Which fraction of the race contributes most to the daily track variant?

[gm10]

I'm doing some research on this and am interested in others' opinion on this.

For example, it looks like the first 2F of a 6F sprint looks immune to the DTV.

[46zilzal]

I'm doing some research on this and am interested in others' opinion on this.

For example, it looks like the first 2F of a 6F sprint looks immune to the DTV.
first fractions tend to belong to the horse and no one else if they get a clean break.

[cj]

I'm doing some research on this and am interested in others' opinion on this.

For example, it looks like the first 2F of a 6F sprint looks immune to the DTV.

I guess you haven't tracked windy days at Arlington or Aqueduct.

Every day and track is different. What if one side is sunny and the other in shade? What if it is really windy? Of course if a track is even all the way around and it is playing a half second slower than normal, you are only going to see a third of that, or little more than a tenth, in the first fraction. But I would never assume you could just ignore the DTV at 2f.

[Leonard]

I'm doing some research on this and am interested in others' opinion on this.

For example, it looks like the first 2F of a 6F sprint looks immune to the DTV.

I think the variant affecting the track is assumed to be a constant % through each fraction but has a cumulative affect on the horse -- it becomes more apparent in the final fraction. On a fast track a horse may not necessarily show too much increased speed but will be able to carry its speed further while on a tiring track the horse's early fractions may only show a negligible decrease but will slow a bit more than usual by the end.

[Greyfox]

The surface is similar from the start of a race to the finish. So theoretically all fractions are contributing equally to the traction on a horse, it's energy expenditure, and its deceleration. However, when measured by the clock the track variant increases somewhat in a curvilinear manner the longer a race is. In effect, the longer the race, the higher the track variant. So on a given day when a 6 furlong race has a track variant of 18, we might anticipate a track variant of 27 for a mile race.
Note that 6 furlongs is 75 % of the distance of a mile, but the variant jumps
50% in the last two furlongs of the mile. So arguably we might falsely conclude that the last two furlongs are contributing the most to a track variant. But that's really an artifact of the energy expenditure before.
In my own practice I adjust the pace times (2 nd call) by a formula which uses the square root of the variant given for the final call.

46Zil is correct that the first two furlongs are not usually impacted much by the variant as measured by the clock. However, in the total scheme of things they are sucking energy from the horse as well.

[QuarterCrack]

Since it's all one surface, the track variant technically affects all fractions.

However, its effects would become more apparent as the race progresses. The deceleration (or lack of) is what defines the effect of the track variant, IMO.

When I was making figures, I had a separate calculation for wind, so I factored that separately from the actual surface variant. When it came to applying the surface variant to the first fraction, it was a pretty small percentage. I don't remember off the top of my head - it varied slightly for each distance, but it was like 5% of total variant. The rest was distributed among the later points of call.

[Bruddah]

I'm doing some research on this and am interested in others' opinion on this.

For example, it looks like the first 2F of a 6F sprint looks immune to the DTV.

The main factors in determining an accurate daily variant are in order of importance. 1] Class of the horses in each race.(i.e. daily card) 2] distance of the race. 3] surface conditions 4] weather

JMHHO :ThmbUp:

[Pell Mell]

I made my own variants for many years at MON and PP. I experimented with different methods and had par times for all the classes.

After much experimenting I found that the most accurate variant I could come up with was by using the last 1/4 only.

I believe the reason it worked so well is that the last 1/4 is the only part of the race (in most instances) where most of the horses are all out. Other variants are subject to the class, pace and strategy of the race.

Of course there are more details but I won't go into them now.

[Robert Goren]

Since it's all one surface, the track variant technically affects all fractions It maybe all one surface, but the surface may not in same shape in all parts of the track.

[46zilzal]

It maybe all one surface, but the surface may not in same shape in all parts of the track.
review hundreds of sprints and routes.

Which fraction varies the least? the opening one.

[Cratos]

The surface is similar from the start of a race to the finish. So theoretically all fractions are contributing equally to the traction on a horse, it's energy expenditure, and its deceleration. However, when measured by the clock the track variant increases somewhat in a curvilinear manner the longer a race is. In effect, the longer the race, the higher the track variant. So on a given day when a 6 furlong race has a track variant of 18, we might anticipate a track variant of 27 for a mile race.
Note that 6 furlongs is 75 % of the distance of a mile, but the variant jumps
50% in the last two furlongs of the mile. So arguably we might falsely conclude that the last two furlongs are contributing the most to a track variant. But that's really an artifact of the energy expenditure before.
In my own practice I adjust the pace times (2 nd call) by a formula which uses the square root of the variant given for the final call.

46Zil is correct that the first two furlongs are not usually impacted much by the variant as measured by the clock. However, in the total scheme of things they are sucking energy from the horse as well.

A good overview and wouldn't the horse's speed be tangent to the path of the horse if the track variant increases somewhat in a curvilinear manner?

[Greyfox]

A good overview and wouldn't the horse's speed be tangent to the path of the horse if the track variant increases somewhat in a curvilinear manner?

Yikes. I don't know. The best I can say is that on dirt and poly tracks the horse's speed is usually inversely proportional to the variant (or at least that portion of the variant contributed to by the surface, not the class.) There are occasional days when inside bias exists. There are occasional days when outside bias exists. But I really don't know the answer with respect to any particular path.
There are other days, when I suspect that the tractor maintenance men can have a say as to whether or not early foot can win. Sometimes that doesn't necessarily show up in the variant. Good question.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by QuarterCrack
Since it's all one surface, the track variant technically affects all fractions
Originally Posted by Robert Goren
It maybe all one surface, but the surface may not in same shape in all parts of the track. Great observations, especially when you consider the other conditions like the wind that someone mentioned earlier. That could prove to be a big factor when there’s either a head or tail wind in the back-stretch.

