Olympic Men's 1500 Free

[ambresolaire]

I'd like to put a bet on Erik Vendt to win the 1500 Free in Beijing. Does any one know where I could do so? I'd like to have a bet now before the US Olympic Trials because if he does something special there his odds will shorten considerably.
I know I'll be able to use betfair when the games are on, but their markets don't usually appear until very close to each event (I know because I bet on Crocker to win the 100 Fly last time - he was ill and Phelps beat him by 4 /100 of a second if I remember correctly).
Any gambling swimclubbers want to give me some odds? i.e. you lay Vendt (it's gambling terminology.....;)) and tell me how much you will take at your odds, we haggle a bit and come to a deal.

Some of you might think it's a pretty off the wall bet given the competition in the 1500. If you do, give me some odds!

Cheers, ambresolaire

[Juicy Lucy]

I can't see you getting good odds. Bookmakers know nothing about swimming, so if they were to take your bet they'd be careful to check his form first.

They will see he's a double Olympic silver medallist and was the first American to break 15 minutes in the 1,500m Freestyle, so they won't be paying out much, even if he wins in Beijing.

[ambresolaire]

Betfair is a market that doesn't involve bookmakers. It just matches punters willing to lay and punters willing to bet. That's where I will go because UK high street bookies don't usually have any markets on swimming at all, even in the Olympics. William Hill has a special bets department that you can call but they rarely take bets on swimming.
I think Vendt is a long shot - I know he was the first American to break 15 minutes, but that must have been over 20 years after Salnikov first did it, and my guess is that there must be 12 or so guys out there now still swimming who have broken 15 minutes, so it's not that special any more (in world level swimming, just to clarify, before everyone flames me). Vendt also won his two silvers in 400 IM, so I'm not sure that would bring his odds down (apart from in the eyes of a not-very-clued-up bookie). In addition the absolute god of 1500m, Hackett, reigning Olympic champion (twice), is still in the event and just about back to his best.
So while I obviously think Vendt has a chance at gold I think I'm entitled to some pretty good odds. I want it all, don't I?

[Juicy Lucy]

I think Vendt will win too, then I'll end up feeling sorry for Hackett.

[NotVeryFast]

Save your money ambresolaire, he can't win it.

People are limited by their hull speed, which is a function of the length of the vessel in the water, i.e. their height. This is based on laws of physics relating to wave propagation in water. When you swim you create a wave with a wavelength equal to your height, and this wave dissipates away from you. However the speed that this wave moves is related to the wavelength, with waves of a faster wavelength moving faster. When you reach a swimming speed that is faster than the wave can move away from you, it's like trying to break through the sound barrier, and takes a huge amount of extra energy compared to swimming below your hull speed.

Hull speed (m/s) = 0.6894 x sqrt (length in feet)

5' 10" = 1.665 m/s = 60.06 secs per 100m
6' 0" = 1.688 m/s = 59.24 secs per 100m
6' 6" = 1.758 m/s = 56.88 secs per 100m

Now, you can save some time on the turns, so we could reduce all those by 2 secs per 100, say, which would get us a time of 14:30.9 for a 5' 10" swimmer (such as Erik) to do 1500m if they swam at their hull speed for the entire race. In practice, this simply cannot be done. Grant Hackett, on the other hand, can swim the entire race several seconds per 100m within his hull speed and still do 14:30.

I recently read the book "Four Champions One Gold Medal" and an interesting snippet was that they said Brian Goodell back in 1977 was the last sub 6' swimmer to set a freestyle world record. I'm sure that what I've explained above about hull speed is the reason why.

Incidentally, this is also why shorter swimmers can be competitive at breaststroke, because the 100m breaststroke WR is still slower than the hull speed for a 5' 10" swimmer.

[Linny]

Save your money ambresolaire, he can't win it.

People are limited by their hull speed, which is a function of the length of the vessel in the water, i.e. their height. This is based on laws of physics relating to wave propagation in water. When you swim you create a wave with a wavelength equal to your height, and this wave dissipates away from you. However the speed that this wave moves is related to the wavelength, with waves of a faster wavelength moving faster. When you reach a swimming speed that is faster than the wave can move away from you, it's like trying to break through the sound barrier, and takes a huge amount of extra energy compared to swimming below your hull speed.

Hull speed (m/s) = 0.6894 x sqrt (length in feet)

5' 10" = 1.665 m/s = 60.06 secs per 100m
6' 0" = 1.688 m/s = 59.24 secs per 100m
6' 6" = 1.758 m/s = 56.88 secs per 100m

Now, you can save some time on the turns, so we could reduce all those by 2 secs per 100, say, which would get us a time of 14:30.9 for a 5' 10" swimmer (such as Erik) to do 1500m if they swam at their hull speed for the entire race. In practice, this simply cannot be done. Grant Hackett, on the other hand, can swim the entire race several seconds per 100m within his hull speed and still do 14:30.

