Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

The Trail-running thread

Post climbing gear-related questions, offer advice. For classifieds, please use that forum.
 

Re: The Trail-running thread

Postby Sierra Ledge Rat » Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:09 pm

I was into trail ultras back in the 1990s.

I always ran in high-tops for the extra support. My ankles are weak and I always have trouble with sprains. My arch also collapsed over the years, I presume from running 30 miles every weekend. I went from a size 11 to a size 13 in a few years.

Eventually I blew my meniscus at mile 25 of a 30-mile Ultra (1998) and I've never been able to get back into ultras. At my my peak, I ran an ultramarathon every weekend over the summer (8 to 10 ultras).

Most of my running was in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado:
Mosquito Marathon
Road Apple Trail
Hermosa Ceek Trail
Sandia Peak (La Luz, Embudo, Embudito, etc.)
Paharito
Etc.

Somewhere in the hills outside of Farmington, New Mexico
Image
User Avatar
Sierra Ledge Rat

 
Posts: 1113
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:14 am
Location: Appalachia, United States
Thanked: 240 times in 157 posts

Re: The Trail-running thread

Postby visentin » Tue May 08, 2012 3:04 pm

Do anyone know a brand/model of watch that is able to record GPX routes, and display data that would interest the runner ? (average speed, etc)
User Avatar
visentin

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:27 pm
Location: WrocBaw, France and, Poland
Thanked: 87 times in 58 posts

Re: The Trail-running thread

Postby ExcitableBoy » Tue May 08, 2012 5:24 pm

visentin wrote:Do anyone know a brand/model of watch that is able to record GPX routes, and display data that would interest the runner ? (average speed, etc)


My wife bought a Garmin Forerunner 205 that I occasionally use. It records distance, elevation gain/loss, current pace, average pace, time of day, elapsed time and this imformation can be down loaded to a lap top and the GPX track is overlaid on a map, as well as all the above stats stored. While a bit larger than say a Suunto watch, it is not overly obtrusive and I forget I am wearing it. It even works in heavy timber. I have found that my personal estimations of distance and elevation gain and loss are so accurate that I don't need a GPS, but it is fun when I run a new course to cross reference my own estimation against the GPS to see how accurate I am. (Very).
User Avatar
ExcitableBoy

 
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:33 am
Location: Issaquah, Washington
Thanked: 424 times in 308 posts

Re: The Trail-running thread

Postby gert » Tue May 08, 2012 5:58 pm

I'm quite happy with the forunner 305 too. The elevation gain is useless but distance, HR ec. works fine and you can record the track. What I don't like is that once the battery is gone you will not be able to excange it - then it turns into a piece of hazardous waste!
User Avatar
gert

 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:48 am
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
Thanked: 8 times in 7 posts

Re: The Trail-running thread

Postby ExcitableBoy » Tue May 08, 2012 6:36 pm

gert wrote:IThe elevation gain is useless


Why do you say the elevation gain is useless? I find it to be accurate when cross refereced against guide books as well as my own estimation.
User Avatar
ExcitableBoy

 
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:33 am
Location: Issaquah, Washington
Thanked: 424 times in 308 posts

Re: The Trail-running thread

Postby gert » Tue May 08, 2012 7:07 pm

ExcitableBoy wrote:
gert wrote:IThe elevation gain is useless


Why do you say the elevation gain is useless? I find it to be accurate when cross refereced against guide books as well as my own estimation.


When I run a flat course it always shows unrealistic altitude gain. It can be 500 m after a 2h run. I now ignore it.
User Avatar
gert

 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:48 am
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
Thanked: 8 times in 7 posts

Re: The Trail-running thread

Postby ExcitableBoy » Tue May 08, 2012 7:15 pm

gert wrote:
ExcitableBoy wrote:
gert wrote:IThe elevation gain is useless


Why do you say the elevation gain is useless? I find it to be accurate when cross refereced against guide books as well as my own estimation.


When I run a flat course it always shows unrealistic altitude gain. It can be 500 m after a 2h run. I now ignore it.


Interesting. I live in the midst of the 'Issaquah Alps'. I can't run more than a couple miles without encountering signinificant elevation gain. I know it is accurate because it matches the elevaton gain in hiking and trail running guide books as well as my own estimate which is very accurate. I wonder why the problem when running flats? Do you know if the altitude is derived from barometric pressure or satellite triangulation?
User Avatar
ExcitableBoy

 
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:33 am
Location: Issaquah, Washington
Thanked: 424 times in 308 posts

Re: The Trail-running thread

Postby ExcitableBoy » Tue May 08, 2012 7:36 pm

gert wrote:
When I run a flat course it always shows unrealistic altitude gain. It can be 500 m after a 2h run. I now ignore it.


I hope this doesn't sound wrong, but how do you know if it is flat if the GPS says it is not? Are you running on a regulation track? 500m in 2h sounds very reasonable, like gently rolling hills. In two hours on steep trails I do 2400 meters of elevation gain. I have a 10k loop in my neighborhood that is 400 meters of elevation gain, takes less than an hour at an easy pace and while not flat it is what I would consider gently rolling.
User Avatar
ExcitableBoy

 
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:33 am
Location: Issaquah, Washington
Thanked: 424 times in 308 posts

Re: The Trail-running thread

Postby gert » Tue May 08, 2012 7:42 pm

ExcitableBoy wrote:
gert wrote:
ExcitableBoy wrote:
gert wrote:IThe elevation gain is useless


Why do you say the elevation gain is useless? I find it to be accurate when cross refereced against guide books as well as my own estimation.


