PDA

View Full Version : How does the rail out help frontrunners?


stormreveler
10-30-2014, 03:12 PM
Title is pretty self-explanatory but I have never been able to get my head around this bit of conventional wisdom. Is it even true? If so, how? Any advantages I can think of seem like they would help late runners.

Greyfox
10-30-2014, 03:22 PM
Title is pretty self-explanatory but I have never been able to get my head around this bit of conventional wisdom. Is it even true? If so, how? Any advantages I can think of seem like they would help late runners.

On an unbiased track surface the inside horse has to travel approximately 1 length less around each turn if it remains on the rail compared to a runner who has to try to remain beside him.
The rail is not necessarily the best place to be for front running maidens if they don't get out of the gate quick.

Greyfox
10-30-2014, 03:34 PM
To add to what I said to the above about inside advantage with respect to ground covered, think of the 400 meter track and field event races at the Olympics.
Ask yourself why do the runners each lane out have a staggered start ahead of the inside runner?
What would happen to the outside runners if they all started evenly and had to stay in their lanes?

http://www.mathsisfun.com/activity/images/staggered-start.jpg

Clocker
10-30-2014, 03:47 PM
Title is pretty self-explanatory but I have never been able to get my head around this bit of conventional wisdom. Is it even true? If so, how? Any advantages I can think of seem like they would help late runners.

While the rail is where you want a front runner to be running the race, the inside post position can be a problem for a lot of horses. Because all the horses are trying to get to the rail, a front runner in PP1 or PP2 absolutely has to break faster than the rest or the others will box it in, trapping it against the rail where it has to stay as close as possible to the pace and hope for an opening later. The greater the number of early speed horses in the race, the more important for a speed horse on or close to the rail to break on top.

stormreveler
10-30-2014, 04:30 PM
Sorry, I seem to have been unclear. By "rail out" I mean the rail on a turf course set at x number of feet. I have heard in multiple places that the rail being set out helps the leaders.

I don't see how it would increase the chances of horses on/near the lead during the running of the race.

Greyfox
10-30-2014, 04:40 PM
Sorry, I seem to have been unclear. By "rail out" I mean the rail on a turf course set at x number of feet. I have heard in multiple places that the rail being set out helps the leaders.

I don't see how it would increase the chances of horses on/near the lead during the running of the race.

I don't play many turf races so I'll be interested in the answer.
Intuitively, I would say the "rail in" helps the front runners to a point as the turns are sharper.
But I don't know with respect to "rail out."
In most turf races I don't want my runners on the lead unless they've got a great final kick down the stretch.

Robert Goren
10-30-2014, 04:47 PM
If you are on the rail, you can only be bothered by one horse coming out of the gate.

AndyC
10-30-2014, 04:51 PM
Title is pretty self-explanatory but I have never been able to get my head around this bit of conventional wisdom. Is it even true? If so, how? Any advantages I can think of seem like they would help late runners.


The definitive answer is sometimes it helps frontrunners. Other times it helps closers. It can differ from track to track.

I cringe when I hear this issue talked about in absolutes. I have over 20 years of charts and have looked at this very issue. Bottom line is to know your track. Know how the track acts in the beginning of the meet and near the end of the meet. Know how the turf acts when it is hard or soft.

DeltaLover
10-30-2014, 05:00 PM
As a bettor you do not really care about the “why”. The only thing that is important, is the detection of a trend, something that is sufficiently challenging by itself. It is way more interesting to ask “how you can prove that the rail favors the front runner” rather than try to understand “why” this is happening.

ultracapper
10-30-2014, 05:10 PM
I've heard said it's because the turns aren't as tight. Front runners don't fade out as hard when the rail is at 30 feet in comparison to when it's at 8 as they straighten for home. If this is the case, maybe someone like Cratos can expand on this as it relates to cintrifegal(sic) force. He, as well if not better, than anyone on this board, could support or refute this theory.

JustRalph
10-30-2014, 05:22 PM
if the rail is out, doesn't that front runner have to run farther to the wire?

