swimsuits
Swimming is a body moving forward through water, cycling is a body moving forward through air, same idea just different mediums.
The main argument about the swimsuits and their material is that it appears they aid buoyancy, which may not help a cyclist much. However it’s also said they lessen drag with their so-called v-shape denticles, while the stretch of the material apparently improves aerodynamic shape and aids muscle compression.
Might the same materials therefore also be useful for cyclists, especially in TTs, where a skinsuit can be worn and a basic position is kept (so you can orientate the denticles appropriately) ?
The main argument about the swimsuits and their material is that it appears they aid buoyancy, which may not help a cyclist much. However it’s also said they lessen drag with their so-called v-shape denticles, while the stretch of the material apparently improves aerodynamic shape and aids muscle compression.
Might the same materials therefore also be useful for cyclists, especially in TTs, where a skinsuit can be worn and a basic position is kept (so you can orientate the denticles appropriately) ?
0
Comments
-
Yes, although the effect would be a hell of a lot less with air than water.0
-
You could test it if you bought an iBike Aero. Quite close to having your own personal wind tunnel, so they say.<hr>
<h6>What\'s the point of going out? We\'re just going to end up back here anyway</h6>0 -
You can test it with any power meter...0
-
True. But you'd get instant results with the iBike and it would calculate your CDA for you. I'd love one.<hr>
<h6>What\'s the point of going out? We\'re just going to end up back here anyway</h6>0 -
I don't think the compression effects will be as helpful for cyclists as swimmers. When you swim, a lot of the muscles are relaxed a lot of the time, and the compression from the suit really helps to reduce how much they wobble about. For example, when doing a flutter kick, the calves are relaxed because you want the feet to flop about, and the wobbling of the relaxed calves can cause a lot of drag. I don't think the same really applies to cycling, because you aren't moving unused muscle groups violently back and forth in the same way.0
-
Im surprised they are banning the suits, it gives fina a conveniant excuse to explain the times people are swimming.0
-
knedlicky wrote:Swimming is a body moving forward through water, cycling is a body moving forward through air, same idea just different mediums.
The main argument about the swimsuits and their material is that it appears they aid buoyancy, which may not help a cyclist much. However it’s also said they lessen drag with their so-called v-shape denticles, while the stretch of the material apparently improves aerodynamic shape and aids muscle compression.
Might the same materials therefore also be useful for cyclists, especially in TTs, where a skinsuit can be worn and a basic position is kept (so you can orientate the denticles appropriately) ?
Hi there.
Most of the 'science' in the press releases for the swimming speedsuits concentrated on the hydrodynamic properties to divert attention from the fact that the real improvement came from trapping air under the suit and improving buoyancy - which is illegal!
I seem to remember Nike branded dimpled skinsuits to create a boundary layer and improve aerodyamics. Allegedly. You'd gain a lot more by the simple things like reducing your frontal area and making sure that there aren't any creases flapping in the wind.
Cheers, Andy0 -
The British Cycling track team at the Olympics wore suits which were "rubberized", though they're not using them again until London 2012. Similarly New Zealand had rubberized suits at the World Track Championships this year.0
-
stagehopper wrote:The British Cycling track team at the Olympics wore suits which were "rubberized", though they're not using them again until London 2012. Similarly New Zealand had rubberized suits at the World Track Championships this year.
Was about to say the same thing0 -
rubber suits.... hmmm... remind me again what women on the team wore them?
**************************************************
www.dotcycling.com
***************************************************0 -
stagehopper wrote:The British Cycling track team at the Olympics wore suits which were "rubberized", though they're not using them again until London 2012. Similarly New Zealand had rubberized suits at the World Track Championships this year.
