Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: OWS is WAY slower than the pool. [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
But paul, according to your geometry you literally do NOT have to sight or follow anyone's feet.

If navigation is so unimportant that course correction is not needed, by your argument, you don't even need to SEE anything on the course at all. Meaning you do NOT need to follow feet or sight AT ALL. Literally just close your eyes, no goggles needed, and just swim at your target. You'll know you've arrived when you hit sand, and then you'll only be 10m off your target laterally after 1000m of swimming. (Ok, 200m if it's a 2000m race, which we all know you can cover by foot on the beach a lot faster than swimming laterally.)

How am I misunderstanding this part of your argument.
Quote Reply
Re: OWS is WAY slower than the pool. [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lightheir wrote:
But paul, according to your geometry you literally do NOT have to sight or follow anyone's feet.

If navigation is so unimportant that course correction is not needed, by your argument, you don't even need to SEE anything on the course at all. Meaning you do NOT need to follow feet or sight AT ALL. Literally just close your eyes, no goggles needed, and just swim at your target. You'll know you've arrived when you hit sand, and then you'll only be 10m off your target laterally after 1000m of swimming. (Ok, 200m if it's a 2000m race, which we all know you can cover by foot on the beach a lot faster than swimming laterally.)

How am I misunderstanding this part of your argument.

No I am saying just follow the fastest feet and don't worry if that person is off. You can check every 50m but likely this person is not very far off the buoy line. It is faster follow the fast feet than trying to pick the straightest line. And once you get good, you dont even have to look up at them and drop your hips. Keep the read down and you can feel if you are in their draft, on the left or on right.
Quote Reply
Re: OWS is WAY slower than the pool. [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
On the downside, turns also mean this extended period with no oxygen too spending all that time under water.
---
This is why we practice turns. Because after a bit of practice, the 2-3 seconds of holding your breath (which doesn't qualify as 'extended' in my book) takes less and less of a hit on your swim to the point where you don't even notice it, especially at aerobic levels. Later on, this translates well into an open water skill to protect against the angst of a wave or swimmer splash that causes you to miss a breath in the cycle.






Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: OWS is WAY slower than the pool. [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
devashish_paul wrote:
lightheir wrote:
But paul, according to your geometry you literally do NOT have to sight or follow anyone's feet.

If navigation is so unimportant that course correction is not needed, by your argument, you don't even need to SEE anything on the course at all. Meaning you do NOT need to follow feet or sight AT ALL. Literally just close your eyes, no goggles needed, and just swim at your target. You'll know you've arrived when you hit sand, and then you'll only be 10m off your target laterally after 1000m of swimming. (Ok, 200m if it's a 2000m race, which we all know you can cover by foot on the beach a lot faster than swimming laterally.)

How am I misunderstanding this part of your argument.


No I am saying just follow the fastest feet and don't worry if that person is off. You can check every 50m but likely this person is not very far off the buoy line. It is faster follow the fast feet than trying to pick the straightest line. And once you get good, you dont even have to look up at them and drop your hips. Keep the read down and you can feel if you are in their draft, on the left or on right.

I disagree. Again, if your premise is correct, the math should work out. As is, if the guy whose feet you are following are off by the margin I am describing, which is entirely realistic (which means if they sighted zero, they'd be wayyy more off than 10-20m/1000m), zigzagging will lose tons of time compared to if you had just swum slightly less hard but dead straight.

I seriously doubt even good OWS swimmers can hold such a straight line as you describe (meaning a margin if error so small that only ONE sight of 1000m would result in a 10-20m lateral miss of the final target.)
Quote Reply
Re: OWS is WAY slower than the pool. [cloy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
cloy wrote:
I've been consistently cruising around 1:35/100m in the pool. I was anticipating my recent half-iron distance swim to be around that pace (non-wetsuit). However, what I did was very, very far away from that. I swam a 1:45 pace.

Times:
OWS without wetsuit - 36:33 (this year) - 1:54/100m
OWS with wetsuit - 30:22 (last year) - 1:35/100m
Pool training pace without a wetsuit - 1:35/100m
Pool with a wetsuit - 1:27/100m. (1200m TT with wetsuit in 17:24 at similar RPE as 70.3 swim pace).

