What is legal in the water. (Page 3)

Um, I know for a fact that I am in the water at least twice as long as those in the FOP.  So, it makes sense if they say if your in # temp for # length of time then you could get hypotherma that they would potentially have different temps.  Course, some AGers will come out of the water fairly quick as well.  It is way easier to get hypothermia then folks seem to think it is.  So, I am not sure exactly what the ratio is in the water, but if your out hiking say, and it is in the low 50's and a rain comes along that is considered ideal conditions for hypothermia.  And don't forget, your hiking, so you are being active during all this.

Actually I really am interested in opinions re long vs no sleave. That super deal goes away tomorrow. So it IS a mini-hyjack (again sorry)

For training purposes.
I have never swam/trained in wet suit (the old one I have would be impossible to swim in). Water temps around here are in mid to low 50's for about 3-4 months.
I am tolerant of cold...but hypothermia doesn't care

Excuse my ignorance plz...but have they gotten to the point where the shoulders are flexible enough to comfortably swim in with full sleaves?

Great site...I DO appreciate all the information.

John

Tires are about the only real difference. The rest have very minor impact. The things that matter the most are the aerodynamics, the VAST majority of your effort is expended in overcoming the air resistance. The "average" road bike will go right around 19-21 lbs, even the "weight weenie" bikes only get down to around 15, 16 lbs unless you're spending insane amounts of money. 4-6 lbs is not much at all, unless as you say you are doing a very hilly course.

In bike components, you have inexpensive, light and reliable. Pick two.

John

\

I swam in a full for the first time EVER at Alcatraz this year.  I rented it because I only own a sleeveless.  I was VERY worried about feeling restricted and was pleasantly surprised to feel NO restriction at all to my stroke.  But a lot of that comes down to the wetsuit and how it's made.  If you get some cheap piece of crap it won't bend and flex as well as a nice high end job.

Above 65+ there probably isn't a benefit to having longer sleeves...there is all that built in technology for "catching the water and propulsion" and whatnot...but if you don't believe in it then you aren't gaining anything else.

I don't think it took me any longer to get the long sleeve wetsuit off.  Most folks take the top half off on their way into T1, so you really don't lose any time.

I will admit one added benefit was that I didn't chafe on my inner arms like I usually do with my sleeveless.  The darn thing ate the crap out of my neck though.

I know a lot of people swear by their fulls...but there really are VERY few races out there where you truly NEED one.  Next season I will be in the market for a new wetsuit because I have an old, cheap piece of crap I bought before I knew I would do tri's longterm...and I have no idea if I'll get a full or a sleeveless....the verdict is still out.

Oh, and FWIW, I really think USAT needs to rethink their wetsuit legal standards.  I'd like to see the temp drop down to 72 or lower to use wetsuits.  You really just don't NEED one above that.  I'll compromise at 74.

John,

I use a sleeveless all season in MD. We start in April in 50 - 55 water temps and the sleeveless is good enough. It's a bit cold to start, but more on the head than on the arms. A neoprene cap would help more than sleeves, I think. In water 65+ the sleeveless is just right, and for me a full sleeve would be too warm, especially over 70. Thus, I go sleeveless and find it more versatile.

The folks I know who swim with full sleeves claim they are plenty comfortable, flexible, and non-restrictive for swimming. But by summer they are pretty hot to swim in.

I also have witnessed swimmers with very low body fat % swim in 50 degree water with a sleeveless and have problems with the cold, so you might consider your own body's response to being in cold water. For example, I carry some extra body fat and tolerate cold water very well, so sleeveless works well for me. A really lean person w/ low body fat may want a full sleeve.

Good luck.

are all triathlon courses flat? 

Wetsuits are legal because people get cold. Do I think that 78 is too high and is most likely just to give people more chances to use their wetsuits to boosts their times they get from the extra bouancy? Yes I most certainly do, I think 74 or 72 would be a better limit. However I'll use my mom as a example. We went snorkling a couple years back and the water was around 73. We were swimming around, not the effort of a triathlon, but moving around enough to generate some heat. When we got out, I was plenty warm and took off my wetsuit. My mom on the other hand was freezing, her lips were blue and fingers were purple. We had the exact same wetsuit. So it would have to be higher than what I would comfortably want to swim in, so lets say 76. That's not far off of the 78 limit and thinking like this one can see why the limit is 78. If someone has low iron or something they will get colder a lot easier.

