First fraction - runup adjustments

[Robert Vaughan]

Assuming my understanding that the DRF Past Performance Time for the first fraction is the time for the lead horse to travel from its position when the "runup wire" is broken to 2 furlongs from the "runup wire", is correct ... what, if anything, do you folks do to adjust the PP time and/or distance for those horses you deem not to be leading at the end of the runup?

That is, if a horse isn't leading at the end of the runup but is at the 1/4 ... then its time is for more than 2 furlongs ... what adjustments, if any, do you make or suggest making?

[Greyfox]

Good question. The run ups must vary from track to track.
Personally, I don't make any adjustments.
But if this thread proves fruitful, I might make changes. Good question.

[46zilzal]

They vary widely as Philly and Churchill have some long run-ups. Problem is: they can even vary at the SAME TRACK so compensating for them, unless you are part of the gate crew, is impossible.

[cj]

They vary widely as Philly and Churchill have some long run-ups. Problem is: they can even vary at the SAME TRACK so compensating for them, unless you are part of the gate crew, is impossible.

It is not impossible to compensate for them. Just watch the replays.

[Robert Vaughan]

Were I to have any answers, I wouldn't be asking the question but one would think that since the horses are most certainly accelerating during the runup ...and typically reach their running speeds, which I assume is then relatively level during the remainder of the first timed 1/4, ... within perhaps 220 feet from the gate ... it's probably a little more significant and a bit more complex than I had first thought.

I know that, for practical reasons, runups do vary slightly at the same track for the same distance ... sometimes even on the same day. However, I would think such differences are relatively insignificant when compared to the differences by track and/or distance . For example, at 6 furlongs ... I think the usual runup for Pimlico is 1 foot ... Churchill Downs about 100 ... Emerald Downs about 40 ... Bay Meadows about 20 ... while Santa Anita is probably 85.

For those tracks where I have no runup information data, I usually try to estimate them from an analysis of the average ratio of second to first fractions ... which I think comes reasonably close.

For the sprints, one would think that using the first call (just after the start) as an indicator of the horse's relative position at the time the leader breaks the runup wire ... together with the second call ... would give some indication of how the horse is performing relative to the other horses over the first fraction ... and might be a basis for making an adjustment that would be better than making no adjustment.

I suspect that the horse's natural rate of acceleration following the first couple of strides until it reaches its natural speed can be described by a continous function that can be resolved using PP data.

Thus, the ingredients are probably there but I can't cook the cake cause I can't see how to mix the ingredients.

[cj]

To answer the original question, I don't adjust at all. I don't want to benefit horses that don't break well. It is a very underrated part of the game.

[john del riccio]

The runups at TP between 6f & 6 1/2 races is a good example of how they influence the fractional & final times. TP's runup for 6 1/2f is much shorter than 6f so the fractions and final times are invariably slower going 6 1/2f.

what this means for figure makers is that making "direct comparisions" between these two races (6f & 6 1/2f) challenging.

john

[robert99]

In UK the starter switch that opens the gates starts the timer so everything is from a standing start where the stalls are placed. Why they don't use that in USA is a mystery - it cost litle to change things with a new switch and cable. Not much help at present though.

For a horse there is a reaction time, an acceleration time to cruise speed and a reasonably constant cruise speed to the 2f mark. Kickback and lack of room ahead can further slow a slow-starting horse.

Without video frame anaylsis, the reaction time can probably only be judged in relative terms ie how does a particular horse do in starting fast relative to other horses over a series of races (agree with cj on watching this aspect).

The acceleration phase is often over 5 short strides and horse specific which can vary between 80-100 feet, so USA run ups are largely too short to obtain full cruise speed when the timer is switched on. Again, watching the video and stride counting can give some clues.

Lastly, the first fraction is the least important as regards energy use (most horse have this in abundance at this stage) but very important for positional placing. The positional placing at 2f is given so depending on methods used it may be an area where numeric analysis won't help very much, whereas just noting what actually happened in relative terms is as much as you need.

[shanta]

Lastly, the first fraction is the least important as regards energy use (most horse have this in abundance at this stage) but very important for positional placing.

The first fraction energy use is the most important stage of the race.

Positional placing(gains/losses) are also units of energy that are being expended by horses.

Lead or "boss" horses are establishing their dominance over the others. When they are pushed beyond their comfort zone and run faster they pay the price late.

Everything that happens later is a direct result of the break and the initial QUARTER MILE of the race.

A few noticable 1st fraction runup issues:
1) Cd - 6f is very fast
2) Pimlico - 6f is very slow
3) Cd - 8.5f (dirt) is very slow
4) Tp - 6.5 is very slow

My opinions
Richie

[john del riccio]

The first fraction energy use is the most important stage of the race.

Positional placing(gains/losses) are also units of energy that are being expended by horses.

