Question:
In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.0005021236070.26521-
[snip] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Let’s say you race at 6:00/mile pace at 180 strides per minute. That works out to just under 5 feet per stride, which includes 4 feet airborne plus the length of your foot. (I’ll assume your foot is 1 foot long — what else?) Assuming you move forward at constant speed that means you spend about 1/5-th of the time on the ground. (This also assumes your foot does not slide when planted.) Thus you are doing 180 ballistic airborne phases in 48 seconds, so each phase lasts .26 seconds. Half of this is .13 seconds, and the distance covered by a freely falling body in .13 seconds is .27 feet, or 3.2 inches. So I’m claiming that under the above stated running conditions your center of mass is displaced vertically from the instant of takeoff by about 3.2 inches. As others have noted, the displacement downward of the center of mass during the contact phase could also be considered part of "bounce", but estimating its size is quite a different problem.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you not describing the motion of a rigid object? An efficient runner will flex, or shorten the airborn leg in order to provide the optimum force and trajectory for the next foot-strike. Thus, you must take into account the amount of vertical motion of the entire body that is prevented by this contraction. If, in fact the runner is not setting the leg at the optimal angle, the effect of the next foot-strike would be to propel the entire body in a more vertical manner, or ‘bounce’. It has always been my assumption that any bounce associated with running was a result of a failure to place the leg at an angle that would provide the most possible forward force, while also providing just enough force to overcome the gravitational forces associated with the displacement of the upper body. Of course, I could be all wet… 
— … tramps like us, Before you buy.
Response:
180 strides per minute is 1/3 second per stride. It therefore takes 1/6 second to rise to the peak of one’s parabolic arc. From s = 16t^2 this works out to 4/9 foot. But the 4/9 of a foot is the peak of the arc measured by the foot relative to the ground, no? A portion of the "bounce" will be mitigated by knee and hip flex and therefore less than 5 inches will translate to head "bounce?"
yes. the 4/9 of a foot is for the body’s center of mass. as your legs can’t get longer but a you mentioned can flex (up) the head will have to compensate (down from 4/9 ‘ up) to keep the center of mass at 4/9 foot. i think rajeev
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 180 strides per minute is 1/3 second per stride. It therefore takes 1/6 second to rise to the peak of one’s parabolic arc. From s = 16t^2 this works out to 4/9 foot. But the 4/9 of a foot is the peak of the arc measured by the foot relative to the ground, no? A portion of the "bounce" will be mitigated by knee and hip flex and therefore less than 5 inches will translate to head "bounce?" yes. the 4/9 of a foot is for the body’s center of mass. as your legs can’t get longer but a you mentioned can flex (up) the head will have to compensate (down from 4/9 ‘ up) to keep the center of mass at 4/9 foot. i think
I’ll revise my earlier estimate slightly to take into account time spent on the ground. Let’s say you race at 6:00/mile pace at 180 strides per minute. That works out to just under 5 feet per stride, which includes 4 feet airborne plus the length of your foot. (I’ll assume your foot is 1 foot long — what else?) Assuming you move forward at constant speed that means you spend about 1/5-th of the time on the ground. (This also assumes your foot does not slide when planted.) Thus you are doing 180 ballistic airborne phases in 48 seconds, so each phase lasts .26 seconds. Half of this is .13 seconds, and the distance covered by a freely falling body in .13 seconds is .27 feet, or 3.2 inches. So I’m claiming that under the above stated running conditions your center of mass is displaced vertically from the instant of takeoff by about 3.2 inches. As others have noted, the displacement downward of the center of mass during the contact phase could also be considered part of "bounce", but estimating its size is quite a different problem. — Terry R. McConnell Mathematics/304B Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1150
Response:
[snipped] Apropos this notion, I recall the term ’superior ankle flexure’ of the Kenyans — that they stayed in contact with the ground longer than was typical even of elite runners. If remembered correctly, and true, then it may well be that the elites are spending even less time in the air than the rest of us, having found good ways to maintain contact with the ground longer (pushing longer) and in converting some of the energy of landing back to forward motion. Mechanical efficiency.
Everything that I have read about this topic suggests the opposite: that a characteristic of elite runners is that their feet spend less time in contact with the ground. And the superior ankle flexure with a shorter time means that their push off is a more explosive one as it must be to produce a longer stride. However, until someone nails down exactly what Noakes was talking about we’re on bit of a wild goose chase here. — Peter James Ontario, Canada
Response:
Have someone videotape you running. Before you buy.
Response:
180 strides per minute is 1/3 second per stride. It therefore takes 1/6 second to rise to the peak of one’s parabolic arc. From s = 16t^2 this works out to 4/9 foot.
This does not take into account for the significant amount of time spent in contact with the ground. Robert’s post postulates that the ‘elite bounce’ is infact a dip as they sink at the knee to aid the push-off at the next stride. This suggests they spend more time in contact with the ground than the rest of us. By contrast, I understand that Michael Johnson’s unique action has him spend less time in contact with the ground than everyone else – but he isn’t going for efficiency… IanB.
Response:
180 strides per minute is 1/3 second per stride. It therefore takes 1/6 second to rise to the peak of one’s parabolic arc. From s = 16t^2 this works out to 4/9 foot. This does not take into account for the significant amount of time spent in contact with the ground. Robert’s post postulates that the ‘elite bounce’ is infact a dip as they sink at the knee to aid the push-off at the next stride. This suggests they spend more time in contact with the ground than the rest of us.
