Water Temp v wetsuit

I don't care that a RD sets rules to increase participation. At the end of the day, the more people that participate in my sport means that more events will be put on, which means that I get to race more. Races that don't get support die. In my naive and ideal world, people will not enter races for which they are not prepared.Excellent point. Assuming an objective is to get more people participating in the sport or as the USMS mission states “To promote health, wellness, fitness and competition for adults through swimming” then let’s do what we can to get more people in the water. the bicycle analogy is encumber by the fact that a bike is required for cycling, whereas a wetsuit is not required for swimming.I agree the bicycle analogy falls short, so let’s go with the shoe analogy. In most tri’s shoes are not required for the run. However shoes (like wetsuits) do provide safety and competitive advantage to those who wear them. And with the exception of the Barefoot Running Society, I doubt there are many folks who grouse about them shoed runners. All I'm saying is that they allow swimmers to "swim" in conditions they are not trained for. This is a conversation we have been having for a long time. The fundamental question behind the statement is, is this a good or bad thing? Is it a bad thing if I can get people to come swim in the lake at 55F, in a wetsuit, by telling them that if I can do it without a wetsuit you can do it with one? It gets swimmers in the water and lets me train; win/win! Also, if adding a wetsuit division to an open water race makes it economical viable for the race director is this a bad thing? On the other hand I completely support events that choose to maintain elite standards. Part of the challenge of swims such as Lac Memphramagog, the English Channel, the Irish Channel, Manhattan Island, Catalina Channel is cold water preparation. In fact, I’d be disappointed if the CSA started giving recognition to people swimming the English Channel in a wetsuit.

I don't care that a RD sets rules to increase participation. At the end of the day, the more people that participate in my sport means that more events will be put on, which means that I get to race more. Races that don't get support die. In my naive and ideal world, people will not enter races for which they are not prepared.Excellent point. Assuming an objective is to get more people participating in the sport or as the USMS mission states “To promote health, wellness, fitness and competition for adults through swimming” then let’s do what we can to get more people in the water. the bicycle analogy is encumber by the fact that a bike is required for cycling, whereas a wetsuit is not required for swimming.I agree the bicycle analogy falls short, so let’s go with the shoe analogy. In most tri’s shoes are not required for the run. However shoes (like wetsuits) do provide safety and competitive advantage to those who wear them. And with the exception of the Barefoot Running Society, I doubt there are many folks who grouse about them shoed runners. All I'm saying is that they allow swimmers to "swim" in conditions they are not trained for. This is a conversation we have been having for a long time. The fundamental question behind the statement is, is this a good or bad thing? Is it a bad thing if I can get people to come swim in the lake at 55F, in a wetsuit, by telling them that if I can do it without a wetsuit you can do it with one? It gets swimmers in the water and lets me train; win/win! Also, if adding a wetsuit division to an open water race makes it economical viable for the race director is this a bad thing? On the other hand I completely support events that choose to maintain elite standards. Part of the challenge of swims such as Lac Memphramagog, the English Channel, the Irish Channel, Manhattan Island, Catalina Channel is cold water preparation. In fact, I’d be disappointed if the CSA started giving recognition to people swimming the English Channel in a wetsuit.