I don't think that helps

ultracapper
10-30-2014, 05:28 PM
For every foot it's out, it enlarges the course by 6 feet. Give or take, rail out 24' the distance around the track at the fence is 144' longer than if it were at standard, zero, placement. That's if I remember my 10th grade geometry correctly. This is really Cratos's gig. Hopefully he'll pick up on this thread because it has always been out there that the further the fences are out on the grass, the better for the front runners. I don't know where it came from, or if it's even statistically true, but I know it's been out there.

AndyC
10-30-2014, 05:34 PM
For every foot it's out, it enlarges the course by 6 feet. Give or take, rail out 24' the distance around the track at the fence is 144' longer than if it were at standard, zero, placement. That's if I remember my 10th grade geometry correctly. This is really Cratos's gig. Hopefully he'll pick up on this thread because it has always been out there that the further the fences are out on the grass, the better for the front runners. I don't know where it came from, or if it's even statistically true, but I know it's been out there.


If people believed that frontrunners are advantaged with rails up wouldn't that advantage carry over to the outer turf course versus inner turf course at Belmont or Saratoga? Isn't the break between each course just the equivalent of one big giant rail?

Cratos
10-30-2014, 05:57 PM
Title is pretty self-explanatory but I have never been able to get my head around this bit of conventional wisdom. Is it even true? If so, how? Any advantages I can think of seem like they would help late runners.

You raised an interesting question and without including side force impacts from the turns the calculation for the following main tracks would be:

Santa Anita @ 1M Track = 20.08 feet or .37 seconds @ 10.843 average feet per 1/5 second

Keeneland @ 1-1/16M Track = 23.24 feet or .43 seconds @ 10.843 average feet per 1/5 second

Saratoga @ 1-1/8M Track = 22.92 feet or .42 @ seconds @ 10.843 average feet per 1/5 second

Belmont @ 1-1/2M Track = 20.52 feet or .38 seconds @ 10.843 average feet per 1/5 second

Weighted Average of 4 tracks = 21.62 feet = .40 seconds @ 10.843 average feet per 1/5 second

Cratos
10-30-2014, 06:37 PM
Sorry, I seem to have been unclear. By "rail out" I mean the rail on a turf course set at x number of feet. I have heard in multiple places that the rail being set out helps the leaders.

I don't see how it would increase the chances of horses on/near the lead during the running of the race.

Now that I know what you want, I will do it for Saratoga 2013 meet with the distance from the rail on both the Inner Turf and the Mellon Turf.

I will show the related run-up distance and the side force impact as the rail moves out.

Tom
10-30-2014, 08:39 PM
An old article with data at the time....

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/editorial/article.cgi?id=3608

And an old thread on the opic

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28752&page=5&pp=20&highlight=turf+rail

Tom
10-30-2014, 09:05 PM
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/79347/handicapping-insights

Scroll down a bit - temp rail and its effect on times.

Stillriledup
10-30-2014, 10:21 PM
There's just "less room" out there for closers to get clearance...which makes front running and pace pressing statistics a tick better than they would otherwise be. Now, there shouldn't be less room, but it just seems like there is.

JustRalph
10-30-2014, 10:46 PM
Now that I know what you want, I will do it for Saratoga 2013 meet with the distance from the rail on both the Inner Turf and the Mellon Turf.

I will show the related run-up distance and the side force impact as the rail moves out.

Belmont might be a better sample.

Cratos
10-31-2014, 12:05 AM
Belmont might be a better sample.
Okay, I will do both, I have already set up Saratoga in the model and therefore it will be first.

ultracapper
10-31-2014, 12:12 AM
If people believed that frontrunners are advantaged with rails up wouldn't that advantage carry over to the outer turf course versus inner turf course at Belmont or Saratoga? Isn't the break between each course just the equivalent of one big giant rail?

Maybe SRU has it right then. Maybe it's just because you now have less room to swing out due to the course being "thinner". Or maybe it's an old wife's tale.

Cratos
10-31-2014, 12:35 AM
There's just "less room" out there for closers to get clearance...which makes front running and pace pressing statistics a tick better than they would otherwise be. Now, there shouldn't be less room, but it just seems like there is.
It not about "room"; it is about centripetal force.

Stillriledup
10-31-2014, 01:35 AM
It not about "room"; it is about centripetal force.

