Stinger suits

loneswimmerloneswimmer IrelandCharter Member
edited April 2014 in General Discussion
This discussion was created from comments split from: Stinger suit discussion split.


Original Post from @Jamie

Stinger Suits In appreciation for the work done by the Marathon Swimming Federation I am choosing to follow the guidelines set by this organization. I believe in the rules, standards and spirit set out by this group. I not only appreciate it but feel that it is a huge benefit for not only current Marathon Swimmers, but aspiring Marathon Swimmers as well as the public to fully understand what Marathon swimming is. However there is a BUT….. The allowance of the so called Jellyfish stinger suit. I have a problem with this for a number of reasons. The spirit of Marathon Swimming is to swim in its purest form - a legal swim suit, a cap and a pair of goggles. It pits woman/man against the elements. The term “no outside assistance” is used so much it becomes almost the mantra of the sport. The argument that putting on a lycra full body suit does not add any other benefit to the swimmer other than project it from jellyfish is fool hardily in my opinion. If we are now allowing equipment to protect us from mother nature then swimming in a shark cage is also considered equipment to protect the swimmer. The thought that wrapping a swimmer in lycra does not provide some heat retention is also strange to me. No it is not a wetsuit, but when a layer such as lycra that is either against the naked body or traps water between the body and the fabric heat is created. The fact that the these so called stinger suits do not have any written standards as to material, buoyancy and permeability also makes no sense. Can a swimmer declare before her or his swim that they will use a stinger suit and wear whatever they choose? I have done so much reading on the stinger suits readily available and in all reality they are just a thicker piece of Lycra than a swim suit. HMMM thicker…. For those that do not know a legal FINA suit has a buoyancy of .5 Newton. When you add thickness the bouncy goes up. Cover the entire body and the effects are clear. On many of the off the shelf stinger suits they claim to provide buoyancy. hmmm!! I can find no place where there is a stinger suit made specifically for swimming long distances. So those that elect to wear one will have to purchase one off the shelf, used a full body swimsuit or have one customs made. I would like to point out that I have never swam in a so called stinger suit and I will estimate that 99.99 percent of Marathon Swimmers have not either. I reached out to one swimmer who has and they have flat out told me yes it does provide some warmth. One last point that I think is important. When the public sees a swimmer emerge from the ocean in a stinger suit I have to say most will think it is a wetsuit. I need some help here. Peace...

loneswimmer.com

Comments

  • loneswimmerloneswimmer IrelandCharter Member
    I personally fully agree. I have always been uncomfortable with the idea (never having seen one).

    But the rules didn't come about as a consequence of what the four authors just thought ourselves and tried to impose, but based on community consensus, and in the case of the suits a majority of people polled, which included people who used them, deemed them acceptable and non-performance enhancing.

    I have no problem opening this conversation open again though. With Rules Version 1.1 out, we are not actively working on any major updates.

    loneswimmer.com

  • I completely agree with all your comments. I also feel this assists the swimmer mentally as well as physically. Getting over the insesant thought of being stung is one of the many challenges a swimmer should face.
  • dc_in_sfdc_in_sf San FranciscoCharter Member
    AFAIK Lycra/Polyester is denser than water so it would not provide positive buoyancy. It's a pretty easy test in any case (i.e. does the suit float or sink)

    Rashguard shirts in my experience do not provide any heat retention, and instead provide great opportunities for drag and chafing.

    http://notdrowningswimming.com - open water adventures of a very ordinary swimmer

  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    edited February 2014
    I think it's fantastic that @Jamie is choosing to follow MSF Rules for his swim, and that he finds them to be a meaningful, legitimate representation of the values and traditions of our sport.

    I think it's fantastic that the marathon swimming community is engaging critically with MSF Rules ('critically' in the sense of 'involving careful judgment and analysis').

    I think it's fantastic that people are looking for even purer, tougher ways to swim, rather than the opposite. Kudos, @Jamie :)

    The MSF Rules were co-written by four people, mainly because it's more efficient to write with a relatively small group. But we hope the document doesn't merely express the narrow opinion of four people - but rather, the collective spirit of our community. And once we released it publicly, we, in a sense, transferred ownership of the document away from ourselves, and to the community.

    "Do what you will with it," basically -- that is the point of the Creative Commons attribution license.

