The two people I personally know who care most about the FINA suit change rulings are Leslie The Fortress Livingston. For all I know, you may well care about this even more than we do, but I don't know you, or if I do, you have not made clear your miseries about the suit changes.
In any event, I have been arguing to Leslie that I think the new rules will have a much greater effect on men than women, who get to continue to wear what is basically pretty dab nab near to an original textile tech suit (whereas we are back to the old jammer or briefs of the Mark Spitz era.)
Now that data from this year and last year has begun filtering in, I stand by this, but with less assurance than I once did.
In any event, here -- gleaned from the event rankings part of USMS --are the results from the 800 LCM free in my age group and Leslie's former age group from last summer.
Both include worlds and nationals times. The results are eye-opening. This year's winning time would have placed 10th last year in the men.
This year's winning time for women would have placed 3rd last year for women.
I know this is not even close to an apples-to-apples comparison, but it does suggest that our little flowers, once again, are proving to be the chief beneficiaries of about just every possible advantage that exists in the 21st Century!
*#* *Name Age Time* Club *Meet
*1* *Wood, Larry W 56 *10:16.54* TXLA *USMS 2010 Summer National Championships
*2* *Guadagni, Peter M 55 *10:22.64* WCM *USMS 2010 Summer National Championships
*3* *Martin, Jack R 59 *10:25.41* 1776 *USMS 2010 Summer National Championships
*4* *Wasserman, Neil R 55 *10:41.26* O*H* *Cleveland State University LCM
*5* *Hale, Dave 55 *10:52.61* SRM *Pacific Masters Long Course Championships
*6* *Wright, Robert E 56 *10:55.70* DOC *34th Lakeside Masters Long Course Invitational
*7* *Thompson, Frank L 59 *11:04.24* MICH *34th Lakeside Masters Long Course Invitational
*8* *Penn, William J 59 *11:06.07* PNA *2010 Northwest Zone LCM
*9* *Ditolla, Robert J 56 *11:08.65* ARIZ *2010 AZ Masters LCM State Championship
*10* *Leonard, Dan P 56 *11:10.48* SCAQ *FAST Masters LCM Regional and Zone Championships
*#* *Name Age Time* Club *Meet
*1* *Mann, Michael T 55 *9:00.09* CMS *Conejo Simi Aquatics LCM Regional and Zone Champs
*2* *Townsend, R Scott 56 *9:42.16* LVM *Conejo Simi Aquatics LCM Regional and Zone Champs
*3* *Gandee, Brad 55 *9:57.82* GMUP *2009 USMS National Long Course Championships
*4* *Wood, Larry W 55 *10:00.88* TXLA *South Central Zone Long Course Championships
*5* *Clemmons, Jim 59 *10:02.32* MAM *2009 Pacific Masters Long Course Swimming Championships
*6* *Bell, Alan 59 *10:03.20* PNA *Gil Young Memorial LCM Meet/Northwest Zone Long Course Meters Meet
*7* *Dodson, Phil L 56 *10:04.87* IM *2009 USMS National Long Course Championships
*8* *Martin, Jack R 58 *10:11.61* 1776 *2009 USMS National Long Course Championships
*9* *Penn, William J 58 *10:16.08* PNA *Gil Young Memorial LCM Meet/Northwest Zone Long Course Meters Meet
*10* *Nunnelly, John N 56 *10:18.04* NEM *Bay State Games
#* *Name Age Time* Club *Meet
*1* *Krattli, Caroline 48 *10:15.24* SDSM *USMS 2010 Summer National Championships
*2* *Welting, Laureen K 45 *10:17.33* TOC *USMS 2010 Summer National Championships
*3* *Dantzler, Amy L 46 *10:21.02* WH2O *FAST Masters LCM Regional and Zone Championships
*4* *Bennett, Ellen K 47 *10:27.32* SYSM *Bumpy Jones International Classic & Dixie Zone LCM Championships
*5* *Matherne, Susan K 48 *10:30.59* RICE *FCST Luck of the Draw
*6* *Parker Palace, Kelly 49 *10:31.27* UNAT *2010 New England LMSC LCM Championships
*7* *Shuck, Susie 45 *10:32.32* ISF *34th Lakeside Masters Long Course Invitational
*8* *Ramnath, Fernette P 45 *10:34.02* SYSM *USMS 2010 Summer National Championships
*9* *Milanese, Barbara A 48 *10:42.63* GOLD *5th Annual June Krauser Summer Splash
*10* *Schickore, Jutta 46 *10:51.33* DOC *34th Lakeside Masters Long Course Invitational
*#* *Name Age Time* Club *Meet
*1* *Curran, Margee M 48 *9:47.56* WCM *2009 Pacific Masters Long Course Swimming Championships
*2* *Elias-Williams, Maria L 45 *10:00.40* GSMS *2009 USMS National Long Course Championships
*3* *Petersen, Charlotte 45 *10:18.31* SPM *2009 St. Pete Masters Long Course Swimming Championships
*4* *Swanson, Vibeke L 48 *10:38.78* 1776 *2009 Merryman LCM Swim Meet
*5* *Castro, Leticia 49 *11:03.98* GOLD *JK Summer Splash-Dixie Zone Championship
*6* *Fitzgerald, Kimberly H 49 *11:09.58* WMAC *Wisconsin Badger State Games
*7* *Ciampa, Cindy 49 *11:15.52* SKY *2009 SwimLouisville.com Masters Invitational
*8* *Gregory, Ellen D 45 *11:21.90* ISF *2009 USMS National Long Course Championships
*9* *DeLozier, Anna R 46 *11:23.77* ARIZ *Arizona Long Course State Meet
*10* *Uecker, Anne 49 *11:30.50* MESC *NE LCM Championship
Mr. Jim Thornton aka Professional Writer:
You stand accused of a redundancy, to wit "with Gender Overtones" as a tag for this topic; since when have you posted without "gender overtones" on any topic (even sandwiches)?