My point was that with the temp rails out, more horses get blocked because there's less room.

cj
10-31-2014, 01:42 AM
My point was that with the temp rails out, more horses get blocked because there's less room.

I've never seen a horse get blocked because the course wasn't wide enough.

Greyfox
10-31-2014, 01:43 AM
It not about "room"; it is about centripetal force.

To a point, that is definitely true, as they do "fan out" whether they want to or not on the turn into the stretch.

Cratos
10-31-2014, 02:02 AM
To a point, that is definitely true, as they do "fan out" whether they want to or not on the turn into the stretch.
You are correct, the centripetal force has an adverse affect on the horse's energy quotient and as they "fan out" coming out of the turn the horse(s) which withstood the force impact will continue to compete gamely while the ones who were impacted energy wise will begin to falter.

I will also make the energy calculation.

Stillriledup
10-31-2014, 02:43 AM
I've never seen a horse get blocked because the course wasn't wide enough.

Its hard to explain, but when the rails are down, there seems to be much more room for jocks to just fan out, even though there's enough room when the temp rails are way out, it just seems like jocks stay in a tight pack and there's nowhere to go.

More horses get blocked when the rails are way out. when the rails are down, its easier to get out for some reason. You would have to ask a jock why that's true, i don't know the answer.

Tom
10-31-2014, 08:01 AM
Set at 0, the turns are the tightest.
The thing to do is look at data.

Robert Fischer
10-31-2014, 09:53 AM
Title is pretty self-explanatory but I have never been able to get my head around this bit of conventional wisdom. Is it even true? If so, how? Any advantages I can think of seem like they would help late runners.


As a bettor you do not really care about the “why”. The only thing that is important, is the detection of a trend, something that is sufficiently challenging by itself. It is way more interesting to ask “how you can prove that the rail favors the front runner” rather than try to understand “why” this is happening.
^^^This is the answer that I agree with for this specific situation. Be aware that such a trend may exist and include it in your handicapping if you see fit.

Most of my edge in this game is related to actually seeing how things work, but in this specific case, I don't remember what conclusion I had come to. Rail placement is not a huge part of my game, but it is something that I find to be worth noting. If I have time and remember and feel like it, I will figure out the answer.

You are advised to look at the race in question(either chart or video), and look at how well speed held, what moves were made, whether or not runners were crowded into the turn, what part of the race actually had rails out (were they out 84 feet around the entire track - or moreso on parts such as the straight while less on the turn?), etc...

good luck.

AndyC
10-31-2014, 11:25 AM
My point was that with the temp rails out, more horses get blocked because there's less room.

So you are saying that you accept the idea that frontrunners are advantaged when the rails are up? I have 25 years of charts and data that say sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. This really isn't something that any turf betting horseplayer should be guessing about.

Stillriledup
10-31-2014, 01:22 PM
So you are saying that you accept the idea that frontrunners are advantaged when the rails are up? I have 25 years of charts and data that say sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. This really isn't something that any turf betting horseplayer should be guessing about.

just replying to the OP as if what he posted is true, i don't know what the data says.

As far as my own theory, i completely factor in the rails when they're out, i'm less likely to bet everything i own on a closer. What does that mean? Probably not a heck of a lot, its just the way i do things.

Cratos
11-03-2014, 07:18 PM
Sorry, I seem to have been unclear. By "rail out" I mean the rail on a turf course set at x number of feet. I have heard in multiple places that the rail being set out helps the leaders.

I don't see how it would increase the chances of horses on/near the lead during the running of the race.

My take on your question is as follows:

When a horse goes around a turn, it accelerates the whole time (this is why, when you make a turn in your own car, you feel a force pulling your body toward the outside of the car). The amount of acceleration is equal to the velocity of the horse squared divided by the radius of the turn.

You can use any distance and any radii at any velocity, but I decided to calculate what happens when the rail is moved out at Saratoga and I will use actual statistics from the 2013 Saratoga Meet on the Mellon Course at 5-1/2 furlongs.

Assumptions:

Average horse weight is 1,084 Lbs.

Average weight toted by horse is 119.62 Lbs.

Horse body center in path one concentrically is approximately 3.58 feet from the tangent line which establishes the track’s size boundary.