But aside from that, I’m a big fan of evaluating the energy consumption factor in conjunction with whatever variant might be present. I think this offers a much nicer approach then merely adjusting a speed number with a variant number. It might be because the normal running characteristics in 95% of the races have the following basic traits:
1) Maximum acceleration from a dead stop is accomplished during the first ¼ mile.
2) Achieves constant velocity but begins deceleration during the first ½ mile.
3) Constant deceleration during every ¼ mile thereafter.
What does this mean? Well to me it means there’s more energy consumed during the first ¼ mile then any other part of the race. So what happens to that consumed energy factor when they’re accelerating into a head-wind or on a dead track? And how does that loss of more energy affect the overall stamina of the animal for the remainder of the race. If the final time is slower then normal is that attributed to the overall track condition or simply to a lack of energy during the remainder of the race?

That’s why I think raw variant numbers can be deceiving if the entire race and its conditions aren’t considered.

Originally Posted by Pell Mell
I believe the reason it worked so well is that the last 1/4 is the only part of the race (in most instances) where most of the horses are all out. Other variants are subject to the class, pace and strategy of the race.From all outward appearances you might be right, but then why can the majority of horses run 22.3 for the first ¼ mile and not the last ¼ mile? (at any race distance). I think it goes back to that energy factor and how much is lost (or conserved) during that first ¼ mile.
Originally Posted by gm10
For example, it looks like the first 2F of a 6F sprint looks immune to the DTV.I can't picture any part of the race not having some imact on the final outcome.

[raybo]

I tend to agree with Nitro that the 1st quarter is the most energy consuming fraction of most races, especially sprints. If any of you ran track in school (or later in life), don't you think that, coming out of the blocks, then trying to get your feet under you while full out, in acceleration mode, expends more energy than the middle portion or the final run to the tape? I realize that the final run to the tape is truly exhausting, but, remember that, by that time, you are already tiring and you're already cruising pretty good by the time you start expending what energy you have left.

As a "former" 100, 220, and low hurdles guy, I know that the start and the first 30-40 yds were where I was "busting a gut" more than any other portion of the races.

[Cratos]

I tend to agree with Nitro that the 1st quarter is the most energy consuming fraction of most races, especially sprints. If any of you ran track in school (or later in life), don't you think that, coming out of the blocks, then trying to get your feet under you while full out, in acceleration mode, expends more energy than the middle portion or the final run to the tape? I realize that the final run to the tape is truly exhausting, but, remember that, by that time, you are already tiring and you're already cruising pretty good by the time you start expending what energy you have left.

As a "former" 100, 220, and low hurdles guy, I know that the start and the first 30-40 yds were where I was "busting a gut" more than any other portion of the races.

The most energy consuming part of a race for the race horse is typically the first quarter using quarter times as the base metric. This is because the running (pace) curve for the horse is typically downward-sloping.

For example a 1,084 pound horse runs 6f in 1:10 seconds with the following quarter splits:

1st Qtr =:22
2nd Qtr =:23
3rd Qtr =:25
Final time = 1:10

The energy consumption by quarter would be:

1st Qtr = 82,224 watts
2nd Qtr = 75,205 watts
3rd Qtr = 63,647 watts

Average energy usage for the 6f @ 1:10 seconds = 73,692 watts of energy
However the most energy consumption for horses like Forego and Zenyatta will be the latter quarters because of their come-from-behind running styles.

[bisket]

I think the variant affecting the track is assumed to be a constant % through each fraction but has a cumulative affect on the horse -- it becomes more apparent in the final fraction. On a fast track a horse may not necessarily show too much increased speed but will be able to carry its speed further while on a tiring track the horse's early fractions may only show a negligible decrease but will slow a bit more than usual by the end.
this is spot on!! usually the first 1/2 mile fraction isn't influenced very much by a variant. it can be influenced sometimes by the jock, but in some cases (RACHEL ALEXANDRA) the jock doesn't have alot of say in this fraction. this is when you can look at a race and have a good idea of how it will play out.

[cj]

this is spot on!! usually the first 1/2 mile fraction isn't influenced very much by a variant. it can be influenced sometimes by the jock, but in some cases (RACHEL ALEXANDRA) the jock doesn't have alot of say in this fraction. this is when you can look at a race and have a good idea of how it will play out.

OF course the speed of the racetrack (i.e. the variant) has an influence on the early fractions. The reason you get wide variations in the fractions is because of the way the horses are distributing their energy and the dynamics of the race.

I'm not saying this is true all the time, but the majority of the time the track speed is pretty uniform throughout.

[bisket]

rachel is an excellant example to show my point since her jock has no way of slowing her down. look at her 1/2 mile times every race. until the the oaks 47 and change. after the oaks 46 and change. except of course when she chased that fast pace in the mother goose
http://www.drf.com/eclipse/2009/finalistPPs/HorseoftheYear.pdf

[bisket]

actually i'm not entirely correct in my last post. the fact that mother goose is a one turn 1 1/8 mile has lots to do with that 1/2 mile fraction. in this particular case the first 1/2 mile doesn't involve a turn. so it is in fact around 46 when you factor that in

[cj]

actually i'm not entirely correct in my last post. the fact that mother goose is a one turn 1 1/8 mile has lots to do with that 1/2 mile fraction. in this particular case the first 1/2 mile doesn't involve a turn. so it is in fact around 46 when you factor that in

You think a turn adds one and two/fifths seconds?

[bisket]

i usually add about 3/5's for a turn. this isn't very very accurate, but conservatively close

[bisket]

Then how does that turn a 44 and 2 to a 46?
i'm rather suprised at this response. you mean to tell me the "premier pace figure maker" in the country doesn't factor in the fact she was 4 lengths behind the pace leader at the 1/2 mile split. add 4/5's of a second or even 8/10 or 80/100 (or 4/6) and you'll come up with a time around 46 seconds.

