Update 7/26/08. There have been recent USB driver (4-28-08) and firmware (5-07-08) updates, and the PC software has been replaced (7-04-08), but the most significant change is that SportTracks now supports the GH615 via a plugin. Since I use SportTracks I have not looked closely at the new “g-Sports PC Utility” software, but it appears to be more functional than the original “PC Utility” software. Some significant quirks remain. When the GH615B is set to STATUTE(ft, mph) units, the elevation still displays in miles — e.g. 1.702 miles instead of 8987 ft.

Update 9/10/07. Shortly after writing this post I learned that the GH-615B has been discontinued in the U.S. in favor of the GH-615M, which includes a heart rate monitor.

Chugging up Mt. Baden-Powell, I pushed various buttons on the GlobalSat GH615B, searching for the screen that displays elevation. I had seen it on a run during the week, and now I couldn’t find it. Wait… What? My elevation is 1.702 MILES??

When my Forerunner 205 had to be returned to Garmin a second time, it seemed like a good time to see if there were any new GPS-based running watches I could use for tracing the routes of my trail runs. The description of the GH615B on the GlobalSat web site looked promising. Like the Forerunner 205/305 it had a watch-like design, and the specs said it also used the newer, more sensitive, SiRFstarIII GPS technology.

My first impression was not positive. Out of the box, with old firmware and software installed, the watch was almost unusable. Actually, I could use it, I just couldn’t do much with the data. Updating the USB driver, firmware, and PC interface software helped some. But it wasn’t until installation of the July 2007 round of updates that I could routinely transfer activity data from the watch to the “PC Utility” software, and then export a GPX file that could be imported into applications such as SportTracks and MotionBased.

Even with the July updates, the “PC Utility” software included with the GH615B is primitive. The software has no activity management features, and serves mainly as a data conversion tool. It can display track data on a Google map, or export a track to Google Earth Plus. It can also generate Altitude/Time and Speed/Time graphics, but these are rudimentary.

The GH615B’s default setting of recording one trackpoint per second will create a high resolution GPS track that will indicate almost every twist and turn of a trail. Here’s a Google Earth image that shows GPS tracks from the GH615B using the 1 second resolution setting, and the Forerunner 205 using the “Smart Recording” setting. The image shows an approximately 5 mile section of trail from Islip Saddle down to the South Fork Campground, in the San Gabriel Mountains. (These tracks were recorded on different days.)

For day to day workouts the one trackpoint per second resolution setting is probably overkill, and will produce proportionally larger GPX files than a setting of (for example) a trackpoint every 3 seconds. The GH615B does not currently have an adaptive recording option like the “Smart Recording” feature of the Forerunner 205/305, but has much more trackpoint storage capacity.

Although somewhat quirky, and not nearly as polished and feature-rich as the Forerunner 205/305, the GH615B did seem to do a good job of tracking my running routes, even in difficult terrain. With some firmware updates and bundled with decent software, it might do a better job of finding its way in the GPS-based fitness watch market.

The photograph of the GH615B and Forerunner 205 was taken at the end of a sweltering out and back run to Las Virgenes Canyon from the Victory Trailhead of Upper Las Virgenes Canyon Open Space Preserve (formerly Ahmanson Ranch) on the afternoon of August 29.

Related post: Garmin Forerunner 205

Updated Monday, July 5, 2010.

The Google Earth image above shows two GPS traces. Here’s a larger image. The red trace was created using a Garmin Forerunner 201, and the yellow trace was created with a Forerunner 205. The course is comprised of a mix of fire roads and trails, through a variety of terrain and cover. The better tracking of the Forerunner 205 is clearly evident. Here is another view of the same course with the two traces.

I’ve had my Forerunner 205 since March 2006, and in my experience, it is a huge improvement over the 201:

• It is more compact and less obtrusive.
• Tracks are more accurate, and it almost never loses reception.
• It accepts routes for sequential navigation.
• Uploading and downloading data is easier and faster with the USB interface.
• The GPS chipset firmware (as well as unit firmware) can be updated.
• It has multiple customizable data screens that are easily displayed during a run.