Races were held at 0 feet and with the temporary rail set at 12, 18, and 27 feet respectively.

Average horse velocity @ 5-1/2F on Saratoga Mellon Turf Course was 43.68 mph which is 64.07 feet per second (f/s).

Therefore let’s run the numbers:

Rail at 0 feet with horse’s velocity at 64.07 feet/second with a 386.58R is 4104.96/386.58 =.33g force experienced by the jockey and horse

Rail at 12 feet with horse’s velocity at 64.07 feet/second with a 398.58R is 4104.96/398.58 =.32g force experienced by the jockey and horse

Rail at 18 feet with horse’s velocity at 64.07 feet /second with a 416.58R is 4104.96/416.58 =.31g force experienced by the jockey and horse

Rail at 27 feet with horse’s velocity at 64.07 feet /second with a 443.58R is 4104.96/443.58 =.29g force experienced by the jockey and horse

The take-away is that the larger the radius; the less g-force, but it not that simple because weight and velocity must be considered which would change the numbers somewhat.

Also banking comes into play allowing some of the g-forces created in the turn to increase the weight on the horse’s hooves, increasing its traction. To figure out what portion of the gs gets added weight to the hooves, you multiply the g-forces by the sine of the banking angle.

rastajenk
11-03-2014, 07:49 PM
If you are on the rail, you can only be bothered by one horse coming out of the gate.
After reading the commentary from Saturday, I wouldn't be too sure about that. :)

Bettowin
11-03-2014, 08:52 PM
With the rails out the amount of the race run on the turns increases. I would think it is harder for horses to pass on the turns giving front runners an advantage. What if tracks were a complete circle? Wouldn't front runners have the advantage?

Greyfox
11-03-2014, 09:30 PM
With the rails out the amount of the race run on the turns increases. I would think it is harder for horses to pass on the turns giving front runners an advantage. What if tracks were a complete circle? Wouldn't front runners have the advantage?

Good point.
The rails out means that the arc is longer.
That should mean that front runners have the advantage longer.

But does anyone have any empirical evidence that front runners win more often when the rails are out?

Cratos
11-03-2014, 10:19 PM
With the rails out the amount of the race run on the turns increases. I would think it is harder for horses to pass on the turns giving front runners an advantage. What if tracks were a complete circle? Wouldn't front runners have the advantage?

Using a 1 mile racetrack as a reference the radius on such track and adding in a rail allowance the radius of the 1 mile track circle would be approximately 844 feet.

Compare that to Belmont Park, the largest dirt track in NA and its radius is 643 feet.

If racetracks were circles based on their current sizes, the front running horse would have an advantage because as the radius becomes larger we know from math it approaches a straight line.

Bettowin
11-03-2014, 11:46 PM
Using a 1 mile racetrack as a reference the radius on such track and adding in a rail allowance the radius of the 1 mile track circle would be approximately 844 feet.

Compare that to Belmont Park, the largest dirt track in NA and its radius is 643 feet.

If racetracks were circles based on their current sizes, the front running horse would have an advantage because as the radius becomes larger we know from math it approaches a straight line.

So in general, as the rails go out frontrunners have an advantage.

Cratos
11-04-2014, 12:41 AM
So in general, as the rails go out frontrunners have an advantage.
The answer is a qualified "yes".

I say "qualified" because you might have.a front-runner who cannot can get the distance or it might be outclassed by an off-the-pace horse.

ultracapper
11-04-2014, 12:48 AM
So the less g-force, the less energy a horse must expend to navigate the turn?

Tom
11-04-2014, 07:33 AM
Does data verify this?

Tom
11-04-2014, 08:45 AM
Belmont inner turf FM only
Rail = 0...93 races
No more than 1 length back at FCP...32----34%
5 lengths or more back at FCP..........28----30%

Rail - 27 to 35 feet.....56 races
No more than 1 length back at FCP...29----36%
5 lengths or more back at FCP..........15----27%

AndyC
11-04-2014, 11:12 AM
The answer is a qualified "yes".

I say "qualified" because you might have.a front-runner who cannot can get the distance or it might be outclassed by an off-the-pace horse.


So an outer turf course would always be more friendly to frontrunners than an inner turf course?

