Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

sports.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 344 posts

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#171

Post by Kon-Peki »

beAbU wrote: post #104
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's Olympic gold medals on the line. People are going absolutely as hard as they can. There's no way an Olympic pool for the actual Olympics should be that shallow. If athletes prefer a deep pool, the pool should be deep. Swimming is one of the premier sports at Olympics. It's also a facility that has one of the most reuse if built properly. You don't think a Paris aquatic center wouldn't get tons of reuse in wor…

The pool is a temporary structure, La Defence is a multi purpose venue. The pool is literally a tub on top of a rugby field. Perhaps this is why its shallower than normal.

All major competitions will be in temporary pools from now on. It’s a major spectator sport with growing popularity, but as seen in 2008, 2012, 2016, etc purpose-built facilities for that crowd size are failures.

Paris is swimming in a rugby stadium. It is loud and exciting. The US trials this year were in a temporary pool at the NFL stadium in Indianapolis with 60,000 seats filled! LA 2028 has already announced that they will be using a temporary pool in an NFL stadium and will have 38,000 seats. Brisbane 2032 hasn’t said anything as far as I’ve heard, but you can bet that’s also what they will do.

Edit - I was wrong about LA swimming capacity. It is going to be at the NFL stadium in Inglewood, but as of now they are only aiming for 38,000 seats

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#172

Post by madaxe_again »

bjoli wrote: post #130
madaxe_again wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually did a fairly lengthy research project on pretty much exactly this as a physics undergraduate - I wasn’t looking at swimming specifically, but rather boundary separation and Reynolds number in an open channel of varying depth. The setup was simple - a constant head vessel to provide a constant but adjustable flow of water in from one end, and a little plastic boat sat in the middle of the channel, attached…

Does it manifest directly? The water has had some time to settle when they start.

Yes. An object moving through water is more or less equivalent to water moving around an object, and the moment you cross a boundary condition, be it depth, velocity, viscosity, the phase transition is instantaneous to all intents and purposes.

I’d have entire days of experiments screwed up just by the water being slightly too warm or cold, or there being dust, or not enough dust, or sunshine, or… fluid dynamics are finicky.

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#173

Post by elevaet »

renewiltord wrote: post #141
etempleton wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, those on the outside will have choppier waters as the water bounces off the sides of the pools. The modern competition pools do a pretty good job of reducing this effect, but it is always there.

Could probably increase fairness by doubling the width and throwing away the last few lanes (leaving them empty). But would that incentivize the edges? I don't know.

They put the most favoured (by entry times or heat results) swimmers in the center lanes, slower ones out from there. You've probably noticed that you usually see the race leaders in the middle, and you hardly ever see the edges winning.

In cases where there are less swimmers than lanes, they leave the edge lanes empty.

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#174

Post by kergonath »

dsr_ wrote: post #53
viraptor wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they are the worldwide foremost experts on competitive swimming On swimming, sure. But not fluid dynamics. It's a bit like music listeners shouldn't be treated as experts on music quality, or you'll get the audiophile nuts who need gold connectors. Some combination of personal experience for comfort and objective measurements for performance would be much better.

It's strange that you would pick on gold connectors. Gold is an excellent conductor and does not corrode in air, so it makes a great plating material. In the quantities needed for plating, it's not too expensive, either. Silver corrodes relatively quickly and is expensive; that's a bad tradeoff against copper, which is much cheaper and nearly as conductive. So: gold-plated connectors on copper wires are extremely com…

> It's strange that you would pick on gold connectors. Gold is an excellent conductor and does not corrode in air, so it makes a great plating material. In the quantities needed for plating, it's not too expensive, either.

It’s not strange at all. Gold plating improving quality sounds truthy but is absolutely false. I have yet to read a serious study, at least single blind, showing any meaningful difference. And I have yet to read a serious engineering study showing any meaningful difference in characteristics. Steel plated jacks are just fine, and optical connectors make the whole thing irrelevant. As you write yourself:

> None of that makes an audible difference, as it turns out

> Also, most music listeners are not experts on music quality or sound reproduction quality (two very different things). Many music listeners are experts on their own preferences. Everyone is entitled to their own preferences.

Indeed. But their preference have no effect on Physics. If they are happy to get gold-plated ruthenium cables with diamond coatings, more power to them. It does not make these cables any better.

Theo are entitled to their own preferences, not their own reality.

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#175

Post by skeeter2020 »

renewiltord wrote: post #141
etempleton wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, those on the outside will have choppier waters as the water bounces off the sides of the pools. The modern competition pools do a pretty good job of reducing this effect, but it is always there.

Could probably increase fairness by doubling the width and throwing away the last few lanes (leaving them empty). But would that incentivize the edges? I don't know.

It's not supposed to be fair (as in equal) though, lane assignment goes inside-to-out based on qualifying times. The easiest way to avoid the chop is to get out in front and stay there.

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#176

Post by kergonath »

duggan wrote: post #136
bregma wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's Olympic gold medals on the line. People are going absolutely as hard as they can. They don't have to outswim the bear. They just have to outswim the silver medalist.

As much as it's about winning the medals, this is about setting personal and world records, too.

Regardless, they have to make do with what they have. Nobody is moaning that the weather affects triathlon timings.

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#178

Post by [deleted] »

conductr wrote: post #153
samldev wrote: post #5

I was a college swimmer, qualified for Olympic Trials in 2012 and 2016. There are absolutely slow and fast pools. It basically comes down to two things: 1. The depth - which is only 7ft in Paris, unusually shallow for a competition pool. 2. The sides. Does the water spill over the sides into the gutters, or smash into a wall and bounce back, creating more chop. A trained eye can see all the swimmers in Paris struggli…

My untrained eye has noticed. But I also think it's not really a big deal. There are so few events where the conditions are exactly the same every 4 years. Just kinda the luck of the draw if you happen to be competing in the most ideal conditions for WR setting in any event

[deleted]

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#179

Post by teractiveodular »

kergonath wrote: post #170
conductr wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My untrained eye has noticed. But I also think it's not really a big deal. There are so few events where the conditions are exactly the same every 4 years. Just kinda the luck of the draw if you happen to be competing in the most ideal conditions for WR setting in any event

Also, the important bit is fairness for all competitors. As the OP said, the same conditions affect everybody. I have little sympathy for the (few) swimmers complaining. They are not owed a world record and if they’re that good, they’re going to get one anyway.

Wouldn't the sides affect swimmers on the edge lanes next to them more? And is this one reason why the strongest swimmers are usually placed in the center lanes?

Re: Is a 'slow' swimming pool impeding world records?

#180

Post by aleph_minus_one »

lou1306 wrote: post #23
croes wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A lot of this is perception vs. reality,” he said. “If you were to talk to many very accomplished coaches, they would say the pool has to be a minimum 3 meters deep. Most of our research shows that anything over 2 meters is frivolous. … Obviously, some depth is very important. But after a certain point, it's diminishing return. Maybe it's just the swimmers and not the pool as such

But a lot of the swimmers themselves are not able to go anywhere near their personal bests: this is a sharp reversal from past Olympics, where many athletes reached new personal records. Plus, they are the worldwide foremost experts on competitive swimming. Definitely I would be more interested in their evaluation of a swimming pool rather than trust "research results" from the company that built the pool in question…

> Plus, they are the worldwide foremost experts on competitive swimming. Definitely I would be more interested in their evaluation of a swimming pool rather than trust "research results" from the company that built the pool in question.

But they are very prone to psychological effects.

Post reply on HN