Wow -- what a great ride! That was my impression the first time I used the Salomon XT Wings trail running shoe, and seven pairs and a couple thousand miles later, the XT Wings is still my shoe of choice for longer trail runs. Now the shoe has been upgraded to the XT Wings 2, and the good news is Salomon listened to the feedback from runners, and made a very good shoe even better.

One of the most obvious changes in the XT Wings 2 is the change from an asymmetric speed-lacing system that would sometimes fray, to a symmetric speed-lacing system with lower friction eyelets. None of my Salomon trail shoes with symmetric lacing have had lace-fraying issues, and these new laces look bombproof!

Update 07/05/10. I now have about 190 miles on each of three pairs of Salomons with the the new eyelets (XT Wings, XT Wings 2 & XT Hawk 2), and I've had no problems with the laces fraying.

Not so obvious until you run in the shoe is the redesign of the toe cap to increase flexibility. I thought the gait transition was smooth in the original XT Wings, and it is even better now. I was also happy to find that my new pair of XT Wings 2 (US Size 9.0) weigh 26 oz., which is a bit less than my first pair of XT Wings.

The shoes felt great on Sunday's Trippet Ranch loop; they had that familiar XT Wings' combination of comfort, smooth ride, cushioning, traction and support.

Related posts: Salomon XT Hawk 2, Salomon XT Wings

It's funny the things you think about during a race. Running down the Chumash Trail in the Bandit 30K on Saturday, one of my thoughts was, "Wow, these may be the most comfortable trail shoes I've ever run in."

I purchased my XT Hawk 2's from Zappos a couple of weeks ago. Right out of the box there were several things I liked about the shoes:

• They are light. My pair of US size 9's tipped the scale at a light 22.3 oz. This is about the same as the Salomon SpeedComp.
• The shoes fit well. No weird seams, pressure points or other problems.
• The updated speed-lacing system is symmetric. It has no offset lace anchor across the toe, and uses a new eyelet design. I've never had Salomon speed-lacing fray on shoes with symmetric lacing, and the new eyelet should make the laces even more bombproof.
• The outsole looks nearly identical to the sole on the XT Wings, which in my experience provides a good balance of traction versus predictability.

Out on the trail, the first thing that stood out was the shoe's cushioning. It feels like the shoe has more cushioning than either the original XT Wings or SpeedComp. The heel is particularly well cushioned, but for mid-foot strikers like me, there is also plenty of forefoot cushioning.

What I didn't notice until I was running down the irregular surfaces of the Chumash Trail is how the XT Hawk 2's combination of flexibility, support and cushioning combine to produce a really comfortable ride. Based on the shoe's performance on the Bandit's tough 19.5 mile course, I'm looking forward to trying the shoe on some longer mountain runs or races.

Trail runners, do you suffer the embarrassment of continually being passed on hills? Legs aren't what they used to be? You need the new Hill Climbing Helper®.

The Hill Climbing Helper's portability is the key! The Hill Climbing Helper® may look heavy, and it is, but that's part of the genius of its design.

• Can be used on all your favorite trail runs!
• Fits most hills!
• More effective than elliptical or stair-climbing machines!
• Increases safety. Eliminates fear of slipping or falling.

Includes 10 stairs and 2 hand rails. Constructed of the finest oil field steel - it will last for decades!

You'll notice the HCH difference on your first run!

(From today's run of the Las Llajas loop.)

Related post: Chumash-Las Llajas Loop

Updated February 10, 2010.

At one time or another, most of us have run barefoot -- on a beach or in a park, or certainly somewhere as a child.

As a result of the insight and enthusiasm of Barefoot Ted McDonald, and the publication of Christopher McDougall's book Born to Run, runners have been swept into a new era of minimalist running using Vibram FiveFingers (VFFs). Now a runner can, with VFFs and a little care, run trails virtually barefoot.

Recently, while in Kernville, California, I stopped by Sierra South Paddlesports and picked up a pair of Vibram FiveFingers KSOs. After kayaking in the VFFs a couple of days, the next step was to try them on a short weekday run. One of my usual weekday running sites, Ahmanson Ranch, seemed like a good place to start.

The course I'd picked for the run was mainly on dirt road, but also included some single track. Trail surfaces were a mix of sun-baked dirt and sand, with a couple of short rocky sections. There was one moderate climb with an elevation gain of about 250 ft. The plan was to take a regular pair of running shoes in a pack, and switch shoes at the first sign of a problem.

From talking to other runners and reading about their experiences, I had some idea of what to expect, but was still a little apprehensive. One very common comment was to "not overdo it." As enamored as I was about running in VFFs, running shoes have worked well for me for 35+ years. It would be really stupid to suffer my first debilitating injury (other than a few rolled ankles) running in the VFFs!

