• Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:

    • Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
    • Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
    • Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
    • Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
    • All this and much more...

    You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!

Herbert did 95 constant!

Thread Status: Hello , There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
Deeperblue's recognition programming is probably based on I.P. addresses. It is easy enough for some bozo, with to much time on his/her hands to continually change this numerical address, and thus, goof all the polls. This is the kind of trick that is juuuuust difficult enough to make some mediocre-brained computer dilettante feel like a genius for a day.

So we have someone out there that is a big pi[m]pin fan, and likes to [feel like he can] ruin everyone else's good time.......no surprise....hehe.

Keep up the good work, friend. We are all very impressed.

rofl

Ted
 
Herbert's new records are definitely amazing, but I think people are somehow loosing track of what's going on. No one is yet close to 100m in constant weight. At 95m, most people feel that 100m is a dive away, but that's not the case.

Let's look at how things progressed for Herbert in constant weight:

2001:
pb of 89m during training in Ibiza
WR of 86m in Ibiza competition

2002:
constant weight pb of 92m during training in Tenerife
cancelled constant weight WR attempt

2003:
In Cyprus, he didn't break 90 in training, tried 93m in competition, broke eardrum, B/O

Austria:
Makes 95m world record on 3rd attempt (no one has clarified what happened on the first two unsuccessful attempts)
Makes 94m in Carinthian competition


While some people seem to think that we have suddenly seen giant leaps and bounds, look again at Herbert's progression:
2001: 89m
2002: 92m
2003: 95m

Increasing at 3m per year, it would be 2005 before 100m would be reached. Of course, anything can happen.

If you want to look at the progression of the CW depths in general, not specific to a particular athlete, you must look at the personal best depths of the athletes, and not necessarily the world records. In 2001, both Herbert and Manolis Giankos had reported 89m personal bests in training, and these were the deepest depths reported in 2001. In 2002, Coste reported a 93m dive before doing the 90m WR. In 2003, the deepest dive yet reported by anyone is Herbert's 95m.

So the absolute progression reported by any athlete:
2001: 89m (Nitsch/Giankos)
2002: 93m (Coste)
2003: 95m (Nitsch) : (Coste's attempt is coming up soon)

Again, it shows a slow progression.

Anyone who has dived very deep in constant weight knows that one of the greatest difficulties is not to make a new personal best, but just to get back to the depth you were doing before! This was exemplified in Cyprus, when Herbert was having problems breaking 80m, despite a pb of 92m the year before. The depths are so deep it is hard just to tie your old pb, let alone get that extra one or two meters. Five more meters can seem like a mile away.

Nevertheless, people will continue to dive deeper, at a steady pace; I think we'll see steady progression until around 115-125m, when the progression will slow down dramatically.

I also predict another phenomenon. The gap between the deepest divers and the 'next deepest' will continue to widen. If you look at the result of the carinthian competition in Austria which just happened, Herbert is first with 94m, and the second deepest diver was 14-liter man Hubert Maier of Germany with 64m. Herbert won by 30m. This trend will continue. In Cyprus, we saw Stepanek at 93m, Coste at 85m, Nery at 82m, then way back is Frolla with 72m, Lanner with 71m, etc...

We will see a steady increase in the number of divers reaching 70-75m, but the number of divers going 80m or deeper will hardly increase.

Free immersion is a totally different story. Expect to see huge leaps in this category. Keep in mind that while it took Herbert three tries to make the constant record, he did the 100m in free immersion on his first attempt (correct me if I'm wrong). Remember he can equalize deeper in free immersion because he goes down feet first.

Here is another interesting trend:
May 2001:
CW record: 70m (women), 81m (men)
FI record, 70m (women), 73m (men)

Sept 2003:
CW record: 70m (women), 95m (men)
FI record: 70m (women), 100m (men)

So, in early 2001, the men's free immersion record was 3m deeper than the women's record, now it is 30m deeper; that's a hundred foot difference!

In early 2001, the men's CW record was 11m deeper than the women's record, now it is 25m deeper.

