Daniel & Jean-Claude Besse

Natation Vélo Course

News

Running on carbon

Le texte original est ci-dessous. Cliquez ici pour une version en français.

While carbon is prevalent in the cycling industry since a long time, carbon fibers weren’t found much in running shoes until the very recent developments, starting with Nike’s breaking2 project. I got converted in 2018 already, when I acquired a pair of the Vaporfly 4% FlyKnit shoes that I wore during the IM Barcelona. Recently though, a lot more offering came to the market, with the likes of Saucony (whose Powerrun+ foam I really liked in the Triumph17 and Freedom3 training shoes), NewBalance (whose fit is slightly less well adapted to my feet), Adidas (finally with a worthwhile replacement for Boost? I still miss my original Supernovas of 2016…), Hoka (not a super fan of the low drop options), or Brooks (which I stopped buying after the disappointment of the Launch4).

While marketing got involved, upping the prices and (artificially?) limiting availability, I still managed to acquire a pair of Saucony Endorphin Pro and Nike Alphafly Next% (would have loved to try the Adios Pro as well, but couldn’t find it). The feeling is a little different between the two pairs, with the Endorphin more traditional, and the Alphafly giving a very distinct sensation of being different. Both do feel like they make it a little easier to hold a tempo pace, and have the legs recover faster after a hard race (especially calves, there could be a little more strain on the harmstrings though).


Me running the first 2k with the Reeboks. Notice the smartphone on the biceps, beeping every 10s (50m) to ensure exact pacing.

In order to check on those sensations, and try to see which shoes is better for me, I decided to run a quick test on the track with Jamie. Plan: 4x 2000 m on a fast pace, that builds a little bit of lactate, but not all-out session either. I opted for 3’20/km pace, which sits between my 10 km and half-marathon pace. Shoes to be tested: a training shoe (to have a baseline), the Reebok Floatride Forever Energy, which is a very nice training shoe, but I would never wear in a race. An old-school racing shoe, the Nike Streak 7, which is close to my choices up until mid-2018, and likely still now up to 5 km races. Then the Endorphin and finally the Alphafly. I picked the order training -> old-school -> new gens in order to avoid attributing any potential trend to fatigue during the session.

Results: (updated with weigths according to comment by David)

Shoe Weight (pair) Lactate Heart rate Feeling
Reebok Forever Floatride 569 g 4.3 mmol/l 175 bpm hard
Nike Streak 7 423 g 4.0 mmol/l 176 bpm ok
Saucony Endorphin Pro 457 g 3.4 mmol/l 175 bpm easy
Nike Alphafly Next% 506 g 3.5 mmol/l 173 bpm easy

 


Top: Streaks, Endorphins, Alphaflys (left to right). Bottom: Performance&Joy's lactate measurement device.

Obviously, much better tests could be devised, but the decrease in lactate confirms my feelings of having in my hands a new generation of shoes that are a significant improvement over the old-school light and thin ones. Heart rate is likely not really dropping because of the heart rate lag and fatigue acquired during the session (when I don’t change shoes, the heart rate steadily increases from one repetition to the next at constant pace).

Distinguishing the two carbon-plated shoes is not within the quality of this quick test, which probably means I’ll use the one that I prefer the feeling of (if you feel confident, you’ll be fast). Not so clear yet to me, since the Alphafly gives me this mental boost of being something different, while the Endorphin is kind of a traditional shoes that you forget, which means the feet response is more intuitive. I may also change which pair I wear depending on the terrain or type of race.

2 comments
Could you report shoe weights?
par David the 14-11-2020 at 11:15
Excellent point. Measured on my kitchen scale (all in my size, that is 44.5 for Reeboks, 45 for the other 3):
Reebok: 569 g
Streaks: 423 g
Endorphins: 457 g
Alphafly: 506 g

par Jean-Claude the 14-11-2020 at 11:32


Copy the text from the picture

Edit style basic | advanced

Strava: I've had better days

I've had better days

Run on Strava by Jean-Claude: https://www.strava.com/activities/4306184231

30km - 1h52' - 36m D+

National park

Hike on Strava by Daniel: https://www.strava.com/activities/4307640877

7.8km - 2h00' - 670.2m D+



Copy the text from the picture

Edit style basic | advanced

Strava: Temperature sud-nord

Temperature sud-nord

Ride on Strava by Daniel: https://www.strava.com/activities/4302960668

40.8km - 3h31' - 1753.1m D+



Copy the text from the picture

Edit style basic | advanced

Strava: Bella engadina

Bella engadina

Ride on Strava by Daniel: https://www.strava.com/activities/4296990036

73.5km - 4h37' - 1608m D+



Copy the text from the picture

Edit style basic | advanced

Aero Testing

Le texte original est ci-dessous. Cliquez ici pour une version en français.

