Longchamps adds synthetic!

[FenceBored]

Longchamps will add a synthetic course as part of a major renovation plan which includes a new grandstand.
An all-weather surface inside the existing turf course was needed to increase the number of annual days of racing Longchamp can run from 30 to perhaps as many as 50.
-- http://www.drf.com/news/article/109415.html

[gm10]

Longchamps will add a synthetic course as part of a major renovation plan which includes a new grandstand.
An all-weather surface inside the existing turf course was needed to increase the number of annual days of racing Longchamp can run from 30 to perhaps as many as 50.
-- http://www.drf.com/news/article/109415.html



Hey that's pretty good.
Looks like the synthetic surfaces keep marching on.

[DJofSD]

And, the track will be closed for 20 months to do the work. Wow.

[gm10]

I can't imagine it's that easy to rebuild a grandstand, and Longchamps is a large race course as it is.

[DJofSD]

Don't know -- never been there (yet -- that's on my bucket list). :)

All that I know is Del Mar and the 22nd Ag district built the new grandstand in a lot less time.

[cj]

Hey that's pretty good.
Looks like the synthetic surfaces keep marching on.

It makes perfect sense to have synthetic tracks in places where the weather is bad and the primary surface is turf. Only the most hardcore synthetic zealots don't see that both surfaces play to very similar horses. Or, as Cadallakin likes to point out, the dirt horses do fine on synthetics except they can't beat good turf and synthetic horses.

This, however, doesn't mean they should be replacing dirt surfaces, especially where it doesn't rain very often.

[Steve R]

Hey that's pretty good.
Looks like the synthetic surfaces keep marching on.
As a complement to turf courses, not as a substitute for dirt. Pay attention!

[DJofSD]

As a complement to turf courses, not as a substitute for dirt. Pay attention!
Oooeewwww - I like that!

[gm10]

As a complement to turf courses, not as a substitute for dirt. Pay attention!

I thought that went without saying!

[Cadillakin]

It makes perfect sense to have synthetic tracks in places where the weather is bad and the primary surface is turf. Only the most hardcore synthetic zealots don't see that both surfaces play to very similar horses. Or, as Cadallakin likes to point out, the dirt horses do fine on synthetics except they can't beat good turf and synthetic horses.

This, however, doesn't mean they should be replacing dirt surfaces, especially where it doesn't rain very often.
No.. Cadillakin doesn't point that out. Cadillakin points out that horses have the propensity to race on any and all surfaces depending on where they are located.. Some surfaces, depth, or pace, will suit them better than others.. which has always been the case - even before the advent of synthetics.

I think if you would open up your mind and let the sunshine in, you would see that a horse isn't necessarily one or the other, but can be both. When I look at the PP's, I often notice that many of the horses are successful on both synthetic and dirt. Mine that Bird was 4 for 8 over synthetics, 0 for 5 on the dirt, with 1 very good second, and 1 for 1 over an off track. Tell me, what is Mine that Bird? Dirt horse, mud horse, synthetic horse? Or, race horse? If you say he can't handle dirt, that might reflect badly on Rachel's Preakness. Obviously, he can handle all surfaces well enough.

In the West, it has never been an issue for a horse who trains his whole life on dirt or synthetic to step onto the grass and succeed. The difficulty seems to be for grass horses moving to dirt. I attribute that to the different pacing of the races... and to a lesser extent, the different physical demands asked of the runner who has raced and trained for effort wholly unlike and unsuited to the present circumstance and surface. (turf to dirt, slow to fast) In essence, if you want to be fast and nimble, doing heavy work in your training will hinder you.

Dirt demands a high cruising speed, while synthetics and grass, reward the better finishers.. But take one of the many Mr Prospectors who succeeded on grass and move him to dirt, train him for high speed, and he will likely be as good on the dirt. By the way, to my knowledge, Mr Prospector did not race on grass, nor did his sire or dam, but he sired many top class horses on both surfaces. Nasrullah, who changed the face of American dirt racing, never raced on the dirt, nor did any of his ancestors... but his offspring excelled over the dirt surfaces.. It was the brilliant energy transmitted to the offspring that made for the faster, classier racehorse - regardless of surface. Northern Dancer was NOT a grass horse, but the ability that he provided for his offspring to suddenly quicken for short spurts was made to order for the grass..

My contention is that the race horse is not a dirt, synthetic, grass, or mud horse. In most cases, he or she will run over all of them.. Most of the great ones will adapt, as did Rachel and Zenyatta.. There are exceptions. It has been reported that the great Round Table couldn't stand up in the mud.. but he too handled dirt and grass with equal aplomb.. Swaps and Secretariat, probably two of the fastest horses in the last century, flew over both turf and dirt... with neither showing a decided preference. Further, I have no doubt that if Rachel were sold to European interests at a younger age, that she would be great if trained on the grass, if not as great on dirt or synthetic, then nearly so.

Finally, if you want my input, there is no need for you to try and synthesize and simplify my message. Just send me a message, and I'll write it myself.

[andymays]

A synthetic surface if perfectly appropriate at Longchamps.

I'm surprised they didn't have one on the grounds already or maybe they do have one for training purposes only.

[Steve R]

No.. Cadillakin doesn't point that out. Cadillakin points out that horses have the propensity to race on any and all surfaces depending on where they are located.. Some surfaces, depth, or pace, will suit them better than others.. which has always been the case - even before the advent of synthetics.

