Salomon RX S Lab 3.0 ‘recovery’ shoes – review

A few years ago Salomon introduced a new type of shoe for post training or racing. Salomon call it a ‘recovery’ shoe. The concept is that after running there are certain muscles in the feet that are more impacted by long training runs/races and require additional support after the training run or race for efficient recovery.

This approach/concept is consistent with my experience and I received a pair of these shoes in June of 2011 (version 1) and have been wearing them for recovery (and anything else casual ever since). I have been intending to put up a review of these shoes and now two years and two new models later I have finally gotten around to it.

Versions 1 and 2

The design of the RX S Lab shoes is quite simple and functional. A highly padded mid-sole is attached to a mesh upper with two pull tabs to assist in pulling them on. There are no ‘laces’ or other fasteners. Although perhaps not as important, the shoes have significant ‘drop’- about 10-12 mm based on a rudimentary measurement. The outsole is a non-marking polymer with a shallow tread pattern. I find the outsole to have reasonable grip on wet surfaces, certainly sufficient for the intended casual use.

Importantly, the midsole and leather (or perhaps artificial leather- it is hard to tell) foot bed has a ‘cupped’ form that rises toward the edge of the foot and provides extra support of the foot in this area. I have found this extra support to be very therapeutic after a long run or race.

In casual use the RX S Lab shoes V1 are extremely comfortable and provide very nice support to aching foot muscles (as described above). In addition the mesh uppers breath very well and provide a small amount of compression on the top of the foot. This first version of the shoe is well thought out and, as it turns out, quite durable. They can be put into a regular washer and come out clean with no evidence of excessive wear and tear. I have washed these shoes in a washer more than six times and have observed no adverse effects.

Salomon RX S Lab ‘recovery’ shoe version 1 -side view.

Salomon RX S Lab ‘recovery’ shoe version 1 has a flashy colorway. The shoe is very comfortable and gives nice support to tired foot muscles.

In 2012, Salomon updated the colorway, but not the design. Version 2 was even more flashy with the ‘flame’ or ‘temperature scale’ fade color scheme, but otherwise the shoes are the same as Version 1 and therefore just as comfortable and supportive.

Side view of version 2 of the RX S Lab ‘recovery’ shoe.

Version 2 of the RX Slab ‘recovery’ shoe- quite the flashy colorway but no change in the design.

Version 3.0

2013 has brought another colorway but also changes in the design- enough changes to warrant Salomon to call the new model the RX S Lab 3.0. The changes are significant and include what look like design elements from the Sense trail running racing shoes. I received a pair of the 3.0 model about three weeks ago and have been using them since.

As far as the changes, first is that the midsole is a much more curvy shape along the inside of the foot ala the Sense and Sense Ultra. There is also a much firmer counter at the heel (the counter at the heel on V1 and V2 was essentially non-existent). The shoe retains the same mesh uppers and a similar but re-designed outsole taking design cues from the Sense and Sense Ultra with chevron-like tread elements. The two pull tabs, one fore and one aft, to assist in pulling the shoe on are also still evident.

Salomon RX S Lab 3.0 ‘recovery’ shoe showing the curvy, more form fitting shape and a firmer counter at the heel. Colorway is said to be ‘red’ but it is actually more orange.

Salomon RX S Lab 3.0 showing curvy shape and design cues from the Sense and Sense Ultra in the tread elements.

The midsole and footbed are similar to V1 and V2 with the same ‘cupped’ shape and edge support that works so well on the previous models. The shoe also has a similar ‘drop’ of 10-12 mm. A toe bumper and hexagonal mesh elements on the outer and inner part of the front of the foot are are added as well. It is not clear what either of these features are intended to do other than perhaps add some ‘style’.

Perhaps the largest change in the 3.0 version is the way the upper fits around the foot. The mesh upper fits much more snugly and combined with the firmer counter element the shoe goes on and feels like the Sense and Sense Ultra once on, i.e. it is a slipper-like fit. The upper is so snug in fact that it is a bit of an effort to pull the shoe on but once on it is very comfortable and supporting (just like, once again, the Sense and Sense Ultra). This ‘snuggness’ also provides a significant amount of compression on the top of the foot, something that I think Salomon has attempted to include in this model. This should give some additional ‘recovery’ advantage and appears to be a good idea.

I found the 3.0 to perform as good or better that V1 or V2 after long runs and after a 50 km race pace time trial. The support and additional compression seemed to help with rapid foot muscle recovery.

Price

$90. Worth it since this shoe not only has a general casual use but it also gives nice support to aching foot muscles.

Bottom Line

After three weeks of casual use of this shoe, it has performed beyond expectation and I expect to be using it for the foreseeable future. I can highly recommend that you consider this shoe when next purchasing a casual shoe for general use.

Ultra Running Races- shallow competition? Part 2

A question addressed to Part 1 of this post indicated that the development of  a definition of competitiveness was lacking. I agree and provide the following in an attempt to elucidate the basis in a more complete way. The “statement of competitiveness” in Part 1 of this post is the following:

“The most defensible metric for such comparisons is the distribution of finishers as a function of percent back from the winning time.”