I had given a lot of thought to how I was going to run in the VFFs. My conclusion was not to dramatically change my running technique, but to refine it. Having rock climbed for many years, my goal was to use my legs and feet as appendages, rather than pogo sticks, gently meeting the ground on each stride with precision and "feel."

It worked! Although I was prepared to switch to regular shoes, much to my surprise, it wasn't necessary. Running in the VFFs was different, but not the bizarro experience I had imagined. There were even moments when I was just running, and did not have to concentrate on technique and footfalls. At the end of the run I felt good -- no blisters, no bone bruises, no other problems.

After dinner I noticed a different pattern of fatigue in my legs, and my feet felt a little warm and tingly, but there was no soreness or pain. The following day I ran a tough 8 mile course on the Backbone Trail (in regular shoes) and didn't feel any unusual tweaks or twinges.

Echoing the comments of other runners, I think the key is to not overdo it. Running barefoot used to require a buildup of toughness, strength and skill. Some say the VFFs shortcut that process, and injuries are more likely. Keeping that in mind, I'll probably run in the VFFs every week or two, and slowly build skill and strength.

Or not... It was hard to curb my enthusiasm, and I used the VFFs on four consecutive weekday runs. Two of the runs were at Ahamnson Ranch, a great area for the VFF newbie, but the other two were on more technical and less forgiving trails. By the fourth day my calves were wasted. This made it difficult to run with good VFF technique -- particularly on rocky downhills. The result was a slight bone bruise on my left heel.

Update 02/10/10. I've been running in VFFs about once a week for several months now, and really enjoy running in them. Not only is it fun, I think running in the VFFs is refining my running technique so that it is lower impact. Now there's research that suggests this may be the case. For a comprehensible look at the science of running barefoot, and in VFFs, see Biomechanics of Foot Strikes & Applications to Running Barefoot or in Minimal Footwear.

"What's the elevation gain?" is a common question when talking about a trail run, because it makes such a huge difference in the difficulty of the run. All the technology we have for recording and analyzing trail runs is remarkable, but it can sometimes produce misleading and wildly inaccurate results. This is particularly the case when using a GPS track to calculate elevation gain and loss.

Last Sunday's trail run in the San Gabriel Mountains is a good example. The course started at Islip Saddle, dropped down to South Fork Campground, climbed to the summit of Mt. Baden-Powell by way of Vincent Gap, and then returned on the PCT to Islip Saddle. The GPS track was recorded on a Garmin Forerunner 205. So what was the elevation gain on the loop?

According to Garmin Training Center, the gain was about 10,500'. The same track in TOPO! calculated the gain at about 6,100'. SportTracks, using corrected SRTM-based elevations and moderate smoothing, came up with 5800'. When uploaded to Garmin Connect, the track produced a fanciful elevation gain of about 13,600'!

Last year I used a Polar 625X on this course. It measures elevation gain/loss based on changes in barometric pressure, and came up with a gain of 5400'. So which of these values is the closest to reality?

Fortunately, in the case of elevation gain/loss it's fairly easy to do a low tech sanity check of these high tech results. All that is required is to get out a topo map, either electronically or on paper, and do a little arithmetic.

In the case of Sunday's loop, the gain from South Fork Campground to the summit of Baden-Powell is about 4830'. The gain on the PCT up and over the shoulder of Throop Peak is about 375'. A couple of other minor climbs total 240'. This gives a total of 5445'. Adding in a fudge factor of 200' for very small climbs that were not included in the total, the result is a reality checked gain of about 5645'.

The title photograph is from a run on the Hummingbird Trail yesterday.

Note: A long-standing rule of thumb, Naismiths Rule, says that the additional time required to gain 1000 ft. on a run/hike, will be the same as the the time to run/hike 1.5 miles on the flat. See "Short and hilly or long and flat?" in the Mountaineering Council of Scotland's The SCOTTISH MOUNTAINEER (Issue 7, March 2001).

Last updated 08/05/09.

The trail shoes I've been running in the most over the last several months are the Salomon XT Wings, Salomon SpeedComp, and the adidas Response Trail 15. I've been happy with the performance of these shoes, but still like to try something new from time to time.

Recently, the cushioning on one of my pairs of XT Wings died, so I thought I'd give the Montrail Mountain Masochist a try. I've now run about 35 miles in the Mountain Masochist, on a variety of courses, including the Mt. Pinos trail run on Sunday. Trail surfaces have ranged from smooth dirt road to very rocky, technical single track trail.