Lead or "boss" horses are establishing their dominance over the others. When they are pushed beyond their comfort zone and run faster they pay the price late.

Everything that happens later is a direct result of the break and the initial QUARTER MILE of the race.

A few noticable 1st fraction runup issues:
1) Cd - 6f is very fast
2) Pimlico - 6f is very slow
3) Cd - 8.5f (dirt) is very slow
4) Tp - 6.5 is very slow

My opinions
Richie

richie, you can add MTH to the very fast 6f list.

john

[shanta]

richie, you can add MTH to the very fast 6f list.

john

Thanx John. Will do
Richie

[robert99]

The first fraction energy use is the most important stage of the race.

Positional placing(gains/losses) are also units of energy that are being expended by horses.

Lead or "boss" horses are establishing their dominance over the others. When they are pushed beyond their comfort zone and run faster they pay the price late.

Everything that happens later is a direct result of the break and the initial QUARTER MILE of the race.

A few noticable 1st fraction runup issues:
1) Cd - 6f is very fast
2) Pimlico - 6f is very slow
3) Cd - 8.5f (dirt) is very slow
4) Tp - 6.5 is very slow

My opinions
Richie


Richie,

I think we are agreeing that. I am talking about energy in work done per second terms which should really be called power (real horse power). If a horse does not use its available energy to the full ie a slow break it will be behind in the positional sense - but that is energy expended, not energy (in excess) that could be made available.

Dirt is a poor traction surface so it is not so easy to make up any lost ground as on turf - plus facing kickback. The energy expenditure lost opportunity is very difficult to make up for in increased speed later in the race. In energy terms even poor class horses have available energy in abundance in the first furlongs - it is only the relatively classier horses that still have some energy to spare in the closing stages. You need both early positional ability to control the race and position, and the energy to last home. One is no more important than the other. If it were, the horses behind might as well pack up and go home.

I don't believe that any horse is a boss horse on a racetrack.
There are certainly horses that have more horse power available at every stage and can give the appearance of dominance.
In the wild, the boss horse stays well away, but in eye and earshot, of the herd. The only other dominant horses are some mares with foals.

If horses go past a point when their energy production falls below what the others in the race are achieving then they will fall back. That is a physical reaction within their biomechanics and is most likely to happen to those horses pushed too hard in the early stages - either to gain a lead or catch up from a poor break. But all this is getting away from the thread topic.

[Secretariat]

I suppose one could create first fraction pars by track, and by noticing the differences, one could assume the differences reflect a runup variance, since an overal ltrack variance would have it's least impact on first fraction since early horses are running their fastest.

For example, i'm sure overall tracking of allowance horses running at PIM versus allowance horses running at DEL will show a signficant difference. For a quick comparision I beleive Dave Schwartz's Track Pars are broken down to first quarter pars. Why not simply create a runup par from his work and save the time?

[46zilzal]

On the great Frontline show, "The Other Side of the Track," the announcer followed around Connie Mergos (selling?) a.k.a. THE BEARD who measured the run up in each race each day and he claimed it varied enough, even there at Belmont (where the show was filmed that day) to note it each time they set up the gate.

[karlskorner]

When Richie "The Beard" left NY in the late 60's he sold the sheet to Connie Mergos. Richie now hand times from the gate along with Toby Collet for Equibase at GP. Richie for a time worked for Randy Schroder ( Lawtons sheet ) before he went on his own. Randy hand timed from gate and I am told and read that he was influnential to the tote board during the 50's and 60.s at NY tracks. I learned from Richie in the late 70's how to adjust for the runup. There is a difference between 1 /4 and 1/2 times as printed and must be considered.

[bobphilo]

To answer the original question, I don't adjust at all. I don't want to benefit horses that don't break well. It is a very underrated part of the game.

I agree. Though the timer starts after the run-up, the race begins out of the gate. If a horse is behind at the start of timing, it's due to his own lack of acceleration. I wouldn't give any extra credit to a horse that is slow out of the gate.

Bob

[Psychotic Parakeet]

I take it that there is not a website available that has the run-up adjustments and such for the major tracks?

[Greyfox]

If a horse is behind at the start of timing, it's due to his own lack of acceleration.
Bob

Or the dead-weight rider that it had on it's back that day. Some can get them out fast, some can't.

[bobphilo]

In UK the starter switch that opens the gates starts the timer so everything is from a standing start where the stalls are placed. Why they don't use that in USA is a mystery - it cost litle to change things with a new switch and cable. Not much help at present though.

.

How ironic that in England and Europe where the timer begins at the start and different run-ups are not a problem, the don't take fractional times so the it doesn't matter there like it would here.

In "Handicapping Speed" Charles Carrol talks about the rivalries between Quarter horse and T-Bred people as to which breed is faster and hints that the run-up may be an attempt to make the T-breds look faster since Quarter horse races are timed from the gate.

