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
Former Member
Please see the following image. This is from the Rome World Championships from last summer.
A good point, the conditions are quite different on the chest and back. It would be interesting to see a picture after the leading arm entered the water.
In any case, turbulence involving air is easier to see but that doesn't mean that there wasn't lots of turbulent flow going on. It's a pretty safe bet that there was turbulence around his hand for example.
One of us weight lifts, and the other one takes swimming seriously?
You read the Washington Post article -- core, core, core! Better get going if you're taking swimming seriously. :)
Even during the under waters the study assumption that the arms don't cause turbulence in the flow around the head is up for discussion.Please see the following image. This is from the Rome World Championships from last summer.
As an aside, I was quite surprised that the study used only male swimmers 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.
I'm sure the drag coefficients are different for women, but they don't have the option of not covering the torso. 3 of the 5 suits studied wouldn't be practical on women swimmers.
Perhaps not. However, I suspect the study would have received a lot more media attention and interest from laymen, so to speak.
As an aside, I was quite surprised that the study used only male swimmers.
I'm sure the drag coefficients are different for women, but they don't have the option of not covering the torso. 3 of the 5 suits studied wouldn't be practical on women swimmers.
Jimsley must now stop nattering on about the supposed male disadvantage of the new tech suit rules. Today, at Colonies Zones, he swam times in the 100 and 400 free that equalled or surpassed his tech suit clad times from Indy!
Jimsley must now stop nattering on about the supposed male disadvantage of the new tech suit rules. Today, at Colonies Zones, he swam times in the 100 and 400 free that equalled or surpassed his tech suit clad times from Indy!
Well, Jim, there goes that theory.
Jimsley must now stop nattering on about the supposed male disadvantage of the new tech suit rules. Today, at Colonies Zones, he swam times in the 100 and 400 free that equalled or surpassed his tech suit clad times from Indy!
Nice Jimbo! See, you don't need coverage. Maybe you have enough buoyance in the right places to aid your swimming? Should we have you tested for buoyance and permeability, according to the new suit rules?
Oh, for fort and jimbo, please stop the trash talking. You might be accused of being like a gang taking over a park.
Jimsley must now stop nattering on about the supposed male disadvantage of the new tech suit rules. Today, at Colonies Zones, he swam times in the 100 and 400 free that equalled or surpassed his tech suit clad times from Indy!
Hey Fort! Fill us in on the Fort vs Stud results! :agree:
I recently updated my motivational times chart -- by effectively dropping pre-tech suit 2006 SCY times and including last-hurrah 2010 SCY times. The times got faster pretty much across the board, which isn't surprising.
It occurred to me, though, that the 2006 vs 2010 Top Ten times make a pretty good measure of the effect of tech suit material. This doesn't directly address the Fortress vs Thornton argument, because it primarily measures the effect of rubber, not suit coverage. But it still makes for a pretty interesting comparison.
Times were 3.3% faster in 2010 than 2006, averaged across 2000+ times from ages from 18 to 79, men and women.
There is no gender effect:
Men's times got faster by 3.4%, women's by 3.3%.
There is no significant distance effect:
50s got faster by 3.4%
100s got faster by 3.5%
200s got faster by 3.0%
1650s got faster by 3.6%
There are some minor stroke-specific differences, although they disagree with the common wisdom that BR benefits most:
freestyle got faster by 3.1%
backstroke got faster by 3.0%
breaststroke got faster by 2.6%
butterfly got faster by 4.7%
IM got faster by 3.3%
Fascinating! Thanks for doing this analysis.
Correct me if I am wrong, but these times are based on the assumption that people in 2010 were racing in B70, Jaked, and other "floaty" body suits; and that in 2006, they were racing in textile body suits.
Since men no longer have the latter, and women have a modified version of the latter, I wonder if the changes seen this year--jammers vs. B70s as opposed to Fastskin body suits vs. B70s--will show more of a percentage change.
If you look at this year's LCM times, it does seem like a fairly significant drop off has occurred, but that could just be less competitors at Puerto Rico vs. Indy and similar effects.
A 3.3 percent change in a 60 second race translates into almost exactly 2 seconds.
So if you can swim a 100 in exactly a minute, your times, on average, will be 2 seconds slower this year (assuming the jammer business doesn't further slow down your performance) than last year.
If you swim a faster 100, your differential will be less than 2 seconds for "equivalency"--and if you swim a slower 100, the differential will be more than 2 seconds.
In any event, the new goal--for me, at least--is to do my old times less than 2 seconds slower per 100 than before!