From the first mile the shoes have been comfortable, and fit my moderately high-arched, D-width foot well. At 12 oz./each (US size 9.5) are on the lighter side for a medium weight shoe.

The outsole appeared to have good traction on a mix of dry surfaces without being overly aggressive and grabby. On the rocky sections of trail, the shield in the midsole did a good job of protecting against pointy rocks.

My foot likes a neutral shoe with little or no pronation control, and so far the modest amount of pronation control in the Mountain Masochist has not felt overly restrictive. (See update below.)

The shoe seems to encourage a more forward body position and foot strike, which I prefer. The forefoot cushioning is good, and the strike-to-toe transitions feel smooth. On rough trails, the shoe has been stable, and I have not noticed any abnormal tendency to roll an ankle.

Overall, the Mountain Masochist appears to be a balanced, well thought out design. I hope to get them out on a 20+ mile mountain run soon.

Update 08/05/09. I now have 81 miles on this shoe and used it on the Cottonwood - New Army Pass loop in the Sierra back in July. Overall, the shoe has performed well. I do notice the pronation control on longer runs, and would love to see a version of this shoe designed for a neutral foot.

A search on the phrases "stride rate" or "running cadence" will turn up numerous articles extolling the benefits of a running cadence (stride rate) in the neighborhood of 90. An often quoted source of this axiom is Daniels' Running Formula: Proven Programs: 800 M to the Marathon (Human Kinetics, 2004). The idea is that for a given speed, the faster your stride rate, the less time your body will spend airborne, the less you displace your center of mass, and the softer you hit the ground on landing. Less up and down should translate to more energy efficient running.

It makes sense that there is combination of stride rate, pace, body mechanics and other factors that will be the most efficient for a particular runner. One runner found his optimal stride rates by setting a treadmill to specific speeds, and then finding the stride rate that resulted in the lowest heart rate at a particular speed.

Numerous coaches speak of the benefits of an increased stride rate. Coach Jenny Hadfield in Run Faster, Easier in Runner's World, wrote that increasing your stride rate is "the single easiest thing to change with your running and it will have a tremendous effect on your speed, effort level and risk for injury."

That sounded pretty good to me, so a few months ago I started measuring my running cadence by counting foot strikes -- left foot, left foot, left foot. Running at a training pace on fire roads and trails, my stride rate averaged about 80 -- there was plenty of room for improvement.

From time to time I worked on increasing my stride rate, but seemed to be stuck at a rate of about 83-84. I could artificially increase my cadence above that level, but I was trying to find a way I could maintain a stride rate of over 85 for more than a couple of minutes.

Part of the problem was that counting strides was a pain. That problem was solved by a Garmin Forerunner 50. With a street price as low as $80 with HRM and Footpod (Costco 4/26/09), the device measures distance, speed, heart rate, and running cadence. Using the FR50, I could get immediate feedback on my stride rate, as well as compare how the rate varied on the same course from run to run.

Around New Years, I was out at Ahmanson Ranch, working on my stride rate. It just wasn't happening. Daydreaming about kayaking, I thought about a kayaking coach's comments regarding improving my forward stroke. Sit tall. Lean forward a little by rotating the pelvis, and projecting the chest forward. Didn't I hear something similar to that in Scott Jurek's video about uphill running technique? I wonder...

Trying these changes in technique, I immediately felt the difference. I glanced at my watch, and my cadence was 88 -- and it was staying there!

In the weeks following this breakthrough, I've recorded personal bests on all my regular Ahmanson courses. I've been trying to apply the changes in technique to more of my running, and make it more second nature. It's going to take some time, but so far I'm happy with the results.

Comfortable, cushioned and durable. That's how I would characterize the adidas Response Trail. I've had two pairs of the Response Trail 14s in my shoe rotation since September 2007, and logged around 1000 miles between them. (Your mileage may vary.)

About a month ago I replaced one of the pairs with the adidas Response Trail 15s. I've put 75 miles on the new pair, and other than a change in colors, it seems not much has changed in the shoe. It's still well-cushioned, comfortable and lightweight. The new pair weighed in at 24.7 oz./pair (US 9.5). At $80 or less, the Response Trail 15s are an excellent value.

At the moment, my primary trail running shoes are the Salomon XT Wings (105 miles), Salomon SpeedComp (110 miles), and adidas Response Trail 15s.

A sib of the ultralight SpeedCross 2, the Salomon SpeedComp trail running shoe trades the "snow and mud rated" lug sole of the SpeedCross 2 for a high traction tread reminiscent of a low profile, high performance tire. The result is a fast, lightweight shoe that should perform well on most trails and in a variety of conditions.