They may not be allowed to wear them by then as there were plans to ban anything that wasn't available to competitors & Joe Public. The suits were all destroyed after Olympics so that nobody could get their hands on the technology.0 -
You'd have to be traveling damn fast for that level of tech to have any effec...wait they are traveling damn fast.. In track events I can see it giving a slight edge. In road events, not so much, so much time is behind another rider and the wall of air is broken. Otherwise they'd ride using TT gear everyday.0
-
Victoria Pendleton0
-
A lot of teams are wearing suits with different fabrics in different places - the Nike ones of a few years ago were on of the earlier versions but this year I'm pretty sure that Cervelo and a few others had pretty hi-tech stuff.
The new shorts from Skins are supposed to be good - with their bio-acceleration technology. Supposedly the decreased vibration of muscles has a significant effect on fatigue - which you can see would make a big difference in something like Paris-Roubaix.I'm left handed, if that matters.0 -
Apparently they can take upto an hour just to get into one of the suits, and it adding buoyancy is the biggest benefit. I also heard it's not uncommon to destroy a few when trying to get them on.
I can just imagine big Phelpsey "quick coach, I've burst another one"!!!!!!
:oops: :oops:0 -
Isn't water 1000 times more dense than air though? So whilst "every little helps", the differences these suits make in swimming are massive compared to the difference they would make in cycling.0
-
Yes, please see the 1st reply.0
-
-
AO1504 wrote:stagehopper wrote:The British Cycling track team at the Olympics wore suits which were "rubberized", though they're not using them again until London 2012. Similarly New Zealand had rubberized suits at the World Track Championships this year.
They may not be allowed to wear them by then as there were plans to ban anything that wasn't available to competitors & Joe Public. The suits were all destroyed after Olympics so that nobody could get their hands on the technology.
they could get around that pretty easily just by saying at the time of oylpics that you can buy the GB stuff its just itll cost £2 grand or something so you can buy them but no one will0 -
JC.152 wrote:they could get around that pretty easily just by saying at the time of oylpics that you can buy the GB stuff its just itll cost £2 grand or something so you can buy them but no one will
But that means the competition gets access to the technology and there are people willing to spend thousands of pounds on bikes that will save seconds in a race i'm sure there would be some that would pay that price for a skinsuit that will shave seconds of their time.
The main problem would probably be they'd have to have the skinsuits available in advance for some form of inspection / proof of production and I suspect the costs of this would be frightening or not financially viable for public production.0 -
We must read different journals - what I read did concentrate on the buoyancy improvement, which is why I wanted to mention the drag aspect.andrewgturnbull wrote:Most of the 'science' in the press releases for the swimming speedsuits concentrated on the hydrodynamic properties to divert attention from the fact that the real improvement came from trapping air under the suit and improving buoyancy - which is illegal!
I seem to remember Nike branded dimpled skinsuits to create a boundary layer and improve aerodyamics. Allegedly. You'd gain a lot more by the simple things like reducing your frontal area and making sure that there aren't any creases flapping in the wind.
Cheers, Andy
I felt less certain about thinking 'buoyancy in cycling' – one would lose traction and be more subject to wind, although influence of weight when climbing would be less, especially with a wind from behind.
I agree with you that that reducing frontal area is the most important. Apparently, a better posture at 200 watt can increase average speed by 4 km/h on the flat, a significant difference. 'Reducing frontal area' is one of the techniques I’ve used to gain time on descents, although I’m 10-20 kg lighter than most other riders and so when one might expect heavier riders to have an advantage.
Still, I read a report in a cycling magazine which concluded that, on the flat, 73% of ‘resistance’ is air against rider and bike, so I imagine the design and material of suits which pro riders wear is very well worth investigating.
A lot of bike advertising is orientated around the advantages of saving weight, which (according to what I read in the report) are only estimated at 0.025 km/h of increased speed per kilo weight saved on the flat, and only 0.09 km/h of increased speed per kilo weight saved on a 10% climb. If true, these differences are so small*, the cycling industry must surely soon investigate the clothing possibilities (and the price of carbon frames soon fall!)
* If I've estimated correctly from the info in the report, weight savings make less than 2 secs per kg difference for a 50 km TT, and at most 10 secs per kg difference for a 10 km climb (like at the end of a a stage when up to then all contenders are together).0
