Official Thread: Walmsley, Herron, Tons of others to chase 100km WR in Project Carbon X 2

Here is the official performance list so you Don Ritchie fanatics can fully understand the sport and his career. He would be disappointed in your deception.

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m100km.htm

It was a fantastic run, but so hard to watch the clock and record crush him (and us) with

every

single

painful

interminable

agonizing

relentless

devastating

unavoidable

visible

passing

second.

devin edwards wrote:

Just imagine how much he would have broken the record if he wore an actual super shoe with pebax foam.

Actually, I wonder myself what his potential is , if not for that 'good looking' , but very uneconomical stride, as I've said before. Anything over HM requires economy, the better, the longer you keep the splits.

Jim has a very high knee lift forwards, long stride and from side on you can see the vertical hip or head movement. That is wasted energy, even if it looks good. it looks 'good' because it is loping, gazelle like and looks energetic.

The high lift should be backwards (which he has) only, some of that comes from return energy, swing through stride to get it under COG without the knee lifting too high, and the hip goes in a low amplitude sine wave.

Sounds technical, but he should have a look at Kenyan marathoners in slo mo.

^^

swing through pendulum (gravity assisted) stride to get it under COG ...not an against gravity knee lift

^^^

sled puller wrote:

TMADDDHASFNE wrote:

Good barf shot.

My wife, who has puked during and immediately after races before, said that

distance running is the only sport where puking is regularly part of the competition.

With the exception of triathlons (where puking sometimes occurs during the run...) I can't think of any other sport with so much puking.

Is competitive eating a sport? It's definitely physical. And I am pretty sure it involves a lot of the above.

nzkenbg wrote:

Here is the official performance list so you Don Ritchie fanatics can fully understand the sport and his career. He would be disappointed in your deception.

This list is more official and includes all performances

Judging by results, I think he shouldn't mess with his form. He's done tens of thousands of miles. His body works better than almost anyone else's. It would be foolhardy to worry about anything except staying healthy at this point.

duuuude wrote:

Judging by results, I think he shouldn't mess with his form. He's done tens of thousands of miles. His body works better than almost anyone else's. It would be foolhardy to worry about anything except staying healthy at this point.

That may be true, but energy is energy, and he has shown in 100km and 24 hrs that it affects him in later stages.

He is compensated by the fact that he has a good engine to start off with, but that doesn't mean wasted energy doesn't matter. He runs unlike most of the competitive world class ultra runners and would love to see him in Comrades, where the guys have split 32min for the last (mostly flat) 10km on the down run...he simply wouldn't be able to pull that gear.

I am Sam wrote:

Jim has a very high knee lift forwards...The high lift should be backwards (which he has) only...without the knee lifting too high

Walmsley's knee lift is not higher than Kipchoge's (looking at angle of femur with ground).

bloviate and bloviate wrote:

I am Sam wrote:

Jim has a very high knee lift forwards...The high lift should be backwards (which he has) only...without the knee lifting too high

Walmsley's knee lift is not higher than Kipchoge's (looking at angle of femur with ground).

How about measuring the height, and the vertical oscillation of both.

Not sure how you can get it 'looking at' angles

I am Sam wrote:

bloviate and bloviate wrote:

Walmsley's knee lift is not higher than Kipchoge's (looking at angle of femur with ground).

How about measuring the height, and the vertical oscillation of both.

Not sure how you can get it 'looking at' angles

Of course we would not be surprised if the absolute height of Walmsley's lifted knee was higher than Kipchoge's, considering he is 6" taller than Kipchoge. But 'absolute height' typically does not factor into the discussion when discussing one's 'knee lift'.

devin edwards wrote:

Just imagine how much he would have broken the record if he wore an actual super shoe with pebax foam.