There is much background to this statement but I will summarize by pointing out that it is often misunderstood what ‘competitive’ is. An individual sport is competitive when the tail of the performance distribution is populated, i.e. the best talent has been attracted to the sport and this talent regularly performs at or near the individual’s attainable level. This axiom is based on the reality that individual athletic performance is the result of the interaction of many variables (talent (however one wishes to define it, but likely to be based on physiology), training, stress (physical and emotional), health, experience, etc.) and yields an approximately normal (or Gaussian) distribution of performance. Such a distribution has a ‘high performance tail’ that informs one as to the extent of the competitiveness of the sport. This tail is populated by athletes who perform at 3+ standard deviations from the mean. Here we are speaking of athletes who’s performance is beyond the top 0.27%. If this tail is populated, and provided there are a sufficient quantity of participants in the sport to ensure validity, then it is a direct measure of how competitive the sport (or event) is. A sometimes unappreciated derivative of this approach is the reality that such ’3 sigma’ athletes are rare, very rare, and that the most competitive races will therefore reliably (although not always) exhibit this high performance tail. The 2011 London Marathon data presented in Part 1 of this post is indicative of a highly competitive event where the high performance tail of the distribution is nicely defined. Just ask someone like Max King or Sage Canaday (or any 2:15 marathoner) exactly how superior a 2:05 marathoner is- if they do not use the term ‘exponentially’, then they should as the differences are parametrized by an exponential function.

To further substantiate this approach, presented below is a table of the percent back analysis described in Part 1 for a few additional open* races- the 2012 Chicago Marathon, the 2012 Pikes Peak Marathon, and additional time series data for the Western States Endurance Run (2004-2011). Note the very low proportions of competitors finishing in the top 10% through the top 30% in the road marathons compared to the trail marathon and ultramarathon events. This supports a view that the competitive nature of the these events is likely at an immature state relative to road marathons. These data are not surprising given that the participation in trail and ultramarathon events is just now growing at a (seemingly) fast rate, whereas participation levels in road marathons has essentially plateaued (or are in slight decline). It is expected, as the trail and ultramarathon sports continue to grow, that the ‘high performance tail’ will have increasing probability of populating and statistically ‘superior’ performances will be extant, just as they are in road marathons.

The existence of a group of competitors who compete at a similar level and compose a ‘winning’ population in a sport does not mean that the sport is competitive. Examples of this have been seen in triathlon and cross country mountain biking. The early days of competition in these sports yielded winning finishing times (or speeds, in the case of mountain biking) that today, only 20-30 years later, are mediocre. Technology certainly played a role in the decreased times and speeds but, more importantly, these sports went through substantial growth coincident with significant improvements in performance. This is the result of the attraction of competitors to these sports whose ability and focus allowed for the continued challenge of what would, in times past, be considered ‘superior’ performance. These athletes pushed the boundaries of what was considered ‘possible’ i.e. the tail of the performance distribution was populated and rare, ’3 sigma’, athletes became an integral part of the sports. There is every reason to expect that the same will obtain in trail and ultramarathon disciplines as participation goes mainstream. Given the current distributional data on ‘percent back’ from winning times (examples of which are provided above), it is apparent that the sport of trail ultra running is, from a performance perspective, in infancy. As stated in Part 1:

“If the 2011 London marathon data are indicative, these ‘sharp end’ ultramarathon competitors would be few and significantly better than the rest.”

At this point, statistically, the ‘sharp end’ competitors in ultramarathons are many and not that much better than the rest.

These data and the associated analysis are provided to add a data-based entry into the on-going discourse on competitiveness in ultramarathons. These comments are specifically intended offer an objective view, independent of individual athlete references.

*note: ‘Open’ races are those that do not involve any world-class time qualification for participation; ‘closed’ races such as world championships, Olympics, and numerous other races typically involve time or team (and sometimes both) qualifications. However, there is data to suggest that even the ‘selected’ populations in ‘closed’ races are self-similar to the at-large populations and therefore exhibit a normal (Gaussian) distribution and the arguments above would apply. This is a subject for another post.

Ultra Running Races – shallow competition?

Recently I have heard a growing number of comments from experienced competitive ultra runners that ultra running races have a very shallow competitive pool of participants. I too have had this sense of the competition and about a year and a half ago I conducted an analysis to test the following hypothesis- ‘ultra running races are less competitive than marathon races’. This is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis, just an exemplary submission, but it does provide a data-based perspective and, in my mind, an interesting result.

Much discussion ensues when this topic comes up but I have yet to see any data-based argument provided. I hope that the following adds in a positive way to the discourse. These data are just a sample of a more comprehensive analysis that I have been working on. Although not complete, the extensive analysis appears to be in general agreement with what is presented here.

Although more rigorous analysis techniques are utilized in the literature to measure individual sport competitiveness, e.g.:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10645-009-9113-x?LI=true#page-1

such analyses are not directly applicable to trail ultramarathons as the courses (terrain, aggregate elevation change, altitude, etc.) and weather play a major role in the finishing times. The simple approach utilized below allows for analysis and comparison of individual events and results in a reasonable metric for assessing competitiveness.

Background and Data Analysis

To test the soundness of claims that ultra running races are not as competitive as marathon races I chose to compare three races, two ultras (Western States Endurance Run (WSER) 2011 and the Ultra Trail du Mont Blanc (UTMB) 2011) and one major marathon (London 2011). The most defensible metric for such comparisons is the distribution of finishers as a function of percent back from the winning time. One can use other metrics but this one is clear and easily interpreted. Presented below are the histogram data for the 2011 Western States Endurance Run, one of the most competitive ultramarathon races in the world. Plotted is the number of participants who finished within set ranges of percentage back from the winning time – 0-10%, 10+%-20%, etc. Note that there were 14 racers who finished within 10% of the winning time. These 14 racers represent about 4.5% of the 310 finishers. Keep that number in mind for a discussion to follow. Also note that the results are truncated because WSER has a cut-off time of 30 hours- all competitors who finish after 30 hours ( and some that miss cut-off times along the course) are not included in the results.