    I think @Jamie raises some very interesting points about stinger suits. Especially:
    - "Stinger suit" is sort of an ill-defined concept at this point, and the Rules don't state any regulations on, e.g., fabric thickness or tests for buoyancy.
    - A full-body suit with black fabric does seem likely to retain heat in the sun.... I admit, I had not considered this point.

    These are important enough points that I think some clarification on the issue is probably called for in the next revision. The question is how best to do it. It's one thing to identify a problem or inconsistency -- quite another thing to resolve it to everyone's satisfaction.

    Quick clarification about how stinger suits are actually treated in MSF Rules, because I don't think it was clear in @Jamie's post: Currently, they are categorized as "non-standard, non-performance-enhancing equipment." This means they must be declared specifically in the swim documentation, though they do not disqualify a swim from being considered "unassisted."

    Finally, a question for @Jamie: If you think stinger suits should be specifically excluded from "unassisted" marathon swimming, then whom do you consider to currently hold the world record for longest unassisted swim?
  • Leonard_JansenLeonard_Jansen Charter Member
    Just to bring up a tangental issue: If stinger suits are non-standard & non-performance enhancing, would it be the same for a full-body suit designed to minimize UV exposure as long as it does not enhance performance, per se? After all, if you are swimming in the ocean, you could potentially put on a stinger suit that is also designed to minimize UV exposure.

    -LBJ

    “Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.” - Oscar Wilde

  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    @LBJ - yes. As it currently stands, stinger suits & UV-protective "rash guards" (a la Rotto) are treated as functionally equivalent. Again demonstrating how conceptually ill-defined these sorts of "protective" gear are at this point.

    Here's a rhetorical question:

    I still have my textile Blueseventy Nero full-body tech suit from a few years ago - the suits that were eventually banned by FINA due to their obviously performance-enhancing effects.

    As MSF Rules currently stand, could someone wear one of these suits and justify it as a "rash guard" or "stinger suit"? I think the community would reject this notion, but probably it's a loophole that should be closed.
  • Leonard_JansenLeonard_Jansen Charter Member
    Another question: If you can wear a full-body stinger/UV suit, why have the rules that state legal swim suit coverage? You can wear a jammer or a stinger suit but not something in between? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get it.

    -LBJ

    “Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.” - Oscar Wilde

  • david_barradavid_barra NYCharter Member
    edited March 2014
    Niek wrote:
    Why not ONLY allow FINA approved OW swim suits. .
    I prefer a higher standard

    ...anything worth doing is worth overdoing.

  • david_barradavid_barra NYCharter Member
    Niek wrote:
    @david_barra I prefer a higher standard
    Care to explain?
    FINA events are races, so it really doesn’t matter what attire is allowed as long as its available to the whole field. FINA rules are subject to pressure from suit manufacturers. FINA is not a sanctioning body for most marathon swims.....etc.

    ...anything worth doing is worth overdoing.

  • david_barradavid_barra NYCharter Member
    edited March 2014
    Niek wrote:
    FINA rules are subject to pressure from suit manufacturers.
    ...
    Yes and the manufacturers of those 'generally worldwide available' stinger suits & UV-protective "rash guards" have no personal interest in getting their gear accepted. :-O
    Tights and full body suits included in approved suits as per FINA....
    I'll say it again: I prefer a higher standard.
    Maybe it would be clearer if I say that I don't believe that tights and full body suits belong in marathon swimming.

    ...anything worth doing is worth overdoing.

  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    edited March 2014
    If you can wear a full-body stinger/UV suit, why have the rules that state legal swim suit coverage? You can wear a jammer or a stinger suit but not something in between? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get it.
    Good question, but yes, I think you're missing something. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I think it's a forest vs. trees issue.

    In brief: MSF Rules are designed to be usefully applied and adapted to swims in any body of water. There's a reason the document is structured how it is:

    - First, a statement of the "spirit of marathon swimming" - the abstract values and traditions which inspire the specific rules. As far as I know, there is no similar statement in any other set of rules in the sport, including English Channel rules.
    - Second, a categorization of equipment. There is "standard equipment," which is assumed to be used on nearly every swim (and thus need not be declared in the documentation). Basic stuff like suits, goggles, caps, grease, escort boat, etc. Then there is "nonstandard equipment," which is further sub-divided into performance-enhancing (always prohibited) and non-performance enhancing (may be allowed if local circumstances justify it -- but must be declared in documentation).
    - Third, a set of baseline rules, which may be modified/adapted according to the specific circumstances of the swim - as long as the modifications stay within the general spirit of the sport (as defined above).