I recently read the book "Four Champions One Gold Medal" and an interesting snippet was that they said Brian Goodell back in 1977 was the last sub 6' swimmer to set a freestyle world record. I'm sure that what I've explained above about hull speed is the reason why.

Incidentally, this is also why shorter swimmers can be competitive at breaststroke, because the 100m breaststroke WR is still slower than the hull speed for a 5' 10" swimmer.NVF, whilst the theory is sound the figures are rubbish, too many assumptions. Anyway, if you are so confident, perhaps you could offer odds of 100 to 1 in which case I'll put some money on too.

[2.tso]

i cant see grant loosing this year!

nvf based on your hull speed numbers what time can eric vendt to then???

[selkie]

For the big (make that small) case of engine quality trumping hull speed, check out the girls on either side of Janet Evans here:

http://www.usaswimming.org/USASWeb/ViewMiscArticle.aspx?TabId=170&Alias=Rainbow&Lang=en&mid=229&ItemId=41

And the line on Vendt has always been that he's got an amazing engine and tolerance for pain in training. Don't know if he's going to win in Beijing, or even if he's going to make it out of the US Olympic Trials, but he's the shorter guy who has proven his height doesn't matter so much.

[NotVeryFast]

NVF, whilst the theory is sound the figures are rubbish, too many assumptions. Anyway, if you are so confident, perhaps you could offer odds of 100 to 1 in which case I'll put some money on too.
The figures are not rubbish, they're the exact speed at which a wave of that wavelength is propagated in water, and the implied time per 100m for a vessel of that length moving in water at its hull speed. Yes, there are some slight approximations, e.g. a person points their toes in the water vs having their feet flat to measure their height, but it really isn't going to be that far off. If you look at people swimming in various events, you can actually see the wave of this wavelength in the water, and in the mens 200m free, for example, you can tell they're exceeding their hull speed because the front of the head gets a bit ahead of the front wave peak.

I'm not going to offer anyone odds, though. For starters 100:1 is totally excessive, countries could boycott the games, people could get injured or ill etc. These things happen much more often than the once every 400 years you'd need to break even on odds of 100:1. Secondly, I would be unable to take someone's money off them if he didn't win, I'd just feel too bad about doing so. As presumably the other person would expect me to pay them money in the event of him winning, offering odds would be pointless. I'm happy to agree to a different kind of wager, where if he doesn't win, you have to start a thread on swimclub about how clever I am, whereas if he does win, I have to do the same about how clever you are ;)

nvf based on your hull speed numbers what time can eric vendt to then???
Linny is right that the absolute numbers are approximations, I can't say precisely what the limit is for a 5' 10" person, but given the various facts, it seems likely that the current 1500m WR is either close to, or beyond, the limit of what a 5' 10" person can do. The figures also show that the advantage of being half a foot taller when swimming around current 1500 WR pace is absolutely huge, so it just seems extremely unlikely that someone 5' 10" tall can win Olympic gold in any pool freestyle event (10km open water they'd have more chance).

For the big (make that small) case of engine quality trumping hull speed, check out the girls on either side of Janet Evans here
Janet Evans was 5' 5", so her hull speed would be 1.604 m/s = 1:02.33 secs per 100m, around 1:00.33 allowing for time gained on turns. Her 1500 WR was 15:52, so well within her hull speed. I suspect hull speed isn't as much of a limiter for women due to them having less power than men, so are less able to achieve that speed in the water.

[chris_lamb]

You seem to be simplifying a little too much here. While "hull speed" will have some affect there are many other factors to consider - how efficient the stroke is, how streamlined the stroke is, getting the timing of the swim right.

All other things being equal the taller swimmer may find it easier, but in reality all other things aren't equal and many other factors will influence the result - saying he can't win is certainly not true.

[Woodward]

I don't think Vendt will win. And he hasn't even qualified for Beijing yet. Larsen typically swims slow training times and LaTourette may end up bumping one of these two out.

But he's certainly capable of a Top 5 or even a medal placing at the Olympics. A win is not impossible. But I think it's unlikely.

The yards record he broke last night in my opinion was a vulnerable record. It was held by Robert Margalis. The best distance swimmers rarely peak for college meets because many had the luxury of being ahead of their rivals enough to win at NCAAs. I don't think Jensen has ever fully tapered for a yards race since he was an age grouper. That doesn't take away from Erik's effort though. It's a great time.

NVF's application of Hull speed physics to swimming is not new. While a few coaches buy into this "limitation" it's certainly not widely accepted in swimming circles. Cotterell has called it "complete nonsense." Water displacement is not the same for swimmers as it is in the hulls of sea vessels. The main issue being not the fact the humans are unlikely to exceed "hull speed" (which is true) just the unlikelihood that any swimmer would ever get that close enough to doing so for it to ever be an issue. In other words it's the formula not the concept that is disputed. Also, in the past distance swimmers have always been shorter than sprinters on average. That has only begun to change in the last decade or so. Some believe this may be due in part to the buoyancy factor of suits equalizing the weight disadvantage.