What gives? I'm as fast as I am in the pool as I am in open water with a wetsuit. Without a wetsuit in the OW, I flounder. I'm thinking it's my sighting, and my feet dropping quite a bit.

How much slower usually can I expect to be in open water? I've been racing for 7 years and I consistently suck in open water. Thoughts? Tips?

Let me give you some of my times:

2019:
August 1.5 km triathlon swim segment (flat open water with significant drafting, buoy course): 0:30:47
September pool 1500 LCM time: 0:31:03
Then I start to made significant improvement as the temperature went down and I got 1-1 coaching by a TI coach.
October pool interval: 2'10" returning on average 1'48" for 10 x 100 LCM
November 3.62 km OWS race time: 1:20:55 (natural island circumnavigation course with drafting but not completely flat - need to cater for extra distance around the island - and the number of people compared to the course length (one 3.62 km loop) is not high so there weren't many drafting opportunities)
December pool 1500 LCM time: 0:28:54

2020:
October pool interval: 2'10" returning on average 1'47" for 10 x 100 LCM
November 2.67 km OWS race time: 0:57:39 (permanent buoy course, NO drafting) - this is exact as measured from Google Maps satellite image

In 2019, I tried a 1500 T/T in SCM and LCM a few weeks apart and got about 5 L% difference. That means I expect from LCM to OW will be 5 L% difference. Get in some imperfect sighting and a little chops, it can easily become 10% difference. With good drafting we can get 10 L% of free speed so they cancel out. Also, pool training pace (i.e. interval pace) will also be a few L% faster than 1.5 km continuous pace as well, so if you take the most extreme case (you didn't mention if your pool is SC or LC), going from SCM pool training pace of 1'35", first add 5 L% to the continuous pace, then another 10 L% to OW due to the lack of wall, then add another 5% due to imperfect sighting or chops, that will become 1'56" / 100 m in open water, 20 L% added from your pool training pace. This confirms your given times.
Quote Reply
Re: OWS is WAY slower than the pool. [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[/quote] Hey just one point about swimming straight. Swimming straight is almost unimportant as long as you take the tightest rurn around buoys.[/quote]


I was just going to write a similar post when I saw this one. The extra distance that comes with swimming crooked is not as great as people think. If a course ran straight north and you swam crooked so that after a quarter of a mile you were 50 yards to the east of the course and then you spent the next quarter mile swimming NW to get you back onto the original course, you'd add about 5.5 yards extra over the course of the whole half mile. And 50 yards off course is obviously a lot. If there is a cost to losing your line, it's probably more the impact of stopping to get your bearings, lifting your head more frequently, etc. Paul is right- just keep your head down and don't get too caught up with trying to hold a line and you'll be better off.
Last edited by: Changpao: Nov 21, 20 8:02
Quote Reply
Re: OWS is WAY slower than the pool. [Changpao] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Changpao wrote:
Hey just one point about swimming straight. Swimming straight is almost unimportant as long as you take the tightest rurn around buoys.[/quote]


I was just going to write a similar post when I saw this one. The extra distance that comes with swimming crooked is not as great as people think. If a course ran straight north and you swam crooked so that after a quarter of a mile you were 50 yards to the east of the course and then you spent the next quarter mile swimming NW to get you back onto the original course, you'd add about 5.5 yards extra over the course of the whole half mile. And 50 yards off course is obviously a lot. If there is a cost to losing your line, it's probably more the impact of stopping to get your bearings, lifting your head more frequently, etc. Paul is right- just keep your head down and don't get too caught up with trying to hold a line and you'll be better off.[/quote]

And again, while I agree with the math of the hypotenuse, I still disagree that people are able to hold even that straight a line (50m off target after half a mile.)