Burnsy told the Brojo's that runners in Hoka's were leaving chips on the table.

bloviate and bloviate wrote:

I am Sam wrote:

Not sure how you can get it 'looking at' angles

Of course we would not be surprised if the absolute height of Walmsley's lifted knee was higher than Kipchoge's, considering he is 6" taller than Kipchoge. But 'absolute height' typically does not factor into the discussion when discussing one's 'knee lift'.

No, no, no.

We are not comparing 'absolute height' , we are comparing vertical oscillation, or the amount of unnecessary raising and lowering the hip and everything above that.

Let's say a runner of same height, same femur length has a 3cm oscillation vs Walmsley approx 10cm, their femur angles can actually be the same, with the knee lift, hip lift both higher by 7cm.

That energy comes from somewhere.

In the best scenario, you are swinging a high heel through in pendulum way....you cannot avoid some vertical COG change to allow swing through, though theoretically possible.

In the worst case scenario you are achieving stride by lifting the whole COG by higher knee and COG lift.

It's not that hard to compare side by side in slo mo.

bloviate and bloviate wrote:

devin edwards wrote:

Just imagine how much he would have broken the record if he wore an actual super shoe with pebax foam.

Burnsy told the Brojo's that runners in Hoka's were leaving chips on the table.

Maybe the HOKA brand could shift marketing of the shoe, to emphasize, for example, comparative durability..."Our less-dense EVA midsole is only a minute slower over a 6-hr race, when compared to the Peba-foam competitors, but they take 20% less compressive set, lasting twice as long."

Of course neither the time difference or durability difference I mention above is yet proven. For all we know, when Walmsley took his 40second break, he may have changed into new shoes to get a fresh bounce.

KeepYourFocus wrote:

I'm torn between:

"Wow. Incredible run."

and

"WHY WHY WHY did you spend all this time fiddling with your watch. Maybe because he was delirious, but why didn't the people in the car say so. Give the man splits. Know how far he is from the finish."

I feel for him. It was a frustrating watch.

Maybe he had some extra mindgames going on if his watch was not jiving with what he was hearing? The guy in the car, with less than one mile to go, at the 6:03:30 mark (6:23:14 on the livestream), "Jim, you don't need to go any faster."

bloviate and bloviate wrote:

devin edwards wrote:

Just imagine how much he would have broken the record if he wore an actual super shoe with pebax foam.

Burnsy told the Brojo's that runners in Hoka's were leaving chips on the table.

I train in the Carbon X and race Vaporflys.

Purely anecdotal evidence from my experience, but I reckon the Vaporfly is 11 seconds faster over 2.5k. This is based from mile, 2k and 3k repeats I've done in both shoes. Can imagine the time benefit would be HUGE over 100k in Vaporflys vs the Carbon X

nzkenbg wrote:

Here is the official performance list so you Don Ritchie fanatics can fully understand the sport and his career. He would be disappointed in your deception.

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m100km.htm

Not sure why people are trying to pretend Ritchie didn't run 6:10:21 on the track.

Jim himself sent me this link after our podcast this week. The title "The Greatest 100 km"

Jim beat that time. So Jim's is the best ever on a non-wind aided course. Not the official WR though.

Is track faster for a distance like this? I'm not sure I could overcome the boredom.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't receiving info from a pace car considered illegal in pro races and record eligible races? Also, Ritchie still faster IMO by in large. He had no special course designed to allow you to run shortest route, no carbon shoe and no pacers for over half of the race

I know ultra running is new and exciting to many of you.

Ritchie is a known quantity, as he raced quite frequently. He was only a 2:20 marathoner. His 6:10 phenomenal, but Walmsley was amazingly impressive with his 6:09 performance. Once again, Ritchie raced with competition. They went through 50km in sub-3hrs in that race and 50 miles in sub-4:55... everyone here talking about Walmsley's "form" issues, yet Ritchie faded hard with a 2:58/3:12 positive split. Walmsley held his form much better, on a windy day and much harder course than a track.

There is a reason why Ritchie claims his 6:28:11 as his road personal best. He always stated the track was much much faster.

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m100km.htm