Life is an ultramarathon

I eventually went for the Inov8 Flyroc 345 GTX. The Salomon XA Pro 3D Ultra felt generally good, but their sole was a bit too cushioned for me. I'm also a bit skeptical with their fast lacing system: Rachel got them mud-jammed during Tough Guy and they became hardly usable. The Flyroc looks less "techie" but tougher. Just keep it simple! Ultra trail shoes.

Most people strongly recommend the use of profile bars. A minority, however, say they're useless unless you're an elite cyclist (aerodynamic considerations indeed become more important with higher speed) and argue people only mount them on their bike as a statement - "I'm a triathlete".

In the quest to tune my bike into a more efficient, triathlon-like machine, I've therefore tried to adapt profile bars. I finally gave up with the Oval A710 previously installed, as they were too uncomfortable for my arms. I recently replaced them with the Profile Jammer GT, apparently more suitable for long rides. They're higher and feel better in the arms. But I don't really have a good feeling with them: it feels like my lower back is supporting most of my upper body weight (when my forearms should help) and I can't drive as much power from my legs. I have a feeling it's because I have relatively long legs and the bike frame is fitted for that. Thus, the handle bars are a relatively a long reach, and the profile bars worsen that effect. The good point if this hypothesis holds is: I'm low enough on the bike and don't really need profile bars. That would make my bike lighter. So profile bars or not? I may try to take pictures of my riding posture to take a decision.

Ultra aerodynamic decision to make.

I've just tried my new Zoot TRIfit trisuit in a (bike + run) back to back session this morning. Felt comfortable, although I'm not used to have the tummy compressed whilst running. I didn't dare wearing it on its own and had a T-shirt on top. I suppose I'd have to get use to it...



Ultra sexy suit.

Just as with the Nike + iPod, I got the chance to try out a Polar RS800sd bought for the lab.

It consists of 3 main elements:

• An ECG belt to get the heart rate through comfy textile electrodes.
• A foot pod, measuring stride length and cadence, based on inertial sensors (accelerometer and maybe gyroscope).
• The watch gathering wirelessly the information from the two above and connecting to a PC.

I went running in the park for 6.33km, again without pre-calibration. The watch told me 6.43km, not bad! Only 1.6% error, to be compared with 33% for the iPod gadget... Technically, the main difference between these two apparently similar systems is the foot sensor. The iPod+Nike relies simply on a contact sensor that can't do much more than counting your steps. Therefore sensor calibration is crucial. I wouldn't mind calibrating the sensor once, but every pace change means recalibration! I guess Nike has never heard about interval training and that sort of things.
To test the limits of the Polar, I tried it walking instead of running, and it behaved very well, as I got a very similar error: 1.6% above. I guess I just need to calibrate it once to get near-perfect distance/speed estimation at any pace. I finally performed an ultimate test on the sensor: I ran on a treadmill . This tricked the sensor. Indeed, your actual speed is null, whereas your feet are moving. It displayed a 13km/h running speed when the treadmill was set on 15km/h (13.6% off).

You can use their software (PolarProTrainer) to upload your data, view the training calendar, running curves (speed, heart rate, cadence, altitude, ...), evaluate your training efficiency, and even program some exercices to be sent back to the watch. It seems to have loads of functionalities, but the look and feel is not great.

Some Adidas shoes have a placeholder for the sensor (just like the Nike for the iPod one). Better: some Adidas shirts have embeded ECG electrodes for a truly wearable sensing.

On the whole, the iPod+Nike is just a fashion gadget based on the Apple hype, whereas the Polar system (with or without Adidas) is really designed for training. And I swear I'm not paid to write that!

Ultra running sensor.

I've performed the first upgrades on my bike. I've changed the pedals for the Look Kéo Classic and I've added the Oval A710 extension bars.
The bike seems decently equipped to me now, I don't plan to change any more parts in a near future.
Following a fall due to the pedals, I also had to change the rear derailleur hanger.

Ultra minor bike changes.

Yesterday I bought a cheap running heart rate monitor. Let's make it clear: I won't use it as a training tool. I'm just being curious and a bit geek. I'd like to see my heart rate range under various conditions from time to time. I really can't be bother to wear the chest belt every time I run.

Ultra ?

This morning I had the chance to try the Nike + iPod "Sport Kit". Not that I would buy one, but there's one in the lab for wireless body sensors testing. It's basically a wireless bluetooth-like accelerometer you fit in (on) your shoe and a receiver plugged in the iPod. A quick look on the internet before going for my run and I found the blog of an iPod aficionados. He successfully used the sensor with non-Nike shoes and without pre-calibration but managed to get a pretty good accuracy (about 1% to 2% error).

I then confidently ran 2 loops in Hyde Park. The distance is about 6.3km, measured on several maps, with several tools (ruler, curvimeter) and on GoogleEarth by several persons:


After my run, the iPod displayed (*):


Hmmm, it reads 8.53km, when I expected ... 12.66km (2*6.33) ! That's an amazing 33% error ! One of my colleague faced a similar error. Even more worrying: some also reported a wrong recorded time. Of course, I didn't calibrated it and I didn't use the Nike shoes. But well ... that's just as good as a good old mechanical podometer. I guess they don't do anything more clever than counting the steps. I believe that with a Walkman, a podometer, a watch and a couple of transistors something more functional could have been designed 20 years ago ...

Our aficionados must be very naive (or well paid) to be "very thankful that Nike and Apple made it possible to use it with alternative running shoes" ... Not only you have to buy the gadget anyway, but as it's not very convenient to wear, you'll probably buy some compatible Nike shoes next time.

Ultra Christmas gadget.

(*) yes, date is not set properly

EDIT (18/01/2008): this is actually not an accelerometer, but a simple contact sensor. Therefore it can only count your steps - this is a basic podometer... See Sparkfun for example.

I just bought a new bike, hoping it won't get stolen as fast as the previous one. It's pretty much the same, though, slightly better maybe. Anyway, I'm not an expert in road cycling, I just bought it to train my endurance with less impact. And also because I still have this ironman idea in mind. I may add a triathlon bar and clipless pedals later on.

Decathlon Sport 2
Ultra ...

I eventually bought a new pair of road running shoes, my trail shoes being grumpy on the concrete ... It's the New Balance M1060WR (*). Designed for high mileage, lots of cushioning ... I just tried them in Hyde Park. They seem pretty good, altough I should have worn a pair of socks too ... Moreover they're made in UK, not in some dodgy Chinese sweatshop exploiting children.



Ultra ?

(*) This is a perfect example showing how Flash(tm) can be not only useless but also a real pain in the a** : I can't give you the direct link, you'll have to click yourself on "Cushioning", then once on the right arrow. That's more interactive, for sure ...