I think it’s clear that we’re not the strongest riders compared to our other triathlon abilities. Certainly, the bike portion is where I have most potential to improve my ironman times and bridge a little of the gap separating me from the prize-money range. While some of it certainly comes down to limited time to train, hours in the saddle that get converted into much needed watts on the pedals, repeatedly the data seems to indicate that some other competitors are much better aero than myself and Daniel. Free speed that I’m simply giving away.

While my position has certainly converged slowly over the years (see pictures), there is still work to be done. With the power meter available, one can simply go out in the field and test how fast the bike is rolling for a given power output.


2016 position.

2017 position.

2018 position.

2019 position.

2020 position.

More precisely, one does evaluate the “virtual elevation” assuming zero wind, or correcting for wind with a captor like the aerocomp or similar. On a calm day, we went out to the panzerpiste with Daniel, a flat section to avoid too much variations in speed, low wind and out-and-backs avoid unnecessary extra parameters to fit, and finally no cars avoid drafting effects. I took my new Ron Aeron X wheel, the MET Drone wide body helmet, as well as the Zipp 858 and the Giro Air Attack helmet of Daniel for the first tests. Two rounds with each setup, summarized in the table and plot below.

Lap Description CdA out CdA back CdA avg CdA std Time AvgP NP
1 MET+disc 0.2427 0.2496 0.246 0.005 4:57 308 310
2 MET+disc 0.2479 0.2392 0.244 0.006 5:01 298 302
3 MET+858 0.2531 0.2531 0.253 0.000 4:59 310 310
4 MET+858 0.2548 0.2479 0.251 0.005 5:00 304 305
5 Giro+858 0.2766 0.2627 0.270 0.010 5:02 314 313
6 Giro+858 0.2740 0.2661 0.270 0.006 5:02 314 316
7 MET+disc 0.2522 0.2427 0.247 0.007 4:57 311 314
8 MET+disc-fast 0.2488 0.2505 0.250 0.001 4:46 355 362
9 MET+disc-hands 0.2514 0.2453 0.248 0.004 4:58 309 308

Laps 1 and 2 were to test what would have been my competition setup this end of the year. Laps 3 and 4 the setup I had planned for Hamburg, before getting the disc rear wheel. Laps 5 and 6 to see whether a small round helmet would be a good option. Finally, lap 7 to verify long term drifts (such as wind picking up), lap 7 faster, with Daniel drafting not too far, and lap 8 with slightly different hand position (together above the bars instead of gripping each extension.


CdA results.

While the helmet difference is clear, and netting me somewhere around 10 W of gains (at the expense of being hotter), the wheels are much trickier to separate. The Aeron X seems to be slightly faster (2-3 W), but it could also be simply due to the different tire setup (Continental Attack + Vittoria latex tube for the 858 vs Schwalbe Pro One tubeless for the disc, both in 25 mm). Nevertheless, I feel like putting the disc wheel for competition is justified, since it’s just as fast without wind, and I expect it to sail when the wind picks up.

Obviously a CdA at 0.24-0.25 is not considered fast, not even close (and some may be the powermeter calibration, but I guess a lot can be done on the position as well). But it's a baseline to start doing some changes not just by eyeballing it, but with some reliable way to figure out whether it's worth it or not.

In Daniel’s case, the difference is even less clear, as he’s likely better hiding his head when not looking forward. This was just a first test; we’ll be sure to make some more in the next spring when the weather gets nicer again in Switzerland.

In the meantime, here’s a video of my current position, let me know if you have inputs! 

 



Copy the text from the picture

Edit style basic | advanced