[Bully]

If these are the same drag/resistance formulas which are used for speed boat design, I would consider that they are used to work out the required length of the boat to achieve a certain high speed. they aren't intended to work out if the boat is a certain length it will only achieve a certain speed, as the shape of the hull and more importantly the power of the engine is a major factor.
If this is the case you are not considering the power of the swimmer (the engine) and the technique of the swimmer (the shape of the hull), which is more or less what Chris Lamb is saying, I think?
Furthermore, I would have thought that a taller swimmer has an advantage over a smaller swimmer due to the length of the oars (the arms)?

[NotVeryFast]

If these are the same drag/resistance formulas which are used for speed boat design, I would consider that they are used to work out the required length of the boat to achieve a certain high speed. they aren't intended to work out if the boat is a certain length it will only achieve a certain speed, as the shape of the hull and more importantly the power of the engine is a major factor.
Correct, the hull speed can be exceeded, it just isn't energy efficient to do so.

If this is the case you are not considering the power of the swimmer (the engine) and the technique of the swimmer (the shape of the hull), which is more or less what Chris Lamb is saying, I think?
Clearly having more power is always better, and better technique is always better, but the shape of the hull only affects your form drag, not wave drag which is the problem once you exceed the hull speed. The problem a shorter swimmer has is that they hit their hull speed at a lower speed, and are then expending more energy to swim at the same speed as a taller swimmer. This doesn't make it impossible for them to win, but they will need to be able to deliver that amount of extra power to do so. It's like having a cycle race where one cyclist has a bike with a device fitted that means the cyclist has to deliver 50 watts more power than anyone else to cycle at the same speed. If they can deliver that extra power, they can still win, but why would they be able to deliver so much more power than anyone else?

Furthermore, I would have thought that a taller swimmer has an advantage over a smaller swimmer due to the length of the oars (the arms)?
Yes, though only if they have the "engine" to make use of them. E.g. a cyclist can have as long a gear ratio as they like, but if the gear is too long it makes it harder not easier.

Incidentally, you don't see quite the same height advantage in running, despite the fact having longer legs will give you a longer stride. I believe this difference is due to the absence of the height-related drag components that exist in swimming.

[selkie]

Once you get to about 800M and above, there's a preference for shorter runners because lighter runners generally perform better than heavier runners in endurance events, regardless of wind resistence.

It becomes about how much you're hauling with you around the track or course.

[Linny]

The figures are not rubbish, they're the exact speed at which a wave of that wavelength is propagated in water, and the implied time per 100m for a vessel of that length moving in water at its hull speed. Yes, there are some slight approximations, e.g. a person points their toes in the water vs having their feet flat to measure their height, but it really isn't going to be that far off. I think they are. Longer boats are faster, fine, and for sure longer people are faster too but if and only if all other things are equal. Thing is they aren't - we aren't boats.

[NotVeryFast]

I think they are. Longer boats are faster, fine, and for sure longer people are faster too but if and only if all other things are equal. Thing is they aren't - we aren't boats.
I don't think you or Chris are understanding what it means to exceed your hull speed, and what a fundamental limit it represents. This (http://www.cncphotoalbum.com/technical/hullspeed/hullspeed.htm?stuff=6) is quite a good little article about it. Note their formula is different to mine because of the different between knots and m/s.

If it isn't relevant to human swimmers, it seems like quite a coincidence that if we calculate the hull speed of a 6' 5" vessel (the height of Ian Thorpe), convert to 400m swimming time, allowing for 1 sec for each of the 7 turns, and 2 secs for the start, we get a time of 3:40.05 compared to his WR of 3:40.08.

The same calculation for a 5' 10" swimmer gives a time of 3:51.23, so Erik Vendt's 3:47.53 from 2007 is very impressive indeed, more so than Ian Thorpe's WR IMO, but if hull speed physics does apply to swimmers, then it would take a disproportionately large increase in power output for a 5' 10" swimmer to go faster than this.

Has a 5' 6" swimmer ever broken 15 minutes for LC 1500 free? I calculate that would be roughly equivalent to Erik Vendt breaking the current LC 1500 WR.

[Woodward]

Tae Hwan Park is an inch shorter than Vendt.

[chris_lamb]

I don't think you or Chris are understanding what it means to exceed your hull speed, and what a fundamental limit it represents. This (http://www.cncphotoalbum.com/technical/hullspeed/hullspeed.htm?stuff=6) is quite a good little article about it. Note their formula is different to mine because of the different between knots and m/s.