It's also possible that track superintendent may use a long run-up to get faster times without "souping up" the track and risking more breakdowns.
I'd be curious to see if run-ups at a given track increase on big race days?

Other that I can't imagine why there even has to be a run-up.

Bob

[Robert Vaughan]

KarlsKorner,"I learned from Richie in the late 70's how to adjust for the runup" ... If you learned how to adjust for the runup ... what did you learn?

I agree with those not giving extra credit for a slow start ... but the fact that one horse is extra fast out of the gate doesn't necessiarly translate into the others being slow. Regardless, when you're using PPs to evaluate, I tend to think any adjustment that normalizes the PPs would be good, if held in proper perspective.

[bobphilo]

KarlsKorner,"I learned from Richie in the late 70's how to adjust for the runup" ... If you learned how to adjust for the runup ... what did you learn?

I agree with those not giving extra credit for a slow start ... but the fact that one horse is extra fast out of the gate doesn't necessiarly translate into the others being slow. Regardless, when you're using PPs to evaluate, I tend to think any adjustment that normalizes the PPs would be good, if held in proper perspective.

Fast and slow are relative terms. A horses outbreaking the other horses out of the gate is a faster starter. If a horse is beaten by other horses out of the gate, he is a slower starter.

That does not mean that it wouldn't be useful to have run-up distance information for different tracks or different races to better evaluate a horse's perfromance. Of course a better solution would be to do away with run-ups altogether, but we're not likey to see that.

Bob

[karlskorner]

The difference is based on how far back the gate is from the light, a gate set back 100 feet may show a published 1/4 time as 22.4, when actually the time is 22.1, a gate set back 40 feet from the light will show different times, this carries through to the 1/2 time as well. Reasoning being, the lead horse is just running that much faster becasue of the additional distance. Since most "systems" are based on published 1/4 and 1/2 times, the question arises how true are they ? Both the "sheets" and TG who have been publishing for the past 40 years and have a legion of followers willing to pay $25/40 a day, using times from the gate. Those who adjust for distance back by using the published times are missing the true time of the race.

[bobphilo]

The difference is based on how far back the gate is from the light, a gate set back 100 feet may show a published 1/4 time as 22.4, when actually the time is 22.1,

Actually the run-up distance will result in a faster fractional time. The timer doesn't begin until the lead horse breaks the beam. They're not being charged with the time it takes to get the from the gate to the timer. Because of the run-up the horse have already built up some momentum by the time they hit the point where the timing begins, therefore they will run the 1st quarter, as well as the whole race, faster.

Bob

[robert99]

How ironic that in England and Europe where the timer begins at the start and different run-ups are not a problem, the don't take fractional times so the it doesn't matter there like it would here.

In "Handicapping Speed" Charles Carrol talks about the rivalries between Quarter horse and T-Bred people as to which breed is faster and hints that the run-up may be an attempt to make the T-breds look faster since Quarter horse races are timed from the gate.

It's also possible that track superintendent may use a long run-up to get faster times without "souping up" the track and risking more breakdowns.
I'd be curious to see if run-ups at a given track increase on big race days?

Other that I can't imagine why there even has to be a run-up.

Bob

Bob,

We have got into the 20th Century now with some tracks recording individual horse furlong sectional times. That helps to make things easier but I certainly sympathise with those struggling with run-ups and lengths behind data. It has always mattered and previously all sectional timings have had to be taken painstakingly from videos -even when partly automated, a very tedious job.

[bobphilo]

Just to show how the run-up can speed-up the early fractions. In the results for the Dubai World Cup day races they give the sectional splits for each eighth of a mile. The races are timed from the gate with no run-up. In the Golden Sheehan Sprint, with some of the world's fastest sprinters, the first eighth was timed in over 13 seconds.

Bob

[karlskorner]

A point I have been trying to make for the past 7 years, you just put it a different way. It boils down to the published times are not the "true" times.

[karlskorner]

It is beyond how to determine how far back the gate is set from the light looking at a video, althoughme CJ claims it can be done. The method I use is how far apart the down poles from the rail are set apart, I use 10 feet, count the down poles from gate to light with a pair of 10x50's before the race starts. I have watched re-runs and all I see is a blur.

[bobphilo]

A point I have been trying to make for the past 7 years, you just put it a different way. It boils down to the published times are not the "true" times.

You're welcome karlskorner. We are in fundamental agreement on the greater issue that the length of run-up affects recorded times.

The published times are the "true" times in terms of reporting the accurate times between the points of call. The only problem with the the published times is that they don't take into account differences in run-up distances. There is really no way they can do this. All they can do is report the time it takes for the horses to go from point A to point B. How much these times are influenced by the length of run-up is a matter of interpretation for the pace handicapper.

IMO the best way to deal with this, rather than trying to convert feet of run-up into what possible effect of it might has on times, is to look at the pace pars for the track. This will automatically take into account the effect of the run-up for the for that distance for that track. Unfortunately, it doesn't deal with the effect of the same track changing their run-up distances.