I think if you would open up your mind and let the sunshine in, you would see that a horse isn't necessarily one or the other, but can be both. When I look at the PP's, I often notice that many of the horses are successful on both synthetic and dirt. Mine that Bird was 4 for 8 over synthetics, 0 for 5 on the dirt, with 1 very good second, and 1 for 1 over an off track. Tell me, what is Mine that Bird? Dirt horse, mud horse, synthetic horse? Or, race horse? If you say he can't handle dirt, that might reflect badly on Rachel's Preakness. Obviously, he can handle all surfaces well enough.

In the West, it has never been an issue for a horse who trains his whole life on dirt or synthetic to step onto the grass and succeed. The difficulty seems to be for grass horses moving to dirt. I attribute that to the different pacing of the races... and to a lesser extent, the different physical demands asked of the runner who has raced and trained for effort wholly unlike and unsuited to the present circumstance and surface. (turf to dirt, slow to fast) In essence, if you want to be fast and nimble, doing heavy work in your training will hinder you.

Dirt demands a high cruising speed, while synthetics and grass, reward the better finishers.. But take one of the many Mr Prospectors who succeeded on grass and move him to dirt, train him for high speed, and he will likely be as good on the dirt. By the way, to my knowledge, Mr Prospector did not race on grass, nor did his sire or dam, but he sired many top class horses on both surfaces. Nasrullah, who changed the face of American dirt racing, never raced on the dirt, nor did any of his ancestors... but his offspring excelled over the dirt surfaces.. It was the brilliant energy transmitted to the offspring that made for the faster, classier racehorse - regardless of surface. Northern Dancer was NOT a grass horse, but the ability that he provided for his offspring to suddenly quicken for short spurts was made to order for the grass..

My contention is that the race horse is not a dirt, synthetic, grass, or mud horse. In most cases, he or she will run over all of them.. Most of the great ones will adapt, as did Rachel and Zenyatta.. There are exceptions. It has been reported that the great Round Table couldn't stand up in the mud.. but he too handled dirt and grass with equal aplomb.. Swaps and Secretariat, probably two of the fastest horses in the last century, flew over both turf and dirt... with neither showing a decided preference. Further, I have no doubt that if Rachel were sold to European interests at a younger age, that she would be great if trained on the grass, if not as great on dirt or synthetic, then nearly so.

Finally, if you want my input, there is no need for you to try and synthesize and simplify my message. Just send me a message, and I'll write it myself.
Unfortunately you are generalizing based on anecdotal evidence of horses that crossed over. If you want to stick to anecdotes, there are plenty that didn't. Cigar was 17 for 21 on dirt, 1 for 11 on grass. Affirmed was retired when Laz Barrera was unhappy with because the colt didn't handle the surface in preparation for a turf debut. From this year, California Flag is 8 for 13 on turf and unplaced in 3 starts on an AWS; Magical Fantasy is 5 for 12 on turf, 1 for 6 on an AWS; Man of Iron is 3 for 4 on an AWS and 1 for 6 on turf. The patterns are all over the place.

The physics of the surface in combination with a horse's biomechanical characteristics will determine the energy transfer properties between the two. That alone determines compatibility. There is absolutely no basis for believing any one horse should be able to race successfully on every surface. Some do. Most don't.

BTW, despite the occasional success of his runners on turf, Mr. Prospector and the vast majority of his successful sons at stud have relatively poor records as sires of grass runners. Again, using anecdotal evidence instead of comprehensive data is misleading.

[cj]

I was coming back to respond, but Steve summed it up quite nicely.

[tzipi]

Hey that's pretty good.
Looks like the synthetic surfaces keep marching on.

Synthetic is basically turf. That's why they are using it. For bad weather days,the turf horses will still have their surface. Trust me,if there was no such thing as synthetic,Longchamps would not be putting in a dirt course.

[gm10]

Synthetic is basically turf. That's why they are using it. For bad weather days,the turf horses will still have their surface. Trust me,if there was no such thing as synthetic,Longchamps would not be putting in a dirt course.

Uhuh. Why are you telling me this????

[tzipi]

Uhuh. Why are you telling me this????

Oh it was just in response to you saying the surface keeps marching on. I think the surface is on the way out looking at what trainers and jockeys have said recently and it upkeep costs and problems.
The one good thing for it might just be over there because of all the turf racing they have and their weather and synthetic is basically a fake turf course for them during bad weather days. I was not poking fun at you or anything like that.

[Scanman]

What a waste. Longchamp has the finest arrangement/best usage of courses on it's acreage. If they wanted an AW track in Paris, Maisons-Laffitte would have been a much better choice.

[Valuist]

Le plastique ordures? Que la surface est total cochomeries.

[FenceBored]

Any bookmakers with a line on which comes first, the synthetic Arc or the synthetic Ky. Derby?

[nearco]

The addition of the synth course is for racing in the winter months, with additional dates throughout the year. It is not to take turf races in bad weather. Turf races are never moved to a synth course in Europe. In rare cases if the track is waterlogged the race(s) will be cancelled, and in very rare cases transfered to another track (the Juddmonte Intl G1 a couple of years ago, from York to Newmarket). But it's not like in the US where it's switched to the main track after a couple of drops of rain.
There will never be a synth Arc, the race is run on grass even if the ground is heavy. The Seine would have to burst it's banks and flood the course for the race to be cancelled, and then the synth would be under water too.

The question is how do they fit a synth course in without affecting the other configurations. I think they may have to go with a 7f course to not affect the Ligne Droit and and start of the Grande Piste. The Petite Piste is 10.5f around oval, so it could take a 8f or 9f synth oval inside, except that start of the Grande Piste (and hence the start of the Arc) cuts across the top corner of it... http://www.fg.lescourseshippiques.com/pages/plans/245.jpg

[Robert Goren]

It is France. Since when do the French do anything that makes sense to Americans?