Mine arrived yesterday and I took them out for a 7 mile spin at Ahmanson Ranch. There were no surprises -- the SpeedComp ran very similar to the SpeedCross 2, with good shock absorption and cushioning for such a lightweight shoe.

In addition to the outsole tread, there are a few other differences in design. The toe cap of the SpeedComp extends further back along the welt, and the sole wraps up over the sides of the cap, providing additional protection on rocky trails. A heel pull-tab has also been added.

My pair of SpeedComps (US 9.0) weighed in at a light 22.6 oz.

Update 05/29/09. In rotation with two pairs of XT Wings, and a pair of Adidas Response Trail 15s, I've now logged 235 miles on the Speedcomps, and have not changed my opinion of the shoe. I used the Speedcomps in the Boney Mountain Half Marathon, Bandit 30K, and Malibu Creek Challenge 22K, with excellent results -- two firsts and a second in my age class.

Update 01/29/09. In rotation with my other shoes, I've logged 150 miles in the Speedcomps now. I've used them on a variety of trails and terrain, and am very happy with the shoe.

Update 09/21/08. Did the 14 mile Bulldog Loop in the SpeedComps today. This course is mostly ungroomed dirt road, but there is also some rocky single track, a section on exposed sandstone, and even a little pavement. The SpeedComp was comfortable, nimble, and it's traction on the rocky sections was impressive.

Related post: Salomon SpeedCross 2 & adidas Response Trail 14

Introduced around 2000, the Garmin eTrex was the first GPS unit I used to trace a trail run. The GPS tracks were imported into TOPO! where the length of a run could be measured, an elevation profile generated, and the topography of the run examined.

Since the eTrex was designed to be used in an "orienteering" position -- flat in your hand in front of your body -- it would frequently have trouble receiving GPS satellite signals if hand-carried while running or hiking. About the time enterprising hikers and runners began to resolve this issue with creative hats, holsters and harnesses, Garmin released the Forerunner 201, greatly simplifying the task of tracing a route.

In 2005, while preparing a presentation about kayaking Piru Creek for a meeting with the Forest Service, I stumbled onto Keyhole.com. To say I was blown away by this bit of "Eureka" technology would be an a gross understatement. Now, in addition to seeing Piru Creek in photographs, and on a topo map, you could get a "before you paddle" preview using Keyhole -- even if you couldn't paddle class IV whitewater! Google acquired Keyhole in late 2004 and launched Google Earth on June 28, 2005.

Shortly after Google Earth was launched, SportTracks added the ability to launch Google Earth and view the GPS trace of a run or other activity. Since SportTracks could also directly import data from Garmin's Forerunner, the software made it very easy to view a run in Google Earth.

I've been working on updating the posts on Photography on the Run that reference a trail run to include a link to a Google Earth KMZ file. A KMZ file is just a zipped KML file, and either can be opened in Google Earth. A list of the trail runs with KMZ file links can be found by clicking "Google Earth KMZ Files of Trail Runs" in the sidebar.

These are actual tracks recorded by a GPS during a trail run and may contain GPS errors, route-finding errors, and wanderings that are difficult to explain. In a few instances tracks have been modified to correct errors, or to remove side excursions that are not part of the usual route, but not all errors have been corrected. No claim is being made regarding the appropriateness or suitability of the routes indicated. The GPS devices used to record these tracks include the Garmin Forerunner 201, Foretrex 201 and Forerunner 205; and the GlobalSat GH-615B.

Ounces count when you're fighting gravity -- in your pack, on your body, and especially on your feet.

The Salomon SpeedCross 2 (left) and adidas Response Trail 14 are my two lightest trail running shoes. My Response Trail 14's weigh 24.2 oz./pair (US 9.5), and the SpeedCross 2's weigh 21.3 oz./pair (US 9.0).

In round numbers a runner takes about 5,000 strides an hour. Even on smooth, level pavement there is significant effort involved in taking those 5,000 strides. But add to the mix the irregular surfaces and ups and downs of trail running, and the effort required increases.

Every time a trail runner speeds up or slow down, or lifts a foot to clear a rock, or ascend a trail, additional effort is required. The heavier the shoe, the higher the energy cost of all these speed changes and gait adjustments. Imagine what it would feel like to run a technical trail in a 5 lb. pair of shoes!

But there is more to designing a trail running shoe than just reducing the weight. A drastic reduction in weight might also reduce durability, cushioning, support, or other desirable characteristics. A shoe that falls apart, or does not provide adequate cushioning or support isn't of much use, even if it is feather light.