    The process for specifying rules for a specific swim is as follows:

    1. Start with baseline rules and standard equipment.
    2. If baseline rules and standard equipment are not sufficient for a given swim due to local circumstances, modify them as necessary, within the spirit of the sport.
    3. Declare & document any modifications.

    For example:
    - The 8 Bridges Hudson River Swim could use standard MSF Rules, with a modification allowing for starts & finishes under bridges (rather than finishing on land).
    - The Tampa Bay Marathon Swim could use standard MSF Rules, with a modification allowing for touching bottom in the extreme shallows around Pinellas Point.

    So, LBJ, to address your question about swimwear coverage -- the standard swimwear is defined. Nothing below the knees, onto the neck, or beyond the shoulder, and for men, nothing above the waist.

    If a swimmer wants to wear swimwear with additional coverage, they may do so, provided:
    1. It does not benefit speed, buoyancy, or heat retention.
    2. The non-standard swimwear is specifically declared and documented.

    In other words, yes, you can wear something "in between," but it must be specifically declared and documented, just like any other nonstandard equipment.
  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    edited March 2014
    Niek wrote:
    Why not ONLY allow FINA approved OW swim suits. Then we don't have to ratify them.
    Because then we tie ourselves to what FINA thinks is a good idea. And FINA thinks it's a good idea to hold professional OW races in 31C water.
  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    edited March 2014
    Niek wrote:
    But we could use their approved swimwear rules.
    Sorry, but no.

    When FINA changes its mind about tech suits again 3 years from now, we will be insulated from their venality.
  • Leonard_JansenLeonard_Jansen Charter Member
    @Evmo - OK, thanks. I see it now. Although I am not completely happy with that level of flexibility, I think it has a level of pragmatism that is necessary if we are to embrace "reasonable" variations on the strict Channel Rules. By doing so, we won't marginalize ourselves to a bunch of "grumpy old gits."

    Besides, I am now certain that as long as I declare it, I can wear a Mexican wrestling mask for my swim cap, thereby terrifying my competitors.

    -LBJ

    “Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.” - Oscar Wilde

  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    I think it has a level of pragmatism that is necessary if we are to embrace "reasonable" variations on the strict Channel Rules.
    What are "strict Channel Rules"? English Channel rules?

    But English Channel rules allow drafting.

    I am not aware of a stricter set of rules than standard (unmodified) MSF Rules.
  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    edited March 2014
    Niek wrote:
    I disagree. The allowance of watches contradict this. They are not allowed by either EC organization.
    I disagree. The CSA do allow (analogue) watches. And evidently the CS&PF don't enforce any prohibition against.

    Also, the CS&PF allow men to wear swimsuits that extend above the waist.
    The swimmer may wear only one swimsuit in one or two pieces which shall not extend past the shoulder or below the knee.

    And evidently the CSA don't enforce their own rules about men's jammers.
  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    edited March 2014
    Niek wrote:
    No the CSA are like the CS&PF and don't enforce it.
    If a rule is not enforced, it is not a rule.

    In fact it is worse than "not a rule" - because some people actually follow it, thinking it will be enforced.

    There is a reason we took the time to write MSF Rules in the first place. I encourage everyone to take a look at the following two webpages:

    http://channelswimmingassociation.com/swim-advice/regulations
    http://cspf.co.uk/cs-and-pf-rules

    ... and tell me honestly that it is not possible to improve upon them (for the stated purpose -- swims in any body of water).

    A couple people actually made that argument on the Channel Swimmers chat group ("EC Rules are all we need"), including a member of this Forum. Hard to fathom.
  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    Niek wrote:
    No the CSA are like the CS&PF and don't enforce it.
    Again, I have an email from the CSA Swim Secretary Julie Bradshaw (not to be confused with the famous author Henry James), forwarded to me by a member of this Forum, stating that swimmers may wear analogue watches.
  • JamieJamie Member
    edited March 2014
    Wow - so much to digest.. I will start with the last question ask to me by @evmo. I have no idea who would be classified as the longest unassisted marathon swim. If I had to answer then under the current MSF it would be Penny's swim.

