I think it is going to end up that anything goes in terms of material, but coverage will be regulated. There is too much ambiguity in the definitions of permeable and textile.
I think it will be jammers for men and short-johns for women....
If I could go back I would have load up on $25 FINIS amphibians...
Enough already D2, we all know how you feel on the subject. Saying the same thing over and over and over doesn't really add anything to the coversation.
Enough already D2, we all know how you feel on the subject. Saying the same thing over and over and over doesn't really add anything to the coversation.
sounds an awful lot like Craig Lord
In case you’ve not heard of Craig Lord, he’s a correspondent & journalist in the field of swimming
This stands in direct contrast to D2's qualifications which are listed as follows:
A while back, in another thread, I basically said something similar to what you did. Namely, that FINA has only two realistic choices:
1) Either clamp down completely. (Basically, what they have done - at least in today's version of the rules) or
2) Allow almost any material, etc.
The problem with the "regulated technology" middle-ground approach is that there are too many variations of materials and construction for FINA to be able to afford (yes, it's about money) to test every possible current and future permutation. This means that "passive" mechanical advantages such as reduced drag suits are too subtle (i.e. numerous) for exhaustive testing. It is, as you have pointed out, easier to regulate the form-factor mechanical advantages (length of suit, etc) as well as the active mechanical advantages (e.g. fins, gloves, etc).
-LBJ
This makes good sense.
But the suit manufacturers already have suits in production. B70 just announced it was releasing new suits in Nov. and Speedo has the new LZR Pro. Will these new suits, which make an attempt (I guess) to be "permeable" be history if Lefty's prediction is accurate?
Any predictions on how quickly FINA will issue a ruling/statement after it meets in Jan.?
sounds an awful lot like Craig Lord
While Lord is against tech suits, at least he has done things to promote swimming and has tried to back up his arguements with facts. While I disagree with his take on tech suits, he does defend his position with carefully and thoughtfully written articles
A while back, in another thread, I basically said something similar to what you did. Namely, that FINA has only two realistic choices:
1) Either clamp down completely. (Basically, what they have done - at least in today's version of the rules) or
2) Allow almost any material, etc.
The problem with the "regulated technology" middle-ground approach is that there are too many variations of materials and construction for FINA to be able to afford (yes, it's about money) to test every possible current and future permutation. This means that "passive" mechanical advantages such as reduced drag suits are too subtle (i.e. numerous) for exhaustive testing. It is, as you have pointed out, easier to regulate the form-factor mechanical advantages (length of suit, etc) as well as the active mechanical advantages (e.g. fins, gloves, etc).
-LBJ
This stands in direct contrast to D2's qualifications which are listed as follows:
Geek, did you forget to list his credentials? No, I see them right where you put them.
This stands in direct contrast to D2's qualifications which are listed as follows:
Hey Aquageek
Looks like the power suddenly went off just as you were typing.
You need to get a UPS for your computer or maybe just some heartburn pills would do the trick. :)
D2
Hey Aquageek
Looks like the power suddenly went off just as you were typing.
Maybe you need to get a UPS for your computer. :)
D2
His power didn't go off. He listed your qualifications, which are correct as he stated.
