The Suits can stay -- but swimmers must decide !

Chris, this is what I have found, too. My number is 10 kicks for the 15m. I actually do that off each wall. I have tried doing 11 off the turns, but was told that I crossed the line when I did that. Anyway, I have not witnessed this number changing when I change suits. I should try the 25 test. To my point...if you have always been an excellent underwater kicker you will see less effect. As Jonty Skinner pointed out...the people who are seeing the greatest impact are not necessarily those who have excellent technique. I again will point out however that even a world class swimmer such as Austin Staab IMHO doesn't go 15 yds underwater and no breath the last length for 44.1 in the 100 fly with an "older" suit...so are "elite" masters swimmers getting better/faster at middle age due to improvements in their training or are these suits playing a significant role?

Interesting thread and, FWIW, I don't think Erik was trying to insult anyone. But I think his idea of voluntary self-policing is a non-starter, for the usual "Tragedy of the Commons" types of reasons. That's why we have regulatory bodies like FINA and USMS. The article Erik posted -- which I finally got around to reading -- is interesting. The last sentence is particularly relevant to this discussion, and states what I have been feeling about this whole thing: "The progression in times, however, will again slow as swimmers continue to approach the inescapable limits of equipment aided human performance." So I think this whole thing about self-comparisons, as well as comparisons between competitors, is mostly a red herring. We are in a transition phase and things will settle down at some point (though it may take years). Jaked is a flash in the pan that will become irrelevant after Jan 1. As an aside, I do think it interesting that, previously, superlative performances elicited the response of "what drugs is s/he using?" Now it is "which suit?" (I do still worry about PEDs...male sprinters just seem huge nowadays, compared to the sleek Popovs/Biondis of yore.) So if there is some sort of "levelling off" effect with the suits, combined with regulations that the ones FINA has already passed, it seems that we are almost where we were before, but with faster records. Except: -- the sport is more expensive -- the suits may aid some body types more than others -- "purists" may be offended (I don't mean to be derogatory by using the term; feel free to substitute another) If these combination of things prove to be too much, then by all means agitate for a change in rules. You have a case. As an aside, the data analysis part of Erik's article is interesting too, in particular the "Japanese" expt and the comparison of predicted vs actual times at the Olympics. (A similar study was done for US Olympic Trials, with similar results.) Conclusions: -- the times in 2008 were 1-2% faster than they should have been -- men were affected more than women -- sprints were affected more than distance events Based on the Olympics data and across all events, I calculated an average of 1.66% improvement for the men and 1.19% for the women. For the men, the events which were NOT significantly faster than the normal progression would indicate were: 200/400/1500 free; for the women, it was the 400/800 free, both breaststroke events, the 100 fly, and the 400 IM. Of course the natural tendency is to attribute the difference to the suits, mostly the LZR (although both Jakeds and B70s were also in evidence). The authors are, of course, careful to say that this isn't proven by the data alone -- correlation/causation and all that -- but it is strongly suggested, and that no alternative cause has been determined. Neither the 2000 nor 2004 Olympics were any faster than predicted, so those suits were not significantly more effective than shaving (and certainly much less effective than the current generation of suits). Interestingly, the 1996 games were collectively significantly slower than expected, largely on the women's side. Assuming the suits are the cause, the data makes one wonder about the mechanism by which they work. The authors basically said, "we have no idea." I have heard 3 types of mechanisms proposed: -- buoyancy -- effects of compression on fatigue -- hydrodyamics Of course, all three can be involved to some degree. The fact that sprints (higher speeds) were more greatly affected is a clue, as is the fact that men (higher speeds, larger cross-sectional area, more muscle mass) are more affected than women. I'll go back to lurking now...pls continue... :)

This thread is really interesting. I'm one of the "too cheap" people who can't bring myself to spend over $40 for any suit. But now you're making me wonder if I could swim a whole lot closer to my old times if I wasn't such a tightwad! Sorry about the "too cheap" crack. Cost is a very good reason to not wear a tech suit, I just didn't think that is what ehoch was trying to get at. Tim

Absolutely and I wouldn't claim other wise. I think you are smart women who like a good argument. I hope you think the same of me (sic!). Of course! :) It had been a bit too dull around here anyway ...

I don't care what Smith says, Good policy. :bolt:

Yes, because swimming doesn't really require equipment as such. I could swim nude at a meet if I wasn't worried about getting arrested. On the other hand, it's mighty difficult to cycle without a bike or compete in a tennis match without a racquet. For this reason I don't think comparisons with sports that absolutely rely on equipment is valid. Apparently, to be at the highest level possible in swimming, you do have to rely on equipment. Would you attemt to break a record in the 1650 without goggles? I don't think so. Other comparisons can be made to sports that don't require equipment such as track. I doubt people have carried on about running shoes the way we all have about the tech suits. As with anything, there is always a downside to progress.

A sport is defined by the people who participate in it and the implicit or explicit "rules" agreed upon. As such, I think that there seems to be a fairly strong implicit agreement that many swimmers are willing to accept the tech suits. The fact that various companies now see it as desirable to produce and sell tech suits speaks to that fact. Any explicit retrogression by FINA will, in all likelihood, be reversed given enough time due to the fact there are a decent number of people who will support the various companies as they push the boundaries of suit technology. If, for "moral" reasons, you feel a need to take a stand against the tech suits, fine - that is your right. I don't see the need, however, to berate the people who use them given that they are 1) Within the explicit rules of the sport and 2) Currently part of the implict "rules" of the sport. It remains to be seen if this is the wave of the future (my bet) or an historical oddity. You have the right to protest this decision by wearing whatever lo-tech suit you want in any race you want. I absolutely refuse to wear a wetsuit in open water races - my right (and allows me to wallow in righteous moral superiority), but the people who choose to wear them are within the rules and many of them are actually nice people (for moral lepers). A very few of them even have people in their lives who love them and aren't totally ashamed to be seen in public with them. As an aside, I wonder if the fact that, despite all championship rules, many open water races allow wetsuits is the genesis of the current push for tech suits in the pool. There is clear evidence that wetsuits help and I don't think that it is coincidence that many of the tech suits are moving more in the direction of wetsuit design. -LBJ

Not that it was a good movie, but ehoch's original entry and the general responses now seem a bit Jerry Maguire like. I know Geek, that would make me Rod Tidwell or Dorthy Boyd (thankfully, I had to look up the character names). Tim

Apparently, to be at the highest level possible in swimming, you do have to rely on equipment. No question you do now, but my point is maybe you shouldn't have to. Would you attemt to break a record in the 1650 without goggles? I don't think so. No, but I could swim a 1650 w/o goggles. If would most likely be slower, but I could do it. You could also run a track race without shoes (see Zola Budd). There's no way you can compete in a bike race without a bike.

This thread is really interesting. I'm one of the "too cheap" people who can't bring myself to spend over $40 for any suit. But now you're making me wonder if I could swim a whole lot closer to my old times if I wasn't such a tightwad! Too cheap? There's a recession on! Neoprene or fancy lycra won't put food on the table or pay the bills. $20 grab bags work fine!