I've run in the Response Trail 14's for several months and the SpeedCross 2's about a month. Both are comfortable, seem to have adequate support and stability, and feel good under foot on dirt roads and most hiking trails.

There are some differences in the two designs. The SpeedCross 2 is exceptionally light, with good cushioning. The knobby 'Winter Contragrip' waffle tread provides good traction in soft conditions and appears to contribute to the shoe's cushioning and shock adsorption. Some might find the tread too aggressive in less inclement conditions.

Update 03/31/08. Yesterday I used the Salomon SpeedCross 2 on a demanding 19 mile trail run with 4000 ft. elevation gain/loss. The run was primarily on single track trail, but also included some dirt and paved road. Some of the single track was very technical and rocky. On the more technical sections of trail the SpeedCross 2 felt very light and agile.

The Response Trail 14 seems to be exceptionally well-cushioned. The shoe runs a little more like a road shoe than most of my other trail shoes. That isn't a criticism -- I've used the shoe on many trails, and used it a couple of months ago in a trail half marathon that featured a mix of pavement, dirt road and single track trail.

Every runner's shoe requirements are different, and these requirements can change from day to day, and run to run, depending upon the trail conditions, the terrain, the length of the run, your fitness, where you are in your training cycle, and a host of other factors. I tend to use the SpeedCross 2's and Response Trail 14's for short and medium length runs, and my XT Wings for longer runs.

I'm always counting ounces -- a lighter shoe, a lighter pack, a lighter rain shell, a lighter camera -- it all adds up in my battle against gravity.

Last updated 07/05/10. Symmetrical lacing and new eyelets working great on XT Wings 2!

Wow -- what a great ride! That was my impression the first time I used the Salomon XT Wings trail running shoes. That continues to be my feeling after using the shoe for a couple of weeks and doing several runs in the 15-20 mile range. For my particular trail running requirements, this shoe has a near perfect balance of comfort, smooth ride, cushioning, traction and support.

It's been my experience that if a running shoe doesn't feel comfortable when you first try it on, it's not going to feel any better on a long trail run, and it's probably going to feel worse. The XT Wings felt great from the start. I first tried a pair of 9.5's -- my usual trail shoe size -- but found size 9.0 was better in this shoe.

Under foot, the shock adsorption and cushioning gave that "ahh.." feeling without feeling bouncy or unstable. The shoe provides just the right level of support, without overly restricting the motion of my foot. When combined with the super smooth foot strike to toe transition, the overall ride is the best of any trail shoe I've used.

The outsole rubber appears to have excellent friction, and the lug pattern seems to have good traction without being too grabby. The speed-lacing system is convenient and appears to work well. Some friends have had Salomon speed-laces prematurely fray at the first eyelet on their XA Comp 2 XCRs, and prevent that by using a little duct tape around the lace. I'll see if that happens with this model.

Update 07/05/10. I now have about 190 miles on each of three pairs of Salomons with the the new eyelets (XT Wings, XT Wings 2 & XT Hawk 2), and I've had no problems with the laces fraying.

Update 02/22/10. In addition to new eyelets, the XT Wings 2 also uses symmetrical lacing. This should completely resolve the old lace-fraying issue.

Update 01/22/10. Recently retired my fifth pair of XT Wings, again at about 300 miles. When I purchased my sixth pair was surprised to discover that the eyelet system has been redesigned. Hopefully this will resolve the problem I've had with the laces fraying, and I won't have to use the "duct tape fix" on future pairs. Here's a photo comparing the new lacing system (left) to the old one, and a close up of the new eyelet.

Update 08/05/09. Recently retired my third pair of XT Wings, at about 300 miles, and purchased my fifth pair. It's still my shoe of choice for long runs.

Update 05/29/09. With the "duct tape fix" applied, I'm now 244 miles into my third pair of XT Wings, and 95 miles into my fourth pair -- no problems. My Speedcomps, which don't have the "toe anchored" lace like the XT Wings, have 235 miles on them, and no duct tape on the laces!

Update 09/24/08. Not good -- with only 135-150 miles on my second pair of XT Wings, the lace has frayed on the left shoe at the same point (second eyelet from the anchor eyelet) as it did on the right shoe of the first pair. I've exchanged the pair and applied the "duct tape fix" at the second eyelets. We'll see how it goes. Shouldn't have to do this with a $120 pair of shoes.

Update 09/12/08. The Salomon XT Wings continues to be my shoe of choice for demanding trail runs. They are what I was in for the New Army Pass - Cottonwood Pass Loop in the Sierra, the Falls Creek Loop on San Gorgonio Mountain, the Islip Saddle - Mt. Baden-Powell South Fork Loop and Mt. Disappointment 50K in the San Gabriel Mountains, and several other long mountain runs.

