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...
Parents
Former Member
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
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