Yes, you are absolutely right. In my simplistic analysis I didn’t attempt to account for time spent in contact with the ground because I have no idea how to do that. As you suggest, percentage of time in contact with the ground may well vary from runner to runner. I should also clarify that by "bounce" I meant maximum vertical displacement of center of mass. The word has probably been used to mean several different things in the course of this thread. By contrast, I understand that Michael Johnson’s unique action has him spend less time in contact with the ground than everyone else – but he isn’t going for efficiency… IanB.
– Terry R. McConnell Mathematics/304B Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1150
Response:
[snip] We all bounce to some degree when we run. The questions remain, how much is too much and how little is too little?
Bounce can be inferred from stride frequency by simple ballistics. If 180 strides per minute is optimal (a figure that has been mentioned here more than once,) then optimal bounce height is just over 5 inches. 180 strides per minute is 1/3 second per stride. It therefore takes 1/6 second to rise to the peak of one’s parabolic arc. From s = 16t^2 this works out to 4/9 foot. The 180 spm figure seems to be empirical. It would be interesting to see a theoretical argument that supports it. — Terry R. McConnell Mathematics/304B Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1150
Response:
Bounce can be inferred from stride frequency by simple ballistics. If 180 strides per minute is optimal (a figure that has been mentioned here more than once,) then optimal bounce height is just over 5 inches.
Question: Does anyone have a clue what Noakes meant by "bounce?" I’ve looked on the net and can’t find his comments or any significant comments on "bounce." When someone says "bounce" I think head movement. 180 strides per minute is 1/3 second per stride. It therefore takes 1/6 second to rise to the peak of one’s parabolic arc. From s = 16t^2 this works out to 4/9 foot.
But the 4/9 of a foot is the peak of the arc measured by the foot relative to the ground, no? A portion of the "bounce" will be mitigated by knee and hip flex and therefore less than 5 inches will translate to head "bounce?" jennifer
Response:
The elites do have very long strides, but not by having great vertical motion. What Noakes is calling ‘bounce’ is almost certainly something other than distance between feet and ground at the peak of the airborne phase. Suppose two canons with equal firepower and canonballs of equal mass were aimed in the same direction. Canon A is fired parallel to the ground. Canon B is fired 37 degrees vertical of the horizon. Which canonball goes further?
True enough for ballistic flight, … but … your Canon B is going to be in flight much longer than the Canon A. We have the observation that the plodders (me, for instance) are taking strides at about the same rate as the elites. Hence, we’re spending about the same _time_ in taking our strides. Partial answer, and which makes some energetic sense, is that the ‘bounce’ was in a different part of the stride. Not in launching oneself into the air, but in flexing the knees. Absorb some energy in the muscles as you sink a bit at landing and return some of it as you push forward. In terms of vertical bounce (feet off ground distance), I’m now to the point of having fairly little. But, in the landing, I don’t flex the knees much. _If_ I were to find the right landing/takeoff to convert that energy to useful work, that is an energy source that doesn’t have a biochemical cost. There is the biomechanical issue/cost of learning how to make this different stride work. And there is quite possibly a strength cost in being able to take that flex without going all the way down. Apropos this notion, I recall the term ’superior ankle flexure’ of the Kenyans — that they stayed in contact with the ground longer than was typical even of elite runners. If remembered correctly, and true, then it may well be that the elites are spending even less time in the air than the rest of us, having found good ways to maintain contact with the ground longer (pushing longer) and in converting some of the energy of landing back to forward motion. Mechanical efficiency. Bouncing or not, one thing is clearly true of the elites: They run very fluidly and smoothly. Each stride is much the same as the previous because each stride is _right_. They do not hammer the ground in their landings, and in leaving the ground, they’re not launching themselves. Rather, they’re moving so gracefully fast that gravity can no longer keep them on earth. — Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Response:
(snip) The elites do have very long strides, but not by having great vertical motion. What Noakes is calling ‘bounce’ is almost certainly something other than distance between feet and ground at the peak of the airborne phase. — Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur
activities notes and links. Suppose two canons with equal firepower and canonballs of equal mass were aimed in the same direction. Canon A is fired parallel to the ground. Canon B is fired 37 degrees vertical of the horizon. Which canonball goes further? Now, picture running next to a very long chalkboard with a piece of chalk sticking out laterally from your neck and perpendicular to your upright body axis. If you were to have no bounce, you would inscribe a straight horizontal line on the chalkboard. Too much bounce and you would draw a series of steep parabolic arcs. If one were to zoom in on either the beginning or end of one of these parabolas, then an angle with respect to the horizon could be determined. My guess is that Noakes’ putative bounce is somewhere in the range of 30 to 45 degrees. We all bounce to some degree when we run. The questions remain, how much is too much and how little is too little? — Patrick
Response:
you are right everyone bounces some, just some less than others. the canonball analogy is a tad weak for comparing humans (self-propelled) vs inanimate objects being propelled for distance. Most articles I’ve read really reduce bounce down to what is most economical: running up (bounce) or running forward ( as little bounce as possible) all but the high jumpers seem to want to go forward more than up. In addition consider that when no feet are on the ground pulling/pushing you forward you are in a state of deceleration, so taking the feet up is again not a economical. This is probably why stride rate is more important to speed than stride length for speed. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (snip) The elites do have very long strides, but not by having great vertical motion. What Noakes is calling ‘bounce’ is almost certainly something other than distance between feet and ground at the peak of the airborne phase. — Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Suppose two canons with equal firepower and canonballs of equal mass were aimed in the same direction. Canon A is fired parallel to the ground. Canon B is fired 37 degrees vertical of the horizon. Which canonball goes further? Now, picture running next to a very long chalkboard with a piece of chalk sticking out laterally from your neck and perpendicular to your upright body axis. If you were to have no bounce, you would inscribe a straight horizontal line on the chalkboard. Too much bounce and you would draw a series of steep parabolic arcs. If one were to zoom in on either the beginning or end of one of these parabolas, then an angle with respect to the horizon could be determined. My guess is that Noakes’ putative bounce is somewhere in the range of 30 to 45 degrees. We all bounce to some degree when we run. The questions remain, how much is too much and how little is too little? — Patrick
Response:
Hi there, Could the bouncing while passing simply be an indicator of a more "urgent" effort? It seems to me that all/ most of the examples you cited were runners passing other runners…which would indicate a more pressing effort on the part of the passer. Did all those bouncers eventually win? Or did I miss something? I have been trying to reduce my vertical "hops"..and maintain more of a gliding stride. It not only feels better and smoother, but I am far less tired after completing the same distance (that I used to bounce through) I use a treadmill and my mirror…or a brimmed cap (thanks Denny, for that tip). Tell me…was this all for naught? Teresa <turn the cap backwards to sport a ‘tude, dude
Response:
I doubt that it was for naught. I think that the point is that a shuffle is not the best way to run. On the other end of the spectrum, when you run you don’t want to look like you on the second jump of the triple jump. Also, what I was trying to convey in my examples is that in the Ironman races you can see the difference in a good form and bad form more clearly because you have runners of greatly different abilities side by side. If anyone felt any sense of urgency in these situations it would be the passee, after all how would you feel getting passed after leading a race for 4+hrs? All of the bouncers I pointed out ran among the fastest. Peter Ried ran 2:47, Luc Van Lierde ran 2:41 and Lori Bowden ran an incredible 2:59. Pretty fast for a marathon after 2.4 miles swimming and 112 miles on the bike. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi there, Could the bouncing while passing simply be an indicator of a more "urgent" effort? It seems to me that all/ most of the examples you cited were runners passing other runners…which would indicate a more pressing effort on the part of the passer. Did all those bouncers eventually win? Or did I miss something? I have been trying to reduce my vertical "hops"..and maintain more of a gliding stride. It not only feels better and smoother, but I am far less tired after completing the same distance (that I used to bounce through) I use a treadmill and my mirror…or a brimmed cap (thanks Denny, for that tip). Tell me…was this all for naught? Teresa <turn the cap backwards to sport a ‘tude, dude
Response:
Tim Noakes never stated that great runners bounce higher than other runners, but rather that they bounce. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Dr. Noakes used the visual example a pencil bobbing across a desk. The best example I have seen of this is in the ‘98 Hawaii Ironman when Peter Ried (who was bouncing) passed Jurgen Zack (who was not bouncing). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When viewed from a biomechanics standpoint two things differentiate speed in a runner. One is stride length (measured in meters per stride) the other is turnover (measured in strides per min). If a runner were to have the longest stride length and the fastest turnover he or she would be the fastest in the race. To have a long stride length one must have bounce because a long stride length means that the runner is not touching the ground for longer during the stride. I think some things got lost in the translation. The cadences of elite runners, say 10k and marathon (that’s what you counted, right Denny?), is pretty much all the same, about 190. (Even I, far from elite, managed 170-180 in yesterday’s 10k race) Stride length is then the only variable to speak of. ’Bouncing’ more, greater vertical motion, is not required. Indeed, it would cause a _slower_ cadence. Simply this: a) If you go up in the air farther, it takes longer to come back down. (reduced cadence) b) While you’re in the air, you don’t get to push against the earth to produce forward momentum. The elites do have very long strides, but not by having great vertical motion. What Noakes is calling ‘bounce’ is almost certainly something other than distance between feet and ground at the peak of the airborne phase. — Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Response:
When viewed from a biomechanics standpoint two things differentiate speed in a runner. One is stride length (measured in meters per stride) the other is turnover (measured in strides per min). If a runner were to have the longest stride length and the fastest turnover he or she would be the fastest in the race. To have a long stride length one must have bounce because a long stride length means that the runner is not touching the ground for longer during the stride.
I think some things got lost in the translation. The cadences of elite runners, say 10k and marathon (that’s what you counted, right Denny?), is pretty much all the same, about 190. (Even I, far from elite, managed 170-180 in yesterday’s 10k race) Stride length is then the only variable to speak of. ’Bouncing’ more, greater vertical motion, is not required. Indeed, it would cause a _slower_ cadence. Simply this: a) If you go up in the air farther, it takes longer to come back down. (reduced cadence) b) While you’re in the air, you don’t get to push against the earth to produce forward momentum. The elites do have very long strides, but not by having great vertical motion. What Noakes is calling ‘bounce’ is almost certainly something other than distance between feet and ground at the peak of the airborne phase. — Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Response:
On the other hand, bounce is good, but too much is bad so you might actually be a runner that previously had too much bounce and now you are bringing it to an appropriate level.