As an exercise, imagine if you jumped into a lake, did OWS, but took only one initial look, then swam BLIND, eyes closed, toward a buoy 250 away. Swim until someone watching says you've made it to the level of the buoy, take another look, then swim blind another 250. After 500m of blind swimming with only one sight in the middle for correcting, I'm sure that people would have to swim quite a bit more than 10-20 extra yards. Also, your scenario assumes that one can very accurately correct the sighting error, exactly to offset the initial error. In reality, it's very likely that the swimmer will overcorrect or undercorrect, and possibly end up even going the wrong way again, so I doubt it's as reliable as you guys state.
Quote Reply
Re: OWS is WAY slower than the pool. [Tri-Banter] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tri-Banter wrote:
On the downside, turns also mean this extended period with no oxygen too spending all that time under water.
---
This is why we practice turns. Because after a bit of practice, the 2-3 seconds of holding your breath (which doesn't qualify as 'extended' in my book) takes less and less of a hit on your swim to the point where you don't even notice it, especially at aerobic levels. Later on, this translates well into an open water skill to protect against the angst of a wave or swimmer splash that causes you to miss a breath in the cycle.

I definitely agree. I do some workouts where after every push off I do 7 dolphin kicks off the wall as streamlined as possible for all strokes other than breast stroke (where I do the full turn, with dolphin kick butterfly pull, and then pull out to surface). After this is makes less underwater time easy, and as you said, it helps a lot going to open water and you get dunked and are gasping for air.
Quote Reply
Re: OWS is WAY slower than the pool. [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
devashish_paul wrote:
spockwaslen wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N42wl2IzPQo&mc_cid=7db7e5e61d&mc_eid=29be019bd4

The swim smooth guys say triathlon swim times are one third swim technique, one third fitness and one third open water swim technique. Open water technique many people don't practice it. A symmetrical stroke and sighting help. The ability to draft slightly faster swimmers is also quite helpful. Every full ironman swim I have done has been faster per hundred than my half iron swim times. Because I get more draft in a full than a half. Once I settle down and find a good draft it is free speed. All this takes practice. You also don't want to be drafting someone who doesn't swim straight. If the water is relatively smooth OWS should be as fast as in the pool.


Hey just one point about swimming straight. Swimming straight is almost unimportant as long as you take the tightest rurn around buoys.

Let me do some math for you. Let's say two swimmers are 200m from a turn buoy and there is a 100m buoy along the way

Swimmee A veers to his left and ends up swimmiing 10m left of the in between buoy at 100m. Then he realizes he is off and has to course correct to the turn buoy. Let's assume Swimmer B goes perfectly straight to the 100m buoy and then to the 200m turn buoy where him and Swimmers A converge and bump into each other right at the right turn at the buoy

  • Swimmer B travels exactly 200m
  • Swimmer A goes 2 x square root(10**2 + 100**2) = 200.99m


Every zig zag along the way you can add up the respective right angle triangle hyptonuses relative to the straight line swimmer who is going on the long edge of the right angled triangle. Its basically no difference.

You're way better off drafting a 1:25/100m zig zagging swimmer than 1:32/100m straight line swimmer. If you can draft the 1:25 swimmer, you likely get to that turn buoy 10 or so seconds faster.

I know exactly how this works because as a slightly faster swimmer in my age group locally, I will veer wide so people don't think it is worth drafting me, and then I just end up shedding these guys so they can't get a free ride and when I get to bigger races, I'll just follow faster swimmers regardless of line.

Now if you turn the buoys wide that is a disaster. Even arriving at a turn buoy 5-10m to its left, you're adding big time doing a wide radius. If you turn a buoy 7m wide versus right on the buoy, you will travel 7 meters further. This can easily happen on a crowded turn. you want to make sure the guy you are following is aiming right on a tight turn. You do two buoys like that and you can add 20m to your swim course. That's probably 20ish seconds for a lot of people. If you do that 7 times in a 2 loop swim, suddenly you have lost 1.5 minutes or more if your turns are bad.

So in summary, the line between buoys makes almost no diff....follow the fastest feet. At the buoys take the tightest turn. Do not arrive at any turn buoy wide.

Sorry, but your math and geometry are really wrong. Don't even know where to begin. The line between buoys almost make no diff? Like, really? If I didn't know you are legit contributor, I would almost think you are trolling.
Quote Reply
Re: OWS is WAY slower than the pool. [Engner66] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ok OK I get that you have to fight with me every chance you get. I don't know why, but at least if you want be a jackass at least contribute why you think the numbers are off

Square root of (100 squared + 10 squared) = 100.49m. If you go 10m wide after 100m, you add 0.49m and then converge it at the turn buoy you do 201m total (versus the guy doing the straight line) who does 200m.