Now let’s take a look at the same results from the 2011 London Marathon, one of the largest, most competitive marathons in the world. The 2011 event had 34,806 finishers and the complete percent back histogram dataset is presented here:

For comparison purposes, it is appropriate to truncate the London Marathon results in a similar way to that of the 2011 WSER. Looking over a number of years of WSER results (2004-2011)*, it is found that typically there are no finishers beyond 110% of the finishing time due to the time cutoff. Another very competitive ultramarthon that will be used for comparison later typically has finishers within 130% of the winning time. The last finisher at the 2011 London Marathon was 400% back from the winning time. To allow comparison, we will use a percent back value 110% for truncation. The 2011 London Marathon histogram is as presented here, now with 14,253 finishers within 110% of the winning time:

The shape of the 2011 WSER and the 2011 London Marathon (truncated) percent back distributions are not dramatically different, represent entire (truncated) populations and therefore, to first order, can be used for reliable comparisons. Accepting this, then comparisons of the percent of the truncated population in each of the percent back bins is comparable- and allows for a base metric that allows analysis of the two substantially different population sizes (n). Presented below is a comparison of the percent of population as a function of percent back from the winning time:

Clearly, these populations are very different, particularly at the competitive end of the tail of the distribution. The data from the 2011 London Marathon demonstrates exactly how unusual it is for a competitor to be within even 30% of the winning time (1 in 74), let alone 10% (1 in 800). Whereas for the 2011 WSER, 1 in 7 competitors are within 30% of the winning time and an amazing 1 in 22 are within 10% of the winning time. Based on this, and the reality that the 2011 WSER population of 310 competitors is of sufficient size to be representative of the entire “ultramarathon” population (and, of course, likewise for the 2011 London Marathon), the degree of competitiveness in this “most competitive” ultramartahon is not even close to the competitiveness of a large marathon. It is 36 times less likely to find a competitor within 10% of the winning time in the 2011 London Marathon than in the 2011 WSER. This is an enormous difference in competitiveness.

One might argue that if the ultramarathon population were to grow (and ultramarathon events allowed more competitors) a disproportionate effect would obtain on the distribution of finishing times in a way that skews the distribution toward larger percent back finishing times. I find that this is not founded as the 310 WSER competitors in 2011 are likely representative given the nature of the selection process and that there is no reason to assert that the distribution of those drawn to the sport would change in ability (performance) on average as the number of participants grow. But, as the sport of ultramarathon running grows, the probability of ultramarathon competitors at the very ‘sharp’ end of the distribution increases just as it has in the sport of road marathon running. If the 2011 London marathon data are indicative, these ‘sharp end’ ultramarathon competitors would be few and significantly better than the rest. If the 2011 WSER data are indicative, such does not currently hold in the sport of ultramarathon running.

To add another dataset let’s look at one of the largest and most competitive ultramarathons in existence today- the Ultra Trail du Mont Blanc (UTMB). Specifically the 2011 UTMB, which did manage to traverse over 160 km (100 miles) on a rerouted course that year. Here is the percent back distribution for the 1132 finishers of this race:

UTMB also has a cutoff time, in this case 46 hours, which led to a significant number of finishers in excess of 110% of the finishing time. Per the protocol adopted above we will truncate this population at 110% of the finishing time (813 of the 1132 finishers) for comparison purposes. Doing this and then calculating the ‘percent in bin’ as before the following is obtained:

The 2011 UTMB (truncated) definitely has a substantially ‘sharper’ competitive end than 2011 WSER but this is still significantly less ‘sharp’ than the 2011 London Marathon (truncated). In the 2011 UTMB (truncated), 1 in 270 competitors is within 10% of the finishing time compared to 1 in 800 competitors in the 2011 London Marathon (truncated) and 1 in 22 in the 2011 WSER. One in 45 competitors are within 30 % of the finishing time for the 2011 UTMB (truncated) compared to 1 in 74 competitors for the 2011 London Marathon (truncated) and 1 in 7 competitors for the 2011 WSER. Thus it is 3 times less likely to find a competitor within 10% of the finishing time in the 2011 London Marathon (truncated) than in the 2011 UTMB (truncated). This is a very large difference in competitiveness.

Update 9 April 2013: A table of the percent back from the winning time as a function of ‘percent in bin’ for the 2011 London Marathon compared with the 2011 UTMB and the 2004-2011 WSER is presented at the bottom of this post. As is clear in this table, similar results as that presented above obtain for the entire period of WSER studied.

Summary

A simple approach for analyzing and comparing trail ultramarthon competitiveness with road marathon competitiveness is presented. Comparison of two ‘large’ and ‘competitive’ trail ultramarathons with one large, competitive road marathon reveals that trail ultramarathons are substantially less competitive than road marathon equivalents.

It is expected that, as the sport of trail ultramarathon running grows, population of the expected ‘sharp’ competitive tail of the athletic performance distribution will occur and lead to significant gains in competitiveness within the sport. The relative early stage development of the sport of ultramarathon running and the predominance of competitors from other, allied, sports has lead to a blunt-ended distribution at the competitive end. This leads one to postulate that as the sport matures and competitors grow up within the sport (rather than being drawn to trail ultramarthon running later in their careers from other sports) the ‘competitive tail’ will be efficiently filled and the ’3+ sigma’ athletes will be a part of any competitive race.

* Histogram percent back data from WSER 2004-2011

Salomon S Lab Light Jacket review- a niche product for a niche sport

Salomon have introduced their super-light-weight running jacket that has been used extensively across the globe by the Salomon Running team during the 2011 and 2012 seasons. I provide here my initial use impressions after about 100 running kms (62 miles) in windy, cold, and wet conditions.