Well, that gets to the heart of the matter. I agree, as would everyone here, that some amount of bounce is required by the way all human beings run. It’s just a question of how much, and more specifically and pedagogically, do most people bounce too much or not enough? After all, if we’re trying to dispense some sort of wisdom here, then that’s an important thing to know. In swimming, stroke style and mechanics are very personal, and a good swimming teacher/coach is one who can help an individual do what works best for them. I suspect much the same is true in running, and I’ll probably look into getting some individual coaching at some point in the future. One idea I’ve been toying with is getting the hardware to take video of myself running and post it somewhere on the web where people can comment on my form. Perhaps a good summertime project for me. Someone on the swimming newsgroup has taken excerts from TV coverage of world-class swim meets (ESPN) and put them on a web site. It’s fascinating to watch, especially the one or two slow-motion clips he’s put up. -S-
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – An interesting finding, especially for me in light of the fact that, while I’ve never participated in a triathlon (sp?), I do swim and bicycle avidly (6-10k yards and 50-100 miles weekly, respectively, on average). As I’m sure someone else will volunteer if I don’t, the fact that some good runners bounce doesn’t make it good technique. Slow motion videos of world class and even world record swimmers almost invariably show flaws in their strokes. When, yesterday, I concentrated on not bouncing, I felt more efficient and like I was using my energy to move myself forward and not up and down. That seems a good thing to me. Again, to make the analogy to swimming and also to support your point, one has to roll from side to side a good bit while doing the front crawl in order to move oneself forward at the best and most efficient speed, so I don’t rule out the possibility of some bounce being a good thing. -S-
I gave the example of the triathlon because it is a rare instance where you can see a great runner (Luc Van Lierde) run right next to a not so great runner (Thomas Hellriegel and Jurgen Zack). In the footage you can see the great runners bounce. But again that was just one example and not the entire case for the position. If you were to watch an Olympic 10,000m race you could probably see the runners bounce (especcially when the camera follows along with the pack). It would just be harder because they are all doing it. To get back to Tim Noakes work. Basically his position that all great runners bounce is a result of a great deal of work by biomechanists and physiologists to determine what it is biomechanically that separates great runners from the rest. In examining the data a great deal of variation was found, so great runners had a neutral footstrike, some pronated slightly, some ran with a relaxed armswing, some ran with their arms high at their sides. All great runners bounced, and it comes down to physics. I don’t have Tim’s work in front of me, so this next part is from memory. It basically works like this: When viewed from a biomechanics standpoint two things differentiate speed in a runner. One is stride length (measured in meters per stride) the other is turnover (measured in strides per min). If a runner were to have the longest stride length and the fastest turnover he or she would be the fastest in the race. To have a long stride length one must have bounce because a long stride length means that the runner is not touching the ground for longer during the stride. Now the longest stride length does not win the race, because a overly long stride can slow one down (you can’t accelerate in the air only decelerate). So to be fastest a runner must be able to travel the furthest in a given time. That means that biomechanically them must have the fastest combination of stride length and cadence. To get back to your swimming example, if a large number of world class swimmers had their stroke analyzed you would find a great deal of variation. All would probably make some errors in stroke mechanics, BUT they all would not make the same error. Tim Noakes found that all great runners bounce. If it is an identifying factor between great and not great runners I don’t think it can be called an error. As for your personal experience, I assume that you are talking about your perception of improvement. Did you measure your efficiency, HR, or even your actual vertical movement? I have the benefit of working in the same institute as many of the top physiologists and biomechanists in the country and I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to have my running technique analyzed. Some of the mistakes I was making in form were things that I could not feel while running. On the other hand, bounce is good, but too much is bad so you might actually be a runner that previously had too much bounce and now you are bringing it to an appropriate level. Jeremy
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So you’re stating the opposing point of view here, that bounce is _good_? I am just passing along information presented by one of the world’s most respected experts on running. I have never done research in this area, and biomechanics of running is not my area of expertise, but I have read a great deal of Tim Noakes work. Anecdotally, I have noticed that during Ironman Hawaii ‘99, Lori Bowden (2:59 marathon off the bike), Luc Van Lierde (2:42 marathon off the bike) bounced and they both passed people that didn’t. I think that it is harder to see while watching a race like Boston or New York because all the runners you see in the TV coverage will bounce. During Dr. Noakes presentation (and in many of his papers) he has pointed out that many elite runners (and fast running triathletes) show a great deal of variation in form, but the one constant was that they all bounced.
An interesting finding, especially for me in light of the fact that, while I’ve never participated in a triathlon (sp?), I do swim and bicycle avidly (6-10k yards and 50-100 miles weekly, respectively, on average). As I’m sure someone else will volunteer if I don’t, the fact that some good runners bounce doesn’t make it good technique. Slow motion videos of world class and even world record swimmers almost invariably show flaws in their strokes. When, yesterday, I concentrated on not bouncing, I felt more efficient and like I was using my energy to move myself forward and not up and down. That seems a good thing to me. Again, to make the analogy to swimming and also to support your point, one has to roll from side to side a good bit while doing the front crawl in order to move oneself forward at the best and most efficient speed, so I don’t rule out the possibility of some bounce being a good thing. -S-
Response:
So you’re stating the opposing point of view here, that bounce is _good_?
I am just passing along information presented by one of the world’s most respected experts on running. I have never done research in this area, and biomechanics of running is not my area of expertise, but I have read a great deal of Tim Noakes work. Anecdotally, I have noticed that during Ironman Hawaii ‘99, Lori Bowden (2:59 marathon off the bike), Luc Van Lierde (2:42 marathon off the bike) bounced and they both passed people that didn’t. I think that it is harder to see while watching a race like Boston or New York because all the runners you see in the TV coverage will bounce. During Dr. Noakes presentation (and in many of his papers) he has pointed out that many elite runners (and fast running triathletes) show a great deal of variation in form, but the one constant was that they all bounced.
