> I swim because I enjoy it, not because I'm trying to get somewhere fast.
I run because I enjoy it, not because I’m trying to get somewhere fast. But I also bike because I enjoy it, not because I’m trying to get somewhere fast.
You seem to assume that because this thing is faster, it must automatically be less enjoyable. That’s not the case for bikes, why should it be the case here? In my opinion it sounds fun, and would probably be enjoyable.
Maybe not necessarily "faster" but there is an idea that adding any kind of technology should be avoided for recreational activities. For example, you can mountain bike with a fully-suspended e-bike, or you can struggle with a hardtail or even a road bike. Different kinds of fun, but in the former you'll wonder if it's the technology doing all the work.
> Different kinds of fun, but in the former you'll wonder if it's the technology doing all the work.
"All the work" is useless hyperbol. There are things that simply can't be done on a road bike. There are things that can be done on a road bike without a significant loss of safety.
Sport technology can reduce the skill required for certain things, but it also tends to extend the envelope of what is possible. It is almost never correct to think of technology doing all the work but rather to think of it as an ability multiplier.
There are of course, times when it is beneficial to practice without a specific piece of equipment. Either for a challenge or/and to hone a specific sub skill.
there is an idea that adding any kind of technology should be avoided for recreational activities
How do you draw the line at "any kind of technology"? Isn't the bike itself "technology"? How about pneumatic tires? Or computer designed tread for optimal traction? Is a bike suspension too much technology? How about electric assist that can help you up a hill but won't propel the bike without you pedaling along with it?
Draw the line wherever you want, this isn't some kind of absolute theory of anything. Just that adding stuff to maximize your output isn't necessary to have fun.
> you'll wonder if it's the technology doing all the work.
We’re talking about manually propelled bikes here. The bike isn’t doing all the work, but it is pretty essential in reaching the speed and sustaining the pace.
Sure you can argue that if you strap a rocket to your bike then you aren’t doing any work, but that’s not the case in either of these examples, so what’s the purpose of going down that tangent?
That's a fair point. My (untested) assumption would be that it would be cumbersome and weird, and I wouldn't be 'swimming'.
If I were to guess at their motivations, it might be 'what could make me go faster in the water and also be enjoyable'? I'd try it out of curiosity, sure, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't last beyond the novelty for me.
I remember reading Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman and how he described back then how the world is full of dumb smart-alec and I get reminded how that still holds true.
Running does make pedestrian locomotion more tolerable. Save me some money versus using electric scooters though I think electric scooters are still faster.
Sure, and if you want to run fast you can just use rollerblades instead of a bicycle and be be “more agile”. So what? Doesn’t mean bikes aren’t worth anything.
If you rollerblade or bike, you're no longer running. But with this underwater bicycle they are still swimming, just more awkwardly. So this isn't a new form of transportation.
I run because I enjoy it, not because I’m trying to get somewhere fast. But I also bike because I enjoy it, not because I’m trying to get somewhere fast.
You seem to assume that because this thing is faster, it must automatically be less enjoyable. That’s not the case for bikes, why should it be the case here? In my opinion it sounds fun, and would probably be enjoyable.