Unfortunately that page isn't loading so I can't read it. I don't claim to fully understand but I think I understand enough how it works with boats (with a fairly regular shape designed in a certain way) to say I don't think it applies quite so directly to swimmers (with irregular shaped bodies and lots of moving parts). There are just too many variables to be able to apply the theory and expect a sensible outcome.

[Linny]

I don't think you or Chris are understanding what it means to exceed your hull speed, and what a fundamental limit it represents. This (http://www.cncphotoalbum.com/technical/hullspeed/hullspeed.htm?stuff=6) is quite a good little article about it. Note their formula is different to mine because of the different between knots and m/s.I think I am understanding perfectly well thank you. I'm suggesting to you that your argument is flawed because we are not fixed rigid objects in the water.If it isn't relevant to human swimmers, it seems like quite a coincidence that if we calculate the hull speed of a 6' 5" vessel (the height of Ian Thorpe), convert to 400m swimming time, allowing for 1 sec for each of the 7 turns, and 2 secs for the start, we get a time of 3:40.05 compared to his WR of 3:40.08.So are you suggesting that there is nowhere left to go with this record unless someone 6'6" comes along? Nonsense, it is a coincidence that is all. Why did you pick 400 free? What are you going to think if Tae Hwan Park swims faster? An anomoly? Something we don't understand perhaps? If you want to talk physics I have an excellent paper written by Huub Toussaint on drag but it is too big to be uploaded and I can't find it on the web. I'll send it to you. I haven't tried to understand all the math, it isn't important to me, but it doesn't look complicated and the associated explanations are written in an easy way for simpletons like me to understand so I looked at them instead - oh and the pictures. :D

This is a very short extract.With an arbitrary height of 2 m, a hull speed of 1.77 m· s−1 is found. Since real maximum swim speed is about 2 m· s−1 this suggests that: 1) humans seem to be able to swim faster than the hull speed; and 2) wave-making resistance matters at competitive swimming speed (see fig. 10). Apparently, the ‘nonstationarity’ of the hull of the swimmer (technique) has an effect on wave drag. In line with these suggestions it has been observed that proficient swimmers create waves of lower amplitude than less skilled swimmers (Takamoto et al., 1985, see fig. 11).So, we are already swimming faster than we should be able to without having to expend huge amounts of energy if we are swimming at speeds of above our hull speed. It isn't said as such but it seems to me that if "humans seem to be able to swim faster than the hull speed" the only sensible conclusion to draw is that the calculated hull speed is wrong or it is not the limiting factor that you would have us believe because of other factors that come into play. We know that if calculated correctly it is a limit so when you consider that from the paper wave drag appears to make up less than 50% of total drag even at 2.0mps (;))which is supposedly already too fast then I don't see how we can have reached that limit yet because at some point it should exponentially increase but that wasn't seen in practice and especially when kick was used.

NVF, I don't claim to understand it and I am sure that height is a factor but I'm convinced that simple math used for fixed shapes doesn't work for swimmers.The same calculation for a 5' 10" swimmer gives a time of 3:51.23, so Erik Vendt's 3:47.53 from 2007 is very impressive indeed, more so than Ian Thorpe's WR IMO, but if hull speed physics does apply to swimmers, then it would take a disproportionately large increase in power output for a 5' 10" swimmer to go faster than this.This is only, only true if all other things are equal and your assumptions are correct. I still don't think that they aren't equal and I still think that your assumptions are wrong.Has a 5' 6" swimmer ever broken 15 minutes for LC 1500 free? I calculate that would be roughly equivalent to Erik Vendt breaking the current LC 1500 WR.You should put your money where your mouth is then. :p

You can read it here (http://www.fcdef.up.pt/BMS2006/_arquivo/invited_speakers/toussaint-biomech.pdf)

[Juicy Lucy]

Has a 5' 6" swimmer ever broken 15 minutes for LC 1500 free? I calculate that would be roughly equivalent to Erik Vendt breaking the current LC 1500 WR.

Janet Evans, the 5'5" women's world record holder at the 1500-metre freestyle, swam the distance in 15:52.1 minutes.

Doesn't this put her in with a shout?

[Baker]

Whatever. Height obviously has an advantage in swimming - even if it is just being able to touch the wall from further away on turns or being the extra few inches in front from the dive.

To put physical limitations on how fast a swimmer can swim according to his height is ridiculous.

As Eric Cantona said: "... I don't trust people who are constantly over-intellectualising things, it kills passion..."

I doubt Vendt is analysing his height very much.

[NotVeryFast]

So, we are already swimming faster than we should be able to without having to expend huge amounts of energy if we are swimming at speeds of above our hull speed.
Correct, the hull speed can be exceeded, it just isn't energy efficient to do so.
Thanks for the article, Linny. I don't really see a contradiction in there with what I have said, indeed his figure 10 is an excellent illustration of the bow wave and quarter wave being formed with a wavelength equal to the height of the swimmer.

