2004
DOI: 10.1249/01.mss.0000128179.02306.57
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of Swim Suit Design on Passive Drag

Abstract: The decomposition of swimmer drag into DSF, DP and DW suggests that increasing DSF on the upper-body of a swimmer reduces DP and DW by tripping the boundary layer and attaching the flow to the body from the shoulder to the knees. It is possible that body suits that cover the torso and legs may reduce drag and improve performance of swimmers.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

6
74
0
2

Year Published

2006
2006
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 84 publications
(83 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
6
74
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus both external and internal work are increased (79,80,107). Drag in water is velocity dependent (80) and increases as a function of kV n , where k is a constant, V is velocity, and n is the exponent of V, with n ϭ 1 for friction between the body and water, n ϭ 2 for the pressure to separate the water as the body moves through it (pressure drag), and n ϭ 4 for wave generation (67). Estimating the efficiency of underwater work is complicated, compared with terrestrial work, using a traditional approach (only considering external work) and yields a very low efficiency (about 5-8%) (80); during swimming the swimmer has to accelerate water when moving through it and also perform internal work moving body parts around the body center of gravity.…”
Section: Exercisementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus both external and internal work are increased (79,80,107). Drag in water is velocity dependent (80) and increases as a function of kV n , where k is a constant, V is velocity, and n is the exponent of V, with n ϭ 1 for friction between the body and water, n ϭ 2 for the pressure to separate the water as the body moves through it (pressure drag), and n ϭ 4 for wave generation (67). Estimating the efficiency of underwater work is complicated, compared with terrestrial work, using a traditional approach (only considering external work) and yields a very low efficiency (about 5-8%) (80); during swimming the swimmer has to accelerate water when moving through it and also perform internal work moving body parts around the body center of gravity.…”
Section: Exercisementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is usually accepted that drag-reducing suits can reduce skin friction, with an effect similar to shaving (Sharpe & Costill, 1998;Pendergast et al, 2006). Nevertheless, Mollendorf et al (2004) revealed that total drag decreased by 3 % to 10 % mostly due to decreased form drag in textile suits. These experimental data suggest that the water flow was tripped by frictional drag, remained attached to the swimmer body, thus decreasing form drag (Polidori et al, 2006;Marinho et al, 2009b).…”
Section: Equipmentsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Aiming to achieve higher velocities, the swimmer should reduce the hydrodynamic drag force resisting forward motion and increase the propelling force. Regarding the first aim, several studies have analysed the effect of wearing different equipment on hydrodynamic drag, with special attention to the use of swimsuits (Toussaint et al 2002;Mollendorf et al 2004;Pendergast et al 2006). Recently, companies turned to covering the human skin with a technologically advanced fabric that aims to be an efficient performance enhancer.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other authors suggested that the use of full body suits could reduce the total drag (pressure, wave and friction) (Toussaint et al 2002;Pendergast et al 2006). Friction drag seems to be largely influenced by the use of swimsuits; however, it represents only 10-15% of total drag (Mollendorf et al 2004;Bixler et al 2007). Added to that, these new swimsuits are very thigh fitting, thus compacting the body, eliminating air pockets (Mountjoy et al 2009) and improving the swimming coordination (Chollet et al 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%