Response:
Since cadence is already "up there", then your next goal should to "minimize" vertical motion.
At the 1998 Ironman Sports Medicine Conference, Dr. Timothy Noakes stated that the one thing that you can immediately see in a great runner is that they bounce. Jeremy
Response:
So you’re stating the opposing point of view here, that bounce is _good_? -S- – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Since cadence is already "up there", then your next goal should to "minimize" vertical motion. At the 1998 Ironman Sports Medicine Conference, Dr. Timothy Noakes stated that the one thing that you can immediately see in a great runner is that they bounce. Jeremy
Response:
Steve, To reduce vertical movement, the bouncing up and down, once you’ve arrived and shorter quicker steps. When you’ve reduced your stride by increasing your cadence, the issue is in lifting the knees and not the whole body. This is when I talk about marching in place. If you march in place, you touch down ball/heel. Your body is moving up and down, you’re just lifting your knees. If you lean from the ankle and keep the body erect you’ll notice that you’re still lifting your knees but now they’re touching down a few inches in front of the 0ther foot but it’s still under your center of gravity. Check out my repost on running down hill. The image of your body as a broom handle balanced in your palm and starting to fall forward. If you keep up with the lean of the broom handle it keeps on falling as long as you keep up with it. It doesn’t bounce. The earth is the palm of the hand and if you keep on falling and placing your feet down after lifting the knees, you’ll find that you’ll have minimal vertical bounce. Remember if you only lift your center of gravity a half inch more than needed with each step, then every 24 steps you have lifted your body weight one foot up and not gotten anywhere. That’s why once you learn to run smoothly, without any other additional training you are able to run faster because you’re not wasting any excess energy but turning it into running faster. During your runs, I’d suggest that you stop and massage out the calves and hamstrings along the way. The idea is that during your training runs, you’re looking at working on training form. So if you stop 4 or 5 times to loosen up your muscles as you practice you new form, then start when you start again, you should find that gradually your running time is faster…and amost importantly, the end of your runs are not tiring since you’ve loosened up the muscles during the entire run so that you’re not practicing bad running habits and form during the later parts of your run when you’re tired. Regarding your shoulders, your head is moving up and down but you are probably feeling the vertical more in the shoulders as you come down. Ozzie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Since cadence is already "up there", then your next goal should to "minimize" vertical motion. Quickest way to test yourself is to wear a billed cap. Adjust the visor so that it intersects the horizon along your sight line. The amount of relative "vertical displacement" of bill-horizon with each stride gives a good idea of form faults. I did my long run this morning and took the opportunity to see how much I bounce around. In no particular order: * My glasses suffice to see how much my head is bouncing. * Focusing on reducing the bounce at my head helps – I bounce * less, and I feel like my expenditure of energy is directed * more towards moving me forward. * I watched my shadow on a few occassions when the sun was behind * me. Very interesting. Even though my _head_ isn’t moving much * at all, my shoulders are moving up and down quite a bit. What, * if anything, does this signify? I ran an unmeasured distance today, running about a mile to the local multi-use path then on it until my total run time reached 33:17 and I reached one of the points where I’d considered turning around. My return leg was 1:10 slower than the outbound one, total running time of 1:07:44. Estimated distance, assuming an 8:20 overall pace, of 8.1 miles. Legs are a little sore, I’m a little tired, keeping what form I have for the last few miles was tough – it was hard enough to run the distance. I’m definitely out of practice at this long a run but for a 5k I guess it’s not all that big a deal. Since my next long run will be three weeks before my 5k, I’m thinking of going for a slightly shorter distance and a slightly faster pace, perhaps an easy walk/run warmup to the 10k course start and then try to run it at 8:00 all the way through. Steve "-3.50 diopters" Freides
– In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Maintainer – rec.running FAQ Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975 Mindful Running: http://www.mindfulness.com
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Since cadence is already "up there", then your next goal should to "minimize" vertical motion. Quickest way to test yourself is to wear a billed cap. Adjust the visor so that it intersects the horizon along your sight line. The amount of relative "vertical displacement" of bill-horizon with each stride gives a good idea of form faults. I did my long run this morning and took the opportunity to see how much I bounce around. In no particular order: * My glasses suffice to see how much my head is bouncing. * Focusing on reducing the bounce at my head helps – I bounce * less, and I feel like my expenditure of energy is directed * more towards moving me forward. * I watched my shadow on a few occassions when the sun was behind * me. Very interesting. Even though my _head_ isn’t moving much * at all, my shoulders are moving up and down quite a bit. What,
Shoulders up/down ‘quite a bit’ mans there’s work to be done! * if anything, does this signify?
Signifying that you are ducking your head out of phase with body to keep Glasses from bouncing? Unconsciously? Try the cap with bill. Run upright, head up letting head move up/down in phase with the body. Visualize a line attached to the top of your head, forcing you to keep it upright at all times. Then, if able to sustain the upright position, the magnitude of relative vertical motion will be quite apparent from the horizon-bill relationship. Steve "-3.50 diopters" Freides
Denny – 3.00 diopter.