As I already said, you can exceed your hull speed, just like a boat can. It's a question of how long you can sustain the effort level for. The article seems to be interested in 50m and 100m swimming. In terms of WRs, the crossover point seems to be around 400m. Perhaps some day people will become able to sustain that level of exertion for 1500m, but at the present time, it doesn't seem to be possible.

Janet Evans, the 5'5" women's world record holder at the 1500-metre freestyle, swam the distance in 15:52.1 minutes.
Janet Evans was 5' 5", so her hull speed would be 1.604 m/s = 1:02.33 secs per 100m, around 1:00.33 allowing for time gained on turns. Her 1500 WR was 15:52, so well within her hull speed. I suspect hull speed isn't as much of a limiter for women due to them having less power than men, so are less able to achieve that speed in the water.
I think I already answered your point, JL ^

To put physical limitations on how fast a swimmer can swim according to his height is ridiculous.
Would you say the same thing about a high jumper? I suspect many people find the idea of height being a fundamental limiting factor in swimming objectionable at least partly because they don't want it to be true.

[Woodward]

What odds for 5ft 9 in Park winning gold this summer?

I've yet to see a trawler in a fastskin.

[Verity]

Guys

as a comparatively short (and squat) 5ft 4inches does all this mean I should cancel my 15th comeback now!

V

[NotVeryFast]

What odds for 5ft 9 in Park winning gold this summer?
Obviously it depends what time gold is won in, if it's a slow race it becomes more possible. So what I should really have said is that I don't think Vendt can win it if it's won in the time I think it should be won in. Grant Hackett said a while back he thought it would take 14:20 to win in Beijing, and I can't see Vendt (or Park) going 14:20. If it's won in 14:50, then they have a chance, possibly even 14:40.

Re Chris's point about people being irregularly shaped, I think this would only make wave drag worse not better. If they could improve it by making boats shaped like people, I expect they would have done it by now. The longest (fastest) wavelength you can hope to create is the length of your water line, any protrusions in between are just going to create waves of shorter wavelength which will reduce your hull speed.

As for bodies having moving parts, yes, this will have some effect. The paper Linny linked to postulates that pressure drag may be reduced by kicking, which seems plausible. The arms being extended may have an effect on pressure drag as well, but it should be obvious that they will not impact wave drag because the swimmer attempts to keep the arms streamlined below the surface when they are in front, whereas to affect wave drag the arms would need to be at the surface, in a non-streamlined position to create a bow wave at the hands. It seems implausible that the reduction in wave drag from doing this would gain you more than you would lose in friction and pressure drag.

What does need to be explained is how someone like Park can swim at 1.70 m/s in the middle of a 400m race (I calculated this from video footage of his world champs race), which on the face of it would seem to be above the hull speed of 1.65 m/s predicted for a water line of length 5' 9". I would not have a problem with this, but observation of him swimming at that speed, and the wave patterns around him, suggests that he is not exceeding his hull speed at that point in the race. The most likely explanation is the extension of the feet. From measuring my own feet in a flat and extended position, I estimate this would increase the length of the water line by 6", which would lead to a hull speed of 1.72 m/s for Park, hence he would be able to swim in the observed manner at 1.70 m/s.

The other way in which swimmers may be able to exceed their hull speed is through having most of their bodies submerged. Wave drag only applies at the surface, which is why someone like Phelps can swim so fast with his underwater dolphin kick. If you look at the wave patterns around many elite swimmers, what I think they are doing in freestyle is alternating between being mostly submerged at the front of their bodies, with then lifting the head and climbing slightly up the bow wave when they breathe, then dropping back down again into a more submerged position.

I just think that if you look at heights of swimmers and how it seems to affect ability to achieve various times in different strokes, and for men and women, it is hard not to conclude that:
a) height is an advantage, but seems to be more of an advantage in some events than others
b) height seems to be more of an advantage the higher the speed the race is swum at
This suggests to me some sort of relationship between height and speed where the benefit is not uniform with speed. Wave drag, with a relatively drastic increase in drag once you swim beyond a height-dependent speed seems the most likely candidate for such an effect, and appears to me at least to fit well with observed facts. The paper Linny linked to seemed to be satisfied that wave drag is certainly an issue at competitive swimming speeds, though he doesn't develop the idea as much as I would like in terms of using that information when he comes to fit curves to his data of drag vs speed.

I will admit I was being a tad sensationalist with my first post in this thread when I said Vendt can't win. I do think it is extremely unlikely, but it does depend on what times everyone else does. I will be pretty amazed if Vendt or Park swims sub 14:30.