The Salomon S Lab Light jacket in translucent white.

Background

Both alpha and beta prototypes of a light weight windbreaker running jacket from Salomon have been on Salomon Team members in ultra and mountain running circuits for the past two years. Most jackets have been in what appears to be a translucent white color and some have been seen with integrated hoods. Salomon have now brought this jacket to the market for 2013. The purpose of the jacket is for wind breaking, not water proofing or even water resistance, as the jacket is not water proof nor is there a durable water resistant (DWR) coating. The apparent genesis of the product is strictly as a super-light-weight windbreaker and nothing else.

Build

The jacket is made from a very thin, very light-weight nylon/polyamid fabric. The fabric appears to be Quantum Pertex GL or equivalent which will have at a weight of less than 25 g/square meter. The fabric is very soft to the hand and packs very tightly allowing for a small packed volume. There is one full zip closure, no pockets, partial elastic cuffs, and a partial elastic hem. The partial elastic cuffs and hem allow for further weight reduction by eliminating some of the relatively heavy elastic material. The jacket comes in two colorways, translucent white, and a dark grey (Dark Cloud) both with a red zipper and the white colorway with red contrasting stitching.

Being a very simple construction, there are no “features” other than a windproofed zipper, light weight, and packability.

Salomon S Lab Light jacket in the Dark Cloud colorway.

Performance

I have had this jacket out on numerous runs in cold (from 8C down to -10C), windy, and wet weather (rain and wet snow) and have found the performance to be adequate for the intended purpose. The jacket does a very good job of keeping the wind at bay and the windproofed zipper is an important part of the performance. Although the jacket is said to have “breathability”, I find that it is not very breathable at all. Even during level 1-2 workouts, in otherwise dry conditions, moisture will collect on the inside of the jacket and produce that uncomfortable “clammy” feeling. I saw evidence of this in pictures of Kilian using this jacket in races as the translucent white fabric will stick to the fabrics underneath where water has condensed and show the underlying color through. Such has also been the case in my use as well.

As far as performance in rain or wet snow, the jacket is not water resistant to any degree. Rain will soak through the fabric in less than 30 seconds and snow will melt and soak through in less than a minute. However, the jacket still provides a reasonable thermal layer due to the fact that the wind resistance of the jacket is not significantly compromised when wet. Many Salomon team members have chosen to use this jacket even in wet conditions. My experience is that the jacket does work quite well as a thermal layer even when wet, provided you are moving well and generating enough heat to over come the enhanced conductive heat transport due to direct thermal contact with the air via the adsorbed water. Convective losses seem to be predominantly unaffected.

It would appear that the intended use of this jacket is to be a transitory layer for racers that is used in high wind, cold temperatures, and/or wet conditions such as that found on most high peaks and ridges in mountainous terrain. Although these conditions are a common occurrence, the use of the S Lab Light jacket for recreational runners in such conditions is limited  due to the lack of any water resistance as it is typical that precipitation is a part of such weather systems in the mountains. As a highly packable, light weight “peak and wind” layer the jacket offers a very nichey place in the spectrum of equipment a recreational mountain runner might desire. The recreational runner will be better served with a more versatile product that includes some water resistance (e.g. DWR coating). For the competitor, this jacket has a place as a racing wind breaker and thermal layer for wet conditions, the use that I think Salomon has intended.

The addition of a hood and DWR coating would make this jacket much more versatile for the recreational mountain runner. It seems that Salomon have strictly gone for the light weight wind-resistant application focused on racing as would be expected from an S Lab product.

Weight

The size small S Lab Light jacket weighs in at 68 gms. This weight is about half that of competitor windbreakers such as the Paragonia Houdini (114 gms), the North Face Better Than Naked Jacket (130 gms), the Peral Izumi Pro Barrier Light jacket (155 gms), and the Salomon Fast Wing Hoody (150 gms). All of these competitor jackets have DWR coatings and some (Patagonia Houdini and Salomon Fast Wing Hoody) have a hood.

The author is also not clear as to why weight is so important for a windbreaker jacket. Yes, lighter is better but this light weight being at the cost of any significant versatility does not, at face value, seem to be optimal. Use time will tell for sure.

Price

$80. Pricey for the limited use one will get out of this jacket. But if you have to have the lightest “whatever” out there this is it. Compared to other competitor jackets the price of the S Lab Light is on par (Pearl Izumi, $85) or significantly less (Patagonia, $99 and North Face, $130, Salomon Fast Wing Hoody, $110) but with the lower price you get much less versatility.

Bottom Line

A super light weight wind breaker for windy and cold conditions and, if moving well (i.e. racing), wet conditions…. that’s it, nothing more. Oh…. and you can “look” like Kilian.

I expect that Salomon will soon be offering a hooded version of this jacket, possibly with DWR coating. If so, such a product will more fully fill the needs of recreational mountain runners- just as the Patagonia Houdini and Salomon Fast Wing Hoody do now. For a committed racer- this may be the ticket as is – we shall see.

Fortunate Folk

On a recent crisp mid-morning ski at the base of the Boulder Mountains in Idaho, I stood catching a drink at the intersection of the Harriman Trail and the Prairie Creek Loop. As I looked around, with no evidence that anyone else had been here yet this day, I marveled at the pristine setting- a fresh 5″ coating of powder, freshly groomed Nordic skiing trail, clear vibrant blue skies, a majestic mountain massive. While counting my lucky stars, another skier came along the trail and we exchanged greetings, sparked a conversation, and absorbed the beauty that surrounded us. My fellow skier remarked that “we are fortunate folk” and this expression seemed to resonate with the moment and my own thoughts about the incredible Nordic skiing that we have in the Sun Valley area. Those that live here are truly “fortunate folk”.