The performance of the GPS receiver in the Forerunner 205 continues to amaze me. It is tenacious. I was wearing the Forerunner 205 when I got caught in a fierce thunderstorm running in the Mt. Pinos area in July. Even in the middle of a thunderstorm, on a north facing slope, in a fir and pine forest, the unit did not lose reception. Here’s a Forerunner 205 trace of the run, exported from TOPO! Note that the traces going out and coming back very nearly overlay each other. The only exception is a real deviation between Sawmill Mountain and Mt. Pinos where I wandered off the trail to a minor summit. Also note that the trail is incorrectly marked on the topo map in the vicinity of Grouse Mountain.

In early October 2006, I had a problem with not being able to power on my 205 after it was charged. Garmin promptly replaced the unit, under warranty, without charge.

In June 2007 the replaced unit began to experience an intermittent issue where it would suddenly start to rapidly cycle through display screens, beep, and not respond to key presses. The only way to stop it was pressing the power + mode + reset keys. Garmin promptly replaced the unit, but charged a flat rate $79 repair fee. Oddly, when the unit was returned, the history included a few runs from the London, Ontario (Canada) area from late February and early March 2007.

It’s been over three years since the flat rate repair/replacement of my Forerunner 205, and I’ve had zero problems. One apparent improvement is that the contacts on the back no longer get corroded from sweat. This used to cause problems with the USB connection and transferring data, and I would need to clean the contacts from time to time with a pencil eraser.

In my opinion the Training Center Software is still poor, and for that reason I continue to use SportTracks.

Note: The course is the run from the end of Reseda Blvd to Trippet Ranch described in the post Musch Trail Mule Deer.

Note: Photo above is of a modified version of the 2006 pack.

There are three basic choices for running hydration: hand bottles, a waist pack, or a back pack. There are also various combinations of these basic themes. If you do much off-road running, chances are good you have at least one version from each category.

I’ve used 20 oz. hand bottles, single and double 20 oz. bottle waist packs, a 50 oz. reservoir waist pack, a 60 oz. reservoir hybrid waist/back pack, and a 70-100 oz. reservoir back pack. Until recently I had not tried any of the waist packs with a horizontally oriented bottle.

Why not? My concern was probably the same that most trail runners would have – would the bottle tend to slip out of the holster while running? Having the bottle fall out on a dirt road might be inconvenient, but on steep-sided trail the bottle might not be retrievable. When I saw the Solitaire on sale I decided to give it a test and see how it worked for me.

Putting aside the question of the bottle slipping for the moment, there are many things I like about this pack. Nestled in the small of your back, the Horizontal Holster System (HHS) carries the weight of the water bottle much better than a diagonally or vertically oriented bottle. There is far less bouncing of the bottle, and sloshing of it’s contents. In addition, the waist belt does not need to be as tight, and  the pack has no tendency to rotate.

For me, the extra capacity of the 26 oz. bottle makes a big difference. I can think of several 50Ks in which the bigger bottle would have been very welcome. In the HHS configuration, a full 26 oz. is more comfortable when running than a full 20 oz. vertically oriented bottle.

There’s enough room in zippered top compartment for an ultralight rain shell, a compact digital camera and a bit more. By itself, a 16 oz. convenience store water bottle will also fit in there. The pack can also be extended using add-on belt pockets, and other accessories.

So what about the bottle slipping? Before being modified, the bottle would work its way several inches out of the holster. The rougher the run, and the more downhill, the more the bottle slipped. Although the bottle never actually fell out of the holster, it required frequent attention.

The bottle “almost” stays in place, so the amount of force required to keep it in the holster isn’t much. My solution was to attach a small diameter elastic cord across both ends of the holster. It doesn’t need to be tensioned and can be easily manipulated when removing or replacing the bottle. I ran with the Solitaire in the Mt. Disappointment 50K, and with this modification, it worked great for me.

Update 09/25/08. According to Columbia Sportswear customer service, the Continental Divide style is in the Fall ’08 line, but will not be continued in Spring ’09.

Update 09/18/08. Sadly, according to Columbia Sportswear customer service, the Vitesse style is no longer being produced and their current inventory of the Vitesse for the fall ’08 season is limited.

Update 01/23/08. My latest pair of Vitesse’s (made in China) seem to be a very different shoe than the dozens of pairs in which I’ve run before. They seemed to be short for the size, a little more narrow in the forefoot, and the cushioning and shock absorption didn’t feel up to par. Montrail was purchased by Columbia Sportswear about a year and a half ago and according to a customer service rep, “manufacturing of the shoes moved to new factories.” An ultrarunning friend had a similar sizing problem with his last order of two pairs of Vitesses, but said the cushioning was OK. Maybe my latest pair was an aberration. I hope so.