    We may want to look at the creation of these rules and use them as sort of pre and post era. In all honesty I have done much research on longest swims. It is extremely hard to determine. Many sports look at different eras to determine records. Sports has evolved and to look at them differently is important. As rules have evolved so has the way records are looked at. I have a hard time determining who currently holds records using MSF rules. Did those who have worn a stinger suit prior to the rules declare it before the swim? Do we accept those that claim records with out any observer records? I am not sure... Or do we simply move forward with records that can be verified with evidence? As for the stinger suit. To me it must be proven that they do not provide heat retention or buoyancy. I have heard arguments that they do not provide and assistance because they slow you down. To be honest, I much rather swim slower if they provide heat and buoyancy. I must say that if it is proven that then do not provide any outside assistance other than jelly protection they must not be used for sun protection i.e. must only be used in waters that hold jellies. Peace
  • Leonard_JansenLeonard_Jansen Charter Member
    evmo wrote:
    I think it has a level of pragmatism that is necessary if we are to embrace "reasonable" variations on the strict Channel Rules.
    What are "strict Channel Rules"? English Channel rules?

    But English Channel rules allow drafting.

    I am not aware of a stricter set of rules than standard (unmodified) MSF Rules.

    Fair point and I stand corrected.

    Regardless, my point is that the unmodified MSF rules are more to my personal liking but I do believe that the ability to modify the rules within the "spirit of marathon swimming" is necessary if there is ever to be a universally accepted set of rules. Otherwise MSF will be looked upon as a bunch of old farts (a.k.a. "grumpy old gits" ) who are obstructionist to the evolution of the sport and eventually we will make ourselves irrelevant.

    -LBJ

    “Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.” - Oscar Wilde

  • JamieJamie Member
    edited March 2014
    So - I just want to be clear. If I declare that I am wearing a jelly suit in Lake Michigan prior to my swim all is good. I say this because the great lakes hold a population of fresh water stinging Jelly Fish. I am not kidding.. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=1068

    If so I am declaring my intent to wear a jelly stinger suit. :) Kind of kidding...
  • gregocgregoc Charter Member
    @Jamie, these jellies are awesome. We sometimes see them in Walden Pond here in MA. They are rare in the mature, penny sized jelly form. They are "mosty harmless" to almoest everything. "Freshwater jellyfish is not considered dangerous to humans. Although its stings can paralyze macroinvertebrates and small fish, its small nematocysts are not likely to penetrate human skin (Peard, 2002)."
  • dc_in_sfdc_in_sf San FranciscoCharter Member
    Jamie wrote:
    I must say that if it is proven that then do not provide any outside assistance other than jelly protection they must not be used for sun protection i.e. must only be used in waters that hold jellies. Peace

    I'm actually in favour of increased sun protection through swimsuits. But I come from a country where skin cancer is a major issue. Despite being coated in SolRx I still got a horrible sun burn on the Rotto swim. If Rash guards were not such a source drag/chafing I would have worn one (as is allowed for the Rottnest swim).

    I can crank a 4 hour set in an outdoor pool in the Bay Area with no sunscreen and get a light tan. 30 minutes at the beach in Australia and I am a lobster. It really is that bad.

    http://notdrowningswimming.com - open water adventures of a very ordinary swimmer

  • JamieJamie Member
    I am still confused. It does not bother me that people wear stinger suit or rash guards, I just do not see how a swim can be classified as a marathon swim when worn. I surfer in Hawaii for 5 years and used a rash guard daily. It did provide warmth. On many website that sell rash guards and stinger suits they claim to provide warmth. I am all for their use but lets say a swimmer completes a 50 mile swim in a stinger suit and then someone else comes along and does it without. One gets classified as a Marathon swim and the other a Marathon swim with the use of a non-standard, non performance enhancing piece of equipment. hmmm a bit confusing. A marathon swim should be simple. I am all for the advancement and progression in open water swimming but there is no reason to change the fundamental spirit just because. These advancements should be part of the progression in OPEN WATER SWIMMING not Marathon Swimming. I thought we are trying to protect that. It seems that simple to me.
  • dc_in_sfdc_in_sf San FranciscoCharter Member
    @Jamie - afaict the thermal rashguards have some amount of neoprene in them which means they'd fail the sort of test you'd apply to a swim suit fabric.

    http://notdrowningswimming.com - open water adventures of a very ordinary swimmer

  • swimmer25kswimmer25k Charter Member
    evmo wrote:
    Niek wrote:
    I disagree. The allowance of watches contradict this. They are not allowed by either EC organization.
    I disagree. The CSA do allow (analogue) watches. And evidently the CS&PF don't enforce any prohibition against.