Like most things people can't foresee into the future and see eactly how things are going to turn out and what kind of restrictions they should put on a rule. A good wetsuit will make anyone quicker. I don't get too much out of a wetsuit time wise as most people, but I get enough to where if it's 75 or so (and 800+m)I'm going to be putting on my wetsuit. I guess I'm not proud enough to give up easy time savings. I think the difference from a $200 well fitting wetsuit to a $600 well fitting wetsuit is pretty small. So I'm not really worried about these high tech wetsuits and don't see how you could ban them specifically anyway. Would I have to bring a receipt proving my all black wetsuit that looks like all the other wetsuits is indeed a legal one?

I'm at the point where I don't care what the rules are, what the conditions are, what the course is.. what I'm actually racing on/in. I'm good for anything. However, why would I want to give up time to other people if I don't mind paying for a wetsuit, some nicer wheels, some flats and a fancy bike. I certainly don't think those things make me fast, and I don't think they save anywhere near the time the company's say they do. I do think they do save some time though, and for me that's enough reason to a certain degree.

no, but you need an ave grade of i believe right around either 7 or 10 percent (sorry dont remember which) to have weight (unless it is insanely heavy) to outweigh aerodynamics. short of the alp'deluez tri i dont know many like that.

alcatraz is one of the few i know that is technical enough to warrent a road bike (but thats a whole diff argument).

just some numbers to throw around, and i'll try and find the tests from this, but two diff wind tunnel tests i remember seeing put the time savings/watts reduction for a 5 pound frame increase/decrease at the same as getting all the cables inside the frame of the bike/front end cables out of the way as much as you can.

think about how much more a 5 pound lighter bike costs vs hiding some cables?

in a race with a lot of turning, accelerating, things like bike weight matter more, but just about every triathlon in the country, there is very little resembling technical riding that needs to be done.

also FWIW, most mid level road bikes are as light or lighter than most comperable or higher level tri bikes.

tri bikes are meant to be aero first (or the good ones), and light 2nd.

you are trying to overcome air resitance, not gravity.

or think about it like this. a 5 pound drop in your weight will go a million times further than 5 pounds off a TT bike. your power to weight ratio will go up a LOT, you will be fitter, carrying less weight around, and be a smaller target for the wind. and its free;-)

BTW, I only ask since I don't know.  In Mountain bike racing, (and xterra), a lighter bike is going to make a difference in your time, and cyclocross or other skinny tired bikes are not allowed(you can use them you just won't get an official time). 

thats why i took the time to explain a bit.

i agree that in mtb and road cycling weight does matter a lot more.

but a TT/triathlon is by and large a very steady power output, there is not a ton of turning/sprinting/needs for huge excelerations, which are some areas where lighter bikes can help.

So, why is it I should be penalized for having a $7k bike when I have my Zipps on it when the guy/girl with the used frame with a rear wheel that has an $85 cover on it and a used old school Specialized Trispoke (which is the original Hed trispoke design basically) that he/she bought for $150 has almost the same aerodynamic advantage and time benefits?  Because my equipment is worth more and/or newer??

And my road bike weighs 14 pounds because it is my project bike with the express purpose of making it as insanely light as possible.  So I should not be allowed to race with it ..... even though it is nowhere even remotely aerodynamic??  Oh, but it is light, so it is not really appropriate for a race against the clock (never mind that my tri bike is over 19 pounds ..... and significantly faster).

All you have to do is look at the huge number of people riding P3's, TTX's and DA's that barely crack 18 mph in races to know that you really CAN'T buy speed in the big scheme of things.  Now take someone fighting for their AG or overall win and throw in the best equipment and yeah, those couple of extra seconds can make a big difference.  But most people are in it to test themself and their abilities against the clock and if they place, well that's just icing on the cake.

Triathlon is really a sport for the affluent because there is so much gear.  The average triathlete probably does make in the $80 - 150k/year range with a large number well over that (doctors, lawyers, financial analysts, etc).  All you have to do is look at the fact that celebrities that want to get "sports" recognition tend to go toward triathlon and the CEO challenge that exists REQUIRES that you are a boss of a company that makes over $5 mil. a year.

But you do NOT have to have money to compete and do well.  You have to train, just like the affluent do.  And if you have the talent and the drive, even on mediocre equipment you will kick everyone else's azz.