[SplashNblub]

NotVeryFast. This is all very interesting stuff with a core of truth that for some strokes and distances all other things being equal taller is better. Science only works when it is exact or near exact though and you are trying to blind us with pseudo-science. If it is not exact there is little point in trying to apply it. As others have observed there is the world of difference between a fixed length rigid hull and a very flexible human being swimming with arms and legs flying in all directions. What exactly is our hull length anyway? Should we be adding for example the length of Thorpe's arms to his hull length as they spend so much time in the front quadrant? Indeed what about breaststrokers arms as they extend and the shortening of hull length as the legs bend at the knees and hips? And backstrokers? The undulations of butterfly presumably give constantly varying hull lengths.

We all have differing degrees of buoyancy depending principally on bone density and fat levels and there are huge variations in form drag - look for example at Pieter van den Hoogenband's Pectus Excavatum (concave chest) which gives him hydrodynamic lift. If you speak to his coach he will tell you that right from an early age particularly when going full blast he has the ability to to ride up higher than other swimmers almost going on the plane - and don't forget that hull physics only applies to non-planing hulls - that is how a very short windsurfing board holds the world sailed craft 500 meter record of 48.70 knots. A little faster than a swimmer admittedly. Pieter is also substantially lighter than most top swimmers of his height.

Further there is the question of power (wattage) that our 'engines' can produce and for how long we can produce it. There is where the drug cheats prosper. They can build more muscle mass (possible form drag increase) which can apply more power - which usually would lead to more rapid pH reduction - and then they can blood dope to reduce the pH drop and can so apply that power for longer. You can see this in meets where some swimmers appear to have a 'too good' recovery time and can swim races repeatedly without much speed loss. In the Beijing Olympic Games this summer there will be manipulation of myostatin protein levels by drugs or by gene doping and use of SARMs (selective androgen receptor modulators) to build increased mass. All this with no variation in hull length!

[NotVeryFast]

NotVeryFast. This is all very interesting stuff with a core of truth that for some strokes and distances all other things being equal taller is better. Science only works when it is exact or near exact though and you are trying to blind us with pseudo-science. If it is not exact there is little point in trying to apply it.
I'm not personally too bothered about how exact it is, understanding of principles is more important to me. So I'm not too concerned with whether a particular individual's hull speed is 1.65 or 1.75 m/s, it's enough to satisfy my curiosity if I can convince myself that it's in the right ballpark for actual elite swimming speeds.

As others have observed there is the world of difference between a fixed length rigid hull and a very flexible human being swimming with arms and legs flying in all directions. What exactly is our hull length anyway? Should we be adding for example the length of Thorpe's arms to his hull length as they spend so much time in the front quadrant? Indeed what about breaststrokers arms as they extend and the shortening of hull length as the legs bend at the knees and hips? And backstrokers? The undulations of butterfly presumably give constantly varying hull lengths.
I agree it's different for strokes other than freestyle. For the question of the arms in freestyle, see my previous post for why I do not believe they affect your hull length. You can actually quite clearly see the applicability of the concept if you look at the photograph in figure 10 of the paper Linny linked to, where there is very clearly a wave with a wavelength of approximately the height of the swimmer (bearing in mind that I'm not personally interested in whether it's a few inches more or less than their height, though you may be and I accept that for purposes other than mine it is completely valid to be interested in calculating it more exactly).

We all have differing degrees of buoyancy depending principally on bone density and fat levels and there are huge variations in form drag - look for example at Pieter van den Hoogenband's Pectus Excavatum (concave chest) which gives him hydrodynamic lift. If you speak to his coach he will tell you that right from an early age particularly when going full blast he has the ability to to ride up higher than other swimmers almost going on the plane - and don't forget that hull physics only applies to non-planing hulls - that is how a very short windsurfing board holds the world sailed craft 500 meter record of 48.70 knots. A little faster than a swimmer admittedly. Pieter is also substantially lighter than most top swimmers of his height.
Totally agree, if we can some day become powerful enough to get right on top of the water and stay there, planing along like a powerboat, it will completely change swimming. Looking at Pieter's 200 free from 2007 World LC, though, he looks to be swimming in the trough of a wave just like that photo in figure 10.

Further there is the question of power (wattage) that our 'engines' can produce and for how long we can produce it. There is where the drug cheats prosper. They can build more muscle mass (possible form drag increase) which can apply more power - which usually would lead to more rapid pH reduction - and then they can blood dope to reduce the pH drop and can so apply that power for longer. You can see this in meets where some swimmers appear to have a 'too good' recovery time and can swim races repeatedly without much speed loss. In the Beijing Olympic Games this summer there will be manipulation of myostatin protein levels by drugs or by gene doping and use of SARMs (selective androgen receptor modulators) to build increased mass. All this with no variation in hull length!
All true, and this was kind of what I was subtlely hinting at when I asked why a cyclist might be able to produce 50 watts more power than anyone else and still win despite having a bike that requires 50 watts of extra power to travel at the same speed as anyone else. But if someone with a hull length disadvantage can dope, then so can a taller person, and go even faster.