[cj]

I already deleted it because I realized my mistake.

It still doesn't make any difference. You picked one horse that shows similar pace times while running all over the place. I could pick the other 95% that don't.

[bisket]

i picked that horse because borel can't influence her times. you say tomato and i say damater. there are many ways to arrive at a winner.

[cj]

i picked that horse because borel can't influence her times. you say tomato and i say damater. there are many ways to arrive at a winner.

Of course he can influence her times, otherwise she would be running just as fast early as she did at 2 going 6f.

Even so, we aren't talking about the jockey for the most part with variants, we are talking about the speed of the track. Just look at times at Mountaineer before and after winterization and tell me how the speed of the track can't effect the early fractions.

[bisket]

in referance to mountaineer maybe the jocks know that speed will hold at certain times, and it won't at certain times. then act accordingly.
the difference between rachel going fast or slow has more to do with the use of the whip or a jock getting her a little more on edge before a sprint. borel's ability to rate her is negligible during the race.

[Charlie D]

The most energy consuming part of a race for the race horse is typically the first quarter using quarter times as the base metric. This is because the running (pace) curve for the horse is typically downward-sloping.

For example a 1,084 pound horse runs 6f in 1:10 seconds with the following quarter splits:

1st Qtr =:22
2nd Qtr =:23
3rd Qtr =:25
Final time = 1:10

The energy consumption by quarter would be:

1st Qtr = 82,224 watts
2nd Qtr = 75,205 watts
3rd Qtr = 63,647 watts

Average energy usage for the 6f @ 1:10 seconds = 73,692 watts of energy
However the most energy consumption for horses like Forego and Zenyatta will be the latter quarters because of their come-from-behind running styles.



Are these results from some sceintific testing you've conducted Cratos???

[Cratos]

Are these results from some sceintific testing you've conducted Cratos???

No, I haven’t done any testing, but the weight given for an average thoroughbred is verifiable and since energy expended is a function of mass and velocity I believe the example given is very realistic

[Charlie D]

No, I haven’t done any testing, but the weight given for an average thoroughbred is verifiable and since energy expended is a function of mass and velocity I believe the example given is very realistic



Thank you for answering my question Cratos,

[Pell Mell]

Just what are you guys looking for in a variant? I always thought the object of a variant was to see how slow or fast the track was on a particular day.

Everyone is screwing around with pace, velocity, etc. That stuff doesn't tell how much a track was off but the pace or class can sure skew variants the way most do it. :confused:

[cj]

Just what are you guys looking for in a variant? I always thought the object of a variant was to see how slow or fast the track was on a particular day.

Everyone is screwing around with pace, velocity, etc. That stuff doesn't tell how much a track was off but the pace or class can sure skew variants the way most do it. :confused:

Exactly, but knowing how things like fractions can skew final times help make much better variants.

[bisket]

Just what are you guys looking for in a variant? I always thought the object of a variant was to see how slow or fast the track was on a particular day.

Everyone is screwing around with pace, velocity, etc. That stuff doesn't tell how much a track was off but the pace or class can sure skew variants the way most do it. :confused:
this entirely correct. the idea of a variant is to try and gauge how fast or slow a track is playing. this can be accomplished when using the final time of a race because its understood that the jock is trying to get his mount from start to finish in the fastest time possible. (at least in most cases ths is corect :rolleyes: ) the reason this doesn't work for a "pace variant" is because in most cases a jock is trying to get his mount to the 1/2 mile point of the race trying to save the amount of energy it would take to finish the race in the best time. in just about every case this involves restraining his/her mount. this would not give any sort of indication how fast or slow a track is playing. i can see how some handicappers could be misguided because if the track is playing slow jocks will try to restrain their mount more than if the track is playing fast. so it would seem to them their figures are reflecting the track condition, but really its not. in most cases its only reflecting how much a jock is restraing his mount. so the answer to the question is the time of the race is the only thing used correctly to give a RELIABLE variant

[raybo]

Well, since CJ is the acknowledged expert in this field, why don't we ask him how he separates surface speed from class, jockey effects, wind, etc.?

Personally, I want all this stuff included in the variant. I don't need to know how much of each is in it, just an all-inclusive figure.

[bisket]

Well, since CJ is the acknowledged expert in this field, why don't we ask him how he separates surface speed from class, jockey effects, wind, etc.?

Personally, I want all this stuff included in the variant. I don't need to know how much of each is in it, just an all-inclusive figure.
all this stuff is what screws up a variant because their isn't an absolute mathematical equation that takes into consideration how slow a jock wants his mount to go the 1st half. why? BECAUSE EVERY HORSE HAS A TIME THATS BEST FOR HIM/HER. SO HOW COULD A RELIABLE VARIANT BE ARRIVED AT BY USING THIS? yes i'm interested in how cj is gonna stop the bleeding :lol:

[fmolf]

I believe if you measure the times run against the par times for distance and class you will find out that the times are about the same % slower or faster depending on variant.Variants are really only guesstimates of the track speed for that day.The wind at aqueduct on some days is so strong that it tires the frontrunners in the early part of the race...If the track is playing fair the % difference in each fraction when compared to pars will be approximately the same.

[Pell Mell]

Since the pace of the race is decided by either the class of the horse or the strategy of the jocks or both I decided many years ago to eliminate those factors. I still maintain that the condition of the track is best found by making pars for the last 1/4 of each dist and class. It's then a simple matter to see how far from par each race was run and not worry about turns either.

The problem is that most handicappers think that the more complex the method the better it is. This couldn't be further from the truth.

I don't really handicap anymore in the truest sense because I am only interested in making money and I found easier and simpler ways. Of course it's fun to handicap the Derby and such but the whole idea is to make money. After 60 years at it I simply don't have the desire or energy to go through all the numbers crap. JMO ;)

[Cratos]

Well, since CJ is the acknowledged expert in this field, why don't we ask him how he separates surface speed from class, jockey effects, wind, etc.?