When I run a flat course it always shows unrealistic altitude gain. It can be 500 m after a 2h run. I now ignore it.


Interesting. I live in the midst of the 'Issaquah Alps'. I can't run more than a couple miles without encountering signinificant elevation gain. I know it is accurate because it matches the elevaton gain in hiking and trail running guide books as well as my own estimate which is very accurate. I wonder why the problem when running flats? Do you know if the altitude is derived from barometric pressure or satellite triangulation?


I guess satellite triangulation only. You made me curious now and I checked the record for my last marathon - flat course as well - and the forunner gives an total ascend of 1780m and total descend of 1790m! I better coninue ignoring it. :) Otherwise I like it!
User Avatar
gert

 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:48 am
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
Thanked: 8 times in 7 posts

Re: The Trail-running thread

Postby ExcitableBoy » Tue May 08, 2012 8:03 pm

gert wrote:I guess satellite triangulation only. You made me curious now and I checked the record for my last marathon - flat course as well - and the forunner gives an total ascend of 1780m and total descend of 1790m! I better coninue ignoring it. :) Otherwise I like it!

Wow! That is a huge discrepancy! I've read that barometric pressure is more accurate (http://gpsinformation.net/main/altitude.htm) I wonder if GPS unit are able to recognize large changes in altitude with more precission than a relatively flat course?
User Avatar
ExcitableBoy

 
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:33 am
Location: Issaquah, Washington
Thanked: 424 times in 308 posts

Re: The Trail-running thread

Postby visentin » Tue May 08, 2012 9:04 pm

I guess rather from satellite triangulation than barometric variations. These incredible amounts could be the result of roughly triangulated points all over the distance, and their respective relative difference with each next to the other summed up.
It happens also in computer-oriented accountancy. Divide several amounts by the VAT rates and round them all, then sum them. You can find sometimes up to 10 cents of difference with the total amount itself divided :) I know what I'm talking about, this issue is pissing me off lately :D

And thanks for the suggestion about the Garmin Forerunner ! Let's see how much it costs here. The altitude doesn't bother me as I tend to display my GPXes on online maps which themselves recalculate the elevation gain according to the map topography.

So far I used my Nokia phone to record GPX routes by bike (it does very well the job as long as the battery lasts), but I find it unpractical to carry while running, and despite I don't use a watch in the real life I kind of miss it when running to check my pace...
User Avatar
visentin

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:27 pm
Location: WrocBaw, France and, Poland
Thanked: 87 times in 58 posts

Re: The Trail-running thread

Postby gert » Tue May 08, 2012 9:16 pm

ExcitableBoy wrote:
gert wrote:I guess satellite triangulation only. You made me curious now and I checked the record for my last marathon - flat course as well - and the forunner gives an total ascend of 1780m and total descend of 1790m! I better coninue ignoring it. :) Otherwise I like it!

Wow! That is a huge discrepancy! I've read that barometric pressure is more accurate (http://gpsinformation.net/main/altitude.htm) I wonder if GPS unit are able to recognize large changes in altitude with more precission than a relatively flat course?


I checked my record again as I was in the alps recently. Once I did a run to the top of a little mountain and it was uphill from the very beginning. The altitude difference was about 700m and the forunner recorded 840m. Although the diagram looks more reasonable than compared to a real flat course. Anyway, I'm not an expert at all. I assume barometric pressure measurements to be more accurate.
User Avatar
gert

 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:48 am
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
Thanked: 8 times in 7 posts

Re: The Trail-running thread

Postby gert » Tue May 08, 2012 9:18 pm

visentin wrote:I guess rather from satellite triangulation than barometric variations. These incredible amounts could be the result of roughly triangulated points all over the distance, and their respective relative difference with each next to the other summed up.

Thats what I think too!
User Avatar
gert

 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:48 am
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
Thanked: 8 times in 7 posts

Re: The Trail-running thread

Postby spiritualspatula » Wed May 09, 2012 7:06 am

My brother in law has one of these http://www.rei.com/product/807089/garmin-edge-500-wireless-bike-computer and really likes it. It's bike-centric, but I'm sure they have another one, as well. It does baro as well as gps to avoid those issues of altitude. From what he's said, the gain is pretty accurate. I've looked at the data it produces and it's definitely cool to trace it back and look at it.

I've considered getting one, but I don't like the battery life because I just get sick of always charging things, so I might get one of the HRM watches that then use a footpod to determine distance in conjunction with a chest strap monitor. Both Suunto and Polar make several models. I'm not as concerned with recording my specific altitude gain/loss, but it would be sorta cool I suppose.
spiritualspatula

 
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:56 am
Location: Colorado
Thanked: 15 times in 15 posts

Re: The Trail-running thread

Postby visentin » Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 pm

Found these two products which look like a cheaper alternative to Garmin:
http://www.maptaq.com/index.php/en/outd ... vices/locc
http://www.keilar.com/en/e-shop/heart-r ... m-with-gps
Do anyone has any experience with them ?
User Avatar
visentin

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:27 pm
Location: WrocBaw, France and, Poland
Thanked: 87 times in 58 posts

Previous

Return to Gear

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.