Greyfox
11-04-2014, 11:36 AM
Belmont inner turf FM only
Rail = 0...93 races
No more than 1 length back at FCP...32----34%
5 lengths or more back at FCP..........28----30%

Rail - 27 to 35 feet.....56 races
No more than 1 length back at FCP...29----36%
5 lengths or more back at FCP..........15----27%

Thanks Tom. :ThmbUp:
The sample is small but that is exactly where the answer lies.

Tom
11-04-2014, 11:45 AM
Belmont inner turf FM only
Rail = 0...93 races
No more than 1 length back at FCP...32----34%
5 lengths or more back at FCP..........28----30%

Rail - 27 to 35 feet.....56 races
No more than 1 length back at FCP...29----36%
5 lengths or more back at FCP..........15----27%

Belmont Main Turf FM only
Rail = 0...48 races
No more than 1 length back at FCP...11----23%
5 lengths or more back at FCP.........17 ---35%

Rail 24-27 feet....52 races
No more than 1 length back at FCP...11----21%
5 lengths or more back at FCP..........23---44%

Greyfox
11-04-2014, 11:58 AM
Belmont Main Turf FM only
Rail = 0...48 races
No more than 1 length back at FCP...11----23%
5 lengths or more back at FCP.........17 ---35%

Rail 24-27 feet....52 races
No more than 1 length back at FCP...11----21%
5 lengths or more back at FCP..........23---44%

The plot thickens. :ThmbUp:

AndyC
11-04-2014, 01:43 PM
Good point.
The rails out means that the arc is longer.
That should mean that front runners have the advantage longer.

But does anyone have any empirical evidence that front runners win more often when the rails are out?

The short answer is NO. While there has been plenty of numbers thrown around there has been nothing to prove the statement:"If racetracks were circles based on their current sizes, the front running horse would have an advantage because as the radius becomes larger we know from math it approaches a straight line."

Greyfox
11-04-2014, 01:50 PM
The short answer is NO. While there has been plenty of numbers thrown around there has been nothing to prove the statement:"If racetracks were circles based on their current sizes, the front running horse would have an advantage because as the radius becomes larger we know from math it approaches a straight line."

Huh? I don't recall that I ever said there was anything to prove that statement.

AndyC
11-04-2014, 01:52 PM
Huh? I don't recall that I ever said there was anything to prove that statement.

No, but you seemed to accept the conclusion by Cratos based on that statement.

Cratos
11-04-2014, 02:20 PM
No, but you seemed to accept the conclusion by Cratos based on that statement.

I am not attempting to argue the point, but you appear to need empirical evidence to dispute a science conclusion.

But let’s go to your apparent stumbling block about "If racetracks were circles based on their current sizes, the front running horse would have an advantage because as the radius becomes larger we know from math it approaches a straight line" need to be proven with empirical evidence. If that sort of evidence was always needed we wouldn’t be as technological advanced as we are today.

However the statement doesn’t say or infer that the “front running” horse would win, but it does say it has an advantage which avails itself in a shorter distance and a lessening in side force impact (compared to current racetrack geometry); you don’t need empirical evidence because both Galileo and Newton prove this many years ago; what you trying to argue is the validity of the laws of physics; GOOD LUCK.

Greyfox
11-04-2014, 02:22 PM
No, but you seemed to accept the conclusion by Cratos based on that statement.

I made my statement in Post #35.
Cratos posted that in Post #36.
I don't see how you say I accepted or rejected Cratos comment.

Cratos
11-04-2014, 02:33 PM
Does data verify this?

What data is needed? This is a simple law in physics which says that work is described as taking place when a force acts upon an object to cause a displacement and that is the translational kinetic energy, the energy due to motion from one location to another.

Greyfox
11-04-2014, 02:40 PM
What data is needed? This is a simple law in physics which says that work is described as taking place when a force acts upon an object to cause a displacement and that is the translational kinetic energy, the energy due to motion from one location to another.

I don't think that Tom was talking about your math or understanding of physics that is clearly beyond most of us on this board.
He was more interested in what happens at the finish line.
In effect, outcomes of races.

AndyC
11-04-2014, 02:58 PM
I am not attempting to argue the point, but you appear to need empirical evidence to dispute a science conclusion.

