Are Kilian Jornet's Speed Records Too Good to Be True? | Hacker News Reader

Are Kilian Jornet's Speed Records Too Good to Be True?

outsideonline.com

55 pointsgpresot35 comments

No. (At least to anyone who's followed his career.) That dude is a total class act.

As a side note, the article mentions a Seb Montaz-Rosset film that features Kilian called "Downside Up." It's... maybe one of the craziest things I've ever seen. Ski mountaineering is amazing! https://vimeo.com/ondemand/downsideup

Betteridge's Law of headlines.

The dude is a freakin' machine. There's a short film (13 mins) called 'Kilian' at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eVBrMcflDE which made it into the Banff Film Festival last year. Worth a watch if you want get a better feel for how he travels and his thought process. Food for twenty hours in the mountains? Oh, I'll probably take 4 Snickers or something...

Nice, thanks.

What are those cute little axes that he's running? And what's going on with them at 10m50 - is that a foldout pinky rest?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eVBrMcflDE&t=650

Looks like a pair of Petzl gully axes.

This is Outside magazine stirring the pot for no good reason. Kilian has proven dozens of times in highly competitive and controlled races that he is a notch above competitors from his generation. Also, the FKT-s he sets are not out of this world, and many of them have been broken since (Kilimanjaro and Aconcagua iirc). Anyone who has used a watch GPS enough times will know that once in a while they will just misbehave and report incorrect coordinates.

I think the article largely paints a favorable picture of Kilian.

I really don't get why he doesn't just carry a reliable GPS tracker with him. Seems so much easier than arguing with people online.

He's probably using a GPS watch which is very convenient but error prone. They'll frequently get misreads (where they briefly think you are miles away from where you actually are) and accumulate small amounts of error over time (the granularity isn't great, so sometimes it will continue to increment distance even if you are standing still).

Really reliable GPS trackers are big and heavy, and for someone attempting speed records just not worth the weight. And even with reliable GPS tracker there will still be doubters who will claim the data was faked.

How does error-prone GPS work on a technical level? Based on a description of GPS I would think it's kind of an "all or nothing" thing (no signal, or exact calculated position)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

I just don't get how you can get "low-fi GPS". What happens exactly? Either you receive the signal or you don't, and any bounces off the ground or something will just add a couple of meters.

GPS satellites mostly just send out a timing signal. The receiving device then measures the differences between timing signals from the satellites it can see. This calculation is not simple, and lower power devices don't have the processing budget (or power budget, which is practically the same thing on a battery powered device) or don't have implemented as many error correction methods. For example, the signal echoing off of rock faces (or more often, buildings, for a more familiar environment), can make it look like one satellite is more than one satellite, which will obviously not give you the right location.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_...

The largest source of error is ionospheric delay which changes throughout the day. This can be corrected with additional ground measurements (DGPS, WAAS) or a second receiver on a different frequency. GPS watches do WAAS but nothing else.

(As an aside, I have been unable to get my hands on any modern multi-frequency GPS receivers. If someone has a link to one that I can buy with a credit card, I would love it! But that rules out the industrial ones that are "call for a quote" because if you have to ask, you can't afford it ;)

Other sources of error are inconveniently positioned satellites ("dilution of precision"), multipath reception, and the intrinsic quantized nature of the code being transmitted by the satellite. (This last one can be mitigated by tracking the phase of the carrier signal independently from the navigation code, however. Not sure if GPS watches do this or not, but I suspect they do. A comment below implies they don't have the power budget for the extra CPU cycles, though, which might be true.)

An ideal model of GPS makes it seem like there are four unknowns, but in reality there are many more unknowns. You don't know exactly where the satellites are (ephemeris errors). You don't know if the clock on the GPS satellite is right. You don't know the speed of light through the atmosphere on the exact path between you and the satellite. You don't know the exact time at the receiver's location (internal oscillator error, etc.). You don't know that the signal from the satellite took a straight line route. You don't necessarily have an optimal view of the sky to be able to hedge against the other errors (HDOP/VDOP/TDOP). As a result, you don't get a pinpoint location in the real world.

(One last thing, it turns out there is a reason why GPS receivers give you separate speed and position outputs. Speed can be determined independently from position by monitoring the doppler shifts on the received signals. Many receivers do this, which is why your speed can be correct but your position wrong.)

> As an aside, I have been unable to get my hands on any modern multi-frequency GPS receivers. If someone has a link to one that I can buy with a credit card, I would love it!

Try SwiftNav or Tersus. I have not used either of them so I can't comment on the quality, but $1-2k for an RTK setup is pretty great. They are both more 'startup' than traditional suppliers.

uBlox F9 looks good but isn't quite available yet. They have a solid line of single frequency receivers so I'm looking forward to seeing pricing.

I have briefly tested some Unicorecomm from China, and they work well, but they miss your online store requirement, and the documentation is nonexistent.

> any bounces off the ground or something will just add a couple of meters.

I have raw data captures showing a multipath signal being more than 1/2 mile off from a hiker in steep mountain terrain. It's not as simple as you think.