For anyone interested in visiting the area or perhaps even relocating, I provide a brief description of the Nordic Ski trails in the area below.

At the intersection of the Harriman Trail and the Prairie Creek Loop in Idaho just north of Sun Valley. Trail to the right leads to a rolling 10 km ascent to the Galena Lodge, the trail to the left is the 7.5 km Prairie Creek Loop.

Background

From the 32 km Harriman Trail, to the 50 km network of hilly, challenging trails at Galena Lodge, to the 40 km of varied terrain at the Sun Valley Resort, to the dog-friendly 10 km Billy’s Bridge loop, the area supports a veritable mecca of Nordic Skiing. This has attracted Nordic enthusiasts from all levels to the area ranging from life-long recreational skiers to numerous Nordic Olympians. The Sun Valley area has recently been named a Nordic Olympic Training Center by the US Olympic Committee.

Along the Prairie Creek Loop traversing a meadow.

In 2002 and again in 2010, the dominant Norwegian Nordic Olympic Team chose Sun Valley as a pre-Olympics training site for the Salt Lake and Vancouver Olympics, and for good reason. A quiet, rural ski town, daily grooming of the Nordic ski trails, a palatable 1800-2100 m (6000-7000 feet) elevation, nice accommodations, and a welcoming but respectful community are some of the many reasons that the Norwegians have given for their choice of Sun Valley.

The trail winding through a meadow on the Billy’s Bridge Loop.

The trails span the area from Sun Valley in the south to Galena Lodge in the north.

South

The Harriman Trail

The 32 km Harriman trail is a purpose built trail connecting the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA) Headquarters to the Galena Lodge area. The SNRA Headquarters is about 7 miles north of Sun Valley on Highway 75. The trail includes two secondary spur loops at about the 22 km mark- the 7.5 km Prairie Creek Loop and the 10 km dog-friendly Billy’s Bridge Loop. The Harriman Trail serves as the route for the long-running Boulder Mountain Tour Nordic ski race held each year in early February which draws participants and elite-level racers from across the US. The race, a point-to-point, which runs from Galena Lodge to the SNRA Headquarters, is part of the annual 9-day Sun Valley Nordic Festival held from late January through early February. the festival is a great time to sample all that the area offers along with a nice variety of unique events.

The beginning of the Harriman Trail at the SNRA Headquarters, including the very mellow, dog-friendly, North Fork Loop.

The Prairie Creek and Billy’s Bridge Loops at about the 22 km mark on the Harriman Trail. There is parking at each trailhead- about 17 miles north of Sun Valley on Highway 75.

If you want to do just sections of the Harriman Trail, there are numerous trailhead parking areas:

• at SNRA (all distances below refer to distances further north from SNRA)
• about 3.5 miles at Murphy’s Bridge
• about 6 miles at Cathedral Pines and Easley
• about 7 miles at Baker Creek
• about 10 miles at Billy’s Bridge
• about 10.5 miles at Prairie Creek

Lake Creek Trails

The nationally dominant local Nordic skiing club, Sun Valley Ski Educational Foundation, trains at the Lake Creek Trails, about 3 miles North on Highway 75. The trails are primarily in an open meadow and climb up onto the hillsides yielding some challenging terrain. Numerous Junior National Qualifier races are held here and many of the local racers also train here.

The Lake Creek trails area is a primary training site for local national-level seniors, juniors, and masters competitors.

Sun Valley Resort Trails

The Sun Valley Resort maintains about 40 km of Nordic skiing and snowshoe trails in and around the resort right in town. The network is anchored by an elegant new clubhouse with a complete rental shop, Nordic ski shop, lockers/showers, and a very nice restaurant. The trails include gentle rollers, steep climbs, and beautiful meadow skiing all with great views of the surrounding mountains and the downhill skiing area (Baldy).

View from the Diamondback trail looking toward Baldy and the downhill runs. This trail includes a stout climb up to a plateau with nice rollers. The trail can be seen winding along the plateau in the distance.

Sun Valley Resort Nordic and snowshoe trails. Great in-town skiing.

If you do the perimeter loop- Diamondback-White Clouds-Trail Creek-Boundary-Proctor-Trail Creek – it is about 26 km and over 400 m (1300 feet) of climbing- a nice ski!

View towards Baldy from the top of the Proctor Loop.

North

The northern-most extent of the Nordic Ski trail system is the Galena Pass area centered around the Galena Lodge about 23 miles north on State Highway 75. The Lodge serves lunch, rents skis and snowshoes, and rents a number of yurts for overnight stays on the Sawtooth National Recreational Area lands in the vicinity. The 32 km Harriman trail northern terminus is at  Galena Lodge and makes for a nice round trip long ski with lunch at the lodge.

The 50 km of trails at Galena run the gamut from rolling meadow routes (Senate and Horsecreek) to challenging steeps on Rip and Tear, Cherry Ridge, and Psycho, with much more in between. Galena gets by far the most snow and is typically open by the third week in November each year. Snow accumulation is measured in feet here and there is seldom less than 4 feet on the ground for the season from mid November to late April.

The walkway leading to Galena Lodge- a great day lodge for Nordic skiing and snowshoeing.

The 50 km of ski and snowshoe trails at Galena Lodge offer a wide variety of terrain and the Lodge has great lunches, lattes, beer, and wine.

Conditions on 22 November 2012 leading up to “Hawk Hill”, Harriman Trail – Galena Lodge area (2843 m (9324 feet) Galena Peak in the background).