Bob

[DanG]

Unfortunately, it doesn't deal with the effect of the same track changing their run-up distances.Bob
This is the issue.

[QuarterCrack]

Instead of figuring out the extra distance the runup adds to the first fraction - I wonder if it could be looked at as a function of time.

It would seem that it would be pretty easy to time the replay (from the gate), and then subtract the official time listed in the charts; the result would be the runup time, to some degree of accuracy.

Then, instead of saying a runup is 60 feet or 100 feet or whatever, you could say it's 0.8 seconds or 1.3 seconds, etc.

But I'm not sure how to apply this to figuremaking or even the best way to apply this to just figuring out how to adjust the published first fraction to account for the runup.

So maybe it's not that great of an idea - just something I thought I'd throw out there. At the very least, it is a way to gauge the runup relatively easy, just off the replay, without having to count rails or do a lot of guesswork.

[bobphilo]

Instead of figuring out the extra distance the runup adds to the first fraction - I wonder if it could be looked at as a function of time.

It would seem that it would be pretty easy to time the replay (from the gate), and then subtract the official time listed in the charts; the result would be the runup time, to some degree of accuracy.

Then, instead of saying a runup is 60 feet or 100 feet or whatever, you could say it's 0.8 seconds or 1.3 seconds, etc.

But I'm not sure how to apply this to figuremaking or even the best way to apply this to just figuring out how to adjust the published first fraction to account for the runup.

So maybe it's not that great of an idea - just something I thought I'd throw out there. At the very least, it is a way to gauge the runup relatively easy, just off the replay, without having to count rails or do a lot of guesswork.

The problem is not how long it takes to get to the where the timer begins from the gate, but how much the run-up allows the horses to gain momemtum before they get to the timer and therefore be able to run run the first fraction as, well as the race, faster. The point is that having a run-up will decrease both the splits and the final time.
To subtract the time it gets to the timer from the race time would only give an inaccurate time for the race because the timer doesn't begin until they reach the flag and does not incluide the run-up time.
In fact this would increase the problem caused by the effect of the run-up. The effect of the run-up is to decrease both the fractional split as well as the final time. To further decrease these by subtracting the time of the run-up would make the problem worse.

Bob

[bobphilo]

This is the issue.

The issue was how much different run-up distances affect early fractions, whether they are due to different tracks or the moving of the starting gate at the same track.
The difference from track to track can be dealt with by looking at par times. The problem with differences at the same distance at the same track is not as simple unless one has par times for each diferent run-up for each distance at that track.
There is no formula for adjusting the times just based on knowing the run-up distance, since different horses will be able to use the advantage of a longer run-up distance differently. All you can know is that when the run-up is increased, the times wll generally be decreased to some degree.

Bob

[bobphilo]

Bob,

We have got into the 20th Century now with some tracks recording individual horse furlong sectional times. That helps to make things easier but I certainly sympathise with those struggling with run-ups and lengths behind data. It has always mattered and previously all sectional timings have had to be taken painstakingly from videos -even when partly automated, a very tedious job..

Actually Robert, we're into the 21st Century, but I get your point. I know some tracks are using chips in the saddle pad and satellite receivers to record both sectional times for each eighth and exact distance traveled by each horse, similar to the Trakus equipement they use at Keeneland in the U.S and Woodbiine in Canada. I've posted on a different thread here about the sectional timing they use in the Dubai races. Unfortunately, I've never seen sectional times repoted in any of the U.K PP's I'm familiar with, such as Timeform or Racing Post.
My point, which you are also making, is that in Europe you don't have to worry about the effect of run-up distences since the timer starts at the gate. For the tracks that you have sectional time information to go with that, you have a big advantage in pace analysis.

Bob

[DanG]

Originally Posted by DanG
This is the issue.
The issue was how much different run-up distances affect early fractions, whether they are due to different tracks or the moving of the starting gate at the same track.
The difference from track to track can be dealt with by looking at par times. The problem with differences at the same distance at the same track is not as simple unless one has par times for each diferent run-up for each distance at that track.
There is no formula for adjusting the times just based on knowing the run-up distance, since different horses will be able to use the advantage of a longer run-up distance differently. All you can know is that when the run-up is increased, the times wll generally be decreased to some degree.
Bob
You’re taking issue (I think) when we are in complete agreement.

[ranchwest]

[/i]

You’re taking issue (I think) when we are in complete agreement.

Welcome to the internet. :lol:

[Robert Vaughan]

Bob Philo, I certainly agree with you that "fast and slow" are relative terms ... and I may have been guilty of mispeaking in trying to generically agree with not giving credit for a poor start.

I think your's is the point I was trying to make, at least directionally.