But let’s go to your apparent stumbling block about "If racetracks were circles based on their current sizes, the front running horse would have an advantage because as the radius becomes larger we know from math it approaches a straight line" need to be proven with empirical evidence. If that sort of evidence was always needed we wouldn’t be as technological advanced as we are today.

However the statement doesn’t say or infer that the “front running” horse would win, but it does say it has an advantage which avails itself in a shorter distance and a lessening in side force impact (compared to current racetrack geometry); you don’t need empirical evidence because both Galileo and Newton prove this many years ago; what you trying to argue is the validity of the laws of physics; GOOD LUCK.


I am not trying to argue physics because I can't. I can just look at results. So given the physics, which you have presented, why don't racetracks uniformly show an increased ability of frontrunners to win as the arc increases? My guess is that there are far too many other important points to consider and that the lessening force exhibited with the lengthening of the arc is really an inconsequential handicapping factor.

AndyC
11-04-2014, 03:03 PM
I don't think that Tom was talking about your math or understanding of physics that is clearly beyond most of us on this board.
He was more interested in what happens at the finish line.
In effect, outcomes of races.

We are ALL more interested in what happens at the finish line. I am looking for evidence that the physics calculations can be incorporated in a way that makes a consequential difference in predicting race outcomes.

Tom
11-04-2014, 03:06 PM
If a group of horse has an advantage, it should show up in the results.

cj
11-04-2014, 03:13 PM
I am not trying to argue physics because I can't. I can just look at results. So given the physics, which you have presented, why don't racetracks uniformly show an increased ability of frontrunners to win as the arc increases? My guess is that there are far too many other important points to consider and that the lessening force exhibited with the lengthening of the arc is really an inconsequential handicapping factor.

I think your guess is a lot more than that, it is proven all the time via results.

Cratos
11-04-2014, 03:18 PM
I am not trying to argue physics because I can't. I can just look at results. So given the physics, which you have presented, why don't racetracks uniformly show an increased ability of frontrunners to win as the arc increases? My guess is that there are far too many other important points to consider and that the lessening force exhibited with the lengthening of the arc is really an inconsequential handicapping factor.


You have me with that question and I don’t know whether your assertion: “why don't racetracks uniformly show an increased ability of frontrunners to win as the arc increases?” is not being answered because it is a far more complex problem and it will take a lot of data and calculations to verify or it is not desired by the betting audience, but I could be wrong.

Cratos
11-04-2014, 03:21 PM
I don't think that Tom was talking about your math or understanding of physics that is clearly beyond most of us on this board.
He was more interested in what happens at the finish line.
In effect, outcomes of races.

Thanks for the clarification

Cratos
11-04-2014, 03:40 PM
If a group of horse has an advantage, it should show up in the results.

Tom, you have a very good point, but horseracing data is non-homogenous and the current data providers are not providing data that can be analyzed such that a definitive answer can be gotten for your question.

Tom
11-04-2014, 10:09 PM
Yes it does. The results charts.
You don't need any other data.

Valuist
11-04-2014, 10:45 PM
I know some make a big deal out of the rail being out, but I've never seen a particular advantage. The length of the grass and how badly its worn down is a much better handicapping factor, IMO.

Greyfox
11-04-2014, 11:31 PM
I know some make a big deal out of the rail being out, but I've never seen a particular advantage. The length of the grass and how badly its worn down is a much better handicapping factor, IMO.

...and the temperature of the day, or every day, as in California....and rain or lack of it. Maybe?

Nitro
11-05-2014, 01:08 AM
I thought this article might be of interest and possibly even answer a few questions:

Dynamics of Turns in Horse Racing by Larry Wellman

This work was conducted in the mid to late 1990’s.

Turn Dynamics:
A couple of weeks ago I posted an article relative to turns which had a mistake that I have now corrected. The post was in response to a question I received from Dr. Steve Roman relative to his observation that some horses out in the 3 and 4 paths on the turn do not appear to be handicapped by the extra distance traveled and actually look like they are handling the turns better then the horse on the rail. At that time I developed a spreadsheet to test his question. In the spreadsheet I allowed horses in the outer paths to increase speed to match the turn dynamics (forces) that the rail horse was experiencing. What the results showed was that the horses off the rail could run at a higher speed on the turn versus the rail horse. This extra speed increase would compensate for the extra ground covered. The net result was that the horse in the outer path actually lost only half of what is the accepted standard. The standard is the loss of one length or 10-11 ft for each path removed from the rail.