With over 200 km of groomed Nordic ski trails, multiple Nordic ski lodges, a resort atmosphere, and lots of complimentary activities (including downhill and park skiing) the Sun Valley area represents a preeminent Nordic skiing destination.

Additional Information

Visit Sun Valley

Sun Valley Resort

Blaine County Recreational District

Galena Lodge

Salomon Advanced Skin S Lab Belt Set – Review

I mentioned in a previous post that Salomon were planning on introducing an S Lab hydration/fueling/apparel belt system in 2013. Well, it is now available and I received a couple of them about 2 weeks ago and I have now used the system on a few runs for a total of about 50 km (31 miles) and on a bunch of Nordic skiing sessions for a total of about 350 km (210 miles).

Background

Salomon have offered hydration/fueling belts of many types for years but they have never applied the talents of the leading edge S Lab design team to this product sector. The Advanced Skin S Lab Belt Set is the first in what will likely be a line of belts intended for competition and light weight characteristics. Hydration/fueling belts have received polarized reviews from users as it is apparent that individual preferences either outweigh the advantages of a waist-level system or convince the user that there is no better solution. Although there are reviews that hit a middle ground, my research indicates that there are, in general, two camps on the suitability/unsuitability of a waist-level hydration/fueling system. The Salomon Advanced Skin S Lab Belt Set may persuade some of the nay sayers for reasons that I will outline below.

Design

The very light weight (130 gms) design is somewhat evolutionary in that Salomon have used similar materials and design features that can be found on the S Lab Advanced Skin hydration back packs that have been available for a couple of years. The same 3D honeycomb mesh material is used in areas of direct contact with the body, the same fine thread highly expandable stretch-mesh material is utilized in pockets, and similar pocket placement and zipper use are all apparent. Also, a similar plastic hook-on-plastic D-ring quick release fastening mechanism is used. Here are some images showing the outward and body sides of the system.

The outward parts of the Advanced Skin S Lab Belt Set, showing the two halves of the system: “front” section, right, and rear section, left. The front section has two stretch-mesh zippered pockets (for valuables, phone, music player etc.) and easy access stretch-mesh pockets overlaying both zippered pockets. The rear pockets are set up to accept one 237 ml (8 oz) soft flask each, with an integrated elastic band for security. The rear pockets also nicely accept 4 of the 148 ml (5 oz) soft flasks (two in each pocket) as well as compact apparel items (e.g. wind jacket, gloves, etc.).

Body-side of the Advanced Skin S Lab Belt Set, showing the two halves of the system (“front” section, left, and rear section, right) and the 3D mesh material used in areas with direct contact with the body.

The pockets are well placed and include four stretch mesh front pockets layered on top of each other with the base pockets being zippered for valuables, phone, music player, etc. and the overlaying pockets being quick access.  The rear has two large stretch mesh pockets with elastic bands to secure soft flasks and plenty of room for other packables (fuel, apparel, etc.) as well as two red elastic bands between the pockets for additional, non-pocket stowage. The 237 ml (8 oz) size soft flasks fit nicely in the rear pockets and are well secured with the elastic bands. The rear pockets also nicely accept 4 of the 148 ml (5 oz) soft flasks (two in each pocket) and are secured by the pocket without the use of the elastic bands. The set is supplied with just one 237 ml soft flask (as is the case with Salomon’s hydration glove product) but I think that Salomon would do well to offer the set with two as 500 ml (16 oz) is pretty much a minimum water volume that a typical trail runner would carry for a medium length (15-20 km) run. But perhaps they are trying to hit a price point to encourage sales. I have yet to decide whether the elastic bands are required as the flasks seem quite secure without them because when you put the belt on the pockets cinch down and hold the flasks, seemingly sufficiently. More runs/skis will determine if this initial impression holds up.

Two 237 ml (8 oz) soft flasks fit nicely into the rear pockets. Four of the 148 ml (5 oz) flasks also fit well and are readily secured by the pocket without the use of the elastic bands. The red horizontal bands are elastic as well and can hold a wind jacket or gloves, etc. A jacket or gloves would also fit into the mesh pockets with the soft flasks as the stretch mesh is quite expandable.

Close-up view of the front pockets showing the two zippered stretch mesh and two, layered, easy access stretch mesh pockets on top. Lots of room for hydration/fuel/electrolytes, etc. The 148 ml soft flasks fit well into these outer pockets and I have used this size flask for a fuel mixture (concentrated Perpetuem) and found it to be quite convenient and nicely controllable.

The fastening system is a variant of the plastic hook-on-plastic D-ring quick release seen in other Salomon S Lab packs. It does take a bit of getting used to but once mastered the fastener system is very good.

Close up of the fastening design- the hooks in the lower right clip over the plastic D-rings in the upper center. Takes a bit to get used to but provides a quick and secure connection.

I have set the belt system up for Nordic skiing (with waxes, a cork, a 237 ml hydration flask, a 148 ml fuel flask, an energy bar, and a camera) and running (with the two 237 ml hydration flasks, a 148 ml fuel flask, an energy bar, some gels, and a camera). In both set-ups there was still room for a wind jacket and a pair of light gloves- both of which I have taken on runs. Here is the Nordic skiing set up for example:

A Nordic skiing set-up for the Advanced Skin S Lab Belt Set including hydration, energy bar, waxes and cork, a camera, and a 148 ml fuel flask in front outer pocket (not shown).

And here is a running set-up:

A running set-up using the Advanced Skin S Lab Belt System showing the packed belt (top) and the packed items taken out (bottom) including two 237 ml soft flasks, one 148 ml soft fuel flask, a wind jacket (S Lab Light Jacket- review forthcoming), a light pair of gloves, and a camera.