Response:
Since cadence is already "up there", then your next goal should to "minimize" vertical motion. Quickest way to test yourself is to wear a billed cap. Adjust the visor so that it intersects the horizon along your sight line. The amount of relative "vertical displacement" of bill-horizon with each stride gives a good idea of form faults.
I did my long run this morning and took the opportunity to see how much I bounce around. In no particular order: * My glasses suffice to see how much my head is bouncing. * Focusing on reducing the bounce at my head helps – I bounce * less, and I feel like my expenditure of energy is directed * more towards moving me forward. * I watched my shadow on a few occassions when the sun was behind * me. Very interesting. Even though my _head_ isn’t moving much * at all, my shoulders are moving up and down quite a bit. What, * if anything, does this signify? I ran an unmeasured distance today, running about a mile to the local multi-use path then on it until my total run time reached 33:17 and I reached one of the points where I’d considered turning around. My return leg was 1:10 slower than the outbound one, total running time of 1:07:44. Estimated distance, assuming an 8:20 overall pace, of 8.1 miles. Legs are a little sore, I’m a little tired, keeping what form I have for the last few miles was tough – it was hard enough to run the distance. I’m definitely out of practice at this long a run but for a 5k I guess it’s not all that big a deal. Since my next long run will be three weeks before my 5k, I’m thinking of going for a slightly shorter distance and a slightly faster pace, perhaps an easy walk/run warmup to the 10k course start and then try to run it at 8:00 all the way through. Steve "-3.50 diopters" Freides
Response:
Question:
I think bikes go free on international flights assuming it is one of your allowed bags. Golf clubs and skis go free domestically. No one has ever (to my satisfaction) answered why properly packed bikes cost. Although the closest was that it takes up more space than clubs or skis. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I see posts here from time to time where folks discuss the cost of flying with their bikes within the US. If you were taking golf clubs, would they go free? When I flew from Stockholm to Canada a few years ago, my bike went free! Now though bikes cost but golf clubs go free. — Philip Squire MCP IM http://w1.116.telia.com/~u11602093/home.html
Response:
I can’t resist: "Let my golf clubs go!" Set them free! ok, sorry. giggle — Tri-Baby
Go to your room!!! D.J. " that felt good 
" (IRONKID)
Response:
Next time I will ship my bike as a set of golf clubs. Must just get one of these silly golf hats and a vest. trInIc – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I see posts here from time to time where folks discuss the cost of flying with their bikes within the US. If you were taking golf clubs, would they go free? When I flew from Stockholm to Canada a few years ago, my bike went free! Now though bikes cost but golf clubs go free. — Philip Squire MCP IM http://w1.116.telia.com/~u11602093/home.html As I understand it, on international flights bikes are included in your 20/30 kilo weight allowance (as are golf clubs). U.S. domestic there is a charge for bikes but not for golf clubs or for that matter surf boards. Go figure. Cheers, Bernie Sher
Response:
Remember that Golf is a career move not a sport — Remove the Engineering solution in the Reply to Address
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Next time I will ship my bike as a set of golf clubs. Must just get one of these silly golf hats and a vest. trInIc I see posts here from time to time where folks discuss the cost of flying with their bikes within the US. If you were taking golf clubs, would they go free? When I flew from Stockholm to Canada a few years ago, my bike went free! Now though bikes cost but golf clubs go free. — Philip Squire MCP IM http://w1.116.telia.com/~u11602093/home.html As I understand it, on international flights bikes are included in your 20/30 kilo weight allowance (as are golf clubs). U.S. domestic there is a charge for bikes but not for golf clubs or for that matter surf boards. Go figure. Cheers, Bernie Sher
Response:
I see posts here from time to time where folks discuss the cost of flying with their bikes within the US. If you were taking golf clubs, would they go free? When I flew from Stockholm to Canada a few years ago, my bike went free! Now though bikes cost but golf clubs go free.
I can’t resist: "Let my golf clubs go!" Set them free! ok, sorry. giggle — Tri-Baby _ – o ’ – __o – </_ ` ‘ – < – __/ /o_ – (()) (()) - / "Real triathletes don’t draft." http://www.stanford.edu/~brooksie *New to triathlon? Check out Hulaman’s Simple TriTips: http://www.hulaman.com/triathlon/tritips.html
Response:
I see posts here from time to time where folks discuss the cost of flying with their bikes within the US. If you were taking golf clubs, would they go free? When I flew from Stockholm to Canada a few years ago, my bike went free! Now though bikes cost but golf clubs go free. — Philip Squire MCP IM http://w1.116.telia.com/~u11602093/home.html
Response:
I see posts here from time to time where folks discuss the cost of flying with their bikes within the US. If you were taking golf clubs, would they go free? When I flew from Stockholm to Canada a few years ago, my bike went free! Now though bikes cost but golf clubs go free. — Philip Squire MCP IM http://w1.116.telia.com/~u11602093/home.html
As I understand it, on international flights bikes are included in your 20/30 kilo weight allowance (as are golf clubs). U.S. domestic there is a charge for bikes but not for golf clubs or for that matter surf boards. Go figure. Cheers, Bernie Sher
Response:
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Almost all of us know that steep seat tube angles allow you to stay on a more aero and efficient position. However, my bike is a road Pinarello with a 73 degree seat tube angle (or something like that) and I’m really not planning to switch to a tri bike with steep s.t.a. (like QR) anytime soon. My point is that you get a hell of a workout when you race or even train with the roadies. You can get a lot faster by doing that than by moving your butt forward one or two inches. If anybody has any comments on that, please post’em here and let everybody know. Enrico Canali
