Literature DB >> 19395109

A kinematic and dynamic comparison of surface and underwater displacement in high level monofin swimming.

Guillaume Nicolas1, Benoit Bideau.   

Abstract

Fin swimming performance can be divided into underwater and surface water races. World records are about 10% faster for underwater swimming vs. surface swimming, but little is known about the advantage of underwater swimming for monofin swimming. Some authors reported that the air-water interface influences the kinematics and leads to a narrow vertical amplitude of the fin. On the one hand, surface swimming is expected to affect drag parameters (cross-sectional area (S) and active drag (AD)) when compared to underwater swimming. On the other hand, the surface swimming technique may also affect efficiency (eta(F)). The aim of this study is therefore to evaluate and compare drag parameters and efficiency during underwater and surface swimming. To this end, 12 international level monofin swimmers were measured during both underwater and surface swimming. Kinematic parameters (both dimensional and non-dimensional), eta(F) (calculated according to the Elongated-Body Theory), and AD (computed with Velocity Perturbation Method) were calculated for an underwater and a surface fin swimming trial, performed at maximal speed. As expected, results showed significantly lower velocities during surface swimming vs. underwater V(1,under) =2.5ms(-1) vs. V(1,surf) =2.36ms(-1), p<.01). Velocities during underwater and surface swimming were strongly correlated (r=.97, p<.01). Underwater swimming was also associated with higher vertical amplitudes of the fin compared to surface swimming (V(under) =0.55mvs. V(surf) )=0.46m, p<.01). Length-specific amplitudes (A(under)/L(b)) were in the order of 20% during underwater swimming as for undulating fish, and significantly higher than during surface swimming (A(surf)/L(b)=17%, p<.01). Efficiency for surface swimming was about 6% lower than for underwater swimming (eta(F,under) =0.79 vs. eta(F,surf) =0.74, p<.01). This decrease could be associated with an increase in swimming frequency for surface swimming (f (surf)=2.15Hz vs. f (under)=2.08Hz, p<.01). Active drag during surface swimming was about 7% higher than for underwater swimming (AD(under) =78.9N vs. AD(surf) =84.7N, p<.01). A significantly smaller cross-sectional area for surface swimming (S(under) =0.053m(2) vs. S(surf) =0.044m(2), p<.01) and higher drag coefficient for surface swimming (C(d,under) =0.47 vs. C(d,surf) =0.69, p<.01) were measured. Finally, correlation between cross-sectional area and vertical amplitude of the fin was reported for both underwater and surface swimming. These results suggest that the performance improvement during underwater swimming is not only linked to a wave drag reduction effect but also to a specific swimming technique due to the free surface.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19395109     DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2009.02.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Mov Sci        ISSN: 0167-9457            Impact factor:   2.161


  8 in total

1.  Kick frequency affects the energy cost of aquatic locomotion in elite monofin swimmers.

Authors:  Guillaume Boitel; Fabrice Vercruyssen; Morgan Alberty; Xavier Nesi; Lionel Bourdon; Jeanick Brisswalter
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2010-04-06       Impact factor: 3.078

2.  Comparison of temporal parameters of swimming rescue elements when performed using dolphin and flutter kick with fins - didactical approach.

Authors:  Marek Rejman; Wojciech Wiesner; Piotr Silakiewicz; Andrzej Klarowicz; J Arturo Abraldes
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 2.988

3.  Analysis of Relationships between the Level of Errors in Leg and Monofin Movement and Stroke Parameters in Monofin Swimming.

Authors:  Marek Rejman
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 2.988

4.  Key Performance Indicators Related to Strength, Endurance, Flexibility, Anthropometrics, and Swimming Performance for Competitive Aquatic Lifesaving.

Authors:  Daniela Reichmuth; Bjørn Harald Olstad; Dennis-Peter Born
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 3.390

5.  Estimating the Trunk Transverse Surface Area to Assess Swimmer's Drag Force Based on their Competitive Level.

Authors:  Tiago M Barbosa; Jorge E Morais; Mário J Costa; Jean E Mejias; Daniel A Marinho; António J Silva
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2012-05-30       Impact factor: 2.193

6.  The Hydrodynamic Study of the Swimming Gliding: a Two-Dimensional Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Analysis.

Authors:  Daniel A Marinho; Tiago M Barbosa; Abel I Rouboa; António J Silva
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2011-10-04       Impact factor: 2.193

7.  Morphometric study for estimation and validation of trunk transverse surface area to assess human drag force on water.

Authors:  Jorge E Morais; Mário J Costa; Erik J Mejias; Daniel A Marinho; António J Silva; Tiago M Barbosa
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2011-07-04       Impact factor: 2.193

8.  Kinematic and kinetic analysis of two gymnastics acrobatic series to performing the backward stretched somersault.

Authors:  Bessem Mkaouer; Monèm Jemni; Samiha Amara; Helmi Chaabène; Zouhair Tabka
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2013-07-05       Impact factor: 2.193

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.