Update 06/21/08. With about 250-275 miles on the pair, the lace on my right shoe broke on Thursday while running the Chumash Trail. I tied off the broken end, tightened the lace and continued the run -- no big deal. In my case the lace broke at the middle eyelet on the left side of the tongue. While I hope Salomon will make the laces bombproof, the lace breaking won't keep me from running in this outstanding shoe. I primarily use the XT Wings for longer runs.

Update 03/21/08. I've done several longer (20-29 mile) trail runs the last month and the shoe has performed exceptionally. I've had no problems with the laces or anything else. It sure seems that the smooth ride of this shoe translates to my legs feeling better at the end of a long run!

There are a couple of things I have to gripe about. At 27.7 oz, the size 9 pair I purchased is a little heavier than my Vitesses. The shoe is also expensive -- $120 compared to around $85 for the Vitesse.

Related post: Salomon XT Wings 2 Trail Running Shoe

Technorati Tags: Salomon XT Wings, trail running

Update 7/26/08. There have been recent USB driver (4-28-08) and firmware (5-07-08) updates, and the PC software has been replaced (7-04-08), but the most significant change is that SportTracks now supports the GH615 via a plugin. Since I use SportTracks I have not looked closely at the new "g-Sports PC Utility" software, but it appears to be more functional than the original "PC Utility" software. Some significant quirks remain. When the GH615B is set to STATUTE(ft, mph) units, the elevation still displays in miles -- e.g. 1.702 miles instead of 8987 ft.

Update 9/10/07. Shortly after writing this post I learned that the GH-615B has been discontinued in the U.S. in favor of the GH-615M, which includes a heart rate monitor.

Chugging up Mt. Baden-Powell, I pushed various buttons on the GlobalSat GH615B, searching for the screen that displays elevation. I had seen it on a run during the week, and now I couldn't find it. Wait... What? My elevation is 1.702 MILES??

When my Forerunner 205 had to be returned to Garmin a second time, it seemed like a good time to see if there were any new GPS-based running watches I could use for tracing the routes of my trail runs. The description of the GH615B on the GlobalSat web site looked promising. Like the Forerunner 205/305 it had a watch-like design, and the specs said it also used the newer, more sensitive, SiRFstarIII GPS technology.

My first impression was not positive. Out of the box, with old firmware and software installed, the watch was almost unusable. Actually, I could use it, I just couldn't do much with the data. Updating the USB driver, firmware, and PC interface software helped some. But it wasn't until installation of the July 2007 round of updates that I could routinely transfer activity data from the watch to the "PC Utility" software, and then export a GPX file that could be imported into applications such as SportTracks and MotionBased.

Even with the July updates, the "PC Utility" software included with the GH615B is primitive. The software has no activity management features, and serves mainly as a data conversion tool. It can display track data on a Google map, or export a track to Google Earth Plus. It can also generate Altitude/Time and Speed/Time graphics, but these are rudimentary.

The GH615B's default setting of recording one trackpoint per second will create a high resolution GPS track that will indicate almost every twist and turn of a trail. Here's a Google Earth image that shows GPS tracks from the GH615B using the 1 second resolution setting, and the Forerunner 205 using the "Smart Recording" setting. The image shows an approximately 5 mile section of trail from Islip Saddle down to the South Fork Campground, in the San Gabriel Mountains. (These tracks were recorded on different days.)

For day to day workouts the one trackpoint per second resolution setting is probably overkill, and will produce proportionally larger GPX files than a setting of (for example) a trackpoint every 3 seconds. The GH615B does not currently have an adaptive recording option like the "Smart Recording" feature of the Forerunner 205/305, but has much more trackpoint storage capacity.

Although somewhat quirky, and not nearly as polished and feature-rich as the Forerunner 205/305, the GH615B did seem to do a good job of tracking my running routes, even in difficult terrain. With some firmware updates and bundled with decent software, it might do a better job of finding its way in the GPS-based fitness watch market.

The photograph of the GH615B and Forerunner 205 was taken at the end of a sweltering out and back run to Las Virgenes Canyon from the Victory Trailhead of Upper Las Virgenes Canyon Open Space Preserve (formerly Ahmanson Ranch) on the afternoon of August 29.

Related post: Garmin Forerunner 205

Updated Monday, July 5, 2010.

The Google Earth image above shows two GPS traces. Here's a larger image. The red trace was created using a Garmin Forerunner 201, and the yellow trace was created with a Forerunner 205. The course is comprised of a mix of fire roads and trails, through a variety of terrain and cover. The better tracking of the Forerunner 205 is clearly evident. Here is another view of the same course with the two traces.

