Training Log Archive: j-manIn the 1 days ending Sep 19, 2009:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| « | » |
| » now | ||||
| |||||||
| Sa |
Saturday Sep 19, 2009 #
Event: US Sprint & UltraLong champs
Orienteering warm up/down 10:00 [1] **
shoes: August 2009 Integrators
A little time on the model with Dasha.
Run 15:00 [2]
shoes: August 2009 Integrators
Good warmup before the sprint.
Orienteering race 15:32 [4] **** 2.6 km (5:58 / km) +60m 5:21 / km
shoes: August 2009 Integrators
2009 US Sprint Champs.
Had high expectations coming in, but didn't deliver.
Just sloppy I guess. Speed seemed OK, but not overwhelming. Clean, effective orienteering would have been necessary to supplement things.
I thought the course setting was good enough, but I do question the terrain/venue selection. The terrain was just not that interesting or pleasant. Or dramatic. There had to be better in Rochester. Also, the jiggering with the finish chute to showcase the runners was kind of silly, but completely understandable given the small gathering area.
[Mapping was fine, I guess, although the blobs are weird. I did think the symbol sizes were all wrong, though. For instance, ISSOM spec (I know this isn't an ISSOM map, but anyway) specifies 1.2 MM width for the distinct tree symbol. The symbols on the map were ~4. Clearly, point features are 3 x the size of the 1:15 map. Not quite right.]
Anyway--the spectating was especially effective, i.e., the spectator control and final loop wasn't contrived and did not inject much lost distance or detract from the orienteering merit.
Had high expectations coming in, but didn't deliver.
Just sloppy I guess. Speed seemed OK, but not overwhelming. Clean, effective orienteering would have been necessary to supplement things.
I thought the course setting was good enough, but I do question the terrain/venue selection. The terrain was just not that interesting or pleasant. Or dramatic. There had to be better in Rochester. Also, the jiggering with the finish chute to showcase the runners was kind of silly, but completely understandable given the small gathering area.
[Mapping was fine, I guess, although the blobs are weird. I did think the symbol sizes were all wrong, though. For instance, ISSOM spec (I know this isn't an ISSOM map, but anyway) specifies 1.2 MM width for the distinct tree symbol. The symbols on the map were ~4. Clearly, point features are 3 x the size of the 1:15 map. Not quite right.]
Anyway--the spectating was especially effective, i.e., the spectator control and final loop wasn't contrived and did not inject much lost distance or detract from the orienteering merit.
Run warm up/down 8:00 [2]
shoes: August 2009 Integrators
Perfunctory warmup before the middle.
Orienteering race 42:14 [4] **** 5.6 km (7:33 / km) +245m 6:11 / km
spiked:7/17c shoes: August 2009 Integrators
ROC Mendon Pond Middle Blue.
A really bad race. Lost time on 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11. Time loss ranges from 20 seconds to several minutes on each of these. Not inclined to add it up right now.
Not sure what was going on. Seems like compass problems--again--to start.
Ran at a fairly consistent intensity.
Course was pretty good, but I had problems reading the map again. Didn't like #16 but I didn't really lose much time on it.
(Wore yellow glasses)
A really bad race. Lost time on 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11. Time loss ranges from 20 seconds to several minutes on each of these. Not inclined to add it up right now.
Not sure what was going on. Seems like compass problems--again--to start.
Ran at a fairly consistent intensity.
Course was pretty good, but I had problems reading the map again. Didn't like #16 but I didn't really lose much time on it.
(Wore yellow glasses)
Note
So, I'm not a fancy printer or anything, but I am convinced that the printing on Saturday was not that hot.
Obviously it is some sort of halftone technology. Not process or offset. Fine.
But, it doens't seem that great, either.
#1) This is a 400% blow-up of a scan of Saturday's middle map:
#2) This is a 400% blow-up of a scan of a map I printed from a .pdf for a park event last year (at the local print shop, with no jiggering or anything):
Setting aside the quality of the map itself, I personally prefer #2. Thoughts?
Obviously it is some sort of halftone technology. Not process or offset. Fine.
But, it doens't seem that great, either.
#1) This is a 400% blow-up of a scan of Saturday's middle map:
#2) This is a 400% blow-up of a scan of a map I printed from a .pdf for a park event last year (at the local print shop, with no jiggering or anything):
Setting aside the quality of the map itself, I personally prefer #2. Thoughts?
Note
The Schiminator is brutally fast. #15 on the middle, a ~450M leg mostly through a field, on which I was pretty clean, he was 1:43 to my 2:12. Wow.