One week after the marathon all but some minor soreness in the ankles is gone. Legs feel good again and tried an accelerating first 5k today.
There's a 10k event in two weeks, but I wonder how crowded it will be with walking and zigzagging for the first 1-3k? Under 50 minutes on the 10k would be nice.
Through the Finnish running forum I found a Jim2's running page which seems to have a lot of useful information. The Ultimate Speed Workout is... simply a 10k race.
So the idea was to warm up for 1k, and then run properly for 10k at around 5:20 pace, which is slightly faster than last weekends Forssa half-marathon pace of 5:32/km. That was probably a bit optimistic, as it felt like serious work up to around 5k, after which some kind of runners-high sets in, calves, legs and everything relax and settle in on the pace while kilometers 6, 7, and 8 fly by much faster than the planned 5:20. After that it's a struggle again for km 9, and I decided 8 fast kilometers were enough...
Any snow and ice that was on the streets is gone again and +4C with little wind is quite ideal for running. 8.10km in 54 minutes makes for a leisurely 6:46min/km pace.
8.7k at slightly faster than 6 min pace.
An easy jog home from work. The Garmin has an auto-lap feature which takes lap-times each kilometer.
This time the N95 trace (yellow) seems less jumpy, but there's still a difference compared to the Garmin:
Garmin: 8.28 km in 50 min 50 s, 633 kcal
N95: 8.35 km in 50 min 55 s, 731 kcal
A secodn GPS test, this time with the 405cx on my left wrist and the N95 in my right hand. I had hoped this would expose the N95 antenna and improve its performance. Not so. The red trace (405cx) still looks much better while the yellow one (N95) jumps wiggles and snakes around. The summaries are:
N95: 8.30km in 53 min 13 s, 727 kCal
405cx: 7.92 km in 53 min 31 s, 627 kCal
If you zoom in, the N95 has me walking on water. To be fair the 405cx also looks a bit lost at the beginning of the run (far right), but it does get the street-crossing spot on (middle-right in the pic).
Then for a straight bit along 'Nokia avenue':
That's not pretty. I guess you could argue that on the way out (top) the street has tall houses on both sides, so the N95 (yellow) has a hard time finding satellites, while on the way home (bottom) it's more open and both GPSs perform roughly the same.
Here's part of the route in more open terrain. That seems to confirm that the N95 needs wide open spaces to do well.
For the record, my N95 8GB runs V 15.0.015 firmware (which I've several times unsuccessfully tried to update with Nokia PC-Suite ) and I'm using Nokia Sports Tracker v2.06 (S60 3.1). Today I had GPS-filtering turned off in sports tracker.
Somewhat surprising results! I would have thought GPS-positioning is a plain-vanilla technology by now and every company does it with equivalent hardware and software. Apparently not, or the N95 antenna is really inefficient, or I'm doing something wrong...