    Also, the CS&PF allow men to wear swimsuits that extend above the waist.
    The swimmer may wear only one swimsuit in one or two pieces which shall not extend past the shoulder or below the knee.

    And evidently the CSA don't enforce their own rules about men's jammers.

    To diverge a little:

    Back in 2001 CSA Secretary Duncan Taylor gave me the thumbs up to wear a jammer as did my official observer. It seems that the CSA needs to evolve with the times. Would Matthew Webb's wool LZR be allowed by CSA, CSPF, and/or MSF rules today? Not that I'm volunteering or anything like that.
  • Leonard_JansenLeonard_Jansen Charter Member
    Somewhere, buried deep within this forum, there is a thread in which I advocated that marathon/open water swims be set up in a category-type system. Something along the lines of Category 1 would follow MSF unalterred rules or similar, Category 2 might allow stinger suits, etc, Category 3 might allow wetsuits and Category 4 is basically anything goes as long as it's under your own power. I still think that it might be a decent idea and could be fit in with the MSF rules and, at the same time, prevent some of the disagreements that we are seeing about watches, stinger suits, etc.

    The WORST thing we can do at this point is to present a house divided on rules - that allows certain people to take advantage of any confusion and make up their own rules and point to the confusion as justification.

    -LBJ

    “Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.” - Oscar Wilde

  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    edited March 2014
    I advocated that marathon/open water swims be set up in a category-type system. Something along the lines of Category 1 would follow MSF unalterred rules or similar, Category 2 might allow stinger suits, etc, Category 3 might allow wetsuits and Category 4 is basically anything goes as long as it's under your own power.
    A category system is an appealing idea, and indeed there was such a system in an early draft of the document. I don't remember exactly why we discarded it (and I'm not saying we can't still incorporate it), but I guess it just evolved in a different direction.

    I think part of the issue is that no matter how many categories you have, ultimately it boils down to a binary decision: Is the swim unassisted, or is it assisted?

    In the first public version of MSF Rules, stinger suits were purposely placed in a grey area -- they aren't standard equipment, but nor do they disqualify a swim from being considered "unassisted."

    And do you want to know why, honestly? I will probably regret saying this publicly, but here it is: Penny Palfrey. It just doesn't quite feel right to call Penny's Cayman Islands swim "assisted."

    I think some folks may underestimate the political minefield we were stepping into by creating MSF Rules. Those of you who subscribe to the Channel Swimmers chat group got a taste of this. Here is another example:

    http://dailynews.openwaterswimming.com/2014/01/wristwatches-are-no-but-gps-is-yes.html?m=1

    Certain people and interest groups find MSF Rules threatening, for obvious reasons. These people/interest groups would find any excuse to undermine this project.

    So Version 1.0 of MSF Rules reflected an effort to eliminate as many "easy targets" as possible. And one enormously easy target would have been any implication that Penny's swim was "assisted."

    At this point, we are in a different situation politically. MSF Rules have been endorsed and supported by a wide swath of the community. Perhaps, we are in a position where we can make subtler statements about swims of the past, i.e., that we are not casting judgment on swims of the past, but rather, offering guidelines for future swims.
  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    edited March 2014
    Category 1 would follow MSF unalterred rules or similar, Category 2 might allow stinger suits, etc, Category 3 might allow wetsuits and Category 4 is basically anything goes as long as it's under your own power.
    As always, the devil is in the details.

    If Category 1 is standard/unmodified MSF Rules, and Category 2 is modified, does that mean 8 Bridges would be a Category 2 swim due to their modification of the start & finish rules (in-water vs. on-land)? That doesn't feel right.

    Or is Category 2 only equipment modifications?
  • Leonard_JansenLeonard_Jansen Charter Member
    evmo wrote:
    Category 1 would follow MSF unalterred rules or similar, Category 2 might allow stinger suits, etc, Category 3 might allow wetsuits and Category 4 is basically anything goes as long as it's under your own power.
    As always, the devil is in the details.

    If Category 1 is standard/unmodified MSF Rules, and Category 2 is modified, does that mean 8 Bridges would be a Category 2 swim due to their modification of the start & finish rules (in-water vs. on-land)? That doesn't feel right.

    Or is Category 2 only equipment modifications?