Is this because no one is trying to break the women's records? Not so. Here are the attempts which occured on the women's records (that I can remember):
2001:
Deborah Andolloh 74m FI (samba)
Mandy Cruickshank FI (didn't reach 68m prerequisite)

2002:
Yasemin Dalkilic CW 72m (B/O)
Yamina (greece) CW (cancelled)

2003:
Annabel Briseno, made 71m in training, announced she would try WR in Cyprus, ended up announcing 64m (B/O)
Mandy Cruickshank CW 71m (B/O)
Mandy Cruickshank FI 71m (B/O)
Annabel Briseno (CW & FI delayed until November)

Since Tanya's 70m/70m double record in FI/CW in 2001, the deepest official (successful) CW dive recorded by a woman was 65m by Mandy Cruickshank at Kona 2002.

Even Tanya herself said that after her 70m CW record, she didn't think she could have gone much deeper.

Eric Fattah
BC, Canada
 
Reactions: caymandiver and Shadowkiller
I just thought of another interesting point.

Many divers are limited by equalizing. If equalizing is your limit, then your maximum depth is based on pressure, not distance. Further, fresh water is less dense than sea water.

Herbert has stated that he is mainly limited by equalizing -- also evidenced by his eardrum rupture from 93m in Cyprus -- in the OCEAN.

However, his 95m record was in a lake. 95m in a lake is equivalent to 95m/1.03 = 92.2m in the ocean, as far as pressure & equalizing go.

So, going back to Herbert's progression:
2001: 89m OCEAN
2002: 92m OCEAN
2003: 95m LAKE = 92.2m OCEAN
93m OCEAN in Cyprus with eardrum rupture & B/O

So, Herbert still has not conquered his 93m 'demon' from Cyprus, and Stepanek's 93m CW record remains the record as far as pressure goes.

Herbert's 95m is still very amazing, but it is very ironic that he is reaching the same pressure as his 2002 pb of 92m in the ocean...


Eric Fattah
BC, Canada
 
Reactions: DeepThought
Interesting anlysis Eric!

Do you think we'll see more fresh water record attempts as athletes try to gain the lower pressure advantage?

One other interesting trend we were discussing the other day is the huge distance that the small number of elite athletes have on the rest of the community. We were watching the world track meet a couple weeks back and sprinters were missing the final heat by tenths of a second. With 8 guys in the finals running rediculously close times. It seems like, and this was just our impression not based on any stats, the difference between the 2 or 3 top men and the rest of the field is enormous. It's not like most people can do 80m and their doing 95. It's the equivalant of a sprint final where three people finish the race as the other five are hitting their pace half way in...

Until the trend is reversed and their is a larger pool of talent receiving top level training and coaching it seems like the record setting will continue at a slower pace.
 
Density of seawater

Eric,
You've got that backwards. Seawater is more dense than fresh water. That's why things are more buoyant in seawater than fresh water.
 
Not only is fresh water less dense than seawater, but it is way less viscous. This means that an object moving through fresh water experiences way less drag than an object moving through seawater.

For constant weight, it is unclear if the reduced drag would benefit, because the fin needs viscous fluid to propel you.

In free immersion, however, that is not the case. Since you can pull on the line, you want to dive in the least viscous fluid as possible. The fresh water provides much less drag, but your method of propulsion (pulling on the line) is not affected in any adverse way. So, for free immersion, fresh water provides a double advantage: less pressure, less drag. Not to mention, no currents and flat surface water.

If you have problems conceptualizing this, always imagine the extreme case: diving in air. Imagine constant weight in air--air is less dense than water and way less viscous (less drag).

First of all, to make things even (compared to water diving), the diver should be neutrally buoyant at the 'surface of the air.' So, that means 200 helium balloons tied around his waist. Now, imagine constant weight. The monofin has almost no propulsion in air. Further, the ideal monofin for swimming in air would be way bigger than in water. Nevertheless, it still seems like the monofin would not work effectively in the air.

