Trakus data now available for Churchill

[cj]

http://www.churchilldowns.com/racing-wagering/handicapping/trakus

One thing I noticed on Derby day is that the Trakus times are consistently faster, and not by a small amount, sometimes 2 or 3 fifths of a second for a race.

[Robert Fischer]

I noticed that as well.

Is there a run-up or similar that isn't being accounted for?


side note /You would expect some minor differences, and whenever I see them always match perfectly, I assume they have decided to use Trakus as their primary timing device. However, these differences did appear more significant from what I remember.

[elhelmete]

There are instances, and this is one of them, where I get this sinking feeling about how much we rely on bedrock data (time) that often proves to be so inaccurately measured.

[cj]

I noticed that as well.

Is there a run-up or similar that isn't being accounted for?


side note /You would expect some minor differences, and whenever I see them always match perfectly, I assume they have decided to use Trakus as their primary timing device. However, these differences did appear more significant from what I remember.

Trakus times from the gate, but the time of the run up is not reported and is subtracted from what they put in their data. Tracks, from what I have been told, force this upon them.

The more I looked, and it brought back memories of looking at this before, most of the difference comes in the first 1/4 mile. So that tells me the run up part of the equation is off somewhat for Trakus. Electronic timing in place is accurate in most case, barring something tripping the beam early or human error.

[Tom]

Tracks demand that errors be presented as facts.
Why buy Trakus is you refuse to use it?

[Cratos]

Comparing the sensor timing of horseracing to beam timing is like comparing apples and oranges.

The sensor timing is measuring both distance and time; and therefore the resultant will be speed and this is done algorithmically with derivatives because both X ( the distance from the start) and Y (the distance from the rail) must intersect to determine position/location; this is a nonlinear calculation.

The beam timing is often called "fixed post" timing because each timed point is at a fixed post of the race distance and it is not necessary to measure distance because it is pre-measured and therefore using this methodology distance is always exact with recorded time being variable.

Given this difference in measurement methods there is always a possibility of different time for the expected same race point and if they are the same at any race point, it is coincidental.

Why the sensor technology is not displaying race distance runup? I suspect from my knowledge of working with sensor design it would take a more complex and expensive sensor because of the variability in the runup distance for the different race distances.

However I firmly believe with Longine entering the timing of horseracing, fixed post timing will eventually become obsolete.

[Robert Fischer]

Comparing the sensor timing of horseracing to beam timing is like comparing apples and oranges.

The sensor timing is measuring both distance and time; and therefore the resultant will be speed and this is done algorithmically with derivatives because both X ( the distance from the start) and Y (the distance from the rail) must intersect to determine position/location; this is a nonlinear calculation.

The beam timing is often called "fixed post" timing because each timed point is at a fixed post of the race distance and it is not necessary to measure distance because it is pre-measured and therefore using this methodology distance is always exact with recorded time being variable.

Given this difference in measurement methods there is always a possibility of different time for the expected same race point and if they are the same at any race point, it is coincidental.

Why the sensor technology is not displaying race distance runup? I suspect from my knowledge of working with sensor design it would take a more complex and expensive sensor because of the variability in the runup distance for the different race distances.

However I firmly believe with Longine entering the timing of horseracing, fixed post timing will eventually become obsolete.

You seem to be making trakus sound a lot 'smarter'(more complicated) than it actually is.

[Cratos]

You seem to be making trakus sound a lot 'smarter'(more complicated) than it actually is.
It is not a matter of being "smart/complicated" as you characterized; it is what it is and that is a RFID chip technology which can be very smart if you invest the money.

This is not new technology, it has been around a long time. What is more interesting is Longine's claim that they can measure at an interval of 5 cm between horses.

At any rate, sensor measurement is superior to fixed post measurement and the reason being establishing a redundant straight line between two points except in theory is virtually impossible.

[cj]

Comparing the sensor timing of horseracing to beam timing is like comparing apples and oranges.

The sensor timing is measuring both distance and time; and therefore the resultant will be speed and this is done algorithmically with derivatives because both X ( the distance from the start) and Y (the distance from the rail) must intersect to determine position/location; this is a nonlinear calculation.

The beam timing is often called "fixed post" timing because each timed point is at a fixed post of the race distance and it is not necessary to measure distance because it is pre-measured and therefore using this methodology distance is always exact with recorded time being variable.

Given this difference in measurement methods there is always a possibility of different time for the expected same race point and if they are the same at any race point, it is coincidental.

Why the sensor technology is not displaying race distance runup? I suspect from my knowledge of working with sensor design it would take a more complex and expensive sensor because of the variability in the runup distance for the different race distances.

However I firmly believe with Longine entering the timing of horseracing, fixed post timing will eventually become obsolete.

It is pretty hard to beat the accuracy of beam timing barring something triggering a time to be registered early or human error. When it functions properly, the difference between those times and Trakus times is going to be, in my opinion, an error of some sort in the Trakus system. Something isn't being measured as precisely as it is with the beam system. Distance or time, it is one or the other.

You are not correct on why Trakus doesn't display run up distance and times. They are not allowed to do so. The information is available in their system. I have seen it with my own eyes. They do not rely on "reported" run up distances, they use the sensors to measure it. Trakus times the entire race, uses the distance recorded for the total race, subtracts the "official" distance, and the remainder must be the run up. They subtract the time of the run up from the total time to get an official time.

I personally do not think Trakus measures distance as precisely as is widely believed. Time is time, not difficult to measure. But trying to calculate distance based on horses carrying sensors, horses that don't run straight lines, is not nearly as easy. I've also detailed the rounding error that causes the distance horses travel to be overstated by 7 feet per two furlongs many times. It is undeniable.

[cj]

At any rate, sensor measurement is superior to fixed post measurement and the reason being establishing a redundant straight line between two points except in theory is virtually impossible.

The point between the beams never changes. Not any different than something like track. The 100 meters in the Olympics (and any other big meet) is always run at 100 meters. The distance doesn't vary. Doesn't seem virtually impossible to me.

[Cratos]

The point between the beams never changes. Not any different than something like track. The 100 meters in the Olympics (and any other big meet) is always run at 100 meters. The distance doesn't vary. Doesn't seem virtually impossible to me.
I am not going to argue or debate the points that I made in my earlier posts. I have studied and designed in sensor technology environments enough to make such statements.

Does this make me an expert? No it doesn't, but I damn well know what I am talking about both from science and experience; and can prove it.

It seems to me when Trakus is mentioned the same rehortic is given based on conjecture.

From what I understand Trakus was started in part by some people from MIT which should make it easy to get to someone in the know at Trakus through the alumni association. Also the president of Trakus is an electrical engineer and I believe his Masters is from MIT.

I only mentioned this because we are now talking engineering and I am very comfortable with my aforementioned statements about RFID chip timing versus beam timing.

However if you don't like Trakus; don't use it.

[Tom]

if you invest the money.

5 pretty big words there.

[cj]

However if you don't like Trakus; don't use it.

I never said I don't like Trakus. I'm merely stating that it isn't perfect. It is not as precise as many people pretend it is. Funny how you clam up when you can't dispute what is posted.

[classhandicapper]

There's another ground loss issue over and above the ~7 feet per 2 furlong question. The ground covered at some distances is almost certainly not accurate.

I was tracking some of the data for close to 4 months and found that the ground loss was very overstated for 1 specific distance at 1 specific track. Since I wasn't following it every day for every track, I can only assume there could be other distances that are "off" for some reason.

I still find the product very useful when used in combination with the DRF Charts and replays. When used in combination it's easy to figure out where all the horses were and take trip notes the first time you watch the race. It cuts down on the workload even if you don't use it's actual ground loss or times.

[cj]

There's another ground loss issue over and above the ~7 feet per 2 furlong question. The ground covered at some distances is almost certainly not accurate.

I was tracking some of the data for close to 4 months and found that the ground loss was very overstated for 1 specific distance at 1 specific track. Since I wasn't following it every day for every track, I can only assume there could be other distances that are "off" for some reason.

I still find the product very useful when used in combination with the DRF Charts and replays. When used in combination it's easy to figure out where all the horses were and take trip notes the first time you watch the race. It cuts down on the workload even if you don't use it's actual ground loss or times.

This is 100% correct. (Other than the DRF part, I prefer TimeformUS :) )

[Tom]

I really like the overhead reply animation option. :ThmbUp:

[classhandicapper]

I really like the overhead reply animation option. :ThmbUp:

I find that useful in the very big fields and sometimes in spots where I can tell a horse was inside, but not necessarily how far from the rail.

[Cratos]

I never said I don't like Trakus. I'm merely stating that it isn't perfect. It is not as precise as many people pretend it is. Funny how you clam up when you can't dispute what is posted.
I never “clamed up” as you insinuated; I realized that math, science, and statistics are not your strong suits and you continue to pretend through false allegations that you know what you are talking about.

Prove by mathematical calculation Trakus inaccuracy; by every reputable reference, beam timing has a 5% error rate and on contrast, I can take you to a company and show you sensors measuring in nanometers (one billionth of a meter)

However you will respond back with more rhetoric that might give you a warm fuzzy feeling, but a cure for that is understand science; horseracing is not science and never will be.

[cj]

I never “clamed up” as you insinuated; I realized that math, science, and statistics are not your strong suits and you continue to pretend through false allegations that you know what you are talking about.

Prove by mathematical calculation Trakus inaccuracy; by every reputable reference, beam timing has a 5% error rate and on contrast, I can take you to a company and show you sensors measuring in nanometers (one billionth of a meter)

However you will respond back with more rhetoric that might give you a warm fuzzy feeling, but a cure for that is understand science; horseracing is not science and never will be.

Thanks for the laugh. You know nothing about me. I gave you the simplest example a long time ago.


All horses on Trakus are shown to run 7 feet longer than they actually do on any two furlong straight away. Trakus doesn't deny this, but you don't. That is funny and sad at the same time. Even an mathematically challenged individual, as you seem to think I am, can plug numbers into the Pythagorean theorem and know the reported distances are simply not possible. How you can't understand that, self proclaimed genius that you are, is impossible for a dimwit like me to understand.

It is "clammed up." Apparently spelling isn't your strong suit.

[Cratos]

There's another ground loss issue over and above the ~7 feet per 2 furlong question. The ground covered at some distances is almost certainly not accurate.

I was tracking some of the data for close to 4 months and found that the ground loss was very overstated for 1 specific distance at 1 specific track. Since I wasn't following it every day for every track, I can only assume there could be other distances that are "off" for some reason.

I still find the product very useful when used in combination with the DRF Charts and replays. When used in combination it's easy to figure out where all the horses were and take trip notes the first time you watch the race. It cuts down on the workload even if you don't use it's actual ground loss or times.
I really don't understand the 7 feet/2 furlong ground loss stated in your post because Trakus is not measuring per furlong; Trakus measurement is a continuous measurement of the horse's movement between two defined points (start and finish).

Also Trakus measures horses, not races and in doing so Trakus measures the change in "Y" ( the distance from the rail) with respect to the change in "X" (the distance from the start) and to disagree with those measurements you would need to use differential calculus to arrive at a reasonable approximation to the Trakus data.

Using an engineering. design program in CAD I did an layout of Dortmund's route during the Ky Derby to calculate the distance run by Dortmund during the Derby and with the best assumptions that I could think of, my result was 99.5% of the Trakus data for Dortmund.

Incidentally, I choose Dortmund because he appeared to have the least visual changes in his route during the race.

However I believe without having some other measuring device, it will be difficult to contradict Trakus results.

[cj]

I really don't understand the 7 feet/2 furlong ground loss stated in your post because Trakus is not measuring per furlong; Trakus measurement is a continuous measurement of the horse's movement between two defined points (start and finish).



Trakus gives data at several points of call per race. They not only define points as start and finish, but also start and two furlongs, start and four furlongs, etc. Have you not clicked on the Points of Call portions of the Trakus charts?

The Derby, for example, has POC's of 2f, 4f, 6f, 8f, and Finish. The first 2f, which are obviously a straightaway, list distances traveled by the horses anywhere from 1328 feet to 1331 feet. Since the actual distance of two furlongs is 1320 feet, where does the additional 8 to 11 feet take place?

Unless horses are running in a Z pattern throughout the the run to the finish line the first time, this is simply not possible.

If a horse, for example, drifted 150 feet during the first two furlongs, which isn't even possible, the distance traveled would be 1328 feet. That is the MINIMUM being reported by Trakus in this instance.

[Cratos]

Thanks for the laugh. You know nothing about me. I gave you the simplest example a long time ago.


All horses on Trakus are shown to run 7 feet longer than they actually do on any two furlong straight away. Trakus doesn't deny this, but you don't. That is funny and sad at the same time. Even an mathematically challenged individual, as you seem to think I am, can plug numbers into the Pythagorean theorem and know the reported distances are simply not possible. How you can't understand that, self proclaimed genius that you are, is impossible for a dimwit like me to understand.

It is "clammed up." Apparently spelling isn't your strong suit.
I am not trying to know anything about you personally, but when someone uses the Pythagorean theorem to solve a differential calculus problem it give a good public indication of what they don't know about science and math.

Again, I make no personal comments against you; just against your allegations.

It is not "clammed up " because I was using the quote from your post and quotes right or wrong should be stated factually and that is why I used the quotation marks.

[cj]

I am not trying to know anything about you personally, but when someone uses the Pythagorean theorem to solve a differential calculus problem it give a good public indication of what they don't know about science and math.

Again, I make no personal comments against you; just against your allegations.

It is not "clammed up " because I was using the quote from your post and quotes right or wrong should be stated factually and that is why I used the quotation marks.

You are one funny guy. Really, you even have an excuse for spelling "clammed" wrong? Wow.

Please, explain to me how it is possible for a horse to travel 11 feet above 1320 in a two furlong straight away during the course of an actual race. This should be a fabulous learning experience for me. Particularly when the folks at Trakus already explained it to me and know that the distances reported are, in fact, not accurate. I'm sure you know more than them though, so explain away.

[Cratos]

Trakus gives data at several points of call per race. They not only define points as start and finish, but also start and two furlongs, start and four furlongs, etc. Have you not clicked on the Points of Call portions of the Trakus charts?

The Derby, for example, has POC's of 2f, 4f, 6f, 8f, and Finish. The first 2f, which are obviously a straightaway, list distances traveled by the horses anywhere from 1328 feet to 1331 feet. Since the actual distance of two furlongs is 1320 feet, where does the additional 8 to 11 feet take place?

Unless horses are running in a Z pattern throughout the the run to the finish line the first time, this is simply not possible.

If a horse, for example, drifted 150 feet during the first two furlongs, which isn't even possible, the distance traveled would be 1328 feet. That is the MINIMUM being reported by Trakus in this instance.
How Trakus measure data and how they publish its data are two different things. Once the data is recorded it can be published in a variety of formats.

If a horse is off by an average of .125 inch (+/-) per foot of distance traveled over a stated 1320 distance it would actually travel about 1334 feet.

A racehorse with a normal force over 5300 N and traveling about 17 meters/sec; and you expect a straight line?

[cj]

A racehorse with a normal force over 5300 N and traveling about 17 meters/sec; and you expect a straight line?

Of course not, but I also know they aren't running 11 extra feet, and so does Trakus.

[menifee]

Of course not, but I also know they aren't running 11 extra feet, and so does Trakus.

I really enjoy it when you two go at it. I can't explain it, but it is pretty entertaining and interesting.

[steveb]

I really don't understand the 7 feet/2 furlong ground loss stated in your post because Trakus is not measuring per furlong; Trakus measurement is a continuous measurement of the horse's movement between two defined points (start and finish).

Also Trakus measures horses, not races and in doing so Trakus measures the change in "Y" ( the distance from the rail) with respect to the change in "X" (the distance from the start) and to disagree with those measurements you would need to use differential calculus to arrive at a reasonable approximation to the Trakus data.

Using an engineering. design program in CAD I did an layout of Dortmund's route during the Ky Derby to calculate the distance run by Dortmund during the Derby and with the best assumptions that I could think of, my result was 99.5% of the Trakus data for Dortmund.

Incidentally, I choose Dortmund because he appeared to have the least visual changes in his route during the race.

However I believe without having some other measuring device, it will be difficult to contradict Trakus results.

i am no academic, but i DO KNOW that trakus is woefully inaccurate.
how or why is not for me to worry about.
it's enough to know that it is.

my laboratory is kranji, happy valley and shatin.
for kranji the times were often changed weeks after the event.
i had them all on an ongoing basis.
you can imagine my surprise when a quick check of the sections online, showed they were completely different to what they were when i grabbed them a week or so after the races were run.
excuse me sirs, how can times change just like that!!!

hong kong..... despite trakus being in operation there, the hkjc chooses not to use their times, and instead keeps using what ever it was that they had before trakus came along.
one thing i love about hk, is that they will not knowingly feed the punting public wrong information.
and the section times vary hugely between the 2 types, and i have no doubt which ones are right(or at least less wrong).

[Cratos]

i am no academic, but i DO KNOW that trakus is woefully inaccurate.
how or why is not for me to worry about.
it's enough to know that it is.

my laboratory is kranji, happy valley and shatin.
for kranji the times were often changed weeks after the event.
i had them all on an ongoing basis.
you can imagine my surprise when a quick check of the sections online, showed they were completely different to what they were when i grabbed them a week or so after the races were run.
excuse me sirs, how can times change just like that!!!

hong kong..... despite trakus being in operation there, the hkjc chooses not to use their times, and instead keeps using what ever it was that they had before trakus came along.
one thing i love about hk, is that they will not knowingly feed the punting public wrong information.
and the section times vary hugely between the 2 types, and i have no doubt which ones are right(or at least less wrong).
Inaccurate relative to what? You make a hollow assertion then climb aboard your "soapbox" with rhetoric.

Think about this, if Trakus is so inaccurate how can Longine who have similar technology claim accuracy within 5 cm?

Furthermore put Trakus and Longine aside and you describe the accuracy of the legacy system(s) without hyperbole.

You don't have to be an academic, but do the research and you should find that timing light systems are thought to be accurate within 1/100th of a second, but that has never been verified.

On the other hand, the military using sensor technology can put a missile within 3-4 meters of its target miles away.

Both commercial and military airplanes fly with incredible accuracy that would be virtually impossible to achieve with mechanical measurements.

We all should be happy that horseracing is moving to the 21st century with improved measuring technology.

[steveb]

Inaccurate relative to what? You make a hollow assertion then climb aboard your "soapbox" with rhetoric.

Think about this, if Trakus is so inaccurate how can Longine who have similar technology claim accuracy within 5 cm?

Furthermore put Trakus and Longine aside and you describe the accuracy of the legacy system(s) without hyperbole.

You don't have to be an academic, but do the research and you should find that timing light systems are thought to be accurate within 1/100th of a second, but that has never been verified.

On the other hand, the military using sensor technology can put a missile within 3-4 meters of its target miles away.

Both commercial and military airplanes fly with incredible accuracy that would be virtually impossible to achieve with mechanical measurements.

We all should be happy that horseracing is moving to the 21st century with improved measuring technology.

no soapbox, and you can believe whatever you care to believe, it matters not one iota to me.

i am not interested in what the military can or can't do, or what airlines can or can't do, they're not in my line of expertise.
horse racing is (or was) my battleground, and one thing i know, is that i do it a lot better than most(see i'm modest too).

i noticed that you ignored my bit about them changing the times after the event.
i should also have said they changed them more than once.
anyway, i guess that you ignored that because it's irrelevant?
they were just fixing them......several times. :lol:

nor did you address the fact that the most user friendly jurisdiction in the world(HKJC) choose not to use trakus, even though it is installed.
they even have this bit on their site......
Remark:
Aerial Virtual Replay is provided by an external vendor Trakus, for personal infotainment only. Due to the frequent usage of mobile phones at the racecourses, the signals receiving by Trakus system may be affected and thus the accuracy of Aerial Virtual Replay cannot be guaranteed. Every effort is made to ensure the information is up to the closest approximation, but the club assumes no responsibility for it. For the actual race results, the customers should refer to Real Replay videos.

....my thoughts would be , that they(HKJC) have tested trakus and are not yet(ever?) happy with it.
and if the above is wrong, then it follows that all the rest of it is too.

[classhandicapper]

I really don't understand the 7 feet/2 furlong ground loss stated in your post because Trakus is not measuring per furlong; Trakus measurement is a continuous measurement of the horse's movement between two defined points (start and finish).


My view is the same as CJs.

If you look at the just the straights, Trakus is telling you that horses ran further than they actually did. The math is straightforward.

Like I said, I also saw a certain distance where the ground loss was consistently overstated by way way more than that. So there must be something in the technology or placement of something that is wrong for that distance.

I am not as familiar with the times. I don't look at them very often. I mostly use it as a ground loss and race development tool to determine biases and help me see where horses were at various points in the race.

It's a great product. It just appears there are some kinks to work out.

[cj]

We all should be happy that horseracing is moving to the 21st century with improved measuring technology.

Of course we are, but we also understand there are some limitations.

[Tom]

So far, the spread of Trakus is not what you would call encouraging.

I doubt more than a dozen US tracks will ever buy it.
There is no return on the investment.

If some tracks make money with woefully wrong timing, what incentive is there for for the money to install Trakus?

[Cratos]

My view is the same as CJs.

If you look at the just the straights, Trakus is telling you that horses ran further than they actually did. The math is straightforward.

Like I said, I also saw a certain distance where the ground loss was consistently overstated by way way more than that. So there must be something in the technology or placement of something that is wrong for that distance.

I am not as familiar with the times. I don't look at them very often. I mostly use it as a ground loss and race development tool to determine biases and help me see where horses were at various points in the race.

It's a great product. It just appears there are some kinks to work out.

I am not here to change your mind or anyone’s mind; I just give my opinion on the use of sensor technology based not on hyperbole and conjecture, but on work experience and education.

Having said that, I would invite you to post the following two things that you stated in your post:

• The straightforward math and its application to the Trakus methodology
• The race and track where a “certain distance and the ground loss was consistently overstated” by Trakus

Therefore to briefly address your contention of “if you look at the just the straights.”

On most if not all NA racetracks there are two “straightaways,” the back stretch and the home or front stretch and their linear distance is typically measured from the straights of the back stretch and the home or front stretch to the tangency of the curve of the “club house” turn and the “far turn.”

However to measure the dynamic motion of a racehorse you are not measuring distance, but the displacement and velocity of the racehorse with respect to time; the short of it, you are performing a vector analysis and you will get a resultant which if laid out graphically will probably be a series of triangles tangent to each other.

This is not a simple or straightforward calculation because the mass of the racehorse with its load and the friction forces should be included in your calculation plus any forces imposed on the horse by the environment.

[Cratos]

Of course we are, but we also understand there are some limitations.
What I learned many years ago that with the proper and correct use of science and math, man is only limited by his imagination.

[cj]

What I learned many years ago that with the proper and correct use of science and math, man is only limited by his imagination.

No doubt, I'm sure over time the current problems will improve and even go away. Nothing is perfect at the outset.

[classhandicapper]

Cratos,

This is not anywhere near as complicated as you are suggesting. We don't have to be correct to a few inches.

1. Find a couple of 1 1/8 mile dirt races at BEL on the main track where they run over 4 furlongs on a straight to start the race.

2. Watch the head-on replay and look for a horse that ran as straight as is possible for the first few furlongs.

3. Look at the ground covered data for that horse during that period according to Trakus compared to 1320 for 2F if a horse ran perfectly straight.

Granted, no horse runs perfectly straight, but the Trakus numbers will suggest the horse was all over the track.

I don't know the exact number of feet per furlong Trakus is off because I saw one distance that was WAY off. When I found that one, I lost confidence in the research I was doing because I knew I couldn't trust the ground data at all. The per furlong adjustment I was using previously was insufficient.

It would be one thing if we were talking about the turns. Horses are never right on the rail on turns. But we are talking about the straights and significant differences.

[cj]

Cratos,

1. Find a couple 1 1/8 mile dirt races at BEL on the main track where they run over 4 furlongs on a straight to start the race.

2. Watch the head-on replay and look for a horse that ran as straight as is possible for the first few furlongs.

3. Look at the ground covered data for that horse according to Trakus compared to 1320 for 2F if a horse ran perfectly straight.

Granted, no horse runs perfectly straight, but the Trakus numbers will suggest the horse was all over the track.

I don't know the exact number of feet per furlong Trakus is off because I saw one distance that was WAY off. When I found that one, I lost confidence in the research I was doing because I knew I couldn't trust the ground data at all. The per furlong adjustment I was using previously was insufficient.

It would be one thing if we were talking about the turns. Horses are never right on the rail. But we are talking about the straights.

This is the key, handicappers want ground traveled in light of the way it is commonly discussed in house racing. Trakus isn't giving us that.

[classhandicapper]

This is the key, handicappers want ground traveled in light of the way it is commonly discussed in house racing. Trakus isn't giving us that.

Yep. That's the thing. There may be some sound reason why Trakus is producing the result it's producing. But IMO it's not producing what most horse players want. It is however giving good enough data to be very useful to someone that's watching replays and trying to follow horses.

[Cratos]

Cratos,

This is not anywhere near as complicated as you are suggesting. We don't have to be correct to a few inches.

1. Find a couple of 1 1/8 mile dirt races at BEL on the main track where they run over 4 furlongs on a straight to start the race.

2. Watch the head-on replay and look for a horse that ran as straight as is possible for the first few furlongs.

3. Look at the ground covered data for that horse during that period according to Trakus compared to 1320 for 2F if a horse ran perfectly straight.

Granted, no horse runs perfectly straight, but the Trakus numbers will suggest the horse was all over the track.

I don't know the exact number of feet per furlong Trakus is off because I saw one distance that was WAY off. When I found that one, I lost confidence in the research I was doing because I knew I couldn't trust the ground data at all. The per furlong adjustment I was using previously was insufficient.

It would be one thing if we were talking about the turns. Horses are never right on the rail on turns. But we are talking about the straights and significant differences.
It is clear from your retort that the “straightforward math” you mentioned in your earlier post doesn’t exist and it is also clear that your conclusions are based on conjecture without any proof of sustentation.

Furthermore you should understand that “ground loss” is a nebulous term because it is an attempt to measure a horse’s racing distance as a deviation away from the racetrack’s exact measurement.

To do this the imaginary line of tangency which defines the racetrack size would have to be invariably measured down the horse’s body from its nose to its tail while in motion.

I know you don’t have any idea what I am speaking of because I am making “it too complicated.”

The math and science used in horseracing is the same that is used in many other sports of motion; just applied differently, but it is your money which you are wagering and you should use whatever information which YOU believe is correct.

Something to think about is that the Trakus system uses a network of antennas at the racecourse and small radio tags are fitted into the saddle towels of each horse to track it 30 times per second and Trakus-equipped racetracks represent over 60 per cent of North American horse racing and nearly 18 per cent of worldwide turnover of $121 billion.

Lastly, the brain trust at Trakus was educated at MIT, RPI, and similar schools and I am to believe that they are making such elementary mistakes in measurements?

If so, you should take your findings to the industry’s publications (Blood-Horse, DRF, Equibase, etc.)

[Tom]

What a drag when reality gets in the way of theory. :rolleyes:

Wind measured miles from the track, unknown horses' weights combined with incorrect timing.....what could go wrong?

[Cratos]

It is amazing that we (the science community) went to the moon and measured from a distance both the temperature and wind speed on the surface of the moon over 40 years ago and today we (again, the science community) can't do the same at a racetrack from a distance with more sophisticated equipment.

If you believe that such measurements cannot be made, then you probably believe that dogs fly and birds bark.

[classhandicapper]

What a drag when reality gets in the way of theory. :rolleyes:



It would take all of 10 minutes for him to do what I suggested. It would then be obvious that a horse that essentially ran a straight line for 2F could not have have run as far as Trakus often suggests.

You'd have to be in the 2 path around an entire turn to approximate what Trakus often suggests for horses that ran almost perfectly straight on a straightaway.

If he wants to believe in the technology over reality, so be it. I think ground loss is often overrated even when it's calculated correctly. So when it's inflated, I really want that money in the pools.

[cj]

It would take all of 10 minutes for him to do what I suggested. It would then be obvious that a horse that essentially ran a straight line for 2F could not have have run as far as Trakus often suggests.

You'd have to be in the 2 path around an entire turn to approximate what Trakus often suggests for horses that ran almost perfectly straight on a straightaway.

If he wants to believe in the technology over reality, so be it. I think ground loss is often overrated even when it's calculated correctly. So when it's inflated, I really want that money in the pools.

Perfectly stated.

[Tom]

If you believe that such measurements cannot be made, then you probably believe that dogs fly and birds bark.

They can be made, but you are not going to get them from Trakus.

[classhandicapper]

2 Furlongs = 1320 feet.

Horse slowly drifts about 50 feet left/right on the straightaway = 1320.9466 feet = running about 1 extra foot.

Horse drifts 100 feet = 1323.7825 = running about 3 3/4 extra feet.

Horse drifts 150 feet = 1328.4954 = running about 8 1/2 extra feet.

If you are watching the head-on replay and can see the rail, you can use it as a guide to tell if the inside horse is drifting away from the rail on the straight.

For horses that look to be running almost perfectly straight, you will often see Trakus suggesting they ran 7-10 feet more than the 1320 for 2 furlongs. That means they would have had to have drifted ~150 feet (which would be easy to see), but that's not what is happening. Something is amiss between the technology and what horse players want.

[Cratos]

It would take all of 10 minutes for him to do what I suggested. It would then be obvious that a horse that essentially ran a straight line for 2F could not have have run as far as Trakus often suggests.

You'd have to be in the 2 path around an entire turn to approximate what Trakus often suggests for horses that ran almost perfectly straight on a straightaway.

If he wants to believe in the technology over reality, so be it. I think ground loss is often overrated even when it's calculated correctly. So when it's inflated, I really want that money in the pools.

A horse runs "perfectly straight" over a surface that is not "perfectly flat"? Your assertions are moving from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Also "he" as you reference is not relying on technology, but science.
.
A thoroughbred have an average stride length of about 25 feet and if its stride deviation over a 1/4 mile is off by a plus 1/100 of 1% per stride length the cumulative distance gained would approximately be 14 feet and you will never see such deviations occurring with the naked eye from a video.

Furthermore and more importantly if Trakus distance measurements are wrong then everything else they publish is wrong because their time metric is taken respect to distance and by definition speed is the ratio between distance and time.

Again, if you are correct (and you are not ) Trakus should close their doors because they are distributing false information.

[cj]

A horse runs "perfectly straight" over a surface that is not "perfectly flat"? Your assertions are moving from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Also "he" as you reference is not relying on technology, but science.
.
A thoroughbred have an average stride length of about 25 feet and if its stride deviation over a 1/4 mile is off by a plus 1/100 of 1% per stride length the cumulative distance gained would approximately be 14 feet and you will never see such deviations occurring with the naked eye from a video.

Furthermore and more importantly if Trakus distance measurements are wrong then everything else they publish is wrong because their time metric is taken respect to distance and by definition speed is the ratio between distance and time.

Again, if you are correct (and you are not ) Trakus should close their doors because they are distributing false information.

This isn't what Trakus themselves say, but I guess you know more about it than they do.

[Cratos]

This isn't what Trakus themselves say, but I guess you know more about it than they do.
No, I don't know their product better than they do, but I will put your post to them next week when I am visiting Boston on other business.

[cj]

No, I don't know their product better than they do, but I will put your post to them next week when I am visiting Boston on other business.


Whatever makes you happy. It is 2015, don't really need to travel to ask a question these days.

[cj]

The other thing is that Trakus is aware of what is going on, they can remove the excess ground traveled if they choose to do so. It isn't a big deal because it is consistent, but if you use the distances and times to do FPS calculations they'll be exaggerated.

[Cratos]

Whatever makes you happy. It is 2015, don't really need to travel to ask a question these days.
I don't travel to ask a question; I travel because that is part of my business and I spent a lot of time in New England.

However I am thrilled to understand that you are the in-house authority on this Forum about the sensor technology of Trakus and its product.

[cj]

I don't travel to ask a question; I travel because that is part of my business and I spent a lot of time in New England.

However I am thrilled to understand that you are the in-house authority on this Forum about the sensor technology of Trakus and its product.

Right, but you could ask tomorrow if you really wanted an answer.

I'm no authority, but I ask questions to learn. I don't mind sharing what I've gained.

[Cratos]

Right, but you could ask tomorrow if you really wanted an answer.

I'm no authority, but I ask questions to learn. I don't mind sharing what I've gained.
You correct and I could telephone tonight, but I have friends up there who enjoy horseracing and to be honest this topic might not come up when I am there because the Belmont and going up to Maine for lobsters will be paramount in most of our thoughts.

I really don't need to ask many questions about sensors since I have designed or been of design teams that developed some very sophisticated circuit cards for sensor technology.

However it time to put this topic to bed; I enjoyed it and that is good enough for me. If you don't have the technical background, asking questions will not get you up to speed technologically.

[Tom]

However it time to put this topic to bed;

Code for - I am caught - can't back up my blather, time to bow out.

What a crock.
Reality trumps theory every time.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[cj]

Code for - I am caught - can't back up my blather, time to bow out.

What a crock.
Reality trumps theory every time.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yep. I love when people try to make things way more complicated than they really are just to try to show how smart they are, particularly when they do it without really saying anything. That is what "he" always does. ;)