    Actually, I'm not proposing what I wrote as exact definitions. Rather, think of them as an example of escalating degrees of "laxity". In my original comments, I seem to remember also trying to make the case that one should not think of viewing the categories as somehow being judgemental of a swim's "worth." Instead, they might be an all-inclusive umbrella for types of marathon swimming and/or a sequence of stepping stones that become progressively more difficult and that a novice swimmer can follow. To the latter point, years ago we had a "B" division in racewalking national championships. It was designed to encourage younger walkers by handing out awards to people who weren't really good enough to snag a top place, but had promise and it gave them a goal to shoot at - it was a big thing to get rid of your "B" status and graduate to the "A" status. Unfortunately, they don't have it any more.
    What exactly differentiates categories would need to be debated by those more accomplished than I, so don't use my thoughts as anything exact.

    -LBJ

    “Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.” - Oscar Wilde

  • david_barradavid_barra NYCharter Member
    A stinger suit, or any attire that increases coverage, has the potential to benefit a swimmer in 5 ways that I can think of (disregarding any psycological boost). They are, in no particular order:
    Compression (reducing fatigue, promoting muscle recovery)
    Protection (form the elements and critters)
    Buoyancy
    Heat Retention
    Improved coefficient of friction

    Adopting the stinger suit as standard equipment will open the flood gate of development wheras manufacturers will satisfy those benefits that appear to offer no performance advantage while pushing the boundries of those that clearly do.

    One needs only to compare the ill fitting, off the shelf suit that Penny donned herself to the snug, custom made suit requiring the assistence of support crew that DN used to see the direction this is heading.

    ...anything worth doing is worth overdoing.

  • MvGMvG Islamabad, PakistanCharter Member
    edited April 2014
    A slippery slope if you ask me.

    Any suit, no matter how thin/non-buoyant or what colour, will help heat retention, simply because it protects the skin against wind chill. I totally subscribe to Niek's views above.

    Jellies are part of marathon swimming, and certainly in the colder waters of the English and North Channel. There is a simple way to avoid jellies there - Fergal Somerville did it by swimming the North Channel so early in the season that the jellyfish hadn't arrived yet. Of course you will then have to be able to handle 9 degrees water for 12+ hours. If you can't (and I am pretty sure I couldn't), then go later in the season when the water is less cold, and put up with the stings if you want your swim to be recognized as a non-assisted swim.

  • ColmBreathnachColmBreathnach Charter Member
    I would agree with Milko, but also think that the stinger suit is perhaps the thin end of the wedge. I'm sure someone can make a case for all kinds of reasons to deviate from the standard channel rules. Jellies? Wear a suit. Sunburn? Wear a rash vest. Current too strong? Use fins. Etc. All can be justified from a safety point of view, so why not allow them?

    Call me old fashioned, but part of the appeal for me is that you basically have to face your fears with no armour to protect you. Just you, togs, hat and goggles. Let the sea do it's worst. That's part of the challenge.

    I even have trouble with having an assisted swim category. If a swim cannot be done under channel rules, then so be it. If Cuba - Florida, or indeed any other swim, is just too difficult because of box jellies, then my thinking is that its just too difficult because of box jellies, not what aid can I use to make it easier / achievable. The rules have been set. Just stick to them.
  • MvGMvG Islamabad, PakistanCharter Member
    Well said Colm. Accept that there are limits. I like old-fashioned.
  • loneswimmerloneswimmer IrelandCharter Member
    edited April 2014
    I've split the MSF Testing Stinger Discussion and moved the later comments to this thread. This thread was intended to merge with the previous stinger suit discussion. However something has bunged up the works and that thread is currently AWOL so this starts abruptly. I'll merge it with the other thread as so as I (hopefully) it!.
    Sorted now. It was a two-bell alarm!

    The testing discussion is for the testing, this is most recent discussion about stinger suits advantages, use etc.

    It's certainly the case that the large majority of us agree on the subject. I'll just point out:

    a) Not everyone though agreed in the poll @evmo carried out last year. A number of people think they are acceptable.

    b) There are a lot of unilateral behind-the-scenes decisions in this sport. A public discussion and decision-making process will hopefully be helpful to everyone.

    loneswimmer.com

  • Would it be possible for us to re-poll on the topic of stinger suits? I for one have learned a lot about stinger suits since that poll.
Sign In or Register to comment.