On the turn, the circumference of a circle with 7 m radius is two*pi*7 = 43 meters. A right turn circle around a buoy if you go way wide is 1/4 of that so say 10m. I have seen people take buoys way wide. Scale it down for 5 m wide or 2 m wide.

It is way better to ride the feet of a faster swimmer zig zagging than a slow who is the same speed as you that goes straight

So rather than be jackass just to fight and say someone is trolling, at least present why you claim the numbers are wrong. If not, it just comes off like a guy who needs to make himself feel good by talking down others on the internet. At least present a point so we can understand where you are coming from.
Last edited by: devashish_paul: Nov 21, 20 12:21
Quote Reply
Re: OWS is WAY slower than the pool. [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
@ Dev - I think your math is right, but your assumption of such a small angle of navigational error is way too low.

I think it's entirely realistic for people during OWS zigzags to be in the 45 degree error of margin. I swim very straight in a pool with eyes closed (I practice this regularly, as stated above), but 45 degrees is absolutely a realistic error I'll see in my navigation if I close my eyes, take 30 stroke cycles eyes closed in the chaos of race OWS.

Meaning if they close their eyes, did no sighting, and held that angle, instead of swimming 1000 yards, they'd swim the hypotenuse, which is 1414 yards (!) which is obviously massive.

I strongly suspect this reality of much more errant navigation than the estimate you are giving, is the reason why even pro/elite swimmers sight so frequently. Else they they wouldn't even have to sight at all.
Quote Reply
Re: OWS is WAY slower than the pool. [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
devashish_paul wrote:
spockwaslen wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N42wl2IzPQo&mc_cid=7db7e5e61d&mc_eid=29be019bd4

The swim smooth guys say triathlon swim times are one third swim technique, one third fitness and one third open water swim technique. Open water technique many people don't practice it. A symmetrical stroke and sighting help. The ability to draft slightly faster swimmers is also quite helpful. Every full ironman swim I have done has been faster per hundred than my half iron swim times. Because I get more draft in a full than a half. Once I settle down and find a good draft it is free speed. All this takes practice. You also don't want to be drafting someone who doesn't swim straight. If the water is relatively smooth OWS should be as fast as in the pool.


Hey just one point about swimming straight. Swimming straight is almost unimportant as long as you take the tightest rurn around buoys.

Let me do some math for you. Let's say two swimmers are 200m from a turn buoy and there is a 100m buoy along the way

Swimmee A veers to his left and ends up swimmiing 10m left of the in between buoy at 100m. Then he realizes he is off and has to course correct to the turn buoy. Let's assume Swimmer B goes perfectly straight to the 100m buoy and then to the 200m turn buoy where him and Swimmers A converge and bump into each other right at the right turn at the buoy

  • Swimmer B travels exactly 200m
  • Swimmer A goes 2 x square root(10**2 + 100**2) = 200.99m


Every zig zag along the way you can add up the respective right angle triangle hyptonuses relative to the straight line swimmer who is going on the long edge of the right angled triangle. Its basically no difference.

You're way better off drafting a 1:25/100m zig zagging swimmer than 1:32/100m straight line swimmer. If you can draft the 1:25 swimmer, you likely get to that turn buoy 10 or so seconds faster.

I know exactly how this works because as a slightly faster swimmer in my age group locally, I will veer wide so people don't think it is worth drafting me, and then I just end up shedding these guys so they can't get a free ride and when I get to bigger races, I'll just follow faster swimmers regardless of line.

Now if you turn the buoys wide that is a disaster. Even arriving at a turn buoy 5-10m to its left, you're adding big time doing a wide radius. If you turn a buoy 7m wide versus right on the buoy, you will travel 7 meters further. This can easily happen on a crowded turn. you want to make sure the guy you are following is aiming right on a tight turn. You do two buoys like that and you can add 20m to your swim course. That's probably 20ish seconds for a lot of people. If you do that 7 times in a 2 loop swim, suddenly you have lost 1.5 minutes or more if your turns are bad.

So in summary, the line between buoys makes almost no diff....follow the fastest feet. At the buoys take the tightest turn. Do not arrive at any turn buoy wide.

Sorry mate, I know you have a lot of knowledge in the sport, but that is just plain wrong.

