I swim because I enjoy it, not because I'm trying to get somewhere fast. This seems awkward and I bet you have to use your arms just to counterbalance the twist you'd get on each 'stroke' of the leg. So even though I think it's goofy, I bet I'd like whoever came up with this. Someone who put a ton of effort into building something they thought would be interesting despite a thousand people telling them it's goofy. Go…
'Underwater bicycle' propels swimmers forward at superhuman speed
211–220 of 285 posts
Re: 'Underwater bicycle' propels swimmers forward at superhuman speed
#212> French company Seabike They have a .fr domain and a showroom in Cannes, France but the company is headquarted in Italy: PARITET SRL, Via Giovanni da Cermenate 3, 22063 Cantù (CO) Italy Also, the French version of the website is riddled with enormous errors, like "For traveling light" translated as "Pour voyager lumière", which does not make any sense and isn't even grammatically correct (the proper translation woul…
Re: 'Underwater bicycle' propels swimmers forward at superhuman speed
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah shit your right, I had in mind 500 (yard) Free. 500 meters in under five is very good, but still attainable by the upper tier of highschool swimmers I think. I could reliably do 500 yards in under five and was a "B relay" tier on my team.
A couple things. 500m is not actually an event. The event is 400 meters, which is roughly 500 yards. And a yard pool will only be 25 yards, not 50. So yard times are "short course" and not really valid for serious competition. A 25-meter/yard pool has fewer turns making them faster, much faster in breaststroke. And a 500-yard in a 250meter pool will include one extra lap, one extra turn, than a 400m in a 25-meter poo…
Re: 'Underwater bicycle' propels swimmers forward at superhuman speed
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You seem to assume that because this thing is faster, it must automatically be less enjoyable. The problem in this case is that the device is doing part of the swimming for you.
I don't understand how this is different than the running-bicycling example. How does this swim for you but a bicycle doesn't run for you?
Re: 'Underwater bicycle' propels swimmers forward at superhuman speed
#215A speed comparison would have been nice. EDIT: it's already there: "This jigger, according to the manufacturers, makes you handily quicker than an equivalent swimmer with fins on."
[1] https://www.westmarine.com/mares-razor-carbon-dive-fins-41-1...
Re: 'Underwater bicycle' propels swimmers forward at superhuman speed
#216In the ocean this could attract some very sizable predators . . .
Re: 'Underwater bicycle' propels swimmers forward at superhuman speed
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
A couple things. 500m is not actually an event. The event is 400 meters, which is roughly 500 yards. And a yard pool will only be 25 yards, not 50. So yard times are "short course" and not really valid for serious competition. A 25-meter/yard pool has fewer turns making them faster, much faster in breaststroke. And a 500-yard in a 250meter pool will include one extra lap, one extra turn, than a 400m in a 25-meter poo…
This isn't a topic I know about, but wouldn't a 25-meter pool have more turns? But if that's a typo I can't see why stopping and turning would be a good thing?
And then an olympic pool is 50 meters long, meaning far fewer turns for a given distance. So "long course" times are generally slower than short course even at the same distance.
(Underwater is so much faster that swimming has rules about how far you can travel underwater during each length.)
Re: 'Underwater bicycle' propels swimmers forward at superhuman speed
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I swim because I enjoy it, not because I'm trying to get somewhere fast. I run because I enjoy it, not because I’m trying to get somewhere fast. But I also bike because I enjoy it, not because I’m trying to get somewhere fast. You seem to assume that because this thing is faster, it must automatically be less enjoyable. That’s not the case for bikes, why should it be the case here? In my opinion it sounds fun, and…
Maybe not necessarily "faster" but there is an idea that adding any kind of technology should be avoided for recreational activities. For example, you can mountain bike with a fully-suspended e-bike, or you can struggle with a hardtail or even a road bike. Different kinds of fun, but in the former you'll wonder if it's the technology doing all the work.
Re: 'Underwater bicycle' propels swimmers forward at superhuman speed
#219Re: 'Underwater bicycle' propels swimmers forward at superhuman speed
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe not necessarily "faster" but there is an idea that adding any kind of technology should be avoided for recreational activities. For example, you can mountain bike with a fully-suspended e-bike, or you can struggle with a hardtail or even a road bike. Different kinds of fun, but in the former you'll wonder if it's the technology doing all the work.
there is an idea that adding any kind of technology should be avoided for recreational activities How do you draw the line at "any kind of technology"? Isn't the bike itself "technology"? How about pneumatic tires? Or computer designed tread for optimal traction? Is a bike suspension too much technology? How about electric assist that can help you up a hill but won't propel the bike without you pedaling along with it…