in my age group in the 400 and 800 frees, but I really don't think the winner's B70 to my TYR Aquapel explains why she beat me by 12 seconds in the 400 and 30 in the 800. And judging from the results, although I would have swum slower in a practice suit, I would still have beaten the third-place finishers in our age group (and the third-place finisher in my age group in the 800 was definitely wearing a B70).

I think we need some perspective. They really aren't that expensive I'd say they are very expensive for something with such a limited life. Sure people will spend $500 on a driver or $5,000 on a bike, but those things should last a lot longer than a $550 LZR suit. I've never been in a race where I even suspected that a better suit accounted for someone's having beaten me. In Long Beach, for instance, I took second in my age group in the 400 and 800 frees, but I really don't think the winner's B70 to my TYR Aquapel explains why she beat me by 12 seconds in the 400 and 30 in the 800 Yes, but what if that same swimmer had beaten you by only a second?

I'd say they are very expensive for something with such a limited life. Sure people will spend $500 on a driver or $5,000 on a bike, but those things should last a lot longer than a $550 LZR suit. Do you know any golfers or bikers? Most would jump for joy at the prospect of spending $500 only. I don't think $500 is a figure that's even known to them. How about boating, water or snow skiing? $500 is peanuts. It just looks bad because in the past we could totally outfit ourselves for $40. My brother owns horses. I told him people were up in arms about a $500 swimsuit. He agreed that was expensive and then proceeded to tell me about the cost of a new saddle, great day in the morning! I felt better after that about the cost of swimming.

So what was with the legskins at zones? I've got pictures, remember! You are going down that slippery slope. You know, if you actually SHAVED, you might drop some serious time... Well, yes, I've been known to wear a set of legs every now and again... but given the price and technology of a fastskin/fs pro vs lzr & b70, can you really call the fastskins (and pro) a "tech suit" anymore? Legs are a far cry from the full body suits too. I've proved as recently as this summer that you can swim fast and drop time unshaved and in a speedo - see my results from the IGLA meet: 5 swims, 5 PBs. Could I have done better by putting my legs on? Maybe. But nothing can substitute determination and sheer hard work. I was pleased with my times from that meet and aside from the 400, didn't come close to my times last weekend while wearing the Pro - and just as rested. For the record, I do not like the Pro - I prefer the FSII (black with red stripes). I dont think the fabric provides the same compression as the FSII, nor am I convinced it is any more friction-friendly than a FSII. I don't like the fit (I get an air bubble every event except backstroke) either. But I have worn for some fast swims. I think if it as my "rest" suit - and have used it at meets where I've rested a bit, but not shaved or tapered, and for events high on my priority list.