Wetsuits

woody1

yeah ive my eye on that speedo one as well, the only thing putting me off is its only 2mm neoprene when most of the rest are 3 or 4 and i want all the bouyancy i can get out of it , so i wonder would it be better to go for a thicker one albeit at the few quid extra.. then again it says its entry level.. ? 30 or 40 quid in difference wont seem so much when im struggling in the middle of a lake ?
any thoughts anyone... akw ?

sconhome

The rules state that the maximum thickness of a wetsuit is 5mm. There is nothing (AFAIK) about the minimum thickness so in theory this suit should be legal.

I say 'should' because I'm not 100% either way on the minimum thickness.

The question I would ask is why put yourself at a disadvantage? 5mm is going to give you more buoyancy than a 2mm. It will also keep you warmer for longer, especially in Irish waters.

Someone earlier mentioned a 3mm suit. I can guarantee you that that is a surf suit which is of little or no benefit to you when swimming.

There are quite a few decent brands with triathlon specific wetsuits available at or below €200, which is a lot of money, but you have to look at it two ways (and I don't mean to lecture):

Buy cheap or surf suit & risk damage / injury to your shoulder muscles resulting in trips to physio or miss races.
You won't get an easier (without training) or cheaper way to decrease your race times than making up 3 or 4 minutes in a swim with a decent wetsuit.

You need to go to a club clinic and try on a couple of wetsuits if possible and see the difference.

tunney

amphkingwest wrote: »

Buy cheap or surf suit & risk damage / injury to your shoulder muscles resulting in trips to physio or miss races.
You won't get an easier (without training) or cheaper way to decrease your race times than making up 3 or 4 minutes in a swim with a decent wetsuit.

You need to go to a club clinic and try on a couple of wetsuits if possible and see the difference.

Expensive does not mean good. By that I mean some shops will sell what they have rather than what fits and if it doesn't fit its not good. I saw this in some shops, nearly cried when I saw someone getting fitted for a wetsuit that obviously didn't fit. That being said that shop does the same for bikes.

sconhome

tunney wrote: »

Expensive does not mean good. By that I mean some shops will sell what they have rather than what fits and if it doesn't fit its not good. I saw this in some shops, nearly cried when I saw someone getting fitted for a wetsuit that obviously didn't fit. That being said that shop does the same for bikes.

I'd agree 100% with all of this too and in particular emphasise the underlined.

Just to be clear, I'm not having a go at inexpensive suits or having a go at others selling inexpensive suits or trying to push my stuff.

I'm suggesting that an inexpensive suit (or what seems inexpensive) may not be right for you at all as it may simply not be right for you or for your needs.

woody1

The rules state that the maximum thickness of a wetsuit is 5mm. There is nothing (AFAIK) about the minimum thickness so in theory this suit should be legal.

I say 'should' because I'm not 100% either way on the minimum thickness.

The question I would ask is why put yourself at a disadvantage? 5mm is going to give you more buoyancy than a 2mm. It will also keep you warmer for longer, especially in Irish waters.

Someone earlier mentioned a 3mm suit. I can guarantee you that that is a surf suit which is of little or no benefit to you when swimming.

There are quite a few decent brands with triathlon specific wetsuits available at or below €200, which is a lot of money, but you have to look at it two ways (and I don't mean to lecture):

Buy cheap or surf suit & risk damage / injury to your shoulder muscles resulting in trips to physio or miss races.
You won't get an easier (without training) or cheaper way to decrease your race times than making up 3 or 4 minutes in a swim with a decent wetsuit.

You need to go to a club clinic and try on a couple of wetsuits if possible and see the difference.

thanks, thats great as i would have been leaning towards that one before your reply..it shows my ignorance that i thought a 5mm suit would definitely be a surfing suit and too heavy to swim in.. at least i learned that today so i prob wont go with the 2mm one , but budgets do have to be set and just because something might be a better investment doesnt neccessarily make it possible so its a matter of trying to get some information and pick the best out of whats at my price range... i dont expect there to be a club clinic anywhere close in the next 2 months but i will be in base 2 race at the weekend to see whats there ..

iarmhi1975

kim2877 wrote: »

I know they tested HUUB but are not selling them !
They are selling TYR, sailfish and ZeroD.
Zerod are arriving in the end of March . Check out the pictures on facebook !!!

How do you know that? Did they tell you they tried them out and they didn't pick them. Sounds like sales pitch to me

iarmhi1975

peter kern wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by tunney
Interesting that ZeroD are the official wetsuit of the BTA. Yet Brownlees in HUUB #JustSaying

what point are you trying to make here ?

different companies have different marketing strategies and budgets.
huub most likely has a very strong financial investment by an rich investor .
Zero D most likely has not as much money and needs to do deals where their have less upfront costs and share profits with BTA.

if somebody realy needs flexible shoulder zero D certainly an option that should be on ones shortlist for a wetsuit.
for a fishtailer huub could be good.


still at the end its 80% marketing and you have to try in a pool what suits you best.

Did you ever consider that some of the pros might just prefer the product and actually want the better product. They need to be in the lead group on the swim. Watch out for Tommy Zaferes and see what he does in the coming months.

Unregistered.

woody1 wrote: »

. There is nothing (AFAIK) about the minimum thickness so in theory this suit should be legal.

Surely this would be a massive loop hole?

sconhome

Unregistered. wrote: »

Surely this would be a massive loop hole?

Not really as most would favour a wetsuit over a non wetsuit swim event. They would have to limit the maximum thickness to prevent excessive use of buoyancy panels etc in the suits.

But I understand the point you are making, and often wondered why there is no minimal thickness from a safety / warmth point of view.