[lane4]

You can see this in meets where some swimmers appear to have a 'too good' recovery time and can swim races repeatedly without much speed loss.Phelps is certainly one person who has an extremely good recovery rate and can swim multiple races in quick succession without much speed loss. In the UK, Hannah Miley often demonstrates a similar ability. Do you consider that Phelps and Miley achieve this through doping Splash? Or would you be willing to say that they can achieve such feats through natural physiological ability?

[Woodward]

Obviously it depends what time gold is won in, if it's a slow race it becomes more possible. So what I should really have said is that I don't think Vendt can win it if it's won in the time I think it should be won in.
It seems we're in agreement that Vendt is unlikely to swim a 14:40 though not the same rationale.

Grant Hackett said a while back he thought it would take 14:20 to win in Beijing, and I can't see Vendt (or Park) going 14:20. Grant is wrong of course. Just like he was wrong when he said it would take a 14:30 or better to win in Athens. It's typical self-motivational talk from Grant to prop up the competition as much as conceivably possible.



What does need to be explained is how someone like Park can swim at 1.70 m/s in the middle of a 400m race (I calculated this from video footage of his world champs race), which on the face of it would seem to be above the hull speed of 1.65 m/s predicted for a water line of length 5' 9". I would not have a problem with this, but observation of him swimming at that speed, and the wave patterns around him, suggests that he is not exceeding his hull speed at that point in the race. The most likely explanation is the extension of the feet. From measuring my own feet in a flat and extended position, I estimate this would increase the length of the water line by 6", which would lead to a hull speed of 1.72 m/s for Park, hence he would be able to swim in the observed manner at 1.70 m/s. So the simple hull speed formula is not rock solid after all? You seem to acknowledge that the wave displacement from your observations doesn't completely conform to the formula.



I just think that if you look at heights of swimmers and how it seems to affect ability to achieve various times in different strokes, and for men and women, it is hard not to conclude that:
a) height is an advantage, but seems to be more of an advantage in some events than others
b) height seems to be more of an advantage the higher the speed the race is swum at

This is widely accepted by most. But I don't think embracing a rigid formula that excludes too many other factors is the best way to determine someone's performance ceiling.



I will be pretty amazed if Vendt or Park swims sub 14:30.I will be amazed if anyone does! I do wonder how long it will take for swimmers to swim in the 14:20 range.

Here is an interview excerpt with two prominent coaches from Swimming World Magazine, the 1964 October issue:

Kiphuth, "In three Olympiads, the 1,500-meters will be swum in 15 minutes." Remarked Dr. Counsilman, "I couldn't agree with that fine coach, because I can't see it physiologically. The swimmers won't be able to give enough cardiac effort. We aren't even doing the 400-meters in four minutes, so how can we expect any swimmer to keep up that pace for 15 minutes?"

The world record at the time of that exchange was 16:58 by Roy Saari.

[Woodward]

The schedule in Melbourne really favored Michael Phelps. He never had to swim close to maximum capacity more than one time per session and his semis were always after his finals. The one exception being his 100 fly semi being before the 4x200 relay on the same night. But he went over a second slower in his fly semi than he would ultimately go in the final. His time drops from semis to finals were consistently much greater than what his rivals dropped. He has the luxury of going 3 or more seconds slower than his top gear over his 200m races and still qualify comfortably. Manaudou's sub 1min back final, followed by the "I think I will - I think I won't" 1500, followed by a 1:57,3 200 semi was the session performance of the meet I think.

As great as Phelps's performance in Melbourne was it doesn't compare with what he did in Barcelona '03 in setting the 100 fly mark and 200IM mark in the same session prompting Lane 4 in his exuberance to post a poll asking if it was the greatest swim ever! I think Beijing will probably be a much tougher ask from Michael ... pending what events he choses to race.

The toughest recovery of all in Melbourne and even moreso in Beijing will be for the men's 1500 meters. The depth nowadays means that the swimmers have to really exert themselves in their heat. This is a tough ask on consecutive days. It may have cost Davies a gold in Australia. He dropped 2 sec from his heat whereas the Pole and the Russian dropped 11 sec and 14 sec respectively off their heat time. But you only have to ask Park what happens if you keep too much in reserve.

[selkie]

While converting SCY to LCM is not an exact science, you can ballpark it reasonably well much of the time, and in rough terms, Vendt went right around or a couple seconds under 15:00 tonight in the 1650 yd free a couple of days after coming down from a very intense altitude training camp.

While he may not go a 14:40 even, I think he'll be significantly under 15 when it actually counts.