I've had my Forerunner 205 since March 2006, and in my experience, it is a huge improvement over the 201:

• It is more compact and less obtrusive.
• Tracks are more accurate, and it almost never loses reception.
• It accepts routes for sequential navigation.
• Uploading and downloading data is easier and faster with the USB interface.
• The GPS chipset firmware (as well as unit firmware) can be updated.
• It has multiple customizable data screens that are easily displayed during a run.

The performance of the GPS receiver in the Forerunner 205 continues to amaze me. It is tenacious. I was wearing the Forerunner 205 when I got caught in a fierce thunderstorm running in the Mt. Pinos area in July. Even in the middle of a thunderstorm, on a north facing slope, in a fir and pine forest, the unit did not lose reception. Here's a Forerunner 205 trace of the run, exported from TOPO! Note that the traces going out and coming back very nearly overlay each other. The only exception is a real deviation between Sawmill Mountain and Mt. Pinos where I wandered off the trail to a minor summit. Also note that the trail is incorrectly marked on the topo map in the vicinity of Grouse Mountain.

In early October 2006, I had a problem with not being able to power on my 205 after it was charged. Garmin promptly replaced the unit, under warranty, without charge.

In June 2007 the replaced unit began to experience an intermittent issue where it would suddenly start to rapidly cycle through display screens, beep, and not respond to key presses. The only way to stop it was pressing the power + mode + reset keys. Garmin promptly replaced the unit, but charged a flat rate $79 repair fee. Oddly, when the unit was returned, the history included a few runs from the London, Ontario (Canada) area from late February and early March 2007.

It's been over three years since the flat rate repair/replacement of my Forerunner 205, and I've had zero problems. One apparent improvement is that the contacts on the back no longer get corroded from sweat. This used to cause problems with the USB connection and transferring data, and I would need to clean the contacts from time to time with a pencil eraser.

In my opinion the Training Center Software is still poor, and for that reason I continue to use SportTracks.

Note: The course is the run from the end of Reseda Blvd to Trippet Ranch described in the post Musch Trail Mule Deer.

Technorati Tags: gps, Forerunner 205, Garmin

Note: Photo above is of a modified version of the 2006 pack.

There are three basic choices for running hydration: hand bottles, a waist pack, or a back pack. There are also various combinations of these basic themes. If you do much off-road running, chances are good you have at least one version from each category.

I've used 20 oz. hand bottles, single and double 20 oz. bottle waist packs, a 50 oz. reservoir waist pack, a 60 oz. reservoir hybrid waist/back pack, and a 70-100 oz. reservoir back pack. Until recently I had not tried any of the waist packs with a horizontally oriented bottle.

Why not? My concern was probably the same that most trail runners would have – would the bottle tend to slip out of the holster while running? Having the bottle fall out on a dirt road might be inconvenient, but on steep-sided trail the bottle might not be retrievable. When I saw the Solitaire on sale I decided to give it a test and see how it worked for me.

Putting aside the question of the bottle slipping for the moment, there are many things I like about this pack. Nestled in the small of your back, the Horizontal Holster System (HHS) carries the weight of the water bottle much better than a diagonally or vertically oriented bottle. There is far less bouncing of the bottle, and sloshing of it's contents. In addition, the waist belt does not need to be as tight, and  the pack has no tendency to rotate.

For me, the extra capacity of the 26 oz. bottle makes a big difference. I can think of several 50Ks in which the bigger bottle would have been very welcome. In the HHS configuration, a full 26 oz. is more comfortable when running than a full 20 oz. vertically oriented bottle.

There's enough room in zippered top compartment for an ultralight rain shell, a compact digital camera and a bit more. By itself, a 16 oz. convenience store water bottle will also fit in there. The pack can also be extended using add-on belt pockets, and other accessories.

So what about the bottle slipping? Before being modified, the bottle would work its way several inches out of the holster. The rougher the run, and the more downhill, the more the bottle slipped. Although the bottle never actually fell out of the holster, it required frequent attention.

The bottle "almost" stays in place, so the amount of force required to keep it in the holster isn't much. My solution was to attach a small diameter elastic cord across both ends of the holster. It doesn't need to be tensioned and can be easily manipulated when removing or replacing the bottle. I ran with the Solitaire in the Mt. Disappointment 50K, and with this modification, it worked great for me.

Update 09/25/08. According to Columbia Sportswear customer service, the Continental Divide style is in the Fall '08 line, but will not be continued in Spring '09.