For his runs he is using a Suunto 9 watch

Indeed, he is sponsored by Suunto https://www.suunto.com/en-GB/About-Suunto/People/Kilian-Jorn...

If we are to believe their marketing, it may have saved his life:

https://www.suunto.com/en-GB/sports/News-Articles-container-...

A lot of his activities are public: https://www.strava.com/activities/1690134887

... because, really, who cares? Why should we let the trolls dictate how we enjoy the outdoors and decide the rules?

Going up to those altitudes without supplemental oxygen sounds absolutely insane to me. Studies via MRI have shown brain damage even in climbers climbing Mont Blanc (4,808.7 m (15,777 ft)).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-cells-into-...

I don't understand the desire to race as fast as possible through the natural splendor of the mountains. I feel like these speed-climbing folks are really missing out on the experience.

I am just a weekend warrior, but my primary motivation in the mountains is continuously upping my skills and fitness to move through them faster and more efficiently. I don't feel like I'm missing an experience. To the contrary, I feel like I'm closer to the experience because much of it involves understanding the environment, yourself, the tech, and how they all work together. There are also a number of practical benefits to moving fast. For one, the longer you spend on a route, the more exposure you have to risks from all categories. So the faster you get there and back, the less likely you are to get hurt (assuming your speed is based on skill and fitness and not carelessness). Second, if there is a tangible need to get something done (like a rescue), then being able to do it quickly and safely is invaluable. As such, one of the benefits of the new social media sponsored mountain athletes like Jornet is that boundaries are pushed and we get to learn new things about what humans can do on mountains.

For some of these people, the fact that there's natural splendour there isn't the point and isn't relevant. It's like game-grinding. Pick a new achievement - running through mountain trail X - and then grind it. Tick it off, do the next one. Whatever they're seeking is inside their heads and the setting is just a convenience. It could just as easily be a featureless 50 mile tunnel. The setting is relevant only as far as it's a recognised thing to grind and tick off.

This is not at all how professional trail/ultra runners approach their lives. You can follow a lot of them on social media (including Kilian Jornet) see how they actually spend their days.

And it's not how everyone who plays games plays. But some do. I suspect there are many you don't see on the social media. It would be a strange field of human endeavor if it somehow managed to not have any people like this. I doubt they'd be the professionals. They wouldn't be the social media self-publicitors.

The professional ultra running scene isn't like what you think of when you think professional sports. There are certainly runners on the track and in road races that take the mindset you are describing, but ultra/trail running is very different from other pro sports.

That's been my experience too... I've known many triathletes who will do an extra lap around the parking lot to meet their coach's exact plans, but that seems a lot less common among trail runners.

> For some of these people, the fact that there's natural splendour there isn't the point and isn't relevant

I can't think of a single climber, mountaineer or ultra runner I know that any of that applies to (including myself). Do you have any actual examples of people like that?

> setting is just a convenience

Nothing about ultra running in the mountains is a "convenience"... in my experience the opposite is true, and almost everything done in the mountains is done easier on flat ground.

Do you have any actual examples of people like that?

The grind and checkboxing mentality extends to many walks of life. Game players. Bird watchers (I think such people are explicitly known as "tickers" in that field, but I couldn't tell you where I picked that up). Collectors.

and almost everything done in the mountains is done easier on flat ground

Sure. And how many mountain ultramarathons are on flat ground? None, I bet. The flat ground ones attract the obsessive marathon runners; those who have a target of fifty or some such and grind away at them.

I'm not decrying these people. The event happens inside their heads. They're clearly getting something out of it.

> And how many mountain ultramarathons are on flat ground? None, I bet.

Seems like a safe bet.

They spend ridiculous amount of time in mountains while training. They also do climbs that are not speed climbs.

He grew up in the Pyrenees mountains and has spent much of his life since exploring the world professionally. He's not missing out on experiences.

It's a different kind of experience than if you were to check out every pebble and smell every flower. I don't think you can compare them and say which one is more valid.

To better understand the "other side", consider these:

o When going fast you cover more ground, see the mountain from different sides, catch the view from different peaks, etc...

o Exerting yourself physically excites the body and the mind. It's just a different overall experience, some would say more primal.

(edit formatting)

This has been my experience. For instance, there's a ~40 mile loop in the Sierras that I've done as a 3 day backpacking trip and as a one-day run.

Carrying more means I can bring my nice camera and take photos anywhere I want to stop. But going light and fast means I get to experience the place unburdened, with just food and water on my back.

It's impossible to say one is better or worse than the other. Although I can tell you which one hurt more.

From a former climber's perspective, moving expediently through terrain is frequently the safest mode of operation. Every second you are in the mountains you are exposing yourself to increased risk of a catastrophic accident. Even if this is a terrifically low probability event if you spend enough time there it will likely bite you. Thus pursuing the fastest methods of travel is, from my perspective, aspiring to the highest ideals of mountaineering because it allows you to do it for longer (hopefully).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com