There is a surprising amount of room to pack items in the belt system and this is partly due to the highly expandable stretch mesh fabric that Salomon uses for the pockets. Based on my experience with hydration and fuel needs, this system allows for self-sufficient runs and skis of times in excess of 3 hours, at least for me. In the case of trail runs, one can even extend this further by using the Salomon S Lab Sense Hydro Set for more water/energy drink capacity (another 500 ml for the pair). Between the belt set and the hydro set one could have about 1 l of water/energy drink, 0.3 l of fuel in flasks, as well as room for numerous (4-6) gels.

Fit and Comfort

As can be seen in images above Salomon have utilized their “Sensifit” approach that essentially envelopes and form fits to your body. The two independent side adjustments allow for precise positioning and balancing of the belt system, depending upon load geometry and distribution. The end result is that once the belt is on and adjusted you actually forget that it is there, unlike many other belt systems that I have used or tried out. I found the fit to be without compromise and the comfort to be very high, even fully loaded. A remarkable achievement.

A big part of the comfort is derived from the use of the 3D honeycomb mesh material where contact with the body takes place. This material breathes and ventilates very well and is also form fitting so no hot spots develop. The material is key to the comfort of the Advanced Skin back packs and is also important to the comfort of the belt as well. Time will tell as to how well the material works at waist level at higher temperatures. I should get a read on that when I go for an extended running trip to the desert in March.

Honeycomb 3D mesh material used at all points where the belt touches the body is key to comfort for the belt system.

The belt system can be worn according to ones preference for waist position. I wear it relatively high, but have tried lower positions which are also comfortable but not right for me. Here are some images of the belt being worn with a full running set up (rear: two 237 ml soft flasks, a wind jacket, a pair of gloves, and two gel packs; front: one 148 ml fuel soft flask, two gel packs, and a camera).

Front view of belt system as worn by author. This and the following views exemplify a running set-up, in this case in the rear pockets: two 237 ml soft flasks, a wind jacket, a pair of gloves, and two gel packs; front: one 148 ml fuel soft flask, two gel packs, and a camera. Note the waist band fabric pulled through on the left; my 27″ waist almost runs out of adjustment for the position I prefer to wear the belt at. The extra fabric can be stuffed inside the “belt” and, in my experience, stays there.

Rear view of belt system in running configuration, including a wind jacket and a pair of light gloves. Additional stowage is accommodated under the horizontal red elastic bands in the middle.

Left side view of belt system with running configuration showing quick release fastener and excess belt fabric stuffed into belt. The diagonal elastic band in the center left can hold the excess fabric and/or a gel pack.

Right side view of belt system with running configuration showing quick release fastener and excess belt fabric stuffed into belt.

Although Salomon refer to a “front” and  “back” there really is no issue with wearing it any way you would like. I have used it in a reverse configuration as well as with the pockets oriented on my hips. This is possible because of the “Sensifit” approach with the enveloping, form fitting characteristic and the two adjustment points.

Use

The system is designed for use with the Hydrapak soft flask technology so one would have to be convinced that the soft flask approach is workable. After using the soft flask system for about 9 months and thousands of kms of trail running and Nordic skiing, I am a convert and explain the reasons why in detail here and here. One of the primary reasons that I like the soft flask technology is that one has very good control over flow rate out of the flasks and therefore it is straight forward to meter out water, energy drinks, and fuel. I also find that during Nordic ski racing it is possible to grab the flask, put it in your mouth, hold it with your teeth, continue to pole, and then suck down the contents- all without slowing down, something that is important if you are in a pack. Once consumed, the now collapsed flask can easily be stuffed into a pocket on the belt, again without slowing down.

Price

$70. In comparison with other belt products currently offered this is a fair price for the flexibility, excellent fit, and high comfort of the Advanced Skin Belt Set.

Bottom Line

A very light weight, comfortable, and flexible hydration/fueling/apparel belt system well suited to medium to long trail runs (and Nordic skiing) in all weather.

Salomon S Lab Sense Hydro Set Review- hand held hydration redefined

As mentioned in previous posts (here and here), Salomon are introducing their innovative hydration system called the Sense Hydro Set. The system is based on Hydrpak’s “soft flask” technology and an integral “glove” designed by Salomon to hold the soft flask. This collaboration between Salomon and Hydrapak has produced a comfortable, highly functional hand-held hydration solution that is likely to change hand-held hydration into the foreseeable future.

Design

The design utilizes a simple pair of  “gloves” (although you can use just one if you so desire) that slips over the fingers and thumb and nestles into the gripping area of the hand. The palm side of the glove is comprised of a highly breathable mesh palm fabric area and two elastic bands. The elastic bands serve to hold the soft flask in place while running (or hiking). To further secure the flask, a small adjustable elastic loop is provided which is intended to loop around the base of the nipple of the flask to keep the nipple upright and in place to facilitate easy consumption of liquids (or fuel). The images below show one of the “gloves” on a hand. The “backside” of the glove has a nice terrycloth fabric area for nose wiping, etc.

Salomon S Lab Sense Hyrdo Set glove as viewed from the backside showing the fit, the elastic loop and adjustment pull, and a nice terrycloth fabric area for nose wiping.

The palm side of the glove showing the two elastic bands for holding various size soft flasks and the end of the the elastic loop for securing the nipple end of the flask.

I found the glove to be very comfortable and it seems to breath well although I have not had these on a run in warm weather as of yet. I expect the glove to be no more bothersome than any other currently available hand-held system. The only concern that I have relates to how the nature of the fit might change when the glove becomes fully saturated with sweat. Only testing will determine this.