I'm not rich.  In fact, I'm paycheck to paycheck.  But I have hook ups from my years of working in shops and I have years of experience as a mechanic so I can do all my own work on my bikes - even the really complex stuff.  I simply prefer to spend extra income that I have on bike toys.  So I should be penalized for that???  It still wouldn't matter if I was riding a cheaper bike - I'd still kick most of the field's azz on the bike.  That's not being cocky, it is the simple truth.  I've got close to 18 years of riding in my legs at a pretty decent competition level.  You put Armstrong on a Huffy, he'll still kick all of our azzes in a TT.  It's almost all about the engine.  When you reach the pinnacle, then equipment can play a roll in eeking out the last few watts.

i have nothing else useful to ad at the moment, just wanted to say rick, i love your new useage of azz

Nice post Rick, I agree withnearly all of it.

I'm a pretty frugal triathlete, look to NOT buy the best I can afford, but to buy the best value in equipment. My whole rig (DA P2, HED3 front, Renn 575 rear) was put together for well below half of what Rick cites for his, yet I manage to put up Top 10 (NOT 10%) bike splits in our local triathlons. I would venture to say my P2 adds little to what my $1300 2003 Dual gave me. Get the basic tri bike that fits you well in an aerodynamic position, everything else just brings a marginal advantage. 

Oh, and then, Ride Lots! That's where the true difference is to be had.

compared to the cost of other tri related equipment a wet-suit is nothing, I paid the same amount for my xterra sleeveless suit than I did my last pair of asics running shoes. should we also all have to run in $20 dollar K-mart sneakers? does a wet-suit make you faster in the water? sure, but wearing stability shoes makes an overpronator faster and more comfortable as well. should we all have to run in flat shoes? many people have mentioned that it's the rider not the bike, it's also the swimmer not the wet-suit.

I ride a $300 dollar POS because it's all I can afford and it is my current limiter but that shouldn't stop others from riding a $4000 Cervelo if they can afford it. I save my money and one day I'll have a proper tri bike. btw, it's no secret that triathlon is a rich man's sport...here's a quote from sport business journal "The 60,000 subscribers of Triathlete magazine have a median income of $122,600, according to co-owner Mitch Thrower, with 93.4 percent earning more than $100,000. Average income among athletes competing in the 22 official Ironman events: nearly $160,000."

as for whether wet-suits should be worn at all...I did the Steamboat Springs Int'l last August. that race is in the Rocky Mountains at 7500 feet in elevation, water temp was low 60's and air temp was low 50's. people were being pulled out of the water left and right due to the cold even with wet suits on. so bouyancy or not the suits were required to keep from freezing. I only wore my suit once this year at the season opener in early Feb because in a sprint you lose more time taking the suit off than you gain by wearing it.

one last note and I'll quit my rant. someone earlier mentioned people using snorkles in the swim. they are a legal piece of equipment because they do not aid in forward propulsion, only help a person breath. an aero dynamic bike and aero helmet help the rider cheat wind resistance but don't give forward propulsion...it's the same thing, both legal but not everybody uses them.

you guys ever try swimming hard with a snorkle? not very much fun, not to mention you cant see where you are going, i would think it would slow you down a lot.

Your original question was, "what is legal?" That question has been answered - its in the rulebook.

As to the discussion on Equipment = Speed, and the more expensive equipment = faster speed, well, that is only true to a point.

Triathlons are an individual test of fitness. 99% of the participants in a typical race don't have a chance of being on the podium. For most of us, we are simply racing against ourselves. Think of it as racing against your clone.

So, you can ask yourself these questions:
Am I going to swim faster than my clone with or without a wetsuit?
Am I going to ride faster than my clone on a tri bike vs. a road bike?
Am I going to run faster than my clone in real running shoes or in tennis shoes?

I have seen people 30 pounds overweight riding a $3000 bike. They are certainly faster than they would be on a $200 Schwinn, but they would also be faster if they lost 30 pounds. Losing weight is not cheating, so why would wearing a wetsuit or riding a nice bike be cheating?

That being said, there is a universal law in all sports that says, "There will always be somebody faster." That means you can have the most expensive equipment in the world, and you can be in the best possible physical shape in your entire life, and there will STILL be somebody else that is faster than you. That comes down to genetics and natural talent.

So, I say, train as hard as you can, get the best equipment you can afford, and don't worry about whatever everyone else has. We all do this for fun anyway, right?