Update 09/18/08. Sadly, according to Columbia Sportswear customer service, the Vitesse style is no longer being produced and their current inventory of the Vitesse for the fall '08 season is limited.

Update 01/23/08. My latest pair of Vitesse's (made in China) seem to be a very different shoe than the dozens of pairs in which I've run before. They seemed to be short for the size, a little more narrow in the forefoot, and the cushioning and shock absorption didn't feel up to par. Montrail was purchased by Columbia Sportswear about a year and a half ago and according to a customer service rep, "manufacturing of the shoes moved to new factories." An ultrarunning friend had a similar sizing problem with his last order of two pairs of Vitesses, but said the cushioning was OK. Maybe my latest pair was an aberration. I hope so.

Update 08/19/07. Each of my last two pairs of Continental Divides have weighed more than the first pair. The second weighed 30.6 oz./pair, and the third weighed 32.0 oz./pair! My last two pairs of Vitesses have weighed in at 27.0 oz./pair. At only 24.2 oz./pair, the adidas Trail Response 14 is my most lightweight trail running shoe.

Many runners are fanatical about their shoes. Trail runners are no different, and every runner has their favorite. For several years my favorite trail running shoe has been the Montrail Vitesse. This is a shoe that straight out of the box, I would not hesitate to wear in a tough 50K. I've had a couple dozen pairs, and usually have 3-4 pairs that I rotate through from run to run.

It's not that I haven't tried other shoes. In their rush to jump into the rapidly expanding trail running shoe market, many well known and respected manufacturers of outdoor gear proffered up at least one trail running entry, and I tried a bunch of them. Like so many over sized and accessorized SUVs, the look was the thing. Many of the shoes were just BAD. There's no other way to say it.

The reality of the trail running shoe market is that the shoes aren't just used for trail running. They are used in activities ranging from fitness walking to adventure racing. One early entry became a top seller – not because trail runners liked it – but because it became a trendy shoe on campus. Another bone jarring model left me shaking my head and wondering if the design had been tested by anyone that actually ran in it. Fortunately the trail running market continues to grow, and manufacturers are starting to better address the needs of those that run in the shoes.

So, what's so special about the Vitesse? First and foremost is the fit. I've run 50 miles in the Vitesse and not bothered to take them off for the post race feed. Beyond the fit, it's a shoe that runs well. It has good shock absorption and cushioning, and a smooth heel-to-toe transition. It's not too stiff and seems to have a good balance of stability versus flexibility. The tread isn't overly aggressive and performs well for me on most trail surfaces. Basically I can forget about the shoe and just run.

I've tried several of the newer Montrail designs, but none performed as well for me as the Vitesse. That is, until I tried the Continental Divide. I've had a pair for about a month, and like the Vitesse, it's a shoe that's been comfortable from run #1. It is said to be a replacement for the Leona Divide, but it is a vastly different shoe. In my mind, it is closer in functionality and feel to the Vitesse.

There are some significant differences. The first thing I noticed (on a 100 degree day) is that the Divide is much better ventilated, and runs cooler than the Vitesse. It also seems to have better cushioning. The tongue and ankle cuff of the Divide are not integrated, as in the Vitesse, but the fit around the ankle is excellent and seems to keep out about as much debris.

If you pick up the shoe and twist it, you'll see that the Divide is more resistant torsionally than the Vitesse. In combination with a medial post and heel strap, it seems to provide excellent stability, without feeling stiff, or obviously interfering in the natural action of the foot.

The outsole width and profile of the Divide is similar to the Vitesse, but lacks the lateral outrigger. The tread pattern is reminiscent of the Leona Divide. Underfoot, it runs well, and seems to have somewhat better traction over a wider range of surfaces.

There are always design trade-offs, and the Continental Divide is no exception. Because they are better ventilated, a little more fine dirt finds its way into the shoe on dry, dusty trails. Your socks will also get wet more quickly in damp conditions – say running through wet grass – but will also dry out more quickly. Another consideration is that the Divide is slightly heavier than the Vitesse (1.4 oz/pair on my scale), and costs about $20-$25 more.

Update 08/19/07. Each of my last two pairs of Continental Divides have weighed more than the first pair. The second weighed 30.6 oz./pair, and the third weighed 32.0 oz./pair! My last two pairs of Vitesses have weighed in at 27.0 oz./pair. At only 24.2 oz./pair, the adidas Response Trail 14 is my most lightweight trail running shoe.

I happened to be wearing the Continental Divide when I got caught in a violent thunderstorm on a 20 mile run at Mt. Pinos, California. The trail conditions were as challenging as they get – torrential rain and hail on steep, storm-gnawed, rock strewn trails. The Continental Divide never skipped a beat.