Using my Energy Program I went in and tested some additional factors to show that a horse in the four path can actually run 6 furlongs faster then the rail horse when track and conformation parameters are matched properly. The track I modeled is Laurel Park, which is a 9f track with 2.25f turns. I modeled a track with no track bias (resistance) around or across the paths. I did change two parameters that have an impact on turn dynamics. I modeled the proper conditions for a horse further from the rail so the extra distance does not handicap a horse. The two factors I adjusted are the bank angle of the turn and a factor called (beta) that represents the ankle pulley ratio as defined by Peter R. Greene (J. Biomech Vol 20, No7 pp667-680 1987). The ankle pulley ratio is a conformation parameter and represents the distance from the sole of the foot or hoof up to the ankle or fetlock on the horse. I used the number suggested by Greene since there is no publish info on horses. If the foot is allowed to roll into the turn the beta value will be reduced. So what I did was assume that the turn bank angle starts at zero in the one path and is 3.5 degrees in the 4th path. I made the following assumption that the ankle pulley ratio is the maximum at the rail and reduced to zero in the 4th path. Below I will show the results of my program for both the one path and four path under the conditions I mentioned above. Path zero is if a horse ran on top of the rail while path one is the path a horse runs when on the rail. I modeled a 3.5 ft distance between paths. Each path away from the rail results in an extra 11 ft (3.5 X pi) traveled. I also show the time for a 6f race on a straight course having no turns.


Bank |------turn------|
Path Angle Beta 1/4 3/8 1/2 5/8 3/4
0 3.5 .27 24.55 36.15 48.35 60.85 73.50
1 3.5 .27 24.55 36.25 48.50 61.05 73.70
1 0.0 .27 24.55 36.25 48.60 61.20 73.90
4 3.5 .27 24.55 36.45 48.95 61.65 74.30
4 3.5 .00 24.55 36.35 48.75 61.25 73.85
Straight course 24.55 36.05 48.00 60.25 72.85
Simulation run with a .05 sec delta

Now when you compare the 1 path with 0.0 degrees bank against the 4 path with 3.5 degrees banking and zero ankle pulley ratio (beta=0) we see that the horse in the 4 path runs about same race time for 6f race although this horse runs 33 ft longer distance (on turn) then the horse on the 1 path.

What this means is that correcting a horse speed figures using a standard of one length lost per each path away could actually over estimate the horse speed figures. To do a proper adjustment we would need to know the following:
1) Bank angle distribution across the turn
2) Conformation of each individual horse, (how this horse handles turns),
3) A track bias if it exist across the track.
The beta term is also dependent on the type of shoes the horse is wearing, etc.

I think this addresses Dr. Roman's question along with some possible errors that could exist in some of the speed figure services that make adjustments for ground lost on the turn.

I did not limit the turn forces on a horse like I did in the spreadsheet I mentioned above. Adding this factor in could lead to even better performance when running away from the rail.
NOTE: For handicapping you need to assess each horses ability to run on the turns.

Follow up question.
Jetaway brought up a question relative to the bank angle that I assumed for the horse in the one path. I made the assumption to show the maximum based on the two conditions discussed. If you go back and look at the table you will see that even if the bank angle is assumed to be 3.5 degrees for both horses the horse in the four path will only run slower by less then one length (.15 sec) if this horse can handle the turn better (beta=0). Beta as I mention is a function of conformation. The equation I used with this term also involves the following terms: the bank angle, the heel over angle, and Froude number. Froude number is a non-dimensional speed parameter using the turn radius. Heel over angle is the arctan of the Froude number. The difference between bank angle and heel over angle is called the mismatch angle. If we assume a horse can run with zero mismatch in the turn the bank angle matches the heel over angle then we have the condition I show as beta=0 for the horse in the four path.