Personally, I want all this stuff included in the variant. I don't need to know how much of each is in it, just an all-inclusive figure.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t believe it can done using present methodologies and technology.

The reason being is how do you isolate the variables and determine which are dependent and which are independent?

For those of you who have studied Six Sigma is familiar with cpk or capability and that is first which needs to be known, what is the speed capability of the track and what is the speed capability of the horse?

Then what effect do the changes in the environment have on those capabilities; this is a non-trivia and very statistical and mathematical solution.
I am not denying that it cannot be done, but it will be a very rigorous process and I not sure about its end’s solution stability.

[raybo]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t believe it can done using present methodologies and technology.

The reason being is how do you isolate the variables and determine which are dependent and which are independent?

For those of you who have studied Six Sigma is familiar with cpk or capability and that is first which needs to be known, what is the speed capability of the track and what is the speed capability of the horse?

Then what effect do the changes in the environment have on those capabilities; this is a non-trivia and very statistical and mathematical solution.
I am not denying that it cannot be done, but it will be a very rigorous process and I not sure about its end’s solution stability.

That was my point. I don't believe it's possible either so I have developed my own way of using the track variant, as is.

[Tom]

So you start by guessing at the weight of the horse?

[cj]

this entirely correct. the idea of a variant is to try and gauge how fast or slow a track is playing. this can be accomplished when using the final time of a race because its understood that the jock is trying to get his mount from start to finish in the fastest time possible. (at least in most cases ths is corect :rolleyes: ) the reason this doesn't work for a "pace variant" is because in most cases a jock is trying to get his mount to the 1/2 mile point of the race trying to save the amount of energy it would take to finish the race in the best time. in just about every case this involves restraining his/her mount. this would not give any sort of indication how fast or slow a track is playing. i can see how some handicappers could be misguided because if the track is playing slow jocks will try to restrain their mount more than if the track is playing fast. so it would seem to them their figures are reflecting the track condition, but really its not. in most cases its only reflecting how much a jock is restraing his mount. so the answer to the question is the time of the race is the only thing used correctly to give a RELIABLE variant

This is simply not true. Jockeys are not trying to get the horse to the finish line in the fastest possible time. They are trying to get horses to the finish line in a faster time than all the other horses. Sure, that sometimes does get them their as fast as possible, but not always or even most times.

This is especially true on turf and synthetics but also on dirt.

[cj]

Well, since CJ is the acknowledged expert in this field, why don't we ask him how he separates surface speed from class, jockey effects, wind, etc.?

Personally, I want all this stuff included in the variant. I don't need to know how much of each is in it, just an all-inclusive figure.

That is exactly right! You can make a very reasonable assessment of track speed without having to break it down into various factors that have an effect.

Pace variants are tough to make, but there are ways to overcome a lot of the inherent difficulties. I have posted some of them here many times.

[raybo]

That is exactly right! You can make a very reasonable assessment of track speed without having to break it down into various factors that have an effect.

Pace variants are tough to make, but there are ways to overcome a lot of the inherent difficulties. I have posted some of them here many times.

And I've read some of them, appreciate it, too!!! :ThmbUp:

[raybo]

I might add that if you're a handicapper that considers pace, and you don't include the variant in your fractional adjustments, you've already lost part of your "edge". If you're going to adjust fractional times, for whatever reason, and those adjustments don't include the use of the variant, then your adjustments won't be as good as they should be.

For those who use pace figures and speed figures, rather than adjusted times, there's no need to use the variant because most likely it's already included in the speed figures, if they are good ones at least, like CJ's.

I presently use a portion of the variant for each fractional time, distributed according to the length of the fractions. However, this thread has got me to thinking that maybe the variant should be distributed, not according to the distance of each fraction, but rather, according to the energy expended during each fraction. Don't know how that could be accomplished yet, but, it's food for thought, if nothing else.

[delayjf]

I presently use a portion of the variant for each fractional time, distributed according to the length of the fractions. However, this thread has got me to thinking that maybe the variant should be distributed, not according to the distance of each fraction, but rather, according to the energy expended during each fraction. Don't know how that could be accomplished yet, but, it's food for thought, if nothing else.

A while back a handicapper I have alot of respect for due to several of his insightful posts addressed this very issue. According to him, he looked at the differences between final times / fractions of winners, on avg 50% of the final time difference occurred in the final fraction (6 furlongs). Therefore on avg he would apply the final time variant to sprint races using the following percentages: 1st fraction-17% 2nd fraction-33% - third fraction-50%. As I recall Brohamer used simular %.

I have an unproven theory that the above percentages will vary slightly depending on the running style of the winner. For example, the win pace pars for front runners winning at a final time of 1:10 will be different than the winning pace par for off pace horses winning at the same time.

[bisket]

This is simply not true. Jockeys are not trying to get the horse to the finish line in the fastest possible time. They are trying to get horses to the finish line in a faster time than all the other horses. Sure, that sometimes does get them their as fast as possible, but not always or even most times.