Update 08/19/07. Each of my last two pairs of Continental Divides have weighed more than the first pair. The second weighed 30.6 oz./pair, and the third weighed 32.0 oz./pair! My last two pairs of Vitesses have weighed in at 27.0 oz./pair. At only 24.2 oz./pair, the adidas Trail Response 14 is my most lightweight trail running shoe.

Many runners are fanatical about their shoes. Trail runners are no different, and every runner has their favorite. For several years my favorite trail running shoe has been the Montrail Vitesse. This is a shoe that straight out of the box, I would not hesitate to wear in a tough 50K. I’ve had a couple dozen pairs, and usually have 3-4 pairs that I rotate through from run to run.

It’s not that I haven’t tried other shoes. In their rush to jump into the rapidly expanding trail running shoe market, many well known and respected manufacturers of outdoor gear proffered up at least one trail running entry, and I tried a bunch of them. Like so many over sized and accessorized SUVs, the look was the thing. Many of the shoes were just BAD. There’s no other way to say it.

The reality of the trail running shoe market is that the shoes aren’t just used for trail running. They are used in activities ranging from fitness walking to adventure racing. One early entry became a top seller – not because trail runners liked it – but because it became a trendy shoe on campus. Another bone jarring model left me shaking my head and wondering if the design had been tested by anyone that actually ran in it. Fortunately the trail running market continues to grow, and manufacturers are starting to better address the needs of those that run in the shoes.

So, what’s so special about the Vitesse? First and foremost is the fit. I’ve run 50 miles in the Vitesse and not bothered to take them off for the post race feed. Beyond the fit, it’s a shoe that runs well. It has good shock absorption and cushioning, and a smooth heel-to-toe transition. It’s not too stiff and seems to have a good balance of stability versus flexibility. The tread isn’t overly aggressive and performs well for me on most trail surfaces. Basically I can forget about the shoe and just run.

I’ve tried several of the newer Montrail designs, but none performed as well for me as the Vitesse. That is, until I tried the Continental Divide. I’ve had a pair for about a month, and like the Vitesse, it’s a shoe that’s been comfortable from run #1. It is said to be a replacement for the Leona Divide, but it is a vastly different shoe. In my mind, it is closer in functionality and feel to the Vitesse.

There are some significant differences. The first thing I noticed (on a 100 degree day) is that the Divide is much better ventilated, and runs cooler than the Vitesse. It also seems to have better cushioning. The tongue and ankle cuff of the Divide are not integrated, as in the Vitesse, but the fit around the ankle is excellent and seems to keep out about as much debris.

If you pick up the shoe and twist it, you’ll see that the Divide is more resistant torsionally than the Vitesse. In combination with a medial post and heel strap, it seems to provide excellent stability, without feeling stiff, or obviously interfering in the natural action of the foot.

The outsole width and profile of the Divide is similar to the Vitesse, but lacks the lateral outrigger. The tread pattern is reminiscent of the Leona Divide. Underfoot, it runs well, and seems to have somewhat better traction over a wider range of surfaces.

There are always design trade-offs, and the Continental Divide is no exception. Because they are better ventilated, a little more fine dirt finds its way into the shoe on dry, dusty trails. Your socks will also get wet more quickly in damp conditions – say running through wet grass – but will also dry out more quickly. Another consideration is that the Divide is slightly heavier than the Vitesse (1.4 oz/pair on my scale), and costs about $20-$25 more.

Update 08/19/07. Each of my last two pairs of Continental Divides have weighed more than the first pair. The second weighed 30.6 oz./pair, and the third weighed 32.0 oz./pair! My last two pairs of Vitesses have weighed in at 27.0 oz./pair. At only 24.2 oz./pair, the adidas Response Trail 14 is my most lightweight trail running shoe.

I happened to be wearing the Continental Divide when I got caught in a violent thunderstorm on a 20 mile run at Mt. Pinos, California. The trail conditions were as challenging as they get – torrential rain and hail on steep, storm-gnawed, rock strewn trails. The Continental Divide never skipped a beat.