From the table we see that if the conditions were the same for both horses then the horse in the four path runs an extra 33 ft and it takes him and .60 sec more time to cover 6f about one length per fifth of a second. Now under conditions when the horse in the four path has the ideal conditions then he covers the extra distance in only .15 seconds (bank=3.5 deg) compared to the one path. Thus resulting in a difference of two lengths. This correction would be equal to about 5 Beyer speed points if they corrected for the trip. In the Sheets or Thorograph system this would equal a point or two. I'm not a Sheet user so I'm not sure on the exact number. The point is that any service that corrects for trip on the turns is adding some additional noise in there product. How do they know what the conformation (beta terms factor), the banking or track bias across the turn and around the turn. The beta term is determined from observations and varies within a population. Based on this new research I would look closely at figures that are adjusted for very wide trips. Maybe some of the sheet users can offer some observations about figures that look out of line when the horses raced wide. I personally never adjusted my speed figures in the 80's for trip. Add factors like wind and bad weather and we are really shooting in the dark.

BTW, all races are for zero gate run-up.

Turns and Breakdowns.
Because of all the discussion about the breakdowns in the Jim Beam I decided to present some information about turn dynamics and the relationship to potential breakdowns. I did not see the Jim Beam so I do not know where on the track the horses are breaking down. However the turn or the transition from the turn to the straight would be critical areas. I will present a factor which is a combination of two other variables that I model in my Energy Program. The first variable is related to bank angle and the lean angle of the horse in the turn. Included in this term is the ankle pulley ratio which relates internal and external moment arms within the ankle. Research conducted by Peter Greene (J. Biomechanics, Vol 20 No.7, 1987) estimated values in the .27 range for humans and the same value to be used for dogs and horses. The ankle pulley ratio is a conformation variable of the distal end of the leg: i.e. length of the pastern and the distance between the sesamoid bones. Shoe designs variables also play a part.

Since there is no research data on horses I will use Peter Greene’s number. The second term is related to turn radius and speed on the turn. Together the two terms can be treated as an equivalent increase in weight carried on the turn. The values shown in the following table is the combined term. Any number greater then one results in higher weight carried. I will show two different turn radius: 2f and 2.25f turns. I have not modeled the tighter turns (1.5f) or larger turns (3f).

The data shown is for the horse a half-furlong into the turn around 2.5f to 3f into the race.

Turn Size: 2f or 420 ft radius.
Bank Angle degrees
Beta 0 3.5 7.0
0 1.027 1.027 1.027
.27 1.0855 1.0711 1.055
.54 1.1428 1.1120 1.080

Turn Size:2.25f or 472 ft radius
Bank Angle degrees
Beta 0 3.5 7.0
0 1.025 1.025 1.025
.27 1.0834 1.0670 1.051
.54 1.1390 1.1090 1.076

The bank angle of 3.5 degrees represents a grade of 6 percent across the track. This would be a rise of 6 ft over a 100 ft. I used this number based on some private communications about track designs.

**It would be very helpful to have this information presented in the DRF.

If a track has no bank on the turn and we used Greens's number for beta (.27) the horse will be carry the equivalent of an additional 100 pounds on the turn. Bank the turn to 3.5 degrees and we get only additional 80 pound based on a horse and rider of 1200 pounds. Based on gait analysis an individual fore legs will be subjected to almost three times the full body weight of the horse during a stride. Now add the impact of the turns dynamics and the horse would see an additional 300 pounds of load on one leg. Increase speed or reduce turn radius will result in higher numbers.

This is only part of the answer about breakdowns. Other variables such as shoeing, bandages, conformation, track, and the riders all come into play.

Tom
11-05-2014, 10:33 AM
I know some make a big deal out of the rail being out, but I've never seen a particular advantage. The length of the grass and how badly its worn down is a much better handicapping factor, IMO.

The data supports your claim here.

Bel Main Turf, 8.5 Rail = 0 , all conditions, 83 races April 09 - Jun 14

Avg BL FCP = 4.7, 2CP = 4.5

Same time period, rails at 24-27 feet

Avg BL FCP = 4.8, 2CP = 4.3

However, you will find pockets of days where either front runners or closers dominate. you need to keep a track profile and use short-run data or you will miss lots opportunities that all this data together masks.

Now.....what about post position at the various rail setting?