When using past performances to evaluate the horses, each PP is associated with one group of horses while most projections one might make based on the PP data concerns a different collection of horses and conditions ... often where the only connecting element is the one horse associated with the PP.

[Robert Vaughan]

I totally agree with posts #22 and #23 but understood that karlskorner's earlier coments related to earlier days hoped he might have some suggestions as to how the PP data might be manually adjusted.

With the exception of the question initally raised herein, I think the adjustments are there to be had that will allow acceptable projection factors without the added cost of membership in a service.

Regardless of the algorithms used or the simplicity/complexity of the model, the acceleration function can certainly ... and should ... be extended back from the end of the runup to the the starting gate. I can do that ... the only significant difficulties that I see are (1) determining the distance that the horse has run when the runup wire is broken by the leader and (2) the initial acceleration function from the starting gate to the point where the horse has overcome the influences of initial inertia ... about which I know nothing though I would suspect it's 3 strides, probably less, from the gate.

[bobphilo]

Regardless of the algorithms used or the simplicity/complexity of the model, the acceleration function can certainly ... and should ... be extended back from the end of the runup to the the starting gate. I can do that ... the only significant difficulties that I see are (1) determining the distance that the horse has run when the runup wire is broken by the leader and (2) the initial acceleration function from the starting gate to the point where the horse has overcome the influences of initial inertia ... about which I know nothing though I would suspect it's 3 strides, probably less, from the gate.

Robert V (or should I say Napolean Solo) LOL

In Handicapping Speed, Charles Carrol gives a detailed analysis of the dynamics of acceleration fom the gate and how many strides are required to reach full speed. I'll have to look up the exact number, but it's considerably more than is commonly believed. This seems to be just the information your'e looking for.

Bob

[bobphilo]

[/i]

You’re taking issue (I think) when we are in complete agreement.

Sorry Dan. I thought you meant that changes in run-up distances at the same track was the ONLY issue and that my comments about differences fom track to track were irrelevant. My mistake. Glad we're in agreement.

Bob

[karlskorner]

Over the years as this subject comes up I read from different listors that a particular race had a "fast"/"slow" pace and I ask myself "where was the gate". As an example on todays card you have 2 6f races for the 2nd and 8th race, both are for 10K claimers for 3 years and up, the conditions are basically the same. The published times for the 2 races are 1/4 - 22.1/23.1, for the 1/2 - 44.1/45.1 and final 111.2/112.2. The difference in the 2 races is that the gate was set back 20 feet from the light for one race and the lead horse didn't get up to speed until 1/2 way to the 1/4 pole and 120 feet from the light for the other race and the lead horse was up to full speed by the time he broke the light. Just about every author, program maker, pace figure seller, par figure seller, method and system seller include some form of pace in their work. All assume the gate was placed at the light.

Of course we can't omit my favorite subject, what did the Track Super's tractors do to the track between the 2nd and 8th race ? To quote Joe T
" 1/2 half of the race is out of your control "

[cj]

All assume the gate was placed at the light.



Wrong.

[delayjf]

If you want to see an exageration of this subject. The 1 mile races at SA and Delmar have a run-up of @ 70 YARDS. I've seen many horses break the beam 2 lengths before the field. If they go on to win, the time is legit, possibly better than it will look on paper. But if they do not, they have in essence prematurely started the race timing. The winning horse maybe several lengths behind when the clocking began.

One would think that timing from the gate would alleviate this problem, but if the gate placement varies and you don't adjust for it, the time comparisons will not be as accurate as they could be. Not that this is going to totally invalidate all speed figures based on the times, but in some cases it could make a difference.

[Greyfox]

This problem is getting complicated, especially if tracks are changing run ups for the same distance. I haven't been bothering using them in my own figs.
Maybe they'd be even more accurate if I did. However, this all begs the questions:
1. Does anyone know if the "run ups" on Turf Surfaces are changed, when the fence is moved out?
2. Is there any way of knowing from the PP lines if the fence was moved out on a given day?

[Tom]

Turf rail, not in PPs unless you get HDW.
It is in charts - a lot of the time, but sometimes not correct.

Gee, wouldn't YOU like to be big muckey muck in this industry, where performance is optional!:rolleyes::bang::lol:

[bobphilo]

One would think that timing from the gate would alleviate this problem, but if the gate placement varies and you don't adjust for it, the time comparisons will not be as accurate as they could be. Not that this is going to totally invalidate all speed figures based on the times, but in some cases it could make a difference.

Delayjf,


The gate placement may vary now because the super or starter is adding a run-up distance but the location where the timing begins does not. It is always located at the same place for races of that distance. For example, the timing beam for 6 F races is always exactly 6F from the finish line and for mile races, a mile away from the finish line. In a 1 1/8 mile race on a 1 1/8 mile track the gate would be right on the finish line. This is no more problematic than placing the quarter pole and eighth poles. The gate could be placed right on this location, like they do in the rest of the world, and there would be consistent timing for all races. The problem with differences in run-up distances would be eliminated because the run-up distance would be identical for all races - zero feet.