This is especially true on turf and synthetics but also on dirt.
now thats a good come back, but doesn't make your case at all :lol:

[bisket]

heres the video of rachel working
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BZ_y8yYAF8
heres the woodward
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysO_Fhc8Fpw
rachel always runs with her head high. why is this important? well to restrain a horse a jock tightens the reigns to keep her from stretching her head and accelerating. well rachel's preferred running position is her head held high so tightening the reigns has little effect on how fast she runs. if you look closely at the woodward when rachel leaves the first turn she throws her head like she does just before she works (you'll see this in the workout video). why does she throw her head? well when borel attempted to slow her down she did this to throw him off balance. see before she works her rider is prepared for this and she's going slow so she can't accomplish this. although during a race its very unsettling for the rider because it could cause him to fall. she knows if she does this she'll be able to continue running as fast as she can. so this is how i know that rachel can't be restrained and she basically for the most part runs her races herself. which is why her half mile times are always exactly the same time. NO MATTER WHAT THE TRACK VARIANT IS OR WHAT TRACK SHE IS ON!!!! using a variant for pace figures isn't helping your cause whatsoever at the window.
now to continue with this point of rachel running with her head high. its rather incredible that a horse that runs in this manner has done as well as she has. i didn't pick this up until the woodward. i saw it when borel whipped her alot in the stretch. see another thing about horses that run like this is its pointless for a jock to rub on her neck. see rubbing on the neck and PUSHING HER HEAD DOWN TO HELP HER ACCELERATE is pointless because its counter-productive to her running style. his only choice is to whip her. so he's really getting a bad rap for her pace and whipping in the woodward. she's gonna be easy pickins for zenyatta in the stretch because zen has much more acceleration than macho again. i think andy beyer referred to a horse with acceleration like zen as zoom!!!
heres another horse that runs like rachel: homeboychris. watch how edgar prado holds on for dear life. this how most horses act that run like rachel. rachel is a credit to herself that she's as well behaved as she is. most time horses that run with their head high make very good milers to 1 1/8 mile. it seems to come with the running style.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lYIUbbxRcc
watch in the stretch when homeboy run right up another horses rear :D

[Cratos]

A while back a handicapper I have alot of respect for due to several of his insightful posts addressed this very issue. According to him, he looked at the differences between final times / fractions of winners, on avg 50% of the final time difference occurred in the final fraction (6 furlongs). Therefore on avg he would apply the final time variant to sprint races using the following percentages: 1st fraction-17% 2nd fraction-33% - third fraction-50%. As I recall Brohamer used simular %.

I have an unproven theory that the above percentages will vary slightly depending on the running style of the winner. For example, the win pace pars for front runners winning at a final time of 1:10 will be different than the winning pace par for off pace horses winning at the same time.

Your theory is correct and can be proven.

[cj]

heres the video of rachel working
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BZ_y8yYAF8
heres the woodward
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysO_Fhc8Fpw
rachel always runs with her head high. why is this important? well to restrain a horse a jock tightens the reigns to keep her from stretching her head and accelerating. well rachel's preferred running position is her head held high so tightening the reigns has little effect on how fast she runs. if you look closely at the woodward when rachel leaves the first turn she throws her head like she does just before she works (you'll see this in the workout video). why does she throw her head? well when borel attempted to slow her down she did this to throw him off balance. see before she works her rider is prepared for this and she's going slow so she can't accomplish this. although during a race its very unsettling for the rider because it could cause him to fall. she knows if she does this she'll be able to continue running as fast as she can. so this is how i know that rachel can't be restrained and she basically for the most part runs her races herself. which is why her half mile times are always exactly the same time. NO MATTER WHAT THE TRACK VARIANT IS OR WHAT TRACK SHE IS ON!!!! using a variant for pace figures isn't helping your cause whatsoever at the window.
now to continue with this point of rachel running with her head high. its rather incredible that a horse that runs in this manner has done as well as she has. i didn't pick this up until the woodward. i saw it when borel whipped her alot in the stretch. see another thing about horses that run like this is its pointless for a jock to rub on her neck. see rubbing on the neck and PUSHING HER HEAD DOWN TO HELP HER ACCELERATE is pointless because its counter-productive to her running style. his only choice is to whip her. so he's really getting a bad rap for her pace and whipping in the woodward. she's gonna be easy pickins for zenyatta in the stretch because zen has much more acceleration than macho again. i think andy beyer referred to a horse with acceleration like zen as zoom!!!
heres another horse that runs like rachel: homeboychris. watch how edgar prado holds on for dear life. this how most horses act that run like rachel. rachel is a credit to herself that she's as well behaved as she is. most time horses that run with their head high make very good milers to 1 1/8 mile. it seems to come with the running style.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lYIUbbxRcc
watch in the stretch when homeboy run right up another horses rear :D

Now I remember why I had you on ignore.

[PaceAdvantage]

Now I remember why I had you on ignore.Thank God there are still folks like him in the mutuel pools...

Afterall, who else would be left to tell us jockeys "push horse's heads down to help them accelerate." :lol:

[speed]

Thank God there are still folks like him in the mutuel pools...

Afterall, who else would be left to tell us jockeys "push horse's heads down to help them accelerate." :lol:


Just got back from riding the merry go round and can report that it did not work.

I thought for sure i was gonna finally beat that 4 year old tonight with my inside info on acceleration but as usual i finished second and had to buy the ice cream.

Mike

[Hanover1]

The surface is similar from the start of a race to the finish. So theoretically all fractions are contributing equally to the traction on a horse, it's energy expenditure, and its deceleration. However, when measured by the clock the track variant increases somewhat in a curvilinear manner the longer a race is. In effect, the longer the race, the higher the track variant. So on a given day when a 6 furlong race has a track variant of 18, we might anticipate a track variant of 27 for a mile race.
Note that 6 furlongs is 75 % of the distance of a mile, but the variant jumps
50% in the last two furlongs of the mile. So arguably we might falsely conclude that the last two furlongs are contributing the most to a track variant. But that's really an artifact of the energy expenditure before.
In my own practice I adjust the pace times (2 nd call) by a formula which uses the square root of the variant given for the final call.