[SplashNblub]

Phelps is certainly one person who has an extremely good recovery rate and can swim multiple races in quick succession without much speed loss. In the UK, Hannah Miley often demonstrates a similar ability. Do you consider that Phelps and Miley achieve this through doping Splash? Or would you be willing to say that they can achieve such feats through natural physiological ability?
I think that it is a disgrace even by your standards that you ask me on an open forum whether an 18 year old British girl is doping. She has a massive talent. Why do you even mention the poor girl? I am sure Patrick will be most amused. Not. Words nearly fail me. Fortunately they don't however.
As for Phelps as you well know USA Swimming is totally clean unlike their American Footballers, Baseball players & Track and Field athletes including dear Marion who passed 160 tests failed an A passed a B and is now off to jail for 6 months. I am as unlikely to criticise Phelps as you are Paula Radcliffe!

[selkie]

While it's unlikely that any sport is totally clean, I've never heard the usual rumor mill crowd suggest that Phelps is doping, and the rumor mill is not shy in naming names in that regard. I can think of 3-4 recent US swim Olympians right off the bat whose names frequently come up in terms of suspicion, but not him.

[NotVeryFast]

I'd like to put a bet on Erik Vendt to win the 1500 Free in Beijing. Does any one know where I could do so? I'd like to have a bet now before the US Olympic Trials because if he does something special there his odds will shorten considerably.
I hope you didn't bet too much money on him, ambresolaire? I'm actually quite shocked that he failed to qualify for the Olympics, he must be gutted after narrowly missing out in the 400 as well.

[ambresolaire]

I hope you didn't bet too much money on him, ambresolaire? I'm actually quite shocked that he failed to qualify for the Olympics, he must be gutted after narrowly missing out in the 400 as well.


I hadn't been able to put money on him anywhere, so haven't lost anything. I'm very very surprised too that he seemed to crash in the final after having gone 14:50 in the heats and 14:46 in May.
My prediction out the window!

[SPF-100]

I think Hackett will win it pretty easily..

[Linny]

I reckon it is impossible to tell!

There's no guy there going to be able to take it easy to qualify for the final and swimming too fast in the heats could scupper your chances in the final even with the extra recovery that a morning final will afford over what the American guys had yesterday.

Had the format been the usual I would have thought it would favour swimmers who are known to have quick recoveries such as Tae Hwan Park and other young guys like Cobertaldo and Sawrymowicz although with the extra bit of rest Prilukov might spoil their party.

Sorry SPF-100, I don't think any man has a chance of making it 3 gold medals in a row this time around. For Olympic "incredibles" I'm looking to Amanda Beard to win a medal at her 4th Olympic Games in a row and old timers Torres and Foster just for qualifying but who knows!

[Apostle]

I think you are all overlooking a japanese guy, his name escapes me who swam really well at the worlds in melbourne.

[Apostle]

Sorry Not japenese. Polish.

Mateusz Sawrymowicz. 14:45.94. Hackett was 8th in 14.59.59 but I think was going through some turmoil in his career. I reckon he will certainly be up for the big one before he bows out.

[NotVeryFast]

I think it's going to be an amazingly close race. We now have Sawrymowicz, Davies, Jensen and Vanderkaay all with PBs of 14:45, with Prilukov not far behind on 14:47. Hackett's best since 2005 is 14:48. Could be one heck of a race to watch.

[lane4]

Sawrymowicz is my tip for gold. Of all the candidates he is the only one focussing solely on the 1500. He has trained right through the season for this one race. The others are all trying to win medals in either the 400, 4x200, or 10k as well and although doubling up is not impossible, Sawrymowicz has both the class and the determination to win even if the others are at their best. Having said that, it would not come as a surprise if Hackett were to make it three in a row. He remains the legend of the event for now. So unless they are ill or injured it's between them two for gold and silver and anyone's race for bronze.

[Dan_tm]

He is STILL the Man!!

Hackett breaks World Record
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24048635-661,00.html

yep..its short course and it means zilch comes Beijing time..BUT it means he is getting close to his 2001 form..and if thats the case....well..the others will need to step up to levels they have never stepped before!!!

I hope ,just hope Grant creates History!

[Silver Fox]

I think Davies is the one to watch.


"The legendary British tradition in men's breaststroke continues"

[londonboy59]

I maintain that the 1500 free will be the equivalent of the men's 200 free four years ago. The big race of the Games with six, maybe seven men capable of winning it.

I'm looking forward to a blanket finish, not that different to last time, but with maybe as many as half a dozen men covered by 2 seconds.

Prilukov looks good this year, Hackett is doing great short course times, but there is a man in the field who has won a medal at every major games he's competed in since 2004..and he's ours - good luck David Davies!

[Dan_tm]

I maintain that the 1500 free will be the equivalent of the men's 200 free four years ago. The big race of the Games with six, maybe seven men capable of winning it.




Hey..the 1500m is ALWAYS the big race..Well ..in Australia at least.....

[colonelhall]

Davies is good, but he doesn't have the basic speed. There are half a dozen men who can cover the first 400 faster than his best time for that event. I think that his best chance is in the open water. Having said that, he seemed to be showing a little more zip in the British Championships this month and could surprise everyone, if his taper goes well.