Now imagine free immersion in the air, again with 200 helium balloons around your waist -- or make it 199 so you are about one pound negative. You float down the line, in the air, effortlessly. Now, to pull up, you have almost no drag, and yet you only weigh 1 pound!

By thinking this way, you can clearly see that free immersion would be the easiest in the least dense, least viscous medium. However, by the same analysis, it is not clear that constant weight would be easier in that case.


Eric Fattah
BC, Canada
 
We were talking about the difference between the coast and our lake a couple of weeks ago. Our completely unscientific observation was that the descent was much easier in the lake. It feels like your carving through the water in the lake as opposed to pushing down through sludge in the ocean (exaggerated for effect). Conversly however kicking up from depth in the lake its very surprising how long it can take to build momentum whereas in the ocean you can feel your kicks working to make you move much faster.

The way you have illustrated the science, Eric, it seems like our perceptions would be valid.
 
Eric,
One thing I have been a little confused about since your excellent co-authored pre Cyprus coverage is did Martin use bifins? If so, does that mean, equipment wise, bifins took back the world constant weight record and now Herbert has given it back to mono fins?
don
 
Martin used bifins for his 93m record, but that was more like a freak incident because Martin himself is an inhuman freak of nature!

Looking at the deepest divers (and unofficial pb's):
Herbert 95m monofin
Carlos 93m monofin
Martin 93m bifins
Gianluca Genoni 90m monofin
Manolis Giankos 89m monofin
Alessandro Rignalilolli 88m monofin
Guillaume Nery 88m monofin
Patrick Musimu 88m monofin
.
.
.
.
.
Pelizzari 84m bifins
LeMaster 83m bifins



Eric Fattah
BC, Canada
 
herberts's dives in Austria

Three friends of mine were watching the Austrian competition personally as the location of competition is not far from our country (Slovakia). I was told Herbert did 3 times 100m and 4th try was done in 95m. Judges 2 times couldn't approve 100m because of suspicion of very light LMC on Herbert's face and once they didn't like the turnover in 100m. I hope there will be more info from Austrian competition soon. I will let you know here on forum.
:::::::see::::::::::www.freediving.sk ::::::::::no english vers. yet
 
@efattah
Hi eric, too bad you did not compete in this really well organized competition. I would have loved seeing you taking advantage of the lower pressure (actually less than 3%), while swimming down in total darkness (from -30), less buoyancy and a water temperature of 4 degree (from -25m) ....

Actually I don't think records are easier to realize in lake than in the sea, but finally it was the decision of AIDA to do not differentiate.


Some Info on the record attempts:
On Herberts first attempt - which was in FI - he failed because the rope was entangled two times on his way down to -100m. So Herbert got stuck with his safety line :duh . Every "normal" man would have stopped the attempt but Herbert - I don't know if it was the depth that influenced him - decided to continue.

The second attempt was declared as failure because he somehow failed to touch the depth mark - he missed it by 20cm......

On the third attempt (in FI) everything went well and Herbert reached -100m, got back his record and also his confidence (dive time ~4:10).

The fourth attempt was done in CW (-95m). Herbert had no problem with this and surfaced clean after about 3:20.

After the -94m in the competition (2hours later), Herbert decided to have another try in unassisted and realized -50m in 2:20.

Greetings from Austria
 
one thing i find a little surprising is that Herbert did 94 with a mask in the competition - right? and did only 1 m more for the WR, when he presumably used his noseclip and seal mask contraption.
 
@alun
you seem to know your stuff quite well

Yes, in accordance to the strict AIDA competition rules and in contradiction to herberts preferences, he did the 94m with a normal mask without a noseclip.

I think we can expect new amazing performances in UNASSISTED (60+), CW (100) and maybe VARIABLE (122+) from Herbert soon
 
hi

Eric thanks for those predictions of the future posts I really like them thanks bud

cheers

Ps what about Seb murats unofficial Pbs better than all of them
 
***********************
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…