The soft flasks are simply and easily inserted underneath the elastic bands and adjusted as to exactly where you would like the flask to reside for running. The flasks are easily manipulated because your fingers and thumbs are free due to the design of the glove. Shown below are images of the 247 ml (8 oz) flask in place. The flasks are surprisingly secure, feel quite comfortable, and have a soft, form-fitting feel.

The Sense Hydro with the 237 ml (8 oz) flask inserted.

The Sense Hydro with the 237 ml (8 oz) flask inserted.

I have also tried the 500 ml (17 oz) size flask as well. The images below show the glove with this size flask inserted. This is a seemingly large object but the gloves do a reasonable job of securing the flask when full. Salomon do not suggest that the 500 ml flask be used with the gloves and this may be due to some compromised running characteristics associated with this size flask as it empties. More on this later.

The Sense Hydro with the 500 ml (17 oz) size flask inserted- it is a rather long object but the glove does a reasonable job of securing the flask.

With the 500 ml flask in place- it is a lot of water, particularly if you have the pair on.

Another view (along the axis of the arm) of the glove with the 500 ml flask in place.

Flasks

I have posted about the soft flask in the past here. This season Salomon and Hydrapak offer three sizes of soft flask, a small 148 ml (5 oz) size, a 237 ml (8 oz) size, and a large 500 ml (17 oz). As noted above, only the 150 ml and 237 ml sizes are noted by Salomon as compatible with the glove system. I have found the 500 ml size to fit surprisingly well into the glove and stay secure when full but, based only on limited runs, this size seems to be perhaps just too big and as it empties it flops around uncomfortably. I do not recommend this size flask for the Sense Hydro system. It is apparent that Salomon will be offering a new hydration vest next fall (called the Sense Hydro Set 5 and 12, which are updated 5 and 12 liter versions of the current S Lab vests) that is specifically designed to accept the 500 ml flasks in two pockets high up on the left and right of the front of the vest. This is most likely the intended purpose for the 500 ml flasks in the Salomon hydration system.

The following images show the three flask sizes. Also for this season, measuring lines have been added which will be useful for mixing fuel with water in situ.

The three sizes of soft flask currently available- 500 ml (17 oz) left, 237 ml (8 oz) middle, and 147 ml (5 oz) right.

Measuring lines have been added to the flasks this season and should facilitate in situ fuel mixing.

The three flask sizes with a (small) hand for scale.

Sizing

The Sense Hydro glove comes in three sizes (s.m, l). The “size” is based on a circumferential measurement of the hand across the palm at the base of the fingers, excluding the thumb:

small: 17-18.5 cm (6 3/4″-7 1/4″)

medium: 18.5-19.5 cm (7 1/4″-7 3/4″)

large: 19.5-21+ cm (7 3/4″-8 1/4″+)

The medium size fits my (normally size small) hand where the measurement was 8″. This, of course, is not consistent with the data provided by Salomon. You probably want to try these on before you decide what size is correct.

I also found that the medium size fits fine over a thin running glove, so there is no reason for a different size Hydro glove for most runs. The large size fits nicely over my warm winter gloves for really cold running- however, I seldom go long on such cold days so there will not be much use of this size.

Running Impressions

As noted in prior posts, I have been running with the soft flask throughout the summer and fall of 2012 and have 900+ miles of use with them. This use has been without the S Lab Sense Hydro “glove”. I found that it was not particularly bothersome to just hold the soft flask in my hand whilst running and I suggested that the “glove” system that Salomon was about to bring to the market may not be anything but cumbersome. Well… I was wrong! The Sense Hydro system is a true advance in hand-held hydration.

Some may be concerned with the “limited” volume capacity of two 237 ml (474 ml/16 oz) flasks for runs in excess of 16 km (10 miles). In running through the summer and fall, I have primarily used the 237 ml size flasks for runs as long as 35 km (20 miles), although as the temperature declined through the fall I found I could use the 147 ml size regularly for similar length runs. Also noted previously, my use of water has declined significantly since reading Dr. T. Noakes recent book Waterlogged and I direct you to his book and my post and others for further information. Suffice it to say that, for me, a pair of the 247 ml size is good for about 3 hours of running (consuming at about 150 ml/hr), even in 90F peak heat. I found the soft flasks to be outstanding in control and functionality and they were also very comfortable in the hand.

I have been out for about 120 km (75 miles) of running with the Sense Hydro glove system and I can say that I am already a convert. Although I thought that the soft flask hydration on it’s own was very functional and comfortable, adding the Sense Hydro glove has made this hydration system even better. The comfort is very high and the freedom that the gloves allow for your fingers and thumb make all the difference in versatility with respect to scrambling and other such activities (e.g. nature breaks).

Refilling is much easier than I imagined as the flasks slide out quite readily and they can be filled and reinserted in less than 30 seconds. All without any drama.

Some might counter, without ever trying it out, that this product is “hand-held hydration ill-defined”, as the nature of the product is enough different from the mainstream that it is somewhat off putting. I too had this response to the soft flask technology at first, but once I started using the flasks and now, the flasks with the “glove” system, the advantages became clear, at least for me.

Price

$60. The set comes with a pair of gloves and one 237 ml (8 oz) flask. I would have thought that Salomon could have at least supplied two flasks for this price. The set can be found for much less than list at around $40 which is more in line with a reasonable price.

Bottom line

The Salomon S Lab Sense Hydro system has redefined hand-held hydration. From comfort to function this system is a true step forward.  I can highly recommend this product for any distance runner, trail or road.