In response to Enrico, seat tube angle is one of the primary reasons for my getting online. I’ve been puzzled by this question since I started doing triathlons three years ago. I’m a novice cyclist and triathlete so my lack of cycling miles may make my observations irrelevant to anyone else but, for what its worth, here they are: Coming from a running background (31:15 10k many years ago), I’m particularly sensitive to things which affect my stride. I’ve found the run in a half-ironman i did this year to be miserable when using a 73.5 seat angle with the saddle all the way forward. My calves were shot and my hamstrings didn’t feel to great either. Immediately after the half-ironman I received a Profile fast forward post that had been on backorder. I had about 3 months until my next race (excuse: wedding, honeymoon enough said) so I had plenty of time to adjust to a new position. The run in the Oly Distance was fantastic. I felt great, had a full stride and popped the 3rd fastest run split, not to brag but to show the difference I think the more forward position made to me. I’m inclined to believe that the forward position, relieving some of my running specific muscles, had alot to do with my split. However, this is by no means scientific evidence. I had plenty of time to train between races and may have been in better overall running and cycling shape. Also, I have rarely, if ever read anything about the forward seat angle improving your running by virtue of relieving running specific muscles. In a loose attempt to approach this thing scientifically, after the Oly distance race with the good run split, I changed back to the straight seat post (gradually) and noticed that I could climb hills alot better in the saddle but that my runs felt like hell the next day, even two days later and riding in the aero bars was definitely less comfortable. That was enough for me. That’s All I Have. Good Luck…Chris Pass
Response:
Almost all of us know that steep seat tube angles allow you to stay on a more aero and efficient position. However, my bike is a road Pinarello with a 73 degree seat tube angle (or something like that) and I’m really not planning to switch to a tri bike with steep s.t.a. (like QR) anytime soon. My point is that you get a hell of a workout when you race or even train with the roadies. You can get a lot faster by doing that than by moving your butt forward one or two inches. If anybody has any comments on that, please post’em here and let everybody know. Enrico Canali
Response:
I agree that you can get a great workout riding with "roadies". I have trained on a standard drop-bar road bike the last 4 years and raced on a TT bike with a forward seatpost. The main point, however, is that the angle between the quadriceps, back, and gluteal muscles need to stay relatively constant. Even in the fastest group road rides I’ve never been in the drop bar position for more than half of the time, so my torso was slanted upwards a bit versus my TT position. However, since I run a relatively lower handlebar position on my TT bike (to allow a flatter, more horizontal back), I need to rotate my torso forward so that my back, gluteal, and quadricep muscles are in approximately the same angle relatively to each other. The key is specificity. You need to train and race in the same position as much as possible. This is why many pure road riders do not ride steep-angled TT bikes…their neuromuscular firing patterns would not respond to the efferent signals from their joints and muscles. However, witness Rominger’s hour-record ride…he used a 74-degree ST vs a 71-degree on the road. However, if you compare his road position versus his TT position his torso is much more horizontal in the TT position, as it is more supported by his skeletal (vs muscular) system. My opinions on seat-tube angles stated above is independent of aerodynamics, which plays another (and very important) role in achieving maximum velocity of the bike. However, unless the race is pretty short (<40km TT…if you’re mentally tough and have flexible spine and hamstrings) it’s pretty impossible to hold an extremely low aero position like Colby Pearce or Chris Boardman (pre-Superman)…therefore, it kinda goes back to each rider’s own comfort zone. If you’re not comfortable, no matter how much the position is aerodynamically sound…they simply will NOT go fast. Speed is Life, Dave Chen Arizona State Triathlon Team, Captain www.public.asu.edu/~dseeburg/other/tridevils
Response:
I have been riding a Klein Quantum for 6 years and have placed very well on it in my age-group in local triathlons. It is a fine road-race geometry bike. I also have sat on the tip of a forward pushed saddle for 6 years wondering how I could get any LESS comfortable. I have bought a new QR. I plan on training hard, as always, and using the new bike to full effect.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Almost all of us know that steep seat tube angles allow you to stay on a more aero and efficient position. However, my bike is a road Pinarello with a 73 degree seat tube angle (or something like that) and I’m really not planning to switch to a tri bike with steep s.t.a. (like QR) anytime soon. My point is that you get a hell of a workout when you race or even train with the roadies. You can get a lot faster by doing that than by moving your butt forward one or two inches. If anybody has any comments on that, please post’em here and let everybody know. Enrico Canali
You are right Enrico, riding hard with roadies will make you faster. Tell me this when is the last time you saw a roadie run a marathon after doing a century? From things I have read that’s what the steep angles are for. Steve
Response:
Question:
Swim: 1 mile. Great no-brainer swim (you swim clockwise around the municipal wharf, totally easy to navigate). It’s cold, but you’ll certainly survive in a shorty. It’s nowhere near as cold as, say, Pacific Grove or Alcatraz, and I’ve seen folks do both of those in shorties. Surf/current are negligible. Avoid the sea lions inhabiting the pier! The water’s warm … during the Rough Water swim you were docked 5 minutes if you wore a wet suit!