Bob

[bobphilo]

In a 1 1/8 mile race on a 1 1/8 mile track the gate would be right on the finish line.

Bob Correcting a typo. I meant to say that the STARTING BEAM for 1 1/8 mile races on a 1 1/8 track is on the finish line. Only if we eliminated the run-up, would the starting gate also be on the finish line.

Bob

[delayjf]

Bob,

To clarify, what I was refering to was with regards to the way the Sheets makers hand-time a race. Hand timing would solve the run up distance problems - only if the gate placement was the same race to race (same distance) OR if one adjusted for the gate placement as well. If the run-up varies and you don't adjust - your hand-timing two different distances.

[bobphilo]

Bob,

To clarify, what I was refering to was with regards to the way the Sheets makers hand-time a race. Hand timing would solve the run up distance problems - only if the gate placement was the same race to race (same distance) OR if one adjusted for the gate placement as well. If the run-up varies and you don't adjust - your hand-timing two different distances.

I see, delayjf. If you're hand timing fom the gate like the sheets and TG do, you really need to know the run-up distance so you know what distance you're actually timing. Of course, since the timers are at the track, they can see if the starter has changed the run-up and by roughly how much.
In addition, if someone uses pace and splits in conjunction with the sheet numbers, as I often do, that could present a double problem.

Bob

[karlskorner]

You should be able to find the distance the temp. rail is set out on the turf at the particular track you are interested in under scratches/changes or elsewhere on their site. BRIS has the set out in their PP's conditions of the race. Todays 4 grass races at GP the set-out was 60 feet.

Of course that brings up what had been discussed on the board over the years. If the temp. rail is set out 25 feet for a carded race of 1 1/16 miles, is it still a 1 1/16 mile race ? ANOTHER OF MY FAVORITE SUBJECTS. Gulfstream is an extreme example, the temp. rail can be set out to 85 feet for a carded 1 1/16 race, is it still a 1 1/16 mile race ? Do the math, it could turn into a mile and 1/8th race. Add to this a run-up of 40 to 100 feet.the horses coming from the 6th hole and out are running a whole lot forther. Whole new ball game. Remember the poles are stationary and can't be moved

[delayjf]

if someone uses pace and splits in conjunction with the sheet numbers, as I often do, that could present a double problem.

IMHO
That would be true only to the extent the 1st quarter was affected by the run up. By the beginning of the second quarter all the horses are in full stride and the pace has been established. Every quarter mile split after the opening quarter would be "honest" or a true reflection of the pace of the race.

[bobphilo]

You should be able to find the distance the temp. rail is set out on the turf at the particular track you are interested in under scratches/changes or elsewhere on their site. BRIS has the set out in their PP's conditions of the race. Todays 4 grass races at GP the set-out was 60 feet.

Of course that brings up what had been discussed on the board over the years. If the temp. rail is set out 25 feet for a carded race of 1 1/16 miles, is it still a 1 1/16 mile race ? ANOTHER OF MY FAVORITE SUBJECTS. Gulfstream is an extreme example, the temp. rail can be set out to 85 feet for a carded 1 1/16 race, is it still a 1 1/16 mile race ? Do the math, it could turn into a mile and 1/8th race. Add to this a run-up of 40 to 100 feet.the horses coming from the 6th hole and out are running a whole lot forther. Whole new ball game. Remember the poles are stationary and can't be moved

When the temp rail is up they do go wider on the turns so the start is moved up to make up for for this so their still going the same distance. They're also supposed to move the fractional poles but they don't always do this which can mess up the fractional times.

Bob

[bobphilo]

IMHO
That would be true only to the extent the 1st quarter was affected by the run up. By the beginning of the second quarter all the horses are in full stride and the pace has been established. Every quarter mile split after the opening quarter would be "honest" or a true reflection of the pace of the race.

By the splits I meant the fractional split times such as 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 times. The difference in the first 1/4 is also passed along to these fractions as well as he final time. If you mean the times for individual quarters between the points of call, then yes, the only split affected is the first 1/4.

Bob

[Robert Vaughan]

Funny, the Del Mar track super recently said that the runup at 8 furlongs is 220 feet which is close to 70 yards but an old BC Program showed Santa Anita at 172. The Santa Anita program is 4 years old ... how current is the 70 yard figure?

[karlskorner]

Yours "When the Temp.rail is up they go wider on the turns so the start is moved up so their still going the same distance"

Maybe where your playing, but not here. The 1/16 or 1/8 pole are permanent fixtures, the breaking light is a permanent fixture, do you really believe they move the gate past the start light to shorten the distance ? The 1/4, 1/2, 1/8 and 1/16 poles and "timers" are permanent, no way anything is moved. The further out the temp. rails the easier the turns on the animals. Next time you visit a track bring a decent pair of binocs with you, if the temp. rail is up watch what happens on the Club house turn, more so on the far turn. Even with the temp. rail out 25 feet, the horse on the rail, should it be out of the one hole, is running almost an additional 250 feet. The further out the rail the more chance the carded race of 1 1/16 is not that distance.

[delayjf]

The Santa Anita program is 4 years old ... how current is the 70 yard figure?

To be honest, it was a personal estimation from the 1/16 pole. I never measured the distance at either SA or Delmar. A lucky guess on my part. If you get a chance watch the SA races / replays. If you tape the race you can stop the tape as they pass under the wire the first time and note where the eventual race winner was. Sometimes it's significate sometimes its not.

[bobphilo]

Yours "When the Temp.rail is up they go wider on the turns so the start is moved up so their still going the same distance"

Maybe where your playing, but not here. The 1/16 or 1/8 pole are permanent fixtures, the breaking light is a permanent fixture, do you really believe they move the gate past the start light to shorten the distance ? The 1/4, 1/2, 1/8 and 1/16 poles and "timers" are permanent, no way anything is moved. The further out the temp. rails the easier the turns on the animals. Next time you visit a track bring a decent pair of binocs with you, if the temp. rail is up watch what happens on the Club house turn, more so on the far turn. Even with the temp. rail out 25 feet, the horse on the rail, should it be out of the one hole, is running almost an additional 250 feet. The further out the rail the more chance the carded race of 1 1/16 is not that distance.

karlskorner,

According to Jerry Brown at TG, who needs to know exact distances because he has people hand timing races at the track, most turf courses move the timer starting line up when they put up temp rails or they cannot say the race was run at the distance indicated. The starting beam is moveable at these tracks, as should be the timing spots for the points of call.

I know for a fact this is the case at Belmont where when the temp rail is not used, the gate for the 1 1/6 turf races is crammed to the back of the chute. When the rail is up, the gate and timer are moved up. The timing points CAN be made moveable.

It appears that some tracks don’t move the fractional timing spots however, because, though the final time makes sense for the distance, the fractional times do not. If tracks do not make this adjustment, they would have to, at the very least, report the distance as “about” and the times would be almost useless. One way to tell this is if the times are way out of whack.

They may have a different arrangement at your local track but that is not the general case.



Bob

[Tom]

GP Turf times - March 2006 through February 2007, but temp rail, at 1m16:

[bobphilo]

Thanks Tom,

Apparently Gulfstream is also moving its timer when it puts up the temp rail. The times are not increasing as the distance the rail is set increases and the fractions are consistent as well. In fact, the times for the largest setting (84ft) are faster than when the rail is not used.

Bob

[Greyfox]

Thanks to everyone regarding their replies on this enigma.
With respect to the rail at 84 feet, are the run ups shorter there than for 60 or so feet as the early fractions seem to imply?

[Robert Vaughan]

By the splits I meant the fractional split times such as 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 times. The difference in the first 1/4 is also passed along to these fractions as well as he final time. If you mean the times for individual quarters between the points of call, then yes, the only split affected is the first 1/4.

Bob

Bob, I may not understand ... but from my the perspective, all splits are affected by the runup ... I mean, if the runup were 120 feet, the last split would be covering a stretch after the horses had run 40 yards more than if the runup had been zero ... novice that I am, this man from uncle would be surprised if it didn't make a difference.

[cj]

The Gulfstream turf timer has long been a joke. The turf times are so crazy that you can only make figures based on the horses, not the clock, many times.

[bobphilo]

Bob, I may not understand ... but from my the perspective, all splits are affected by the runup ... I mean, if the runup were 120 feet, the last split would be covering a stretch after the horses had run 40 yards more than if the runup had been zero ... novice that I am, this man from uncle would be surprised if it didn't make a difference.

Robert V, this just in from U.N.C.L.E. headquarters.


There has been some confusion regarding splits vs. fractional times so I’ll try to put it another way.

If we are only considering the times of individual quarters, then the run-up only affects the 1st quarter because the horses get a running start to the start of the timer for the 1st quarter. The succeeding individual quarters are not affected because the horses already go into these with a running start.

In terms of fractional times for the ¼, ½ , etc, as well as the final time, the faster time that the run-up gives the first quarter is passed along to them too since they also include the 1st quarter.

To further complicate matters, in the case of the TG and sheets people hand-timing the race from the gate, an increased run-up has the opposite effect. Since they start timing from the opening of the gate, an increased run-up will increase the time recorded on the stopwatch since they will be timing a longer distance. They therefore have to know the length of the run-up so they know what distance they are timing and make adjustments.

Mercifully, neither TG nor the sheets bother with fractional times, so the affect of the run-up on these never comes into issue.


Bob

[Greyfox]

... novice that I am, this man from uncle would be surprised if it didn't make a difference.

Hey, RV

"Me thinks," ....
" novice that I am,"

... your posts suggest that you're just not a hitch-hiker who walked into the track. You're not hot-walking horses.
Having never used run ups in my own approach to handicapping, and having never been bothered by it I like the original question.
Novices often bring fresh ideas that the rest of us have not seen.
But ...your responses do not reflect "novice that I am." (Your definition of novice and mine might differ of course.)

[Robert Vaughan]

Hey, RV

"Me thinks," ....
" novice that I am,"

... your posts suggest that you're just not a hitch-hiker who walked into the track. You're not hot-walking horses.


Methinks you think you've found me out ... if only you knew! However, I did sleep in a Holiday Inn once. RV was what my father was called ... I get all bemused and at myself amused ... when I try to understand what's being said ... a lot of it's termology but much of it is true ignorance, plain and simple. I haven't been to the track in close to 25 years and I think the older I get the less I know and all that is not memory loss.

That being said ... when it comes to handicapping, I sure hope I'm a novice 'cause if I ain't ... you're all in trouble ... my greatest handicap is that I can't pick winners ... but, if I'm a novice, then I figure there's some hope that I'll get better.

I do admit to having my own thoughts and wishing I had the money to complete and test my system ... I think it's a goodun but that ain't likely to happen. God gave me enough brains to figure out some of the questions but not enough to figure out many of the answers ... he did however, lead me to this site, and for that I'm much obliged ... just hope you folks don't mind my stupid questions ... 'cause I'm sure to have a bunch of them.

Seriously, you guys are really good and I appreciate the insights!!

... and your compliment.

[cj]

In terms of fractional times for the ¼, ½ , etc, as well as the final time, the faster time that the run-up gives the first quarter is passed along to them too since they also include the 1st quarter.

Bob

I agree with most of what you say. However, at least some of the supposed decrease in final time due to longer run ups will be offset by the fact the horses have to travel further. In most dirt races, the farther the horses run, the more they decelerate. They still go faster than if there were no run up, but at least a little would be canceled out.

[classhandicapper]

All these complications related to run up differences from track to track, day to day, race to race, plus rails up/rails down, not to mention track moisture changes, track maintenance between races, changes in wind direction and intensity etc...is enough to get a guy to look at who is beating who, how they are doing it and calling himself classhandicapper. ;)

[Robert Vaughan]

All these complications related to run up differences ... track moisture changes, track maintenance between races, changes in wind direction and intensity etc ...". ;)

Are you saying a "classhandicapper" is different from a first class handicapper? ;)

Point well taken but while "run up differences, track moisture changes, changes in wind direction and intensity" do change, they also tend to have track specific characteristics and tendencies ... so I would think one should be able to develop some pretty good track specific adjustment factors so that us wantabes could compete with you guys.

[bobphilo]

I agree with most of what you say. However, at least some of the supposed decrease in final time due to longer run ups will be offset by the fact the horses have to travel further. In most dirt races, the farther the horses run, the more they decelerate. They still go faster than if there were no run up, but at least a little would be canceled out.

Just when one thinks they have dealt with all the affects of differing run-up distances, a new variable raises its ugly head. :bang:

You have a point CJ; while the extra feet of a run-up would not be a factor in most turf races where the horses are more likely to be accelerating at the finish, this could be a factor on the dirt - especially at 7 furlongs, where the early pace is as fast or faster than at 6 furlongs, and as a result, they crawl home the last 8th in slower time than in most routes. At the finish the deceleration is marked and the extra feet from the run-up can be a factor in adding to fatigue, and reducing to some extent the gain from the run-up start.



Bob

[classhandicapper]

Are you saying a "classhandicapper" is different from a first class handicapper? ;)

Point well taken but while "run up differences, track moisture changes, changes in wind direction and intensity" do change, they also tend to have track specific characteristics and tendencies ... so I would think one should be able to develop some pretty good track specific adjustment factors so that us wantabes could compete with you guys.

I agree. I just also like to evaluate horses from a qualitative point of view (hence the name choice).

[classhandicapper]

while the extra feet of a run-up would not be a factor in most turf races where the horses are more likely to be accelerating at the finish, this could be a factor on the dirt - especially at 7 furlongs, where the early pace is as fast or faster than at 6 furlongs, and as a result, they crawl home the last 8th in slower time than in most routes. At the finish the deceleration is marked and the extra feet from the run-up can be a factor in adding to fatigue, and reducing to some extent the gain from the run-up start.


It's the complexities that have been discussed in this thread in addition to the many others we have discussed elsewhere that make me pause when people attempt to do pattern reads based on small figure moves or when they hold strong opinions about a horse off a single number. I think sometimes people lose sight of the fact that speed figures are a tool and the figure maker's best estimate of reality. They are not always actually "reality".