I couldn't tell you how many times i have beaten faster swimmers out of the water because I swam a better line than them, sometimes by up to 30 seconds over 1.1k.
Quote Reply
Re: OWS is WAY slower than the pool. [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I buy that if you follow a 45 degree angle swimmer that you are going to do extra. But we have peripheral vision to know if we are going 45 degrees to perpendicular from rest of field. Largely most of the field moves reasonably.

My context may be skewed due to swimming at the front of my age group with decent swimmers however in mass start Ironman events or even when my wave starts way back and I swim through most of the field I rarely see these 45 degree to perpendicular swimmers. Just following feet and using peripheral vision when breathing is enough to generally know if you are within decent tolerances. What you don't want to do is keep lifting your head, dropping hips and putting on the brakes to keep over sighting. It's not worth the extra aerobic workload.
Quote Reply
Re: OWS is WAY slower than the pool. [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
devashish_paul wrote:
I buy that if you follow a 45 degree angle swimmer that you are going to do extra. But we have peripheral vision to know if we are going 45 degrees to perpendicular from rest of field. Largely most of the field moves reasonably.

My context may be skewed due to swimming at the front of my age group with decent swimmers however in mass start Ironman events or even when my wave starts way back and I swim through most of the field I rarely see these 45 degree to perpendicular swimmers. Just following feet and using peripheral vision when breathing is enough to generally know if you are within decent tolerances. What you don't want to do is keep lifting your head, dropping hips and putting on the brakes to keep over sighting. It's not worth the extra aerobic workload.

Note it's not as obvious as the guy you're following going 45 degrees for 1000 yards.

He may very well go 45 left, sight, 45 right, sight again, 45 right to pass a few folks, sight, 60 left, etc. The zigzags make him look like he's going reasonably straight, but if you add up all that zigzagging, it's cumulatively as bad as 45 degrees for 1000 yards. While 45 degrees might be on the higher side of navigational errors, I'd definitely argue that when I'm sighting and reorienting, it's usually a lot closer to 30-45 degrees than 5-10 degrees as per your example. 5-10- degrees is so small that even with sighting every 10th stroke cycle, you would literally think you were going dead straight and make zero correction.
Quote Reply
Re: OWS is WAY slower than the pool. [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I would support you that 0-20% is small and makes no delta (from a math side that's why the tan and sin of small angles is effectively the same number up to 20 degrees).

Now the question is when you start to notice that you are veering off while swimming head down and just using peripheral vision to sight relative landmarks, other swimmers and buoys to know if you are going 45 degrees to perpendicular off course. I would say that anyone who has done some amount of open water racing (say 2 seasons) will have their bearings straight.

I should add that once you get within 50m of the turn buoy and the feet you followed were on track, now you want to second guess the guy you are following because 50m goes by in say 40-60 seconds and if this person is even a bit off they can diverge by 10m at the turn buoy. That 10m at the turn buoy if you have to correct in the final 10m of converging at the buoy will add 4m of additional distance.

You can also use this zig zaggy stuff to your advantage and intentionally zig zag a bit to drop someone in your age group who is getting a free ride rather than putting all the effort that goes into a surge. Lots of people then give up thinking that the person they are drafting is clueless, and think they will go faster swimming a staight line. Once that person is no longer on the tail, then swim straight
Quote Reply
Re: OWS is WAY slower than the pool. [cloy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm not going to try and follow any of the math here as my brain isn't that sharp. But here are a few things I have learned (and what many before have been saying on this post):

Time in the Open Water is very important if you want to improve, almost as important as Time In The Saddle on the bike.
Sighting does make a big difference. If you sight and correct after 10 meters it is much better than sighting and correcting after 50 meters.
Your flip turn and awesome wall push-off will not help you in the open water.
Try and relax in the open water, hence my 1st observation
Draft when possible as Dev has been saying. Most people have no idea you are there unless you're tickling their toes.

I swim with both a master class (pre-covid) and also with a group in open water. Those who are slightly faster than me in the pool who do flip turns (yes - I am admittedly jealous) are usually not faster than me in open water. I am also comfortable and relaxed in open water. I know my swim form in the first 5 minutes of any race is awful due to stress/anxiety. Once I calm down and focus on my stoke and sighting I am much more efficient.
Quote Reply

Prev Next