Peter, technically you may be correct here. However, as a professional, I occasionally employ what we insiders call "rhetorical devices." These include intentional misspellings (or is that mispelings?), subject verb disagreement, the "accidental" leaving out of apparently critical words hither and thither and, et cetera.
The device used in this "redundancy" of which I have been by you j'accuse'd was actually a case of the Churchillian rhetorical whack job. As a Canadian, I suspect you hold Winston very dear in your heart, given that he saved your country during the Second World War, when it was still part of the empire (note: possible rhetorical device being used here: the historical bollix):
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
Mr. Jim Thornton aka Professional Writer:
You stand accused of a redundancy, to wit "with Gender Overtones" as a tag for this topic; since when have you posted without "gender overtones" on any topic (even sandwiches)?
Surprisingly (to me), there is a 3% difference in drag between jammers and briefs.
I am not completely surprised by this. I was at an age-group meet and I watched some swimmers in warmup; during the pushoffs you can see definite "flapping" (not a good word I know) on the upper legs with high-cut suits.
Somewhat subjectively, the effect seemed worse in girls than boys, maybe because their hips are wider and maybe because of differences in the cut of the suit. (When the girls wear "standard cut" suits -- not down to the knees -- they tend to be cut higher than briefs for men.) I see the same effect in practice.
Keep in mind that these are skinny, skinny age-groupers, not masters swimmers.
As an aside, I was quite surprised that the study used only male swimmers.
One of the limitations of the study was that it dealt with passive drag. In the real world the underwater off the start and turns would be the only place where you could reasonably talk about laminar flows and separation and so forth. Even during the underwaters the study assumption that the arms don't cause turbulance in the flow around the head is up for discussion.
One of the cool things was that the whole experiment was conducted in a huge donut shaped pool!
Look for the water flows in the slow motion replays in this video:
www.europeanchampionships.org/.../
Please see the following study on how the different suit configurations and the amount of coverage affects the drag. (Textile Suits)
See specifically page 4.
Mollendorf, Joseph C., Albert C. Termin II, Eric Oppenheim, and David R. Pendergast. “Effect of Swim Suit Design on Passive Drag.” Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise 9. (May 2004): 1-7.
Very cool. This is probably about as clean a comparison of different suit styles as we could hope for. It was done in 2004 with Fastskins, though, not the recent tech suits, so it doesn't directly address the effect of the tech suits.
A few key points of relevance to the suit debate:
There is about a 5% difference in drag when covering the torso -- i.e. when switching back to jammers from a shoulder-to-knee (or -ankle) suit.
Surprisingly (to me), there is a 3% difference in drag between jammers and briefs.
"Drag" is total drag. Surprisingly, the friction drag is higher when more skin is covered by Fastskin. Even for unshaved skin. The reduction in total drag comes from "pressure drag", apparently because of hydrodynamic effects of the suit. (This is an indirect conclusion that relies on model fitting, though, and is more speculative than the total drag numbers, which are direct measurements.)
Male swimmers were used because we were looking at the effects of coverage, and the addition of material for male suit configurations was a new effect for men. The women obviously already had this coverage.
Dr. Albert, I had not realized that you were one of the co-authors of this paper.
A genuine man of science! In all sincerity, I am thrilled you would wade into this murky quagmire of opinion based on self-interest and disguised as science, that is to say, the USMS Swimming Discussion Forums!
At the risk of asking you too much, would you care to opine on a hypothesis of mine that is odds with a hypothesis of my good friend, the lovely science-ignoramus, Leslie "The Fortress" Livingston.
I maintain that for the average (i.e., non-Ryan Lochte) masters swimmer male, the FINA suit change is going to have a MUCH greater affect on times that it will on the average masters swimmer female's times.
Leslie--and please correct me if I am misstating your opinion here, Leslie--maintains that both genders will be negatively effected, times-wise, though females will be impacted almost as much as males because of the loss of A) a zipper, and B) the knee to ankle coverage, and C) torso compression thanks to A.
To this, I say: Boulderdash!
My prediction is roughly 2 seconds per 100 SCY slower times for men; and roughly 1 second slower times per 100 for women.
What say you?
And "rubber." Perhaps that is the biggest time difference factor of all?
I don't really know what the precise negative impact will be vis-a-vis men and women. (Who does?) But I don't think men will be "MUCH MUCH" more effected than women. You are bigger on the whole, to be sure, but then women have more flabby bits.
And it also depends on the stroke. I agree with the sentiment expressed in the Washington Post article that short axis strokes will be more effected than the long axis strokes.
You are bigger on the whole, to be sure, but then women have more flabby bits.
I am willing to go mano-a-mano with you, Leslie, at the first official Colony Zones flabby bits-off.
Sort of like a pose-off in a body building competition, but instead of competing to see who is the most buff, firm, and gigantic, this will be to show who is the most jiggly, cellulititudinous, and gelatinously disgusting.
I am willing to go mano-a-mano with you, Leslie, at the first official Colony Zones flabby bits-off.
Sort of like a pose-off in a body building competition, but instead of competing to see who is the most buff, firm, and gigantic, this will be to show who is the most jiggly, cellulititudinous, and gelatinously disgusting.
If it's mano-a-mano between us, you lose. Guess why? hehe
If it's mano-a-mano between us, you lose. Guess why? hehe
Mano-a-mana?
Mano-a-womano?
One of us weight lifts, and the other one takes swimming seriously?