Ah, but isn’t the Rough Water swim held in July? October makes a big difference! And what time do they start the Rough Water Swim? 8 am also makes a big difference! Sorry the URL didn’t work; I copied it directly from the web page, so don’t know what the trouble was. Tri-Baby _ – o ’ – __o – </_ ` ‘ – < – __/ /o_ – (()) (()) - / "REAL Triathletes don’t draft!" http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~brooksie
Response:
Thanks to everyone for all the insight/help and advice. I’m looking forward to seeing you folks race morning. Scott- another motorcylist/triathlete -YES! Tricia- no more talk about cold water Paul- Thanks for the inspection info Steve G- picking up a thermal cap today -Tony
Response:
: Anyone out there care to share their advise/experience on the Santa Cruz : tri this weekend. I’m trying to get signed up and I don’t have any idea : what the course is like let alone the water temperature. Race hotline: (408) 423-4242, ext 301 * | * * * * /| * * * Eric Roseme * /| * * * Hewlett-Packard, Networked Computer Division *//|\ / / * ///|\ * \ | * // * \ \
Response:
Anyone out there care to share their advise/experience on the Santa Cruz tri this weekend. I’m trying to get signed up and I don’t have any idea what the course is like let alone the water temperature. Am I going to freeze in a ’shorty’ wetsuit? Any ideas where to stay in SC. I’m coming from Redwood City and would like to spend friday night near the start. Is there a bike check on friday or is it sat. morning? (As Rosanne Rosannadanna would say "you sure ask a lot of questions!") I haven’t done an open water tri yet or anything longer than The South Bay Tri (3/4m, 16m, 5m). I want to finish the season with a longer race to keep me going during the winter and charged up for at least one 1/2 IM next year. Thanks in advance…. -Tony Cerami
Response:
Anyone out there care to share their advise/experience on the Santa Cruz tri this weekend. I’m trying to get signed up and I don’t have any idea what the course is like let alone the water temperature. Am I going to freeze in a ’shorty’ wetsuit? Any ideas where to stay in SC. I’m coming from Redwood City and would like to spend friday night near the start. Is there a bike check on friday or is it sat. morning?
First of all, the race is on SUNDAY, not Saturday. Pre-race-day bike check is supposedly required; they SAY you can’t have your bike checked on race day, but I don’t think they’re really strict about it. You can get your bike checked at a shop in Santa Cruz, but I can’t remember the name of it off the top of my head. Swim: 1 mile. Great no-brainer swim (you swim clockwise around the municipal wharf, totally easy to navigate). It’s cold, but you’ll certainly survive in a shorty. It’s nowhere near as cold as, say, Pacific Grove or Alcatraz, and I’ve seen folks do both of those in shorties. Surf/current are negligible. Avoid the sea lions inhabiting the pier! Bike: 23 miles, Flat to rolling. Up the Pacific Coast Highway to Davenport and back. It’s tough only in the sense that the bike lane is narrow and rough in spots, and it’s not closed to traffic. This course is, unfortunately, notorious for bunching cyclists up and thereby (unintentionally) promoting drafting. Be SURE to bring a spare; I see more flats on this course for some reason than at almost any other race I’ve ever done. Run: 10k, flat to rolling, along the coast on West Cliff Drive. Generally considered pretty "fast". Weather can be totally fogged in and chilly (a la 1994), or crystal clear and scorching hot (a la 1995). T-Shirt always excellent. Post-race food minimal but adequate. Official race info available online at http://www.infopoint.com/sc/orgs/triathlon/index.html You can read my personal race report from the ‘95 event at http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~brooksie/96Reports/Triptych.HTML Good luck finding a place to stay! I tried getting last-minute accomodations in ‘92 and was totally SOL. Last year I splurged and took a room at the Dream Inn, right across the street from the transition area. Costs a bloody fortune (location is *everything), but boy! is it nice to wake up all of 200 yards from the transition area and finish the race 150 yards from a shower and a bed! See you there. Who else is going? Tri-Baby _ – o ’ – __o – </_ ` ‘ – < – __/ /o_ – (()) (()) - / "REAL Triathletes don’t draft!" http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~brooksie
Response:
See you there. Who else is going?
I’ll be there for tri #2. I think my number is 616. —
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Pre-race-day bike check is supposedly required; they SAY you can’t have your bike checked on race day, but I don’t think they’re really strict about it. You can get your bike checked at a shop in Santa Cruz, but I can’t remember the name of it off the top of my head. Swim: 1 mile. Great no-brainer swim (you swim clockwise around the municipal wharf, totally easy to navigate). It’s cold, but you’ll certainly survive in a shorty. It’s nowhere near as cold as, say, Pacific Grove or Alcatraz, and I’ve seen folks do both of those in shorties. Surf/current are negligible. Avoid the sea lions inhabiting the pier! Official race info available online at http://www.infopoint.com/sc/orgs/triathlon/index.html See you there. Who else is going? Tri-Baby
I got errors trying to use Tri-Baby’s UDR … instead tri just: http://www.infopoint.com/sc/orgs/triathlon/ The water’s warm … during the Rough Water swim you were docked 5 minutes if you wore a wet suit! The bike shop name is: THE SPOKESMAN BICYCLES No race day bike inspections provided. Bike inspections may be completed in advance at Spokesman Bicycles,231 Cathcart St., Santa Cruz, 429-6062 after Sept. 1. The final opportunity for bike inspections will be Saturday, October 5th from 11 a.m. until 3 p.m. at the Santa Cruz County Sentinel, 207 Church St., Santa Cruz. Swim cap and T-shirt coupons may also be redeemed at this time, or on race morning from 6 – 7:30 a.m. outside the transition area. See ya Tri-Nerd?
Response:
