TRAKUS and Speed Figures

[the_fat_man]

Was thinking about earlier when I was out riding. I probably don't have alot of the specifics correct, so jump in.

1) as the speed figures stand presently, they're constructed based on the FINAL TIME of the WINNER for a race going a STATED DISTANCE. (Based on pars or some such method.)

I have no idea how the distance for the race is measured by the tracks (on the rail, etc.) . One thing is certain, some horses run more than the race distance. (maybe less, too?)

2) with the new tracking system, actual distance covered by the winner (and the rest) will now make it possible to construct a speed figure for the actual distance covered rather than the carded distance of the race. So, more accurate ratings (in terms of distance) as we'll now have the MPH for the horse over the duration (or any portion) of the race.

Now, if a horse that doesn't win the race travels more distance than the winner, and this could be significantly more if the winner is on the rail, say, and this horse is in the 4 path on both turns, and loses by a small amount, this horse's MPH will be higher than the winner's. And, his speed figure should be higher than the winner's. Which NUMBER applies to the race?

2 points:

i) once and for all we'll be able to see the effect of added distance covered in a race ---have we overestimated or underestimated?

2) Speed Figures as we presently know them will undergo a transformation.

[kenwoodallpromos]

To state the obvious, Trackus results would have to be publicized first (next year), and someone will have to make those new figures.
Will the final times and distances be made public before an Andy Beyer, Ragazon, Equibase, or other entity will be allowed to get the jump on everyone else and make them secretely? Is someone negotiatring a secret exclusive contract right now?

[njcurveball]

The argument for extra ground covered is based more on physics than reality. A horse traveling on the rail is indeed saving ground, but he is more than likely getting blocked when he has run.

Jockeys know what they have under them, so if a horse has run, they move out to find room. The extra ground covered is a small price to pay for running room.

It will be curious how many figures we keep with this new equipment. Obviously, the traditional winners time, but will they want a more specific gate to wire time? If so will they calibrate the position of the starting gate before each race?

Remember it is always an estimate and the position is "eye-balled" by the guy driving the tractor. It could be off 5 to 10 feet each time a race is run. That could translate to 2 lengths or more. So by being more accurate, will we really be more accurate?

Also the finish lengths are now taken off a strip photo of the finish. So now a horse who went 8 wide and was flying at the finish to be third will actually be much faster than the winner.

Do we keep two sets of books? Perhaps three when we find some races run on turf with rails set out may need a more accurate look, since horses tend to race wide as the turns get tighter.

And with the usual tight turf finishes, we may be surprised to find 4th and 5th place horses running faster than winners when ground loss is taken into account.

The good news is that front runners will be under valued when looking at races in this way. Early speed can always get to the rail, and those horses will consistently run slower with this approach.

Perhaps we will get better prices on lone speed horses and early types. I don't think the accuracy will be an improvement overall. But it certainly can improve the bottom line if people will use these figures and continue to bet wide closers because of promising times.

I am looking forward to more racetracks using this to help my bottom line.

A much better way to look at a race would be to get an accurate MPH on each horse as they pass the points of call. We would see how they accelarated or decelarated during the race. That would be more accurate in my opinion than taking the physics approach and adding lengths for each path.

[Tom]

Myself, I don't see Beyer Associates making any changes until all tracks have Trakus - watch them come out tomorrow and make me a liar!
But to start mixing and matching different timing and distance while trying to also make projections, I don't see it coming soon.
The whole idea of getting rid of a beaten length adjustment based on third party guestimates of how far backa horse was has got to be better.

I think there is a lot of potential here for major improvements, but don't forget, this is horseracing and they are often slow to do anything new.

I'm still wating for pace figures from DRF.....:bang::lol:

[Zaf]

I'm still wating for pace figures from DRF.....:bang::lol:

Well they actually made good on Simulcast Daily, Don't you think thats enough for a decade :rolleyes: ???

Z :lol:

[QuarterCrack]

The thing that comes to mind when I think of Trakus, is that the transponder is supposed to be inside the horses' saddlecloths.
It would almost be better if it could somehow be on the horse's nose.

It's an unlikely scenario, but what about the case of a tiring horse winning by a nose, but maybe the closing horse's transponder crosses the wire first in that extra split second between the noses and the saddlecloths crossing the wire. There would almost seem to be a quarter-length "delay" in the time reporting, it sounds to me.

Am I wrong? I may just be misunderstanding the logistics of the system. Likewise, maybe that quarter-length isn't really important for what they are doing, with mph velocities and stuff.

If I was making figures for Trakus tracks, I might have an urge to make adjustments for that quarter-length. But again, maybe it's not even worth it (?)

[BillW]

My guess is that this system resolves to a few feet. It is highly unlikely that it will replace the photofinish equipment any time soon. It should make it easier to avoid mistakes on internal calls though if the data is made available to the chart caller. BTW, I am hoping to track down an engineer familiar with the system when I'm in Lexington next week. I'll report back if I can get any details on the system specs.

[robert99]

Typical speed sensor timing is accurate to 3/10,000 of a second. Its positional accuracy limits depends on how many base stations for intersection points are located around the track. Where the furlong markers and movable starts are the more likely big error problem and will (unless recalibrated daily) gradually worsen for turf tracks as they move the rails in and out.

It is definitely not intended to replace photofinishes (too much litigation risk with prizemoney involved), but just to sense speed and position relative to the starting point. So the saddle transponder starts half a length back in the stalls and finishes half a length back at the winning post. That could, if they wanted, be compensated to say 4-5 feet allowance to give almost line to line.

One real issue is that there is no obvious means of dialogue with handicappers who can tell the instrument manufacturers and tracks who pay for it what they actually want from the system. We certainly don't need mph for each horse blocking up the right hand side of the tv screen as in UK.

[classhandicapper]

I'm still wating for pace figures from DRF.....:bang::lol:

Any day now for Beta testers.