46Zil is correct that the first two furlongs are not usually impacted much by the variant as measured by the clock. However, in the total scheme of things they are sucking energy from the horse as well.
All you post is good and well, except the rail may be faster than the middle, and when a horse comes off, or goes onto the rail, you have a factor we have left out. Track surfaces are seldom uniform all the way around, and each track has its quirks. 1 turn may be slower than another, ect....horsemen adjust for known variances, as the go over it every morning, and are in touch with track maintenance. Sometimes complex analogy comes down to common sense, and knowing the surface well. Then we can apply all the relative theories we like to conjure. Many other factors such as how a horse navigates tight turns vs sweeping turns, ect...play as well.
I don't pretend to be an expert on physics, but can easily explain how a track plays on the clock in regards to expected performance. The closest thing to a variant imo would be current track conditions at post time as I understand how they should reasonably play during a given race. And try as I might, I have never convinced a horse that track variants are either in or out of his favor. Im just sayin......

[Hanover1]

I hope all you guys that have this stuff figured out are rich...It would prove that you are correct......

[Show Me the Wire]

All you post is good and well, except the rail may be faster than the middle, and when a horse comes off, or goes onto the rail, you have a factor we have left out. Track surfaces are seldom uniform all the way around, and each track has its quirks. 1 turn may be slower than another, ect....horsemen adjust for known variances, as the go over it every morning, and are in touch with track maintenance. Sometimes complex analogy comes down to common sense, and knowing the surface well. Then we can apply all the relative theories we like to conjure. Many other factors such as how a horse navigates tight turns vs sweeping turns, ect...play as well.
I don't pretend to be an expert on physics, but can easily explain how a track plays on the clock in regards to expected performance. The closest thing to a variant imo would be current track conditions at post time as I understand how they should reasonably play during a given race. And try as I might, I have never convinced a horse that track variants are either in or out of his favor. Im just sayin......

Are you saying you don't believe in speed figures, because there are too many unknown variables, except if you physically inspect the track?

The above is a sincere question.

Have to leave now.

[Hanover1]

Are you saying you don't believe in speed figures, because there are too many unknown variables, except if you physically inspect the track?

The above is a sincere question.

Have to leave now.
I believe in speed figures when attempting to place a horse in the condition book. Inspecting the track is done every morning. Two seperate agendas for me. To better answer your question, speed figures are to be considered WITH the variables, both known and assumed. My angles at times conflict with those of you that play races much more than I do, and its because I have to race them, and if I ever thought I was going to be a winner at the windows with a 20% in the money figure, then I am actually going to be a loser in the long run. 20% imo is fine for the barn, but rough on the wallet when attempting to punt for a consistent profit every time I start.

[Show Me the Wire]

Hanover1:

I don't disagree with you, I wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.

[RXB]

I tend to agree with Nitro that the 1st quarter is the most energy consuming fraction of most races, especially sprints. If any of you ran track in school (or later in life), don't you think that, coming out of the blocks, then trying to get your feet under you while full out, in acceleration mode, expends more energy than the middle portion or the final run to the tape? I realize that the final run to the tape is truly exhausting, but, remember that, by that time, you are already tiring and you're already cruising pretty good by the time you start expending what energy you have left.

As a "former" 100, 220, and low hurdles guy, I know that the start and the first 30-40 yds were where I was "busting a gut" more than any other portion of the races.

Just because you're going faster doesn't necessarily mean you're expending more energy. It might just mean that you can use available energy more efficiently because you are less fatigued at that point. If indeed you are expending more energy at the start, much of that energy is of the CP type that is most readily available to you at the very beginning and doesn't contribute much to fatigue when it is expended.

I run 800-metre races, which are more like thoroughbred races than 100m or 200m human races are. Unlike races of 1500m or longer, in the 800m you have to run the first lap faster than the second lap to achieve your fastest time, similar to thoroughbred dirt racing. I don't think I'm expending any less energy, and certainly not any less effort, when I run the final 80-90 metres, but that's when the deceleration really kicks in because the fatigue is making it difficult to move my legs. In fact, because it takes me longer to run it, but I'm still giving full effort, I'm almost certainly spending more energy in the last 100m compared to previous 100m segments.

[raybo]

Just because you're going faster doesn't necessarily mean you're expending more energy. It might just mean that you can use available energy more efficiently because you are less fatigued at that point. If indeed you are expending more energy at the start, much of that energy is of the CP type that is most readily available to you at the very beginning and doesn't contribute much to fatigue when it is expended.

I run 800-metre races, which are more like thoroughbred races than 100m or 200m human races are. Unlike races of 1500m or longer, in the 800m you have to run the first lap faster than the second lap to achieve your fastest time, similar to thoroughbred dirt racing. I don't think I'm expending any less energy, and certainly not any less effort, when I run the final 80-90 metres, but that's when the deceleration really kicks in because the fatigue is making it difficult to move my legs. In fact, because it takes me longer to run it, but I'm still giving full effort, I'm almost certainly spending more energy in the last 100m compared to previous 100m segments.

Good post! I certainly believe that, in your case where you are running long distances, you are expending less energy early. But, in your case, being a human and possessing a reasoning mind, unlike a horse, you are purposely not expending a huge amount of energy in the first lap, knowing that to do so would ruin your chances of success later. Horses, on the other hand, especially thoroughbreds, love to run and don't understand that they must conserve energy early in order to last. They also don't know how far they will have to run, nor do they care. The jockey may try to get them to relax early in order to help in conserving energy, but, there is only so much they can do, without actually causing the opposite affect on the horse's energy reserves.

In sprints, especially, coming out of the gate is a very strenuous and stressful event. They are "competing" side by side, being bumped, having to change courses to avoid other horses, because of the close proximity of others, and trying to "run their own race" early (or their preferred running style), and during the first portion they are "picking them up and putting them down" at a much faster rate than after they have "stretched out".

While they have more energy to expend early, that doesn't mean that their rate of expenditure is lower, it just means that they have more energy to expend. That early expenditure doesn't show "on the clock" because they were not tired already, they were fresh. The effect of that early energy expenditure shows much later in the race. But, much energy expenditure was, indeed, produced early.

[gm10]

Your theory is correct and can be proven.

Yes it is pretty close to what I'm seeing. Of course there can be exceptional circumstances such as a strong headwind in the first 2F, but as averages they seem correct.

[gm10]

Here are some interesting results.

What I did was calculate the difference between par and actual racing times.
I divided the time difference for each section by the overall time difference, for a whole bunch of races at all American race tracks.
The average of all these early/middle/late differences are then an indication of how much influence the section had vis-a-vis the overall discrepancy with par.

For 6F sprints, I looked at 2F 4F 6F.
For 8F routes, I looked at 2F 6F 8F.

Dirt sprint:

Early: 28%
Middle: 24%
Late: 48%

Poly sprint:

Early: 32%
Middle: 27%
Late: 41%

Turf sprint:

Early: 38%
Middle: 29%
Late: 34%

Dirt route:

Early: 21%
Middle: 37%
Late: 41%

Poly route:

Early: 33%
Middle: 38%
Late: 28%

Turf route:

Early: 33%
Middle: 46%
Late: 21%

The results dirt <-> (poly, turf) are pretty different from each other. The first 2F is much less important in explaining DTV's for dirt than poly/turf. I guess that illustrates that DTV is always part pace.

[46zilzal]

Afterall, who else would be left to tell us jockeys "push horse's heads down to help them accelerate."
wow in over 45 years of following and watching horses run I must admit I have never seen a rider push a horse's head down.

[RXB]

Good post! I certainly believe that, in your case where you are running long distances, you are expending less energy early. But, in your case, being a human and possessing a reasoning mind, unlike a horse, you are purposely not expending a huge amount of energy in the first lap, knowing that to do so would ruin your chances of success later. Horses, on the other hand, especially thoroughbreds, love to run and don't understand that they must conserve energy early in order to last. They also don't know how far they will have to run, nor do they care. The jockey may try to get them to relax early in order to help in conserving energy, but, there is only so much they can do, without actually causing the opposite affect on the horse's energy reserves.

In sprints, especially, coming out of the gate is a very strenuous and stressful event. They are "competing" side by side, being bumped, having to change courses to avoid other horses, because of the close proximity of others, and trying to "run their own race" early (or their preferred running style), and during the first portion they are "picking them up and putting them down" at a much faster rate than after they have "stretched out".

While they have more energy to expend early, that doesn't mean that their rate of expenditure is lower, it just means that they have more energy to expend. That early expenditure doesn't show "on the clock" because they were not tired already, they were fresh. The effect of that early energy expenditure shows much later in the race. But, much energy expenditure was, indeed, produced early.

I say, any process that becomes increasingly inefficient must expend increasingly more energy to complete a particular task. When I'm zipping down the backstretch in the first lap of the 800m-- which isn't a "long distance" race-- I'm a relatively efficient runner. When I'm coming down the final straightaway of the second lap, my running motions are less efficient due to a high level of fatigue. That's why I slow down. It's not because I'm using less energy; in fact, I'm using more to cover a specified unit of distance because of the inefficiency of my motions (as shown by the increased amount of time it takes to cover that distance). It's the same for a thoroughbred.

You could also use weightlifting as an example. Let's say you're shoulder pressing a weight that you can do a maximum of 10x. The energy that it takes to do an early rep is less that what is required to struggle through the final rep because fatigue makes your muscles less efficient. You'll lift the early rep more quickly but that doesn't mean you used more energy in the early rep; it just means that you're more efficient at that point.

Regarding the start, as I mentioned before, the creatin-phosphate system is sort of like a solid rocket booster; it gives you an initial blast of energy that won't negatively impact your other energy systems when you use it. So the energy used to get up to racing speed at the very start of a thoroughbred race, or a middle-distance human track race like the 800m, isn't really having a negative impact on performance within the body of the race.

Finally, you might be surprised at how many "intelligent" human runners are terrible at pacing themselves in events of 400m or longer. Some of them could use a jockey. :D

[Hanover1]

I say, any process that becomes increasingly inefficient must expend increasingly more energy to complete a particular task. When I'm zipping down the backstretch in the first lap of the 800m-- which isn't a "long distance" race-- I'm a relatively efficient runner. When I'm coming down the final straightaway of the second lap, my running motions are less efficient due to a high level of fatigue. That's why I slow down. It's not because I'm using less energy; in fact, I'm using more to cover a specified unit of distance because of the inefficiency of my motions (as shown by the increased amount of time it takes to cover that distance). It's the same for a thoroughbred.

You could also use weightlifting as an example. Let's say you're shoulder pressing a weight that you can do a maximum of 10x. The energy that it takes to do an early rep is less that what is required to struggle through the final rep because fatigue makes your muscles less efficient. You'll lift the early rep more quickly but that doesn't mean you used more energy in the early rep; it just means that you're more efficient at that point.

Regarding the start, as I mentioned before, the creatin-phosphate system is sort of like a solid rocket booster; it gives you an initial blast of energy that won't negatively impact your other energy systems when you use it. So the energy used to get up to racing speed at the very start of a thoroughbred race, or a middle-distance human track race like the 800m, isn't really having a negative impact on performance within the body of the race.

Finally, you might be surprised at how many "intelligent" human runners are terrible at pacing themselves in events of 400m or longer. Some of them could use a jockey. :D
You would ber surprised how many dumb horses won't rate.

[Cratos]

Good post! I certainly believe that, in your case where you are running long distances, you are expending less energy early. But, in your case, being a human and possessing a reasoning mind, unlike a horse, you are purposely not expending a huge amount of energy in the first lap, knowing that to do so would ruin your chances of success later. Horses, on the other hand, especially thoroughbreds, love to run and don't understand that they must conserve energy early in order to last. They also don't know how far they will have to run, nor do they care. The jockey may try to get them to relax early in order to help in conserving energy, but, there is only so much they can do, without actually causing the opposite affect on the horse's energy reserves.

In sprints, especially, coming out of the gate is a very strenuous and stressful event. They are "competing" side by side, being bumped, having to change courses to avoid other horses, because of the close proximity of others, and trying to "run their own race" early (or their preferred running style), and during the first portion they are "picking them up and putting them down" at a much faster rate than after they have "stretched out".

While they have more energy to expend early, that doesn't mean that their rate of expenditure is lower, it just means that they have more energy to expend. That early expenditure doesn't show "on the clock" because they were not tired already, they were fresh. The effect of that early energy expenditure shows much later in the race. But, much energy expenditure was, indeed, produced early.

Basic physics says that speed (velocity) is a function of mass and energy or you can say that energy is a function of mass and speed (velocity).

Therefore to run faster you will use more energy. The efficiency postulation says that if you had been more efficient you might have run faster, but the answer to that question goes to your potential maximum effort; not to energy use.

[bisket]

Thank God there are still folks like him in the mutuel pools...

Afterall, who else would be left to tell us jockeys "push horse's heads down to help them accelerate." :lol:
doesn't suprise me thats your reaction. :lol:

[bisket]

Now I remember why I had you on ignore.
ditto better to ignore something that contradicts your years of work, than to actually take it into consideration.

[bisket]

I believe in speed figures when attempting to place a horse in the condition book. Inspecting the track is done every morning. Two seperate agendas for me. To better answer your question, speed figures are to be considered WITH the variables, both known and assumed. My angles at times conflict with those of you that play races much more than I do, and its because I have to race them, and if I ever thought I was going to be a winner at the windows with a 20% in the money figure, then I am actually going to be a loser in the long run. 20% imo is fine for the barn, but rough on the wallet when attempting to punt for a consistent profit every time I start.
thats pretty much what i'm saying about speed figures. its better to have a figure that mathematically reflects averages that deal with times of races. not a figure that includes the variables because sometimes the variables are important and on other occassions its best to ignore the variables. which is prettty much what beyer has devoted his time to. the reason for this is because he feels he can't in good conscience steer others in the wrong direction with something he's created. beyer pretty much says its up to the bettor or user of his figures to analyze how the other variables are effecting performance. which is the most honest way to approach it.

[Hanover1]

thats pretty much what i'm saying about speed figures. its better to have a figure that mathematically reflects averages that deal with times of races. not a figure that includes the variables because sometimes the variables are important and on other occassions its best to ignore the variables. which is prettty much what beyer has devoted his time to. the reason for this is because he feels he can't in good conscience steer others in the wrong direction with something he's created. beyer pretty much says its up to the bettor or user of his figures to analyze how the other variables are effecting performance. which is the most honest way to approach it.
I'm sure there is an "edge" of sorts when using these factors, however variable it is-pun intended. That aside, I am better off letting the pros do the handicapping, and stick to trying to convince the horses of these variables...lol. I suppose we do "handicap" when doing our jobs, but we generally stick with figures and facts that appear more fact than assumption.
They say luck is when preperation meets opportunity........

[fast4522]

"Which fraction of the race contributes most to the daily track variant?"

In my book everyone is correct provided your not the type who maintains there is only one way to skin a cat. You know who you are!

My answer is the fraction that encompasses what horses covered the track that day. If a card is comprised of really slow horses it may seem that the variant is a slower day when in fact little quality went around and around resulting in quicksand figure. The guy who makes his own in a circuit who knows the level of competition on a given day has a much better read on things. And certainly when there is slow spots on a given day in the 1 & 2 path forcing the overland route also has a pronounced effect and people like CJ who sound from what I have seen here seem to be working it better than you can buy openly over the counter. Not doing the nice warm air on you CJ but at times the answer to the question at the top of this reply is "All the fractions"

[Hanover1]

"Which fraction of the race contributes most to the daily track variant?"

In my book everyone is correct provided your not the type who maintains there is only one way to skin a cat. You know who you are!

My answer is the fraction that encompasses what horses covered the track that day. If a card is comprised of really slow horses it may seem that the variant is a slower day when in fact little quality went around and around resulting in quicksand figure. The guy who makes his own in a circuit who knows the level of competition on a given day has a much better read on things. And certainly when there is slow spots on a given day in the 1 & 2 path forcing the overland route also has a pronounced effect and people like CJ who sound from what I have seen here seem to be working it better than you can buy openly over the counter. Not doing the nice warm air on you CJ but at times the answer to the question at the top of this reply is "All the fractions"
Agreed...the simple answer is: Each one of them.

[Cratos]

"Which fraction of the race contributes most to the daily track variant?" the answer to the question at the top of this reply is "All the fractions"

A great answer; go to the head of the class

[Tom]

So the variant is equally divided over the three fractions?

[Cratos]

So the variant is equally divided over the three fractions?

No, it is unequally influenced by all fractions

[Charlie D]

So the variant is equally divided over the three fractions?


All i can tell you Tom is on UK turf the going stick readings are not the same across some tracks or along thier length due to differing soil structures around the track.


Whether Dirt and synthetic surfaces vary in a similar way we just don't know as their are no going stick readings taken to indicate variance.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by fast4522
"Which fraction of the race contributes most to the daily track variant?" the answer to the question at the top of this reply is "All the fractions"


A great answer; go to the head of the class

No, it is unequally influenced by all fractions

Ok, clear as a bell now.
Gottcha. :rolleyes:

[Cratos]

Ok, clear as a bell now.
Gottcha. :rolleyes:

I hope it is because the poster never said or implied "all fractions" equally and that could never be with a downward sloping curve. Maybe you know